This paper is a brief argument for the free expression of religious ideas. Is it possible to allow various faiths access to the public square without compromising one’s core beliefs? How does one rationalize divergent personal beliefs in a predominantly Christian, yet pluralistic society? I will suggest an approach, which combines the works of Reinhold Niebuhr, John Richard Neuhaus and Roy Clouser. By using Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture,1 Clouser’s The Myth of Religious Neutrality,2 and Neuhaus’ Naked Public Square,3 I will make a case for an open square, in which the view of minority religions of all varieties are allowed to compete on a level playing field in a laissez-faire fashion.
Essentially, the question I am addressing here is this. How does one bring his/her personal beliefs into the public square while remaining true to one’s convictions? What is the right approach to make the process more palatable and less controversial? These questions naturally incorporate an analysis of Christ and Culture, and invites one to consider which one of Niebuhr’s five approaches to the relationship of faith and society is best in these final days of the 20th century. Once an approach is selected, then the path by which a Christian should enter the public square will become clear.
Christ and Culture
Niebuhr presented five choices: Christ Against Culture; Christ of Culture; Christ Above Culture, Christ and Culture in Paradox; and Christ the Transformer of Culture.4
It is quite clear for mainline Protestants (Liberal Christians), those who are Christian by virtue of being born in America (Cultural Christians), and New Agers (Universalists), that their choice is a Christ of Culture. Jesus is a loving teacher who preaches tolerance, acceptance of everyone and everything. It is a Jesus who has nothing to say about sin and its consequences. It is a Jesus that is more man than God and a god who has been reinterpreted to fit the views of society at large.
Meanwhile, the theology from the above camp offers a Christ Against Culture approach which preaches a militant separatism. This approach is neither palatable to mainstream Christianity nor the secular public square.
The Christ Above Culture approach would appear to advocate separation of Christianity and the State which in turn leaves an ethereal vacuum in the public square. Christians cannot live above culture in this fashion without essentially becoming separatists, like the Amish, a result which keeps their principles isolated to a small and irrelevant community, which has no impact on the public square. Christ, as paradoxical to culture, creates a dualism which is difficult to explain and often limits the effectiveness of the Christian world view in the public square.
The final approach and most useful, is Christ as the Transformer of Culture. In this view, Christians enter the public square and use their God-given logic, reason, and skill to persuade others that through Christianity, their lives can be changed. It is the personal transformation of the individual and/or societal structures and institutions that formulates change in society. It is also a view that is accepting of minority religious groups, because it believes that in an open market place the transforming truth of God will prevail over untruth. Or as Gamaliel, the New Testament sage, wisely advised his Jewish colleagues in the book of Acts,
And so my advice is, leave these men alone. If what they teach and do is merely on their own, it will soon be overthrown, but if it is of God, you will not be able to stop them, lest you find yourselves fighting even against God.5
In essence, this view postulates that Christians will transform culture, when they are transformed by Christ. They bring into the public square a value base for personal conduct and invite others to join them. Traditional Judeo-Christian morality was once the universally accepted standard for evaluating behavior and for indicating the parameters of acceptable conduct. Christians are called to discourse in a civil fashion and are expected to be good stewards in presenting their beliefs and values. Christians are successful when they are good citizens. The base of their citizenship is their faith but the measure of their success is what they accomplish. It is through Christians serving the public, as servants, that society is better off.
Thus, the true battle for the public square is not over how to take control of civil discourse, or to suppress minority religions, but rather how to effectively engage in multi-faith dialogue. Christians must communicate in such a manner as to build a consensus in which doing the right thing serves as a guideline for individual behavior and agreement is reached, not by force or coercion, but by public discourse.
As indicated above, as a Christian in the arena of public policy, the path I would take in order to arrive at the public square, is one in which Christ is seen as the transformer of culture. Thus, I would hope to enter the marketplace of ideas with my personal beliefs and through discussion, discourse and example, lead others to the same point of view. I earnestly desire to be academically honest and truthful in the presentation of my beliefs. Thus, my goal is to persuade not coerce others. I am, as Paul says, attempting to “be all things to all men that I might win some.”6 Thus, I enter the public square not to coerce but to serve. If I can change viewpoints, then lives can be changed. That is why the issue of salvation is left to the Holy Spirit. My concern is not to preach, but to preserve the transforming effect of Christ in society through my very presence in the discussion, bringing the Judeo-Christian viewpoint into the public square. The key is, of course, to do this without alienating others who do not share my particular worldview. To effectively do that, I must first examine philosophical presuppositions about the meaning of religion itself.
The Myth of Religious Neutrality
In his book, The Myth of Religious Neutrality, Roy Clouser discusses the nature of religion. He argues that all viewpoints are essentially religious in nature and that the distinction between church and state is one of perspective. As he points out, theories are driven and regulated by whatever idea of divinity has gripped the hearts of their advocates. In that sense, a theory is every bit as much an expression of religion as worship or liturgy, even though it is a very different type of expression.
Therefore, viewed in the light of Niebuhr, that view of neutrality helps to sharpen the distinction between the sacred and the secular. Both are based on a religious worldview. If it is recognized that secular viewpoints have religious overtones, then one can compare and contrast worldview implications. Clouser has done this in the areas of mathematics, physics and in particular psychology.
For he says:
...Uncovering the religious roots of theoretical perspectives actually opens the way to more fruitful communications than is otherwise possible. My reasons for saying this are, first, that if religious control is a fact, then attempts to communicate without an awareness of it will be frustrated by its hidden effects. And second, where the parties to debate view reason itself as autonomous and neutral, it is hard for each not to see the extent to which the other differs as to the extent to which the other is not being rational. The danger, then is, that the other’s position will not only be rejected as false but condemned as irrational...On the other hand, recognizing that all people have religious beliefs which regulate their theorizing, can allow thinkers a mutual respect of one another’s large-scale theory differences as expression of their alternative faith. They may then be able to appreciate why others, starting from their contrary religious beliefs, developed their opposing theories in just the way they did. On this basis they can then explore any points of contact and agreement they may have, as well as gain greater insight into the nature of their genuinely irreconcilable differences.8
The Naked Public Square
The first step in this analysis is to properly read the signs of the times and anticipate the approach best suited for these signs. Also, one must take special care not to let slogans or rhetoric stand in the way of dialogue. That is why Neuhaus eschews the use of terms such as liberal, mainline, ecumenical, evangelical, fundamental, and conservative in setting out his framework for discussions. The point being that pigeonholing people prevents discussion and since all civil discourse is inherently based on dialogue, labels should be avoided at all costs.
The next step is to establish the role of public religion and public reason in the political arena. This is critical since the trend in academic circles is to sacrifice civil religion on the altar of public virtue. Modern political theory fails to recognize that both of these worldviews have religious characteristics. Such attempts at a religion-free society have led to the rise of the “isms” of the 20th century. Whether it is communism, socialism, fascism or national socialism, such godless virtue has resulted in incomparable human suffering. And the book is still open on what modern secular America will leave as its historical legacy.
This is particularly true in politics, where the culture war has become a “them-versus-us” battle between the religious right and the media. If you believe the press, churches are expected to accommodate culture and allow abortion, same-sex marriages, the ordination of women and throw out any Biblically-based theology that is not reflected in such politically correct psycho-babble of multiculturalism. Unfortunately, the battle extends beyond the struggle between popular culture and the Church. It is also a death march for the soul of a nation.
The anti-Western civilization movement has been attempting to do away with all the historical vestiges of what created the American public square in the first place. That deconstruction process is particularly obvious in the belief that no single group’s ideas are better than another’s. The result of this thinking is that there is no basis for meaningful social dialogue. Also, as a corollary, if the U.S. is not a force for good in the world, then the past 200 years of freedom are essentially meaningless. The real danger of an attack on Western civilization and its Biblical roots is that you literally destroy the public square itself. It matters little whether the forces of destruction come from liberalism’s sin of commission or conservatism’s sin of omission, the end result is a moral and ethical vacuum. If we allow a revisionary history that denies who we are as a people, then what is left is a political system that doesn’t make any sense.
The U.S. constitution is founded on religious presuppositions and to strip it of its meaning by denying the U.S. is a religious nation, is to cut the American political system away from its anchor. The result is a ship of state that floats aimlessly in a sea of confusion. Thus, for Neuhaus, the second critical stop in the process is to keep the historical record straight. If we lose the values that created the public square, it will not be too long before we lose the square itself.
Next, in the Neuhaus analysis, one must recognize the virtue of compromise. Neuhaus does so by viewing the process of moral actors as having three steps: 1) conversation, 2) compromise, and 3) confirmation. A society must do all three to have civil discourse. It is not inherently wrong to compromise with “between-ideas” as long as one doesn’t compromise with principles. That is why Christians must understand the difference between separating from society and being distinct within society.
If Christians separate and take a Christ Against Culture or Christ Above Culture position, they deny the fact that something must serve as the basis for morality. To abandon the public square is to create a vacuum that will be filled by some form of authority and, as Dostoyevski reminded us, “when there is no god, all things are permissible.”
That is why Neuhaus sees modern history as a story of purloined authority. In his view, the process of removing religion from culture creates a series of logical inconsistencies that eventually lead to a society’s collapse and, if history teaches us anything, the usual result of a morally bankrupt public square is authoritarianism. In America, then the $64,000 historical question is, can a democratic morality be sustained on secular grounds? In short, it should be interesting, and, one fears, agonizing, to see what the Clinton years will produce, for, at no point in America’s history has there been such and amoral, ambivalent attitude about the public square.
The slogans of change, economic prosperity and tolerance for all are euphemisms for the removal of Christian values from the public square. It is now even more important for Christians not to abandon the fight for the public square. We must continue to argue for ethical values seen in the face of political correctness. We must find common ground with the liberal-moderates (or moderate-liberal) that now are in power. We must converse and compromise to maintain lines of communication. We cannot stand outside the square and yell “fire” while the buildings burn. Christians need to act but with intelligence, integrity, and influence. We need to be Daniels working in the court of the pagan king. We must bring ideas forth in a way that even the new administration will listen to and we must once again seek to infuse the public square with virtue. Christians must be heard. The Church, along with Jews, Muslims, and other religious groups must unite to argue for public morality. We must avoid labels and not allow virtue to succumb to tolerance. We must argue for absolutes or objective moral principles, and we must, through our efforts, keep the public square open.
Conclusion
In essence, I am advocating a political philosophy where we do not give up individual rights and responsibilities. We must re-anchor ourselves to the virtues of ethical/monotheism and we must return to civil discourse. Slogans, rhetoric and civil disobedience will not stem the tide but only give the secularists further excises to close down the public square. We must reclaim society through peaceful, intelligent, and honest thought. We must win the war of ideas in our homes, our schools, and our civil centers. We must present a clarion call to the citizenry of the dangers inherent in a naked public square. To do any less will be to pass up the opportunity represented to each and every one of us to be apologists for not only Christ, but for an America based on a Christian worldview.
Notes
1. Richard H. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper and Row, 1951).
2. Roy Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality (Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1991).
3. Richard J. Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1984).
9. Neuhaus, opcit., pp. 114-128
10. Micah 6:8
Return to Japan Index
Return to ICRF Home