Post 120--Secular Missionaries of Democracy

Promises, Promises!

Well, here I go breaking the promise I long ago promised I would not break! Once you’re into a promise-breaking mode, you may as well go at it, right?   And here’s one more: I will no longer pretend I can write blogs or anything else without both making and then breaking promises I just made. I’m simply going to make one whenever the need arises without any guilt feeling.  Making promises is definitely an inescapable part of the human condition; breaking promises is not far from that one!

Secular Missionaries

In the second to the last paragraph of Post 119 I noted that Western nations export their wild electioneering campaigns to non-Western nations. The term “export” in this context is really a secular term for “missionizing.”  Yes, Western nations and their people, secular as they tend to be and as disapproving most of them are of missionaries, are themselves missionaries in the sense that they seek to convince the peoples of other regions to adopt their democratic ways of electing their governments. Secularists are missionaries, short and simple, though they do not recognize it and will vehemently deny it when confronted with it. This denial is based on the fact that they are blind to their own faith or worldview.

Secular Democratic Imposition

I have met a young lady hardly beyond her mid-twenties, who was commissioned by the US Government to teach democratic ways to African politicians. Though she was sweet enough, I was shocked to think that such an inexperienced person would have the gall to travel all over Africa to recommend, among other things, the “art” of political campaigning. I was shocked even more by the fact that she was actually commissioned to do so by the sophisticated US Government! What brazen imposition! What a brazen superiority complex—a youthful American teaching African leaders the ways of American political campaigns?  Please reread some of the paragraphs of Post 119. Would you even think about exporting those ways? And please remember, much of the same holds true for Canada as well.

Christian Electioneering Shenanigans

Well, the West has been most successful in their political mission to Africa. In my book Christians and Muslims: Parameters for Living Together I describe a situation in central Nigeria where three contenders for the position of State Governor all belonged to one and the same Christian denomination.  Officially, these contenders were brothers in Christ.  They were all taught human relations from a Christian perspective—love, mutual respect, dignity, speaking the truth, etc. etc., but none of this came through in the course of their campaign. Like those in Post 119, “they fought with each other like everyone else, berated each other, accused each other; lied to and about each other.” It’s too bad I cannot give you more juicy details, the reason being that the documents underlying my statements were deposited in a Yale archive. In short, they made mince meat of everything the Bible teaches in terms of positive human relations. And they all thought of themselves as Christian gentlemen! (The full text of that book is available on the Islamica page of my website <  www.SocialTheology.com  >, vol. 8-2, p. 144.)

I do hope the above paragraph will not make you think me racist.  After all, I say much worse things about American politicians. I should correct this last statement. I don’t say worse things about American politicians so much as more grimy details.  Those documents now at Yale contain similar grimy details about these Nigerian politicians.

The Disconnect

How is it possible that these prominent American politicians, some of them icons of US history and at least some of them Christians, could so defame and defile the name of their most prominent citizens and not be called on it, at least, not enough for them to cease the practice?  And how is the same thing possible with Nigerian Christian politicians?  How could they square such behavior with the Bible and their religion?  Probably the dominant reason is the disconnect between their official religion—Christianity—and their actions.

Dualism

A major theme in all my writings is “dualism,” that is, separation not of church from state, but of religion from state as well as religion from politics. The way missionaries in Africa brought the Gospel has lead to Africans disconnecting these pairs. Though many missionaries did not actively reject ties between these two entities, their failure to encourage building ties between religion and both state and politics led to a separation. The result is the attitude of religion is religion; business is business; politics is politics-- and never the twain shall meet, the “twain” being religion on the one side and business & politics on the other.

Secular Intolerance

Of course we Canadians have only recently suffered the same electioneering shenanigans for the same reason. In our country secularism has achieved such a majority position that the very idea that religion should be out there in the halls of power and in the market place is considered plain primitive and uncivilized. A current example is the legal battle over the proposed law school at Western Trinity University right here in BC.  It’s a pure example of secularism’s viciousness and intolerance.  But, hey, that’s how the establishment mind operates, whether it’s Islam or secularism—or Christian even.  But don’t let that intimidate you, for that secularism is so ignorant that it does not know itself.

The Gospel Alternative: Love and Respect

The bottom Christian line in all this is the plain Gospel recommendation—no, more than recommendation: demand,  prescription—that we love and respect one another, build up each other, the very opposite of our current culture of berating and destroying.  

Post 88—Den Tandt’s Ecumenical Remedy (continued)

This is a continuation of yesterday's discussion of Michael Den Tandt's remedy for religious fundamentalism.

Den Tandt’s remedy, you may recall, is to recognize and act upon “the commonality of the religious experience,” something that is acknowledged by a wide range of scholars. He regards this “remarkable.” I similarly recognize certain commonalities all religions share in some way.  Den Tandt attributes this commonality or ecumenicity to “something in the human condition that gravitates to spiritual experience.” I agree with that assertion. We Christians attribute this to creation: We were created with a wired-in predisposition towards religious experience, in fact, towards God Himself. That, in fact, is the very reason for our creation or existence. In spite of my love for philosophical speculation, I am not much of a philosopher. Nevertheless, I kind of like Den Tandt’s reference to Dean Hamer, an American geneticist, who theorizes that this human gravitation towards the spiritual has a “biological source” residing in our DNA that he calls the “God gene.” I have not read Hamer’s writings and so do not know the details of his theory. If I had read his stuff and knew the details, I might reject his all of his assertions. However, without knowing those details, I am favourably inclined towards this alleged “God gene.”  Why not? 

Now to many people, giving spirituality a biological or physical base may seem unorthodox and even highly heretical. Spirituality with a physical base?  Most of us Westerners especially walk around with a dualism between spirituality and the physical. We place a distance between them and never the twain shall meet. That is of the essence of Secularism. It is part of our Western world view that we simply assume without ever examining it. But if God has created us for the specific purpose of serving and worshiping Him, if that’s what we were made to do, then why dismiss a physical side to our spirituality deep down in our psyche or our mind?  Spirituality and the physical are simply two sides of the one coin of reality. They always go together. North American Aboriginals, Traditional Africans and all other Animists reject this Western secular bifurcation or separation. So does the Bible. The Bible is more on the side of Aboriginals, Traditionalists and Animists in this regard than on the side of Secularists and the majority of Christians who are influenced by Secularism. So, yes, there may well be such a thing as a physical “God gene.”  The notion of creation seems to allow it not only but may even demand it. However, I stand to be corrected, especially by Christian thinkers who have not bought into this Western secular bifurcation.

So, we affirm with Den Tandt a level of commonality among the various religions and world views. Many of them, including “explicitly non-religious traditions,” hold to a “cluster of beliefs that insists on exclusivity.”  They will argue that Jesus or Muhammad or Buddah is the only way to salvation.  Even the (in)famous atheist biologist Richard Dawkins insists that “every way of understanding reality but his own is wrong.” In other words, such exclusivity is, in Den Tandt’s own words, part of that commonality, is embedded in it. On what basis then does Den Tandt separate them, accept the positive but reject the negative that is just as much part of the equation?  Why grudgingly “respect cultural differences but celebrate commonality” when they both together constitute that commonality?  This stance seems similar to many African governments that, in their quest for national unity, want to excise tribal consciousness by pretending that tribes do not exist. You try to create unity by disregarding or even denying one of the most important components in the equation. Den Tandt seems to want to create an ecumenical culture of commonality by simply excising, denying or negating the part of it he dislikes, without giving a reason.

He clinches his argument by proposing we “accept that religious systems exist and evolve,” but without claiming to “owning exclusive rights to the truth, which is to say none.”  But how does this apply to Den Tandt’s own position? If no one has “exclusive rights,” on what basis does he?  I am reminded of one of his colleagues at the Vancouver Sun who some years ago declared pompously that there is no absolute truth. I sent her a quick note challenging the inconsistency of this statement. Denial of absolute truth is itself an absolute declaration! She responded with a mere “Oops,” as if she merely had made a logical slip. I responded to her that hers was no mere logical slip; it was a  total inconsistency inherent in her world view. Since she did not continue the discussion, it stopped right there. Well, it seems to me that Den Tandt is doing something similar. By denying everyone the exclusive right to the truth, he is denying his own as well!

Michael, I appreciate the courage you display in proposing a remedy for religious fundamentalism. We need it badly and any attempt at it should be taken seriously and with appreciation--but also weighed seriously.  You need to rethink your commonality. Thanks for trying and for challenging me. You readers, this is an important issue. I invite, nay urge, you to weigh in with your comments.