Source: International Update
The following first appeared in the July 2, 2013 edition of the AAC’s International Update. Sign up for this free email here.
By Bishop Bill Atwood, Anglican Church in North America
In 1962 the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in the court case Engle v. Vitale. It centered around a prayer, authored by the Regents (the State Board of Education) for New York. It read:
“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”
A small group of parents objected and, in concert with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed a suit. The court ruled that the prayer was a violation of the Constitution because it was an “endorsement” of religion that could lead to the establishment of a national church–kind of the “slippery slope” argument. The founders were not concerned with religion being included in government. What they wanted to avoid was a state church, like the Church of England. Languages change over time. It would be much more accurate in our time to translate the establishment clause as the establishment of a “denomination,” rather than “religion.” I wrote about this in my book Wild Vine~Fruitful Vine, amazon.com, and the origins of the core problem in the Episcopal Church.
A year after the Engle v. Vitale case, there was a second Supreme Court ruling, Abington Township School District v. Schempp, prohibiting school officials from organizing or leading prayers and devotional Bible reading in public schools.
As terrible as it was to take the Judeo-Christian foundation out of American social fabric, the fact that they did not replace that foundation with anything was worse. Aristotle said, “Nature abhors a vacuum.” That is not just true in physics. When there is a void, something will fill it. In this case, what oozed into the societal foundation was a kind of moral relativism in which the culture weathervanes around the current winds of opinion, steered more by feelings than objectivism.
The decision this last week by the Supreme Court of the United States to advance same-sex marriage (in a variety of ways) was the inevitable consequence of a culture navigating by rootless “feelings.” It is a shame that the members of the court have left the foundations of following law derived from precedent and have struck off in lock step with the rhythms of “modern” society.
Decision making based on public polling may be acceptable when dealing with what color to paint the new library, but it is a poor substitute when dealing with moral issues.
The bottom line of this is that when you take the foundation away, the house is weakened. It will crack and may even collapse. The instability is only increased as competing value systems vie to steer the ship.
Africa and the Middle East
We are seeing the same dynamic in North Africa and the Middle East. Long term dictators (who were far less than benevolent!) were toppled by crowds of citizens demonstrating in the streets. When the series of self-immolations broke out, I wrote that the despotic leaders would fall, but take care and don’t start the celebration too soon. It was not clear what would surface to take their place. In many of the countries, it has been the fresh face of the Muslim Brotherhood, but an MB that still has radical roots.
This week we have the hat-trick of problems in Syria, Egypt, and with President Obama’s visit to Africa.
In Syria, Christians are being targeted by radicals. It used to be that there were countless thriving churches in Damascus and other areas of the country. They were pretty much left alone to pursue their worship and work. Now, most of the Christians have fled Syria, and too many have been martyred.
In North Africa, in Egypt there was great rejoicing a year ago when Mubarak was ousted and Morsi came in. Now, however, there are again massive demonstrations calling for the removal of the President. The protesters charge that he is advancing the radical Muslim Brotherhood agenda and they have not received the freedoms they sought. Like with the Supreme Court decisions in the US, when President Mubarak was removed, the general population did not have a plan about how to proceed. The thought was that the current government was failing and that “anything would be better.” Sadly, they say that it isn’t better.
As a result of the slow progress, and also the increasing Islamization of the country in the last year, a movement has surface called Tamarod. That is Arabic for “Rebel.” Once again, however, they are moving forward just saying “No” to what is, without adequately articulating a foundation of what should shape the future. They are pretty well organized. Their web site allows people to sign an online petition calling for the removal of President Morsi. It will be interesting to see what the military decides. Without their support, President Morsi can’t possibly stay in power.
In other parts of Africa, President Obama is pursuing a charm offensive. Sadly, it is more offense than charm. He continues to put forward a vision of a weakened America, hoping that that will encourage others to “like us.” People who pursue leadership in the real world know that pursuing being “liked” is an albatross. In the case of this trip, several things would have been better. First of all, rather than spending $100 million on the trip, he could have had a petting zoo brought in to the Rose Garden and served “Nyama Choma” Tanzanian Bar B Que. That would have saved $99,995,949, assuming large portions for those who attended and a limited number of petable animals.
Instead of taking my advice, he decided to travel to Africa and is urging Africans not to trust any foreign powers, including Americans. Self-deprecation, or more rightly “national deprecation,” is not actually very helpful as winsome as that might seem. What is actually needed is stability and strength. In some ways, at least at first, stability is more important than either trust or affection. Ultimately, of course, the best is when character draws us to do the right things that will eventually bear fruit. Throwing vast sums of money at problems rarely bears fruit. It is an invitation to corruption and waste.
One of the serious flaws with government (or United Nations) funding is the scale of the project. When spending $50 million, it is easy for lots of money to fall through the cracks. Another shortcoming with government initiatives is the lack of accountability. There needs to be follow-up that holds people accountable to do what they have agreed to do.
A few years ago, one of the under-secretaries at the UN said to me, “Ekklesia has a reputation for getting a huge return on tiny investment. We, on the other hand, have a reputation for getting a tiny return on a huge investment. I’d like to know how you do it. For example, when we are going to do a new project in a country, we find an overseer, send them to language school, and then deploy them and their family. That costs around $200 to $300,000, to put oversight in place. How much do you spend?”
“Nothing,” I replied.
“How can you possibly do a project without oversight?”
I replied, “I didn’t say that we didn’t have oversight, I said we don’t spend money on it.”
“How can you do that?” he asked.
“I find the local bishop and ask if his diocese will keep the books, audit the funds, and report back to me.”
“Oh,” replied the UN guy, “I see.”
Christian behaviors have not always been good through the years, but the foundation that faith offers can bring good to the world. Where we have not been faithful, we should repent and return to the Lord. Through history, living by Christian principles has produced fruit. The farther away from Christian principles a nation goes, the less fruit they will see, and the more pain. Before enthusiastically adopting a “post Christian” era, serious thought should be given to what will replace it. (I don’t think it should be replaced at all. But it is more than stupid to replace it with nothing, leaving everything adrift. The same thing is true when any government or social convention is being abandoned. It is foolish to move away from Judeo-Christian values. It is disastrous to do it in such a cavalier fashion that it is not even intentionally replaced by another value system. Just rejecting the foundation doesn’t work.
