The Second Story

As I listen to many of the subjects in debate today in our culture - the dialog between secularists and Christians - there's a fundamental difference in perspectives that I think we need to be aware of if we're going to try to be persuasive. Faith and religion have been relegated to the realm of wishful thinking and personal preference. For many we're talking with and in the public discourse, it has nothing to do with reality. Religion is a personal taste, like ice cream, so it's bizarre to them that we're trying to get them to like the same flavor we like.

This is a dynamic going on when we discuss same-sex marriage, abortion, and mandated health care that covers contraceptives. Unfortunately, it's a perspective that is expressed in the recent Supereme Court ruling on same-sex marriage - Justice Kennedy said there is no rational argument against it and opposition can only be motivated by bigotry and discrimination. He heard the rational, legal arguments presented in court and didn't even recognize them as such. Hobby Lobby's conscientious objection to providing contraceptives through their health insurance is met with a response that relegates their conscience to the private realm, which has no place in their business world. The same thing was said in the recent New Mexico case finding that a photographer's conscience was her private belief, but should not be practiced in her business.

We can believe what we wish in church and at home, but the "neutral public square" mandates we keep it private. Of course, it's a bizarre understanding of conscience. Our consciences are neatly divided between private and public life. The point of freedom of religion is practice throughout our lives. More and more we're hearing the First Amendment interpreted as the right to believe as we wish, but not practice as we believe. It's the freedom of belief, not the freedom of exercise our belief.

Brett writes about this shift in the definition of faith here. Greg talked about this dynamic in the New Mexico case in a recent podcast. 

Francis Schaeffer wrote a fabulously insightful little book decades ago called Escape from Reason. It's one of the first apologetics books I read (a very long time ago). He wrote about a trend he observed taking place, and it is even more relevant today to understand some of the background assumptions going on in public discourse. I highly recommend you read it to be more effective in unraveling disagreements with secularists and making a persuave case.

Schaeffer describes the affect the Enlightenment has had on modern thinking. Rationalism divided truth into objective and subjective and put religion and values in the subjective category. Schaeffer describes the world of facts, reality, as the first story in a building. It's bolted to the ground. Religion and values got sent upstairs to the second floor. It's the place for subjective belief, preferential tastes, mere desire. It doesn't belong on the first floor with reality. We all live together on the first floor of the real world, and when we practice our religion we get sent upstairs.

This is the view most people have about religion these days. Even many religious people themselves put religion upstairs and separate it from facts and reality. When we talk about our convictions, even if we give rational reasons, others see us trying to barge downstairs into the real world. We, of course, are talking about reality on the first floor when we talk about Christian convictions and values. And that's the huge worldview divide that is in the way of most conversations about values and religion.

As Christian ambassadors, we need to understand this dynamic and help people understand that we're not taking a leap of faith from the second floor. We're living on the ground level where our convictions and values belong because they are reality.

Comments

[DGFischer]

>> Justice Kennedy said there is no rational argument against it and opposition can only be motivated by bigotry and discrimination. He heard the rational, legal arguments presented in court and didn't even recognize them as such.

Help me through this one. Isn't Kennedy's statement an expression of political judicial opinion merely that, an expression of opinion? If there were differing opinions from the other justices, what makes Kennedy's the only valid one? I know, I know, majority vote among nine appointed officials, a true foundation for the management of individual conscience.

Methinks this is another one of those times the Verification Principle has fallen on its own sword.

[Jared Berryman]

I find what the author is talking about to be extremely annoying. So many people, at the popular level, basically tell Christians they should only practice their faith privately. They are proud of the right to freedom of religion, as long as Christians do not practice it in the public sphere. The only problem is that Christianity is a public religion, in every way. To ask Christians not to practice their faith in the public sphere is a violation of their religious freedom. So, for instance, the ban in some countries on Christian proselytization is a gross violation of freedom of religion. Anyways, the dichotomy between public and private life is largely a modern construct that doesn't really exist. This sort of argument is constantly used by those who are opposed to whatever Christian value is there, instead of actually confronting our worldview or our argument.

[Daniel]

Well, since this is STR, let's take the roof off. Let's say I own a business. Since my Christian world view is such that I should operate with honesty and integrity, I guess I will have to forgo my rights of conscience with respect to doing business and not allow ethics to influence my business dealings. So, honesty and integrity, my personal ethics due to my faith, should not apply within my business. How long do you suppose my business will stay afloat?

[RonH]

Yeah. And suppose I believe my church's teaching that my child will suffer great spiritual loss if she gets a blood transfusion. Who does the government think it is to intrude here just because she's lost 50% of her blood?

[theMorton]

Picking up on Daniel's take, what if in your business you decide that like Hobby Lobby you don't want any of the insurers you contract with to provide contraception coverage to your staff in their policies. Makes sense I guess if you have some unmarried women under your employ and you don't want to be a party to any of their sinful escapades. But what about married women and women who are prescribed contraceptives for reasons other than birth control?

Let's say your business is a service like the New Mexico photographer and you've been contacted to provide that service at a gay wedding. "Sorry, against our principles," you might say. I suppose it would also be against your principles if it were a male/female couple in which one partner was not "properly" divorced as according to the Word. Would you be checking up on their status as well?

[DGFischer]

the Morton,

You've raised some good issues on application of vocation and the qualms of conscience, but miss on two points. The photographer example limped in two areas. First, you stated "I suppose it would also be against your principles if it were a male/female couple in which one partner was not "properly" divorced as according to the Word. Would you be checking up on their status as well?" This, I believe, would be the area of responsibility of the officiating pastor. The photographer would need only orchestrate his/her activities around the service, as well as the before and after shots.

Second, your post would focus on one possible aspect of the conscientious Christian photographer, or, better, a photographer who happens to be a conscientious Christian. There is wide array of ethical situations involving the professional use of a camera. If employed by a company to shoot the gamut from intimate apparel to soft>>>hard pornography, I'd expect the cC photographer to take a pass. If one hires out to take incriminating photos in view of blackmail purposes, would a previous retainer compel the cC photographer to act against conscience? The art of photography is capable of capturing so much beauty and so much else. It should be left to artistic license for the one who makes his/her business in the camera arts to utilize the situations that accord with personal beliefs.

Which makes me ask the question regarding the New Mexico case. Was this cC photographer the only lens in town? Why demand the services of the one person when others were available? Could it be the power of seeking personal acceptance of sexual orientation demanding conscience to be denied? If so, then there has been a travesty to that hallmark of postmodern virtues, tolerance. Tolerance could have accepted the photographer's qualm of faith and sought another photographer. The cC photographer could easily been told that the business of friends could be lost, and fall back on the ploy of boycott. At least allow the fellow the consequences of choice.

[KWM]

And suppose I believe my church's teaching that my child will suffer great spiritual loss if she gets a blood transfusion. Who does the government think it is to intrude here just because she's lost 50% of her blood?

I can top that. Suppose my religion teaches that killing non-believers is ordered by God. Now what are we going to do?

[RonH]

Think before following what religions teach?

[David]

I would like to hear what reaction a Muslim would take if a gay couple were to approach his/her photographer business for a same-sex wedding.
If I had to guess, I'd assume they would take the business.