OK, so the contentious election South has come and gone. Will it be Canada’s turn next? Hopefully now we can expect to see less nastiness, villainizing and shaming on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and less self-righteousness, too. I’m just thinking Evangelical Christians here . . . though I suppose we could add the general public, if you wish. I am trusting there will be less quoting of cherry-picked Scripture or using the Bible as a weapon of mass destruction, but I am not hopeful!
All of this leads me to something I’ve been musing about for quite some time – years in fact: Why do believers vote for policies, mostly political, but also corporate, even religious, which advocate for things that are incongruent with traditional Christian teaching? Yah, I get it! “It’s a free country.” “I can vote as I wish.” Or, “I’m allowed to think and do what I want”, which is factually not entirely true, as 2020 has demonstrated. Crowd shaming group-think and politicians are clearly in the driver’s seat these days. But you already knew that!
It’s pretty difficult to embrace culture
without also hugging its idols!
Now to be clear, I am not advocating for a Christian society run by Christian MP’s or MLA’s. Nor am I supportive of the nutty charismatic New Apostolic Reformers (NAR) whose muddled Seven Mountains Mandate essentially has Jesus locked up and unable to return until they say so (Acts 3:21). But theological crazies aside, it’s a wonder to me how it is that believers support initiatives which generally, if not specifically, are incongruent to the values of the Scriptures. Consider:
Recently a small cadre of leadership at a privately funded Christian school, not to far from where I live, wanted to ‘expose’ their students to the common Aboriginal practice and virtue of smudging – afraid that if they didn’t, they would be branded racist and all the other cute names folks like to use to bludgeon dissenting views and values. An information meeting was held, the Christians argued among themselves as usual, but in the end the principal moved forward with her adamant and opposing minority view anyway. As expected, several families ‘pulled’ their kids for the day. How did things come to this – and in a Christian school no less?
To this specific issue, I suppose we could debate the Bible’s view that human life is irreconcilable (Ps. 8) with a view of human life that sees us in some kind of conversation with natural laws or randomly occurring natural selection within plants, trees, rivers or animals. Still, for sure, there is no basis for animism within Christianity.
Or, I guess some might argue for the tolerance of ideas in the Christian school, since after all, all views have equal merit or worth and should be given space. However (1) such an idea would be irrational since some ideas are indeed better than others, (2) believing some have no merit does not violate any dictionary standard of tolerance, and (3) saying ‘No’ is not about rejecting diversity – but an affirmation of a Christian school’s belief system; a reflection of their mission statement; the purpose for its existence.
In this example, the principal seemed more afraid of public shaming than heeding the words of Romans 12:2 with its caution against being squeezed into the world’s mould. Surely ‘guarding the good deposit . . . . guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit’ (2 Timothy 1:14), discernment against spiritual threats, the pursuit of truth and holding to accurate and healthy Christian teaching is an honest pursuit and trumps fear.
Now, perhaps the example is a poor illustration. But hopefully you get my point: Leadership of a ‘Christian’ school, where parents have advocated for the ‘Christian’ education of their children, an education grounded in biblical faith and virtues, collapses its values for fear of being called what Pope Francis refers to as ‘polite persecution’ by a secular ideology. There is a lot of talk among believers about promoting the equality and rights of individuals, but little said about our duties and obligations.
A life principle for that principal: “You cannot surround yourself (or your school) with pillows as protection against fallen world’s criticism of you.”
So back to my initial question and for clarity’s sake, I do not have in mind the murky, cloudy, fuzzy issues to which Scripture in its specificity or global view may not speak to. How is it possible that believers advocate and support policies incompatible with Scripture?
Before venturing further down the rabbit hole, I offer one caveat, namely that we not muddy the waters by making the point that our public policy decisions as believers are based on the personal style, character or hubris which flaw its leaders – and for sure all of us. I understand scripture often equates good leadership with traits like compassion, integrity, wisdom and humility, but that is a separate subject. Besides, word count constrains me here!
I imagine that a general answer to my earlier question might lie in responses like, “I’ve always been a -------" (Are biblical values an after-thought?), or “It’s the lesser-of-two-evils” calculus (Which is worse – bad laws/decisions or egotistical behavior?) or “The party has other redeemable virtues that can benefit the country, besides the ones I disagree with.” (An appeal to situation ethics?)
Now I suppose we could simply dodge the question. After all, it’s just too divisive! Or, we could divide Christians into two camps: Devout and Non-Devout, but then we would need to make up a ‘Rating Scale’ to separate the “Sheep” from the “Goats”. Or, we could align some Christian voting behavior to a specific pathology, say, Dissociative Identity Disorder, where two contradictory impulses live in a single personality. This way, we are not responsible for our choices – something else is. Admittedly, such an answer would be too flippant … and facile!
I have a theory, one that posits that in the arena of politics, decision making by people of faith cannot be disconnected from whether Christianity is central or non-essential to their personal identity or the culture they live in and are influenced . . . or infected by. Outside of the Bible itself, one of the tools that shape and shift a person’s position and the tenets of their faith is the Overton Window.
The Overton Window is an amoral political theory named after Joseph P. Overton, a former VP of Mackinac Centre for Public Policy, killed in a plane crash in June 2003. I quicky add that the theory works very well in ecological, cultural, social and theological debate as well.
Imagine a yardstick standing on the left and right. These yardsticks represent the most extreme policy actions on any political issue and in between lie all the possible gradations of policy from one extreme to the other.
Within these two yardsticks lies the Overton Window. It represents the boundaries of morality and ideas that the public is willing to consider and accept. A wise politician will campaign on those issues within that window. They can go outside of the window if they wish to risk it, but they will likely fail politically. In March 2018, The Atlantic hired conservative writer Kevin Williamson as a columnist. Just days later, Williamson expressed the view that abortion is murder, a view shared by 40% of Americans. Expressing a view outside the Overton Window was unacceptable political conversation for The Atlantic, so he was fired. Gone within days!
The window is a picture of the world we live in and because this window is subject to social thought and cultural pressure – it can move left or right. If you are a social reformer then you try to shift the window. You take something loathsome to society, lift it out of the garbage heap, clean it up publicly, and then plant the ‘new’ idea in the consciousness of a moral society – and Voila, the window moves left or right and through time becomes legitimate policy - and law. This is how you legitimize an idea. The Overton Window works best in a society without standards of objective truth and ideals; where nothing is sacred.
In 1992 Bill Clinton said abortions should be “safe, legal
and rare”. On October 26, 2004, Obama offered,
“Marriage is between a man and a woman."
Brilliant and savvy political acuity here, I’d say.
With Bill C-7 on Euthanasia currently before our Parliament for a decision by December 18, 2020, the topic can demonstrate how a shift in thinking and policy occurs.
Euthanasia might initially be socially Unthinkable, incompatible with palliative care, a devaluing of life, considered homicide, while implying a duty to kill. But then an advocate says, “Let’s look at this scientifically from an anthropological, scientific point of view. After all, it’s science, right? Surely we can talk about science.” The media picks up on a planned symposium titled “Euthanasia in Ancient Greece, Rome and the 21st Century.” The Overton Window has just moved from not talking about it (Unthinkable) . . . to having a conversation - Radical.
The symposium is held, the media almost crowds out attendees, miraculously lobby groups appear to put their twist on things and sad, soul-retching stories that tug at the heart strings are in abundance. Suddenly there are shades of gray and the Overton Window moves to Acceptable.
“The media is the single greatest destroyer of the notion of
absolutes and of the Judeo-Christian worldview.”
Ravi Zacharias
Creating a euphemism is helpful here, so ‘Euthanasia’ next gets a cute name change, say ‘Dying with Dignity Canada’. Canadians opposed to the idea are misrepresented, vilified, publicly shamed and the Overton window moves to Sensible. Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) suddenly becomes a hot topic. Biased sociological data is pushed to ‘prove’ its merits. Cameras pan in on a person lying in a hospital bed, gaunt and fragile and Talk-Show hosts, hardly known for deep thought, hit the airwaves! It’s the talk of the town. The Window moves to Popular.
Finally, the government starts testing the political wind, politicians tell us and our children what to think and believe . . . and then the country is pooched. The unthinkable is made Policy! This is the process – and it works with topics like Diversity and Inclusion, White Privilege, Critical Race Theory and more. 1 This is how Child Euthanasia is permitted in Belgium and why same-sex couples can adopt children Canada.
“As the Overton Window has moved, progressivism has
increasingly been able to bring, not just the fury of the mob, but the weight of the law to press its case.”
Andrew Moody (Twitter)
Christians live in this same world; a world that embraces pluralism and snakes in the absolutism of relativism with it. This quantum shift has produced cultural decay, with its loss of meaning and a definition of what it means to be human. In this world Creation is nature, unconnected and without meaning. In this world the Universe is a box and nothing lives outside of it. Fed a steady diet of this — and it’s easy to see how an uninformed or incautious believer, living their life by default while not giving close attention to the influences in their life might ‘buy into’ realities that war against Scripture’s clarity.
The Overton Window theory will not entirely satisfy the question of ‘Why,’ but it can help us understand ‘How’ ideas/issues, whether good or bad, get accepted in the public square and how policies can morph into positives or negatives for the Kingdom of God. 2
Most will know Romans 12:2 “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” The text reminds us that Christians are not only called into relationship, but transformation as well; to think God’s perspective on life. Though navigating the rapids can be difficult, it is not impossible!
Instead of uploading to culture’s vision, we might better
downgrade to the Bible’s vision.
On social and political conflict, would Jesus be more liberal or conservative? You can decide. Still, putting dissonance theories aside, I do not believe it ‘out-of-the-main’ to think Christians everywhere would draw on their faith when engaging in public and political decision making. Even if believers cannot find precise resemblances of Jesus’ instruction on a matter, surely the entire counsel of God’s Word will help cast an appropriate shadow . . . and therefore an appropriate Christian response. And even though there is no guarantee that every change in social direction will be to our favor, I wonder if heaven doesn’t bristle with the positions we sometimes take — those out of sorts with the Bible and ultimately harmful to our culture? ‘Feelings’ are not nearly as important as truth!
“Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. For, ‘Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay; but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.’ But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.” (Heb. 10:35-39)
For sure there are enough politicizing issues out there to keep believers on their toes . . . or crusading in the streets. Still, can it be that ‘loving your neighbor’, a popularly quoted verse among Christians, might just mean disagreeing with something that is ultimately ruinous to them, their families and their future? Now that takes courage . . . especially if your neighbor finds out what you did. “Only Saying ...”
1 LexisNexis is a large News databased resource, analyzing media coverage and all-important message tracking used to shape public opinion.
2 If interested in the “How” then a worthwhile read is, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) “How Christians reconcile their personal political views and the teachings of their faith: Projection as a means of dissonance reduction.” Inaugural Article, March 6, 2012 109 (10) 3616-3622.
Comments