From a couple of comments I understand that some think that this series is meant to jump on conservative Christians. That is only partially true. Actually, as you will see, it is my opinion that both the conservative and the progressive “Christians” are making exactly the same mistake when it comes to politics and Christianity. That is, I think that Mark Shea had a very good analysis in his post, but only wrote about half of the picture. Or, perhaps another way to put it is that C.S. Lewis wrote a very good analysis several decades ago and Mr. Shea applied that analysis to part of the situation in today’s America. Or to put it yet another way, much of what we see in American conservative and progressive “Christian” politics is the result of the strategy espoused by the fictional Screwtape and his minions. So, according to Mr. Lewis as interpreted by Mr. Shea, what is that strategy? Well, Lewis’ Screwtape says:
For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner. Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that “only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilizations”. You see the little rift? “Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.” That’s the game.
In other words, God expects to be the one setting the agenda not the one used to justify the agenda. What does this mean? Well Lewis points out a subtle technique that the devil uses on us. The Gov. Mark Sanford case points to a person who was using God as a means to be elected in order that he could put his agenda into play. He cited God frequently. He claimed God frequently, but it was–as Screwtape pointed out–as a “convenience.” God was the means Gov Sanford was using in order to put his conservative agenda into play, that is to, “revive the Faith in order to make a good society.” He was being touted as one who could be a Presidential candidate, one who would restore conservative morality and economic policies to this country. But, among the Orthodox he would not have been considered one likely to go to the Kingdom of Heaven, given his secret behavior. Roman Catholics would simply say that one engaging unrepentantly in mortal sin will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and there is little doubt that he was most definitely unrepentantly engaging in that. No, we are not Calvinists or Lutherans on that point, so it will do no good to say that we do not know Sanford’s heart. The point is that God will not allow Himself to be used as a convenience, as he has quite well shown.
But, in order to explain why I feel that both conservative and progressive Christians in this country are making the same mistake, I need you to pull back to a more theological question. And, I am going to ask it of Orthodox and Catholic believers. What does it mean to be called a faithful Orthodox (or Catholic) in our relationship to our bishops? I am not talking about individual bishops, but to entities such as the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese (or the US Catholic conference of Bishops). The older term would be “synods.” How do we believe that God expects us, as Orthodox (or Catholics), to relate to our synods?
Orthodox and Catholic alike are asked to deeply consider and listen to the pastoral guidance given by those synods. Both Orthodox and Catholic synods will periodically issue pastoral letters, which give further moral guidance to the faithful on subjects that they consider to be currently in need of explanation. Pastoral letters from a Patriarch or the Pope are considered to be of especial importance and are to be pondered. When I say deeply consider, I do not mean perform a theological analysis and then decide that you cannot personally agree with the letter and that, therefore, you are going to ignore the letter. Unfortunately, that is all too often a common reaction in the USA. Rather, our responsibility as Orthodox and Catholic when we disagree with a pastoral letter is first to consider how we may be personally wrong. We are called to examine ourselves to see whether in our disagreement we prove that we are precisely the person to whom that pastoral letter was written. That is, we are to consider the bishops assembled as an assembly of those whom God has put over us for our good and for our guidance. We are further to assume that the Holy Spirit was present and guiding those men as they debated and formed that letter. Debate among the bishops, in and of itself, does not invalidate a pastoral letter. After all, it is St. Luke in Acts 15 that records that those leaders had “no little debate.” And, yet, one letter came out of Acts 15 and when a pastoral letter is issued, one pastoral letter is issued, there is no minority report.
This does not mean that a pastoral letter cannot be mistaken. This is why it is a pastoral letter and not a mandatory doctrinal pronouncement. Even Papal encyclicals are not classified as mandatory doctrinal pronouncements, though, for Catholics, they are worthy of high respect. This does not mean that a pastoral letter cannot be changed or withdrawn at a later time. A pastoral letter is the application, by our hierarchs, of the faith once delivered to a particular social and cultural situation. If the social and cultural situation changes, the application is often changed. But, it is the best guidance that can be given by those whom God has put over us, at this point in time. When we receive one, we are to consider how we are to conform ourselves to its guidance and how we may need to change our views in order to bring them into accord with the view that are expressed in the pastoral letter. Only as a serious conflict of conscience are we to consider not following the pastoral guidance. It should be a last resort, after prayer and study, to make the decision that we cannot follow the guidance of a pastoral letter.
The last two paragraphs are why I believe that all too many conservative and progressive “Catholic” Christians in this country are making the same mistake as the mistake pointed out by Screwtape in Lewis’ book.
A Synod of Bishops in Rome issued the following statement on 24 October 2008:
. . . “Authentic hearing is obeying and acting. It means making justice and love blossom in life,”
===MORE TO COME===
Excellent post. There is a level of cafeteriaizing going on at both ends of the political spectrum.
To paraphrase Lewis (from elsewhere), a truly Christian society (or minimally, a truly JUST society) would have something to offend pretty much everybody; in some ways, it would look pretty socialist; in other ways, it would look pretty feudal, perhaps even patriarchal. Lewis didn’t mention it, but I, for one, often think of the Byzantine Empire in this regard.
A bit of background re: Shea. He is going after the conservatives in particular because of the fact that the pro-life/anti-abortion movement is so deeply intertwined with what he calls “movement conservativism”. This leads many pro-life people to positions on things other than abortion that are demonstrably NOT pro-life “from conception to natural death”.
Here is another blog post:
http://caelumetterra.wordpress.com/
Dunno about you, but I, for one, eagerly await the publication of Pope Benedict’s latest encyclical. I am not so eager to read all the spin that will follow it.
I am glad to hear that explanation. I was concerned that he was seeing only only one side of the issue.
Fr. Ernesto,
FWIW, I prefer the Orthodox priestly garments (in your rotating photos) to the Catholic ones. Baptist garments, however, are far, far more biblical. They have no traditional garb. 🙂
Hmm, that certainly would not be the Old Testament stance. 🙂 Would you agree that vestments were quite Biblical from Moses through to Jesus’ death? Notice that I am carefully not bringing up the issue of the New Testament.