Op-Eds: Guest Editorials
Fort Myers News-Press,
August, 2003; November, 2001
Basically an example of written persuasion, the Op-Ed is a time-honored way for a writer to express himself in the "public square".

Click photo thumbnails to enlarge.

 Printer-Friendly Page       Close Window

Christianity does offer guide for living a public life

With an admirable mix of courage and candor, columnist Charley Reese rightly decries "cafeteria Christianity," then smoothly sidles up to the steam table to serve up his own concoction of convoluted logic.

In his Aug. 12 column, "Christian scripture can't be picked through like a buffet," Charley, like many sensible Americans, is appalled by the Episcopal Church's determination to "have the benefits of both sin and salvation."

Unfortunately, Charley's premise (Christianity is directed to the individual; therefore Christians should not attempt to meddle in public affairs) is part of the problem. He fails to realize an inescapable truth: The culture is having more influence on the church than the church is having on the culture. The Episcopalians are a sterling example of that reality. 

While decrying the effects of that truth, Charley eventually reveals the axe he is grinding: Christians (especially evangelicals) should stay out of the public square. He even turns theologian, labeling such activity "heresy." This common postmodern mentality is called "privatization" (one's religious beliefs are personal and should not enter into the decision making process as it relates to culture or government).

Charley wrongly states that the Bible is silent on political problems like slavery. That argument failed miserably 150 years ago. It doesn't fare any better today.  

For someone who admonishes modern Christians to "reread" their Bibles (a good idea, actually), Charley seems to have missed large portions of the Old Testament, where the Jewish God, "Yaweh," was intensely interested in the moral character and makeup of Israel's political system. Yaweh's insistence on humane treatment of foreigners, widows and the poor was radically different from most civilizations of 3,000 years ago. The 10 Commandments weren't too shabby, either. 

As for his assessment of New Testament Christianity, he is correct when he contends that Jesus' focus was on the interior condition of one's heart. Importantly, however, the columnist forgets that Jesus also turned the Jewish political/religious system upside down, calling their leaders "vipers," and challenging the Roman ruler, Pilate to confront "truth." And he did it from inside the system, all the while affirming a government's right to rule ("Render unto Caesar…"). 

Jesus' instructions to his followers to be "salt and light," and like a "city on a hill," do not indicate a low profile posture toward the world they lived in. 

Charley makes an undeniably valid point, however, when he lambastes the preaching of "hate and intolerance." The sad lessons learned by the religious right through the inflammatory tactics of the 1990s Christian Coalition's earliest political efforts, and the confrontational, polarizing approach of some anti-abortion groups have taught us that overzealousness (even in the pursuit of good causes) can often be counterproductive.
Does this mean, as he suggests, that Christians have no right to attempt to influence society? Hardly. As in any worthwhile endeavor, we learn from our mistakes and adjust accordingly (a core tenet of the Gospel). 

Bemoaning the reality of empty cathedrals in Europe, Charley uncharitably labels evangelical Christians as "cults," failing to realize that they have stood in the gap by offering sanctuary to the millions of Bible believing Americans streaming out of the "orthodox" churches Charley urges his readers to seek out. 

Citing the "gradual destruction of Christianity," he paints an inaccurate picture. Christianity, as a world religion, continues to grow (about 10 percent per year), not diminish. Writing an epitaph for Christianity is premature. Voltaire (considerably more influential than Reese) predicted that Christianity would be a "forgotten" religion within 100 years. He made that prediction more than 200 years ago. In a wonderful irony, today, one of Voltaire's homes is owned by a French Bible Society. Meanwhile, a third of the Earth's population calls itself Christian. 

I applaud Charley's call to personal accountability, but his isolationist advice to Christians is scripturally unsound and will only lead to more cultural concessions. That would be to the detriment of society as a whole, not just Christianity.

End

Leading American Thinkers not among ranks of atheists
Perpetuating myths opposite of 'free thinking'

Re: "Terrible free thinkers," Paul Coventry, July 31. Mr. Coventry's list of "atheists, agnostics and freethinkers who did not stand under God" included several of America's "founding fathers" who were outspoken theists (believed in God) and, did, indeed, stand "under God." 

The inclusion of John Adams, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the above list, while regrettably revealing Mr. Coventry's faulty research, admirably demonstrates myth No. 1: America's founders were actually atheistic intellectuals who rejected religious thinking and "God," wanting no part of either in their personal lives, their culture or the government they framed. 

This myth became prominent in the latter half of the 20th century as it was woven together from threads containing a little truth (as many of the best myths are) to counter the theist's arguments in the "separation of church and state" debate. Whichever side of that issue you opt for, accurately assessing the times, the mind set and the values that informed our nation's founders is essential to an educated decision. 

Benjamin Franklin, addressing George Washington at the Constitutional Convention, June 28,1787, declared, "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth that God governs in the affairs of men." 

Was every one of our founding fathers a Christian in the strictest sense? Most, but not all were. Did each read and study the Bible and believe in the God it described? Absolutely.
Additionally, one should note that Galileo (also on the list) was a devout believer in God. His rejection of Aristotelian philosophy also met with resistance from the secular world, besides running him afoul of the pope. In spite of shameful treatment at the hands of the religious establishment, Galileo never rejected his faith 

Mr. Coventry's implication is not lost on this reader. His list contained many famous atheists and he later suggests that to be surrounded by thinkers such as these would be preferable to a theist mind set that "welcomed with open arms" the likes of Adolph Hitler. This facile version of history is a classic "straw man" argument, meant to conceal a clever bit of ideological sleight of hand. 

In the early 1930s, it is true that the survival minded Vatican was slow to decide which was the greater evil Hitler's fascism, ox Russia's communism (both atheistic at their core). While Hitler attempted to use German churches for his own purposes, it is important to note that the full monstrosity of Hitler's plan was not recognized by many nations (the United States included) until years after the Vatican took its rightful stance and condemned him. 

Hitler, however, was an atheist (somehow, he missed Mr. Coventry's list). He was a student of Friedrich Nietzsche and gave copies of Nietzsche's works to Mussolini and Stalin. Hitler was no friend of Christendom, and to imply any level of ideological equivalence is deceptive, at best. 

Mr. Coventry goes on to state, "Dare to think for yourself, and all great things are possible." Bereft of any objective moral or religious framework, that is exactly what Hitler did, and look at the "great things" he accomplished. 

This brings us to the underlying message implicit in his letter. 21st century cultural myth No. 2: Theistic thinkers are intellectually inferior to "freethinking" atheistic thinkers, i.e., a belief system that includes God is antithetical to reason, therefore inferior. 

Examine the following list of theists. It would appear that their belief in God did not relegate them to the brackish backwaters of intellectual and creative accomplishment.
Johann Sebastian Bach, Samuel Coleridge, Copernicus, Leonardo daVinci, Dante, Renee Descartes, Dostoyevsky, John Donne, Albert Einstein, Handel, Hayden, Martin Luther King, C.S. Lewis, Abraham Lincoln, Michelangelo, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Rembrandt, Albert Schweitzer, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Vincent Van Gogh and George Washington. 

Mr. Coventry rightly challenges, "Dare to think for yourself." I would suggest that before we endeavor to do so, we make sure that we are not bound by the embrace of current cultural myths.