When Christians engage in the public square--that is, in any public debate, whether in the local community or the parliament--some counsel we must become as secular as everyone else. We must win over the opposition using their frames of reference. We must appeal to natural law, reason, and common sense. We must check in our Christian guns before riding into town to the OK Corral.
Some claim biblical and apostolic warrant for such an approach. They argue from Acts 17 where Paul was in Athens, debating with Greeks in the agora, that this is precisely what the Apostle himself did. Consider the following:
What can we glean from this encounter? St. Paul, without compromising his message, tailored it to his audience. He spoke in Hellenistic rather than Judaic terms, as a philosopher more than as a Christian theologian, in a manner that engaged them rather than repelled them. He relied on common grace rather than on the knowledge and acceptance of Christian doctrine. "I have become all things to all men," he says in the book of Corinthians, "So that by all possible means I might save some." [Michael Gerson, Peter Wehner, City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era (Chicago: Moody Press, 2010) p. 117.]This is a simplistic, unsatisfactory reading of the text. It is not an uncommon one, however. A careful reading will quickly show the error of Gerson's and Wehner's view.
Firstly, when Paul went to Athens we are told that he was provoked within himself--he was greatly disturbed--when he saw the city was full of idols. (Acts 17:16). Clearly, Paul was not checking his biblical guns in to the officials whilst strolling around the public square of Athens. Paul did not adopt the persona of the urbane Greek or Roman: idols and deities are little more than childish superstitions to us more educated folk. Let's disregard them for what they are, and discuss the deeper philosophical questions of the day. No, he immediately began to engage with both Jews and Greeks in the city, preaching Jesus and the resurrection. The idolatry upset him.
The Epicureans and the Stoics thought he was so barmy they called him a "babbler". Not much common ground there. When he did get to speak in the Areopagus, he began his remarks by confronting them head on. He could not have commenced with a more objectionable opening (to the ears of his audience). He mocks them for their stupidity. "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship. I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god'. What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you." (Acts 17:23) You Athenians are so superstitious, you worship what you don't know. And I am going to tell you that which you, in your ignorance, don't know. So much for doffing the hat to unbelieving worldly philosophies.
Paul goes on to proclaim to them the God who created all things, and Who requires that all men should seek Him, has now declared that He will no longer tolerate or overlook the times of ignorance in which the Athenians are walking (Acts 17: 30). He has appointed a Judge of all other men. The day of judgment has also been fixed. God is commanding that all men, including you Athenians, repent of your ignorance and your superstition, and He is commanding you to worship Him. The proof that the Day of Judgment has been set and that the Judge of all has been appointed is the resurrection of that man from the dead. (Acts 17:31).
Some mocked. Others said they wanted to hear more. Now compare this actual Scriptural account of Paul at Athens with the gleanings of Gerson and Wehner. They are reading into the text what they want to find. They are not being its faithful servants. Paul did precisely the opposite of what these two authors allege he did. He confronted the Athenians in their unbelief, warned them of the coming judgment, and urged them to repent. Whilst reasoning, his argument was thoroughly biblical leaping right out of the pages and scrolls of divine revelation.
It is a great, abiding shame that if ever there was an age in which Christian reasoning in the public square can and must be tied to God and His Christ and His holy Word, it is ours. Maybe it would be possible for Christians to appeal to common sense, or shared commitments, or natural theology and to make headway were society predominantly Christian. In such times, even Unbelievers think and act as if they were men of the Christian faith. But no longer. We live in an age far more like that which confronted the Apostle in Athens.
But by God's good hand, our age is not just an age of Unbelief, it has become an age when all truth is regarded as unknown in an absolute sense. It is all relative. It is all ultimately a personal perspective. Mere perspectivalism, not mere Christianity, rules. That's precisely what confronted Paul in Athens: a town replete with idols of every type, shape, and dogma. Such a society cannot ban--at least initially--the Christian and his faith from the public square. To the modern Unbeliever, it is just one more perspective, one more view.
The Christian thus has immediate authenticity when he declares, "I am a Christian, and from my perspective of belief, the following is true . . . " Then can come a declaration of absolute and final truth to which all men will be accountable. In other words, it can come as a rejection of all relativism--even as Paul's oration rejected all idolatry and the Pantheon.
When we engage in the public square in such a fashion, there will be two responses: some will say, "Let's hear more about this." Others will mock. When that happens we know that we have been faithful Christians in an age of Unbelief.
No comments:
Post a Comment