How to defend our cause? How to promote our cause?
Epiphany VI - Sunday February 12th, 2006
(by Rev. Glenn Brown)
So, you are reading through a major magazine and you see a full-page spread of characters in a setting that is just like the famous painting of the Last Supper. But the characters are insects. The caption reads, “Their last supper.” It is an advertisement for a bug spray. As a Christian, are you offended? How offended? Does this advertisement degrade your religion? Do you think that it was put out with or without the intention of offending the religion? If the offence was not intended, i.e., not the purpose, but it offends you anyway, should you call upon the advertiser and the magazine to apologize and withdraw? Or do you feel that the freedoms we cherish include making money by lowering the public respect for a very sacred moment in our religion? Does it make any difference that this advertisement has taken place?
You are in Italy, where legislation has just been enacted making it legal for all stores to be open on Sunday. Ikea places a full-page ad in your newspaper, that says, “There is no religion anymore.” How do you react? Is this a note of business triumph over religion? Is it OK for them to trumpet their victory? Do you feel ridiculed? Are you offended at the obvious inaccuracy of the statement?
“I have the right to publicly ridicule any religion or philosophy,” says Mr. Bean in England. Is he right? Does anyone have the “right” to ridicule another?
Now that you have considered these examples, what is your feeling about the publication of a drawing of Mohammed with his turban as a bomb? Does a newspaper have a right to do something known to be offensive to a religion? If it is know to give offense, is it satisfactory to apologize for having given offence, but to claim that offense was not intended, and therefore the paper was right to publish the drawing? Does not freedom of expression include, as Mr. Bean says, the right to deliberately ridicule (one assumes that people are offended at being ridiculed) a religion? We assume that it is OK to ridicule politicians or others. What about religion? Is there something peculiar about it which ought to merit more respect than politicians?
Well, you might argue, politicians are accountable to us, so they know they just have to put up with newspaper cartoons and the like. Is a religion accountable to anyone in the same way? Is it elected? No. Is it yours, to do with as you please? In some traditions, yes, in others, no. Is it anyone else’s, to do with as they please? I think that’s where we get into tricky.
If religions were not in the business of thrusting themselves into the social fabric, well then, probably we could insist on a hands-off policy from others. But we do, in the name of religion, insist on our right and perhaps obligation, to influence society, even to set boundaries. We ourselves probably assume that we do so for the good of the greater community, not just for the good of our religion. But those who are not of our faith probably don’t see it that way. Even if they assume, as we do, that our intentions toward society are to be beneficial, they may not agree that our actions are, and so they have the need and the right to oppose us, even using ridicule, in order to keep us from holding power over them.
But does this include the right to deliberately offend? Well, when we say that society needs to “improve,” from our perspective, or “repent” or “change,” does that perhaps offend those who feel that by their standards society is doing the right thing, thank you? After all, anytime we seek change, we are saying that the new thing is more beneficial than the old, and while we probably don’t intend to offend, we do intend to evaluate, perhaps even judge. How many of us can be told that we need to improve, without feeling offended? Does someone have the right to deliberately offend a religion? Perhaps that’s the only way to fight back.
Does someone have the right to physically injure or intimidate? No. Even if offended, intentionally or otherwise. Why not? Because the right to safety is a fundamental one, in our culture.
So then what when one culture’s way of living offends another’s? There is the rub, and that’s what tolerance and civic society are all about, finding the way to get along, even if not without strong disagreement. If we lose the independence and neutrality and control of the civic society, then all that is left to us is winning or losing.
We’ve been so long in Canada the dominant religion, the religion of the culture, that it is difficult for us to think differently. But let me call your attention to Jesus’ words in this morning’s passage, and see if we can find solution and wisdom in them.
Jesus encourages his would-be followers to be the salt of the earth, not to dominate the earth; to be the light on the hill, but not necessarily the light in every valley, etc. If, as he says, salt loses its saltiness, its distinctiveness, then what good is it? On the other hand, what good for everything to be salty? Not very healthy at all.
Much of our difficulty comes, I think, from the extraordinary forthrightness of right-wing religion, both in Christianity and in Islam, with the desire to be more than salt. I know where Christianity gets its push from: the injunction to baptize everyone; from the O.T. encouragement to bring everyone to our God; and from the sincere desire to save everyone from death. But Jesus and God seemed to be OK with the idea that some seed would not grow, that some people simply will not listen, and that some people simply will not perceive. There is choice in the matter. Our democratic society rebels at the thought that some people could make the wrong choice and suffer for it permanently. But apparently the choice does matter and have effect, so much does God respect our individuality.
The choice matters. I understand why liberal Protestantism insists on God’s mercy and chooses not to believe that God allows choices to stand. But our ways are not God’s ways, and that has all kinds of ramifications.
Of course that begs the question about the right religion. Let’s be careful of context in Scripture here. Jesus preached in a Jewish context. He did not compare himself to other religions, he did not establish his followers as a new religion. He preached the Jewish God of the Old Testament, and made some corrections. He did spread out so that non-Jews could receive the message of salvation, but he did not condemn on the basis of what their religion theirs might be; but only whether they met the needs of the sick, the clothesless, the prisoners, and so forth. The choices matter.
What if the choice is to honour another religion? The result is in God’s hands; it does not rest in our judgments.
Salt is the only thing that can be salt, but in a stew you may want additional spices. Does it surprise us that God may want more than one religion in Creation.
Now this may be more difficult for Muslims than for us, because, being the younger religion, they do take stances which evaluate us and find us wanting. But that’s their problem, not ours.
In the meantime, I’ll bet they are just as likely to feed the hungry as we are, and vice-versa.
So let us follow Jesus and be the salt of the earth. And let us leave the rest in God’s hands.
