Muddled US mideast policy

In the latest Capital Commentary from the Center for Public Justice, James W. Skillen asks, "Why Save Arafat?" Writes Skillen:

Last year, the U.S. joined with the European Union, Russia, and the U.N. to endorse a "road map" to an eventual Middle East peace settlement. Then, suddenly, in the middle of April, without consulting the other three partners or considering the Palestinians, the president endorsed an Israeli plan by Sharon to annex permanently some sizable, illegal, Israeli settlements in the West Bank and to remove Israeli settlers in Gaza sometime next year. Most of the deal violates 40 years of U.S. and international agreements. Senator, and presidential candidate, John Kerry, also endorsed the plan.

On April 27, following the Bush-Sharon meeting, 100 former British diplomats, hardly America's enemies, wrote to Prime Minister Tony Blair, to express dismay. The "new policies" announced by Bush and Sharon "are one-sided and illegal and...will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood."

Do Bush and Kerry imagine that U.S. interests in freedom, democracy, peace, and oil can all be secured with only one Middle East ally amidst growing anti-Americanism both in and far beyond that region?

Philpott and sovereignty

Last week I obtained a copy of Daniel Philpott, Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations. Philpott teaches at my alma mater, the University of Notre Dame, where he is assistant professor of political science and director of undergraduate studies. I was given his name and alerted to the existence of his book by one of my contacts at Princeton last month. I understand he is a serious Christian grappling with the relationship between faith and international politics. He received his PhD from Harvard in 1996 and looks very young from his photograph. He is someone to watch out for in the future, as I am sure we will be hearing more from him. Students with an eye to graduate studies in international relations might cast their eyes in the direction of South Bend, Indiana, thus following others who have done the same.

Infant baptism

Few people know this, but I was baptized twice, once as an infant in a Presbyterian church and again 11 years later in a Baptist church. Much later again, after returning to my Reformed roots, I came to see my "second baptism" as a reaffirmation of my earlier baptism. Here is Hughes Oliphant Old on baptism:

Baptism when it is administered to children is a particularly clear sign that God out of his grace has taken the initiative for our salvation. If the classical Reformers of sixteenth-century Protestantism continued the practice of administering baptism to infants, it was because they had a very strong theology of grace. While the Reformers were strongly Augustinian, their opponents were openly Pelagian! The Anabaptists believed in decisional regeneration. That is, they believed one is saved by making a decision for Christ. There is a big difference between decisional regeneration and justification by faith. While the baptism of infants was perfectly consistent with a strong doctrine of grace and with the doctrine of justification by faith, it was not consistent with any kind of theology that makes salvation a matter of human decisions (Worship Reformed according to Scripture, p. 19).

While Old might have put the matter a bit less provocatively, I believe he is fundamentally correct to tie baptism to God's grace rather than to our own decision. I myself have always been conscious of belonging to Christ. To be sure, I have had moments of heightened sensitivity to my own sins and to the need for conversion. But these did not and could not save me. God's grace did that.

‘I’m personally opposed, but. . .'

The following opinion piece was published as part of my Principalities & Powers column in the 22 September 2003 issue of Christian Courier:

In 1984 the then-governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, made a famous speech at the University of Notre Dame, one of the best known Catholic universities in the United States. As a Catholic Christian himself, Gov. Cuomo used the occasion to clarify the way his faith affected his conduct in public office, particularly with respect to the abortion issue. Recognizing that his church condemns abortion in no uncertain terms, he affirmed his church’s teaching, indicating that he and his wife would never themselves have considered ending a pregnancy prematurely. Yet as a public office-holder, he believed it improper to impose his personal moral beliefs on others. In this way he justified his own pro-choice position on the issue.

Since then many other Christians in public office have taken the same approach, which amounts to saying, “I’m personally opposed, but. . . .” This strategy is almost always applauded by the secular media, whose representatives are formed from their earliest days by the assumption that religion is a purely private matter, never to intrude upon ordinary political discourse. When someone enters the political arena claiming to favour a particular position, and if it is known that her religion plays a role in this, the secularist mindset invariably cries foul.

In a recent National Post opinion piece, Claire Hoy pointed out the incongruity of this response. After all, every political agenda entails the imposition of a particular policy on one’s fellow citizens who may disagree with it. Thus when Brian Mulroney’s Conservatives won the 1988 election, they quite naturally used the opportunity to impose free trade with the United States on this country, despite the fact that it was disliked by anti-free-traders. Yet even among the latter, few claimed that Mulroney was doing something intrinsically wrong or undemocratic.

However, it is only when a political leader’s motives are known to be overtly religious in origin that this “imposition” is suddenly deemed illegitimate. Yet Mary Ann Glendon argues that when people advance their moral viewpoints in the political arena, they are proposing, not imposing. This is simply what democracy is about: citizens propose their preferred policy alternatives and defend them in public debate, after which they are voted on and implemented. “It’s a very strange doctrine,” writes Glendon, “that would silence only religiously grounded moral viewpoints.” By contrast, justice requires that, if secularists of the various ideological persuasions are permitted to advance their own agendas, so also should be the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Christian Coalition, and similar groups.

In a way one can understand secularists attempting to exclude from political deliberation those viewpoints that would explicitly undermine their own hegemony. For the past three centuries the followers of the secular ideologies have looked upon traditional religions as deeply divisive, seeing themselves as better positioned to keep domestic peace than their Jewish, Christian and Muslim fellow citizens. Thus they have no difficulty privileging their own point of view above that of these others.

However, it is harder to see why so many Christians have acquiesced in their own marginalization in the public square. Why would Gov. Cuomo so easily accept the secularists’ terms by sidelining his own moral convictions concerning the protection of the unborn? The cynical answer is that the abortion issue was simply not all that close to his heart, and there may well be something to that. But, more to the point, he and many other Christians are part of a culture where the marginalization of one’s ultimate beliefs is understood to be the normal state of affairs. The time has come to break through this apparent normality and to open up the public square.

What? A king for the US?

Many of us have probably heard of the Monarchist League of Canada. Since Canada is a constitutional monarchy, its role would seem clear enough. But check out these links: Monarchist Society of America and The Constantinian Society. Whom would they place on this nonexistent throne? Are there any claimants?

Cyprus unity very far away

There are always at least two sides to an issue. Turkish-Cypriots favoured the UN plan, while Greek-Cypriots decisively repudiated it yesterday. The EU, UN, US, &c., are now frustrated with the Greek side. Some are asking: "Do Greek Cypriots want a unification deal at all?" I will, of course, have more to say about all this at some point.

Isaac Watts


Christian Biography Resources

Here is a wonderful liturgical resource: The Psalms and Hymns of Isaac Watts. I will obviously have to add this link to my Genevan Psalter webpages. Here is a sample from this rich collection by the 18th-century hymn writer:

PSALM 23

My Shepherd is the living Lord;
Now shall my wants be well supplied;
His providence and holy word
Become my safety and my guide.

In pastures where salvation grows
He makes me feed, he makes me rest;
There living water gently flows,
And all the food's divinely blest.

My wand'ring feet his ways mistake,
But he restores my soul to peace,
And leads me, for his mercy's sake,
In the fair paths of righteousness.

Though I walk through the gloomy vale
Where death and all its terrors are,
My heart and hope shall never fail,
For God my Shepherd's with me there.

Amidst the darkness and the deeps
Thou art my comfort, thou my stay;
Thy staff supports my feeble steps,
Thy rod directs my doubtful way.

The sons of earth, and sons of hell,
Gaze at thy goodness, and repine
To see my table spread so well
With living bread and cheerful wine.

How I rejoice when on my head
Thy Spirit condescends to rest!
'Tis a divine anointing, shed
Like oil of gladness at a feast.

Surely the mercies of the Lord
Attend his household all their days;
There will I dwell to hear his word,
To seek his face, and sing his praise.

Cypriots at the polls

I wonder how many Cypriots on either side of the green line have read the exceedingly lengthy Annan Plan For Cyprus Settlement - Full Text? Probably as many as have read the equally lengthy 1960 Constitution. Greek and Turkish Cypriots go to the polls today to vote on the Annan Plan.

Anniversaries

One year ago yesterday I began this blog, which I initially named, Notes from Above Ground (a play on Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground), but quickly changed to Notes from a Byzantine-Rite Calvinist.

Today is the one-year anniversary of the sudden and unexpected opening of the green line in Cyprus, allowing people on both sides to travel back and forth for the first time in almost three decades. Much has happened since then, but not nearly enough.

Bishops of Cyprus should read Skillen

Readers of this blog know that I think highly of James W. Skillen and his writings. Here is something from the latest issue of the Public Justice Report, articulating the Center for Public Justice's understanding of its own mission, and the limitations of that mission:

We, like many other Americans, wish we had the answers to all questions and could simply declare what is just and unjust in all situations. But that is not the case and never will be. Humans have been called by God to act justly, to govern wisely for the public good, and to be the kind of citizens who give as much attention to the welfare of their civic neighbors as they do to themselves. But what this means in any given policy area cannot be known ahead of time or from outside the arena of public responsibility. Moreover, we are all sinners, often blinded by selfishness and bad judgment.

For these and other reasons, even with the Center's statements of principle we will never claim that the Center is doing or speaking God's will. We claim no more than that we are trying to respond in obedience to God's call to do justice. And we fully expect and hope that others will respond by affirming or challenging the stances we take and the arguments we publish. That is the way to strengthen Christian civic responsibility.

Perhaps the bishops of the Church of Cyprus need to read this and take some lessons about the role of Christians in the political realm.

First lesson: Prudential judgements on concrete political issues are always fallible and should be advanced with humility. The principles undergirding such judgements, e.g., the rule of law, the need to punish crime and protection of the vulnerable, are on a firmer footing. But we will always disagree when it comes to application of these principles.

Second lesson: Ecclesiastical officers are not in the best position, structurally speaking, to make such prudential judgements. To begin with, they lack sufficient information, unlike government policy-makers. But, more seriously, their offices, along with the tasks that go with them, are limited. Clerics properly give voice to the biblical call to do justice. When they start to apply those principles themselves, blessing and anathematizing Christians who agree or disgree respectively, they are pushing the normative bounds of their offices pretty far. Better to have Christians organized separately for political purposes.

Pro-natal policies needed?

Here is a story with huge implications for the future but which few are making much of: "Canada's Birthrate Falls to Lowest Since Records Began in 1921." There are, of course, all sorts of legitimate reasons why specific couples may choose fewer children. Yet I wonder whether over the long term we will be forced to re-examine our priorities in light of the coming apparent decline in population. This may prompt a reorientation of government policies as well, particularly with respect to abortion and tax incentives encouraging larger families. We may be made to ask fundamental questions, for example, whether there is a responsibility -- and perhaps even a duty -- to produce the next generation or whether it can simply be left as a matter of personal choice and public indifference.

A captive church

In my introductory level course on political ideologies, I admit to my students that, while I can see good in virtually every ideology, I have a blind spot when it comes to nationalism. I have difficulty seeing any good in nationalism, particularly the ethnic variety. This is due to the role Greek nationalism played in dividing the island of Cyprus and making it difficult, if not impossible, for the two ethnic communities to live together. I have argued in my book that Christians, above all people, have resources enabling them to see through the attractions of the secular ideologies. Unfortunately, it is often the followers of Jesus Christ, who ought to know better, who have succumbed to the allures of nationalism.

There are few things that can get my blood boiling more than this sort of story: "Bishop warns ‘yes’ voters will go to hell," from the Cyprus Mail.

Be good and you will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, said Jesus. Vote ‘yes’ in the referendum on the Annan plan on Saturday and you will go to hell – or so says the [exiled] Bishop of Kyrenia.

On Sunday, he warned Greek Cypriots they faced damnation if they approved the UN plan.

"Those who say ‘yes’ will be party to this injustice, will lose their homeland and the kingdom of heavens," Bishop Pavlos said in a sermon on Sunday.

He went on to criticise those politicians who were in favour of the plan, saying “they want to sway the people into adopting their own submissive stance, but the people cannot be fooled”.

As if that weren't enough, Chrysostomos, Bishop of Paphos, is adding fuel to the fire his colleague started:

“I am positive that on May 1 we shall enter the European Union. That which we failed to achieve back in 1955-1959, namely Enosis (union) with the motherland Greece, we shall achieve through EU membership.

“I have invited all freedom fighters of the 1955-59 period to come to the bishopric after mass, at 10 o’clock; the bishopric’s fridges are packed with champagne bottles, and we shall crack them open to celebrate Cyprus’ enosis with Greece.”

The reference to enosis alludes to the long campaign, spearheaded by the Orthodox Church of Cyprus, to unite the island with Greece. After Great Britain gained control of Cyprus in 1878, Cypriots began agitating for London to cede it to the Greek kingdom which had been established half a century earlier. This was part of the Meghali Idhea, or Great Idea, which proposed to unify all Greek Orthodox Christians under a single political rule -- tantamount to a revival of the Byzantine Empire at the expense of the muslim Ottoman Empire. The Church was at the forefront of this effort.

In 1948 the Labour government in Britain offered Cyprus, along with a number of other British-controlled territories, a full measure of self-government short of complete independence. The Church of Cyprus campaigned against this, demanding either enosis or nothing. Needless to say, they received nothing. This has been the strategy of the church ever since. Rather than being a force for peace and reconciliation, the church has blocked any sort of compromise falling short of their ideal notion of hellenic unity. Had Cypriots been more politically savvy and accepted the 1948 proposal, they would have bought themselves some time to come up with a longterm solution to the problem of Cyprus' status -- something that would have been acceptable to the ethnic Turkish minority in the island. In the meantime, both Greek and Turkish Cypriots would have acquired valuable experience in the art of politics, defined by Bernard Crick as the peaceful conciliation of diversity rather than as the use of the coercive power of government to reach for an impossible ideal.

The Church's activities over the last more than half a century have made matters considerably worse for ordinary Cypriots, both Greek and Turkish. Bishops are claiming God's stamp of approval for their own shortsighted aspirations, which someone less charitable than I might be inclined to label blasphemous. The flag of Greece flies outside church buildings and monasteries, in preference to the admittedly pedestrian flag of the Cyprus Republic. A contact in the island reports to me that this has only served to empty the pews of the churches.

The Orthodox Church has not fallen for some of the crazier trends affecting protestant churches, particularly those positioning themselves within the somewhat misnamed mainline. Yet the genuine weakness of the Orthodox Church is precisely its tendency to embrace the various ethnic nationalisms that have so marred the political landscape in the Balkans and elsewhere.

Public Justice Report

The new issue of the Center for Public Justice's Public Justice Report (2nd quarter, 2004) is now on line. Here are the contents:

James W. Skillen, "Heaven Above and Our Way on Earth"

Mark A. Noll and James W. Skillen, "Religion and American Politics"

James W. Skillen, "Same-Sex 'Marriage' is Not a Civil Right"

"Faith, Jobs, and Social-Service Politics," an interview with Stanley Carlson-Thies and Stephen Lazarus

"Pledge of Allegiance and the First Amendment," excerpts from a brief filed by the Christian Legal Society, the Center for Public Justice and other organizations in the Newdow case currently before the US Supreme Court

James W. Skillen, "Religion, Elections, and the Public Justice Report."

Happy reading.

Another boost to your vocabulary

Relativism, n. a variant of ancestor worship.

Unwise strategy

This is not a smart move by the Canada Family Action Coalition: "Family coalition seeks halt to hate law: Robinson's theft cited by lobby group." If Robinson had proposed a law to protect the unborn, I doubt they would now be arguing against it on the grounds that he is an admitted thief.

What's going on? Am I missing something?

For some odd reason I keep seeing all these cars driving around bearing little flags with a white maple leaf on a blue field. Either this has something to do with hockey or they're reopening the four-decade-old flag debate.

Two federal elections this year?

Will Stephen Harper be forced to relive Joe Clark's 1979 humiliation? Chantal Hébert speculates about the increasing possibility of a hung parliament and a shortlived Conservative minority government: "Election nightmare shapes up for Harper."

A musical blog?

Well, maybe not. At least not all the time.

Settling for indefinite warfare

Here is Tamar Mayer on the latest "peace overture" by Bush and Sharon: "A perilous line to be drawing." Writes Mayer:

Territorial homelands, where nations believe they were born, are crucial. They differentiate us from them and here from there. Boundaries that mark national territory, whether real or imagined, are intertwined with identity, collective memory, myths about the nation's creation - and security. To protect the nation's territory, its boundaries must be well defined.

In Israel, this has never been the case. For thousands of years the Jewish nation has had a clear notion that its ancestral homeland is in Zion, but the boundaries of the homeland were never clearly defined - not on the ground and not in the nation's mind. . . .

[T]he United States, Israel and the other signers of the 1993 Oslo Accords were careful not to discuss specific boundaries. They never mentioned directly the 1949-1967 borders, or the Green Line, referring to these areas instead as the West Bank and the Gaza strip. . . .

Now we seem to be on the verge of something more final. While previous U.S. administrations engaged Israel in discussions about withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, the Bush administration appears to support Sharon's settlement policies, his plan to annex parts of the West Bank and his vision of a Greater Israel. . . . The great risk is that with Sharon's new map imposed in perpetuity, the bloodshed will continue in perpetuity as well.

From China back to Jerusalem

Could 100,000 Chinese Christians complete the evangelization of the globe in our lifetime? Read Mark Earley on "An Army of Worms: Completing the Circuit to Jerusalem." The title of the movement is Back to Jerusalem. Why?

Back to Jerusalem gets its name from the fact that, since Pentecost, the Gospel has primarily spread westward from Jerusalem — first to Europe, then the Americas, then to the Far East. But there is “no firmly established church” among the two billion people in the area from China’s western border back to Christianity’s origination point. So thousands of Chinese Christians sense God nudging them westward to complete the circuit “back to Jerusalem.”

Perhaps Philip Jenkins will see fit to include this effort in a future second edition of The Next Christendom.