 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
September 2001
LettersOn reductionismThe July issue of The Interim contained two interesting articles on page 5 - "Is Canada unremittingly hostile to conservatism?" and "Democracy now seen as freedom without limits," a review of William Gairdner's latest book. The analysis in these articles was interesting, but the conclusions troubling. The first article and Gairdner's book conveyed the message that the way to solve Canada's (socio-political) problems is through socio-political means. The real solution is a spiritual "revolution." To say that the solution is simply moral, or socio-political, is to be guilty of a radical reductionism of the biblical message of redemption and renewal - at least from a historical evangelical position.Some people may say that we all know the underlying solution is a spiritual awakening so we don't have to say so again. My concern is that we don't all know that and furthermore, we don't all agree as to what constitutes a legitimate spiritual awakening. I think that this is perhaps the heart of the problem. This is where the unity that exists in the pro-life and social conservative movements breaks down. This is because when we look at the level of spiritual awakening with questions about redemption, reconciliation with God and spiritual life, it is here that the distinctions among evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox, and even sub-groups within those classifications, begin to make themselves known. It may be quite appropriate not to wave these points in each other's faces in a group of people that have come together from many different traditions, but neither should we have to - and we shouldn't accept any pressure to - waffle on them either, or to pretend they are of lesser import just because they aren't front and centre amongst us from day to day. Yet, this is what we do if we approach issues from a reductionist viewpoint, as I believe is respected in Gairdner's thinking and a lot of talk I hear in conservative political circles. A better alternative is to allow the articulation of the different views represented by those involved in the organization. If, using The Interim as an example, the paper uses a reductionist approach to address life issues in an attempt to satisfy it's various theological constituencies, it ends up representing none of them at the most basic level of their beliefs. Rather, it should encourage people to address issues, offering solutions, from the different perspectives represented in the movement. This shouldn't turn into a simple back-and-forth debate over religion. "Religious" principles should only be drawn upon to the extent that they develop the position being articulated on a specific life issue. In that way, The Interim could keep from turning itself into a religious publication, while yet allowing freer discourse at the "spiritual" level of discussion. An important aspect of my concern is the question of truth. Because the solution to the socio-political problems we see today are fundamentally spiritual, it is in fact untrue - false - to claim that they are simply "moral" and to imply that a solution is achievable outside of a spiritual reformation. Yet, as pro-lifers, we often say that we are confident that in the end we will win this battle because we are on the side of truth. Well, if I'm only on the side of truth sometimes, instead of all the time for fear of upsetting what (for want of a better phrase) I'll call ecumenical sensibilities, then I'm a hypocrite, and not on the side of truth at all. It might be nice for people from different religious traditions to come together to share a common purpose, but we have to come together in a way that doesn't compromise our more fundamental convictions. This might mean different things for different religious traditions. For me, as an evangelical and reformed Christian, one thing it means is not reducing Christianity to a mere moral, legal or socio-political formulation. Tim Bloedow O CanadaThere is only one headline that need take prominence in all front pages across this once-good land, for today, and for the foreseeable future. Evil officially takes a firm death grip of Canada and basks every day in her citizens' ambivalence. Just this week alone in Ontario ... a "baby-faced" teen sexually tortures a little girl, before murdering her, apparently with knife. A male parent of a baby girl gets 39 months in jail for ramming a bottle in her mouth and holding it until she drowns. A pedophile who is a self- admitted threat to society is released into society. A teenaged, shotgun-wielding attempted mass murderer is unco-operative with authorities over details and whereabouts of his weapon. Oh well, he has his rights.Who left the doors from hell wide open? Maybe the prominent commentator-journalist who blithers on radio about how the judge in the 39-month-case was a nice man, perhaps hardened to victims, but not to criminals. He was just following orders. Or maybe the smug legal system and legal "professionals" who set our moral bars, establish societal acceptance and run our political and democratic institutions. Or maybe society in general, which has lost all respect and love for its most vulnerable, its reason for being, its children ... our babies. We have sacrificed them for our own wants, our desires, and for - and to - our shame. But let's not lose our perverted and obsessive lifestyles, our perverted senses of humour, our perverted games, perverted tastes for entertainment and news and perverted priorities. I'm okay, you're okay and money, power and sex are our idols. Paul Gordon Interim partisan?After reading the July 2001 edition of The Interim, I find it very difficult not to believe that The Interim has become a surrogate of Stockwell Day and the Alliance Party. I realize that the views as expressed are not necessrily those of The Interim, but there are a preponderant number of writers (including editorial on page four) who sound more like they are promoting a "stock" speech than people who are championing pro-life. To suggest that the abortion laws would change if Day were to become prime minister is patently dishonest and politically naive - especially since he backed down when hard pressed by reporters during the election campaign. Why don't you stick to trying to change minds and hearts about the evils of abortion and promote healthy and realistic alternatives, instead of becoming a political surrogate for Day and the Alliance? If you were to the check the current polls you would realize you're backing the wrong politician.Ron EWTN on BellI am a subscriber and thank you for this outstanding magazine. I just learned from Bell Express Vu that it will be offering at least 30 more channels this fall, but EWTN will not be one of them. The company has a website where people can request channels. Maybe you could point that out to your readers. (It's www.expressvu.com). Thank you very much.Brigitte Quinke Toronto diocese and John TurnerCardinal Ambrozic is having his Annual Charity Dinner on Thursday evening, October 18, 2001 at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre starting at 6 p.m. Quite incredibly, the chairman of the dinner is former prime minister John Turner, the justice minister under Pierre Trudeau, who guided the 1969 abortion amendment legislation more than 30 years ago. He has never publicly apoligized for this disgusting and dastardly act as a Catholic.I plan to picket the dinner starting at 5 p.m. in protest, similar to the picket in Hamilton earlier this year against former U.S. president Bill Clinton, another "pro-choice" politician, and as an expression of disappointment in Catholic organizations that would allow such "pro-choice" politicians to participate in their functions. No wonder pro-lifers in Canada are so marginalized. But enough is enough. Paul Vandervet |
|||
|
