Post 45--:
Wonderful Summer Weather
It’s been a wonderful summer here on Canada’s West Coast, though it was unusually slow in coming. I have loved it and spent a fair amount of time—weeks in fact—away from my desk and, hence, away from this blog. Visiting our kids and families in WA and near SF in CA with days of RV-“camping” in between. Since then, “backyard” RVing in southern BC—with more to come. If you like a moderate climate without extremes of heat and cold, then BC’s south-west coast and much of Vancouver Island is the place to be. So a bit of a lull, but one you can understand, I believe. But, while it’s still great summer stuff in the middle of September, here I am, once again slogging/blogging it out. This morning the temperatures are pleasant but the sky is cloudy, something we have not seen for a while—and have not missed. Welcome to Fall.
Writers about Secularism
I told you in the last post that I have a second pre-emption to share with you, a good thing about secularism. Secularism did not just pop up out of the West’s woodworks; it took centuries to develop, the story of which is told in great detail by Canada’s philosopher Charles Taylor in his tome A Secular Age. Kuyperians, among them “Father” Abraham Kuyper himself as well as the movement’s primal philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd and others, have also traced its historical development and exposed its roots, origins and influence.
Secularism as a Chastener
Secularism has lured many Christians into its trap and thereby seriously reduced the scope of their faith to the private, the home and the church, but it has also served as a corrector and chastener of Christianity. In volume 5 of my series Studies in Christian-Muslim Relations, I wrote that “secularism is at least partially the result of an aggressive and intolerant version of Christianity that needed chastening.” Of course, Christians were not the only ones to practice intolerance; it was a major human characteristic down through the centuries; it marked all civilizations. Tolerance and its child, pluralism, are of rather recent vintage everywhere.
Jonathan Chaplin
The British Kuyperian scholar Jonathan Chaplin, a one time faculty member of the Institute of Church & Society in Toronto, a Kuyperian tertiary institution, wrote,
Let me make it clear that the anxieties shared by many secular liberals about the impact of public religion are real ones. Some of them are mine too…. And let me alswo r3ecord that the response of early modern liberalism to public religion was compelling and necessary. In the 17th century religion was not only public, it was backed by force of arms. In such circumstances, we can see why moves to confine the public expression olf faith seemed so necessary. In time, Christians who had stoked up religious warfare were humbled and had to allow liberalism to teach it again what its own deepest principles had always implied: that authentic faith cannot and may not be coerced. So, a religious response to contemporary liberalism must begin by appreciating liberalism’s vital historical contribution to religious freedom and democracy.
In spite of my constant anti-secular bias in my writings, including this blog, I want this contribution of secularism recognised and remembered as we go along. Honour to whom honour is due!
Of course, since then, secularism has gone far beyond its original form and can now be legitimately described as intolerant, more so than most North American Christians. That’s the reason I frequently write negatively about it. But may I never forget their original chastening contribution to Western Christians. We needed it and deserved it. Thank you.
Showing posts with label secularism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label secularism. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Fixation on Secularism?
Post 44--: August 30 2011
Tim's Complaint
Tim is a good friend of mine and a long-time lecturer in theology. Under most other circumstances, what with his doctorate and many years of experience, he should have attained professorial status. As it is, he is teaching in a theological college in Nigeria that does not have provision for such rankings, though its academic level is fully equal to that of Nigeria’s public universities, if not higher. Tim recently commented to me that I seem to have a fixation on secularism. According to him, whenever I write, it is about something related to secularism. Whenever I open my mouth, the term “secularism” or some derivative comes out. A slight exaggeration, Tim, but only slight!
Complaint Accepted
Yes, I am deeply concerned about secularism. Putting his comment in a broader context and as I myself once remarked in a seminary chapel speech, we Kuyperian Calvinists seem to find a secularist or dualist behind every tree. Tim is thus not far off the mark. No matter what I write about or in what context, whether an entire 8-volume 2700+- page series on Christian-Muslim relations, magazine article, blog or public lecture, I just about always bring in the topic of secularism and often identify it as the main or basic culprit of whatever problem I may be writing or speaking about. And now you have this whole new blog with “secular” in its very name!
How This Works Out in Practice
Of course, I could counter Tim’s remark with the observation that, no matter what he writes or lectures about, it is almost sure to be about theology. It is not that Tim knows nothing but theology or I nothing but secularism, but Tim, for reasons of his own, has decided to specialize in theology, while I have picked on secularism as a major issue in many social problems that I write about. I may write an article or a blog without a singular overt reference to secularism, but you may find it lurking just around the corner—and usually seen from a negative perspective.I usually write about the general negatives or refer you to other discussions of mine on the subject in past or future posts.
Pre-Emption No. 1
But before I proceed with that, I want to pre-empt a couple of questions or objections to my negative stance towards secularism. I am not suggesting that all secularists are (potentially) bad or evil people, except in the general sense of being members of a fallen human race, of a race of creatures that somewhere in early distant history broke its covenant with God and since then is partially crippled in spirit, mind and body and thus potentially capable of every kind of evil. Even the generally humanistically inclined columnists in the Vancouver Sun, the people with whom I often respond to in my blogs, in response to the recent Vancouver hockey riots and to the Norwegian home-grown terrorist attack, are admitting that, given the right circumstances or stimuli, most of us, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, religious or secular, can turn vicious, violent and downright evil. You don’t have to look far for examples; history is full of them.
My Secular Friends
But most of us also have the potential for good, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, religious or secular. Though I regret their secularism, I have some very good secular friends for whom I have the highest respect and in whose company I delight. They are the finest humanists you can possibly find: decent, kind, compassionate, cultured, tolerant and a whole lot more positives. But as much as I appreciate them and delight in their company, there is always a deep chasm between us that we have agreed to acknowledge and accept. This covenant makes for challenging discussions of which we seldom tire. I thank them for this unique opportunity of rich human experience and sharing. Thus, when in these blogs and other writings I strongly disagree with secularism and its adherents and, not infrequently, become somewhat harsh, let these friends remember that, though they adhere to the worldview I attack repeatedly, I am also aware that not all secularists are proud and antagonistic to the worldview I represent in these blogs. One of them has often referred to me as an exceptionally tolerant Christian, but not quite. My tolerance is not so exceptional; it is typical of many Kuyperian Christians with our strong sense of pluralism. And from what they tell me about the reaction of their fellow Humanists to our joint project, I deduct that these friends are exceptional among their peers.
The second pre-emption will be featured in Post 45.
Tim's Complaint
Tim is a good friend of mine and a long-time lecturer in theology. Under most other circumstances, what with his doctorate and many years of experience, he should have attained professorial status. As it is, he is teaching in a theological college in Nigeria that does not have provision for such rankings, though its academic level is fully equal to that of Nigeria’s public universities, if not higher. Tim recently commented to me that I seem to have a fixation on secularism. According to him, whenever I write, it is about something related to secularism. Whenever I open my mouth, the term “secularism” or some derivative comes out. A slight exaggeration, Tim, but only slight!
Complaint Accepted
Yes, I am deeply concerned about secularism. Putting his comment in a broader context and as I myself once remarked in a seminary chapel speech, we Kuyperian Calvinists seem to find a secularist or dualist behind every tree. Tim is thus not far off the mark. No matter what I write about or in what context, whether an entire 8-volume 2700+- page series on Christian-Muslim relations, magazine article, blog or public lecture, I just about always bring in the topic of secularism and often identify it as the main or basic culprit of whatever problem I may be writing or speaking about. And now you have this whole new blog with “secular” in its very name!
How This Works Out in Practice
Of course, I could counter Tim’s remark with the observation that, no matter what he writes or lectures about, it is almost sure to be about theology. It is not that Tim knows nothing but theology or I nothing but secularism, but Tim, for reasons of his own, has decided to specialize in theology, while I have picked on secularism as a major issue in many social problems that I write about. I may write an article or a blog without a singular overt reference to secularism, but you may find it lurking just around the corner—and usually seen from a negative perspective.I usually write about the general negatives or refer you to other discussions of mine on the subject in past or future posts.
Pre-Emption No. 1
But before I proceed with that, I want to pre-empt a couple of questions or objections to my negative stance towards secularism. I am not suggesting that all secularists are (potentially) bad or evil people, except in the general sense of being members of a fallen human race, of a race of creatures that somewhere in early distant history broke its covenant with God and since then is partially crippled in spirit, mind and body and thus potentially capable of every kind of evil. Even the generally humanistically inclined columnists in the Vancouver Sun, the people with whom I often respond to in my blogs, in response to the recent Vancouver hockey riots and to the Norwegian home-grown terrorist attack, are admitting that, given the right circumstances or stimuli, most of us, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, religious or secular, can turn vicious, violent and downright evil. You don’t have to look far for examples; history is full of them.
My Secular Friends
But most of us also have the potential for good, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, religious or secular. Though I regret their secularism, I have some very good secular friends for whom I have the highest respect and in whose company I delight. They are the finest humanists you can possibly find: decent, kind, compassionate, cultured, tolerant and a whole lot more positives. But as much as I appreciate them and delight in their company, there is always a deep chasm between us that we have agreed to acknowledge and accept. This covenant makes for challenging discussions of which we seldom tire. I thank them for this unique opportunity of rich human experience and sharing. Thus, when in these blogs and other writings I strongly disagree with secularism and its adherents and, not infrequently, become somewhat harsh, let these friends remember that, though they adhere to the worldview I attack repeatedly, I am also aware that not all secularists are proud and antagonistic to the worldview I represent in these blogs. One of them has often referred to me as an exceptionally tolerant Christian, but not quite. My tolerance is not so exceptional; it is typical of many Kuyperian Christians with our strong sense of pluralism. And from what they tell me about the reaction of their fellow Humanists to our joint project, I deduct that these friends are exceptional among their peers.
The second pre-emption will be featured in Post 45.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Secularism—A Major Cause for Hockey Riot (3)
Post 40--:
My Connection with Sports
I promise: this is the last one on Vancouver’s hockey riot. It’s the closest thing I have ever written about sports and its associated culture and certainly the most—4 posts. I did not know I had it in me, for sports is not a major factor in my life, though I do enjoy watching a game on TV now and then and even try to attend a live game once or twice a year, games other than hockey: especially baseball, soccer or tennis. I watched a lot of Vancouver’s Winter Olympics on TV and was intentionally sucked into its very exciting atmosphere. After all, the major street crowds were less than fifteen minutes walking from where I live, as was this year’s hockey riot. While the Olympics were very orderly and made Vancouver proud, the aftermath of the final hockey game was anything but that and made the city bow its head in shame. So, yes, both about sports, but very different events, not to say opposite.
Questions
However, different as these events turned out, they generated the same question in my mind and the same tentative suspicion. The question is the same that thousands of people are asking, including columnists in our local press: How could this have happened? When I try to formulate the question to make it appropriate for both events, it becomes: How can so many people, a whole city, be so infatuated and caught up in sports, so influenced by it? Even to the point of sporting t-shirt slogans like “This is what we live for?” In the past posts I have summarized some of the public discussion and opinions about the cause(s) and acknowledge that most of the explanations and theories offered have elements of truth to them.
The Secular Factor
I am going to suggest one more explanation. It does not invalidate the others. Mine is neither the only nor the entire explanation. I do not expect mine to be popular or acceptable to most Vancouverites, for it will touch many in the centre of their soul, but it is one entirely in tune with the spirit of this blog. If you have been following this blog regularly, you may already suspect the point I am about to make: secularism. Yes, secularism is a major cause for the hypnotic drawing power of sports and for the violence sports can generate, not only in Vancouver but in many cities around the world. This does not hold true for every sports fan. I know some very religious and spiritual people who are sports fans, hockey fans even—I think of my pastor—practitioners even. Here I think of a close friend of mine in Port Alberni on Vancouver Island. Sorry, Nick, I’m not going to mention your name or list all your sports achievements.
Secular and ….
But I do seriously propose that secularism is a major underlying cause of sports riots in the Western world in general, including Vancouver. Secularism has replaced Christianity as the major mainstream worldview or even religion. If that sounds outrageous to you, check out discussions by sociologists and philosophers of religion. An 2010 Olympic slogan appearing on the streets read, “I believe.” That’s kind of religious language and not simply a coincidence. Secularism affects even people who officially adhere either to Christianity or another religion, for secularism spreads by stealth: It influences people and slowly changes their values and standards without their even being aware of it and without their foreswearing their official religion. Their hearts and minds are divided; they adhere to both, though they may call themselves Christian, Muslim or Sikh or whatever. These bifurcated people are also sucked into the world of sports and, given the right circumstance, may participate enthusiastically in the sports culture and fall out of sports events. They have traded in the strength and standards of their religion for the values of the secular pop culture around them.
A Secular Vacuum
In earlier posts, I have argued that secularism is basically just another religion with its own sets of beliefs and unproven assumptions. As mainstream Vancouver veered farther and farther away from its previously more influential religion a lot of meaning and standard was lost. A vacuum was created that humans cannot tolerate, a vacuum of meaninglessness and purposelessness. As nature abhors a vacuum, so does the human soul. Such a vacuum demands a replacement to fill it.
Secularism a Religion
The replacement can take many forms. It can be art in any of its variations. It can be reason, money, fame, power, nature or some addiction. It can also be sports. Apart from addiction, none of these things are negative per se, but when they take on the power of directing your life and become your central concern, then they become, as it were, your god. The Bible calls it idolatry: replacing God with something in creation. And you will replace Him with something. That’s just the way we are by nature. Every culture has its pop stream, the one most secularists will follow, unless they happen to be of a more reflective, intellectual type. It is no accident that the negatives of our culture, drug addiction and homelessness, have been on the increase, for meaninglessness will drive many people in that direction either to search for new meaning or to drown their meaninglessness.
From Vacuum to Violence
For many people naturally caught up in our pop culture, sports is a natural choice they embrace without much thought. You just go along with the crowd. It’s almost automatic for many. You give yourself over to it lock, stock and barrel. You participate in the shouting and whooping that is part of that world. It gets hold of you more and more. As the shouting and whooping and other forms of excitement increase and you descend into an almost religious trance, mindlessness sets in and all reason and other restraints are suspended. Given the vacuum of values and standards with which you have grown up, you have no resistance to your adrenalin rushing to a boil and there you go. It only takes a few intentional purveyors of violence to start the ball rolling and the adrenalin-driven crowd, full of either excitement or disappointment and anger, gets whipped up into a frenzy. Add a little booze to the mix and the rest is history. The next morning hundreds of people kick themselves for the stupid frenzy that overtook them. Their vacuum, their lack of internal restraint, deep down, that they should have learnt from their parents, took its toll. They just went for it.
I advise you to read a column by Penny Gurstein and Howard Rotberg in the Vancouver Sun. They ask, "What if these young people do represent what Vancouver is and what it shall be?" Another of their question: "What if what we see being reflected are the cultural consequences of a post-religious society with no clear moral compass and no overarching guiding values?" Then this statement: "Vancouver has adopted a Lotus Land ideology of cultural relativism in which we tell our children that there are no good cultures and bad cultures and no good versus evil." Or this: "A vast number of people in Vancouver view themselves as 'secular but spiritual.' Too often it means a worship of nature and the absence of discussion of values and morality. If they are raised without any clear values, is it any wonder that young people....?" Finally: "The riots are reflective of a loss of hope and deep-seated anger that we have created in our own children" ("Have We Lost Our Moral Compass?" June 24, 2011).
I invite you to spend some time meditating on these paragraphs. Is there a vacuum in your life? That means you are standing on the edge of a steep cliff with a deep ravine just before you.
(For further reading along this line go to volume 5, part 2, of my series Studies in Christian-Muslim Relation. This is an ebook you can access free of charge at < www.lulu.com >. Just type in < jan h boer >.)
Thanks for sticking with me--Jan
My Connection with Sports
I promise: this is the last one on Vancouver’s hockey riot. It’s the closest thing I have ever written about sports and its associated culture and certainly the most—4 posts. I did not know I had it in me, for sports is not a major factor in my life, though I do enjoy watching a game on TV now and then and even try to attend a live game once or twice a year, games other than hockey: especially baseball, soccer or tennis. I watched a lot of Vancouver’s Winter Olympics on TV and was intentionally sucked into its very exciting atmosphere. After all, the major street crowds were less than fifteen minutes walking from where I live, as was this year’s hockey riot. While the Olympics were very orderly and made Vancouver proud, the aftermath of the final hockey game was anything but that and made the city bow its head in shame. So, yes, both about sports, but very different events, not to say opposite.
Questions
However, different as these events turned out, they generated the same question in my mind and the same tentative suspicion. The question is the same that thousands of people are asking, including columnists in our local press: How could this have happened? When I try to formulate the question to make it appropriate for both events, it becomes: How can so many people, a whole city, be so infatuated and caught up in sports, so influenced by it? Even to the point of sporting t-shirt slogans like “This is what we live for?” In the past posts I have summarized some of the public discussion and opinions about the cause(s) and acknowledge that most of the explanations and theories offered have elements of truth to them.
The Secular Factor
I am going to suggest one more explanation. It does not invalidate the others. Mine is neither the only nor the entire explanation. I do not expect mine to be popular or acceptable to most Vancouverites, for it will touch many in the centre of their soul, but it is one entirely in tune with the spirit of this blog. If you have been following this blog regularly, you may already suspect the point I am about to make: secularism. Yes, secularism is a major cause for the hypnotic drawing power of sports and for the violence sports can generate, not only in Vancouver but in many cities around the world. This does not hold true for every sports fan. I know some very religious and spiritual people who are sports fans, hockey fans even—I think of my pastor—practitioners even. Here I think of a close friend of mine in Port Alberni on Vancouver Island. Sorry, Nick, I’m not going to mention your name or list all your sports achievements.
Secular and ….
But I do seriously propose that secularism is a major underlying cause of sports riots in the Western world in general, including Vancouver. Secularism has replaced Christianity as the major mainstream worldview or even religion. If that sounds outrageous to you, check out discussions by sociologists and philosophers of religion. An 2010 Olympic slogan appearing on the streets read, “I believe.” That’s kind of religious language and not simply a coincidence. Secularism affects even people who officially adhere either to Christianity or another religion, for secularism spreads by stealth: It influences people and slowly changes their values and standards without their even being aware of it and without their foreswearing their official religion. Their hearts and minds are divided; they adhere to both, though they may call themselves Christian, Muslim or Sikh or whatever. These bifurcated people are also sucked into the world of sports and, given the right circumstance, may participate enthusiastically in the sports culture and fall out of sports events. They have traded in the strength and standards of their religion for the values of the secular pop culture around them.
A Secular Vacuum
In earlier posts, I have argued that secularism is basically just another religion with its own sets of beliefs and unproven assumptions. As mainstream Vancouver veered farther and farther away from its previously more influential religion a lot of meaning and standard was lost. A vacuum was created that humans cannot tolerate, a vacuum of meaninglessness and purposelessness. As nature abhors a vacuum, so does the human soul. Such a vacuum demands a replacement to fill it.
Secularism a Religion
The replacement can take many forms. It can be art in any of its variations. It can be reason, money, fame, power, nature or some addiction. It can also be sports. Apart from addiction, none of these things are negative per se, but when they take on the power of directing your life and become your central concern, then they become, as it were, your god. The Bible calls it idolatry: replacing God with something in creation. And you will replace Him with something. That’s just the way we are by nature. Every culture has its pop stream, the one most secularists will follow, unless they happen to be of a more reflective, intellectual type. It is no accident that the negatives of our culture, drug addiction and homelessness, have been on the increase, for meaninglessness will drive many people in that direction either to search for new meaning or to drown their meaninglessness.
From Vacuum to Violence
For many people naturally caught up in our pop culture, sports is a natural choice they embrace without much thought. You just go along with the crowd. It’s almost automatic for many. You give yourself over to it lock, stock and barrel. You participate in the shouting and whooping that is part of that world. It gets hold of you more and more. As the shouting and whooping and other forms of excitement increase and you descend into an almost religious trance, mindlessness sets in and all reason and other restraints are suspended. Given the vacuum of values and standards with which you have grown up, you have no resistance to your adrenalin rushing to a boil and there you go. It only takes a few intentional purveyors of violence to start the ball rolling and the adrenalin-driven crowd, full of either excitement or disappointment and anger, gets whipped up into a frenzy. Add a little booze to the mix and the rest is history. The next morning hundreds of people kick themselves for the stupid frenzy that overtook them. Their vacuum, their lack of internal restraint, deep down, that they should have learnt from their parents, took its toll. They just went for it.
I advise you to read a column by Penny Gurstein and Howard Rotberg in the Vancouver Sun. They ask, "What if these young people do represent what Vancouver is and what it shall be?" Another of their question: "What if what we see being reflected are the cultural consequences of a post-religious society with no clear moral compass and no overarching guiding values?" Then this statement: "Vancouver has adopted a Lotus Land ideology of cultural relativism in which we tell our children that there are no good cultures and bad cultures and no good versus evil." Or this: "A vast number of people in Vancouver view themselves as 'secular but spiritual.' Too often it means a worship of nature and the absence of discussion of values and morality. If they are raised without any clear values, is it any wonder that young people....?" Finally: "The riots are reflective of a loss of hope and deep-seated anger that we have created in our own children" ("Have We Lost Our Moral Compass?" June 24, 2011).
I invite you to spend some time meditating on these paragraphs. Is there a vacuum in your life? That means you are standing on the edge of a steep cliff with a deep ravine just before you.
(For further reading along this line go to volume 5, part 2, of my series Studies in Christian-Muslim Relation. This is an ebook you can access free of charge at < www.lulu.com >. Just type in < jan h boer >.)
Thanks for sticking with me--Jan
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Crime, Gangs and Secularism
Post 30—:
The past few years BC has had to live with a very lively gang regime that goes far beyond anything reasonable and kilometres beyond anything we should put up with. Shootings, killings, guns, drugs and every kind of violence and vice make up the picture. We are living in a reign of terror. Innocent neighbours, bystanders or passers by are getting shot. The police are doing the very best they can under the circumstances. In the process, they are spending fortunes on staff hours, finances and every resource at hand.
Acording to Kim Bolan and her colleague Daphne Bramham, both of the Vancouver Sun, the murder rate has been going down. Quite a number of gang leaders are behind bars, awaiting trial in the province. Others have been charged and convicted south of the border. So, the police are making serious progress and we ought to appreciate them for their efforts. I so do.
What to do about it? It is clear from letters to editors of local newspapers that the public is getting tired of all this violence and danger lurking all around us. Not a few argue for stiffer laws and stiffer sentences. They get terribly impatient with judges who to them appear to be overly lenient with these thugs and do more to protect their civil rights than the security of ordinary citizens.
Both Bolan and Bramham—see above—are among my favourite columnists around town, Bolan especially because of her crime beat. Bramham has a couple of general suggestions. “We need to act boldly,” is one of her recipes. Fair enough, but how, in which way? “We need to address the root causes” is another one of hers. You don’t know how often I have heard that advice in various community workshops discussing social ills around town. It has become a mantra among those dealing with the issue. Indeed, address the root causes, but I have noticed that people never get beyond pointing to just another level of underlying symptoms such as drugs and alcohol. But why are those causes so common? They are not causes; certainly no underlying causes; they are mere symptoms of something deeper that Vancouver does not want to address.
I have an idea that most people around Vancouver will regard as outrageous and even offensive. When I suggested it once to my table mates at one of these seminars, they looked at me with shock in their eyes. The whole table was quiet for some seconds. Then someone started another discussion—a blatantly diversionary tactic. No one wanted to address the basic cause I suggested. I picked on secularism as a basic cause. Yes, secularism. Since my statement constituted a direct challenge to the worldview of almost everybody around the table, they were not in a mood to accept the challenge and look at it. No surprise, really. Most people resist serious challenges to their worldview. That comes too close to home. That could make me partly responsible for the problems under discussion.
Why did I suggest secularism as a basic cause? Because secularism has replaced Christianity in Vancouver but only in a general way. Though Christianity was never perfectly practiced by anyone, it had provided a perspective with which people could handle and interpret the challenges life hurls at us. Secularism may have replaced it, but it is largely an empty frame of reference on which most people cannot build their life. It is a weak base on which to build a society. It gives a person no moral hold with any degree of imperative. It does not offer firm standards by which to conduct oneself. Everyone sets his own standard.
When a society recognizes no spiritual transcendent standards beyond itself that it it regards as sacred and inviolable, all too many people cave in to the process of lowering standards that is taking place in society. Parents have little or no firm guidance to bequeath to their kids and so the next generation lowers its standards even more, a generational cycle without end. All you have to do is compare the movies of 50 years ago with the current crop and you will immediately notice the difference. Same thing for fashions. What was considered sexy, shocking and avant garde then, is now blasé. What is common now, would have been highly offensive then. This process has been going on at almost all cultural fronts—marriage and divorce, abortion, free-lance sex of every kind, reduced sense of authority and respect. People have lost their sense of meaning. Many wander around on this planet with a feeling of emptiness and uselessness. So they find some sort of relief in alcohol and drugs; others in diversions like sport. Moral sensitivities have dulled and the challenges of an exciting gang life with money and power overcome many young people.
I am not suggesting that every secularist is a drifting clod in a sea of meaninglessness, open to every temptation that comes his way. I have several secularists as friends and they are the finest of people. They are Humanists in the best sense of the word with high morals and clear vision of right and wrong. They are guided by an elevated moral reason that largely keeps them on track, though they also espouse the horror of abortion. They are strong intellectuals who can mostly resist the situation described above, but the next generations?
Here, I believe, we have a major basic cause, one that is hard to overcome, that most of us cannot and do not even want to overcome. So, if we wait until we have overcome this basic cause, we will be paralyzed and achieve nothing, since we don’t want to overcome it.
Now you may think I have really gone cuckoo, I bet! Question secularism?! Get off the pot! But it’s actually nothing new. The latest challenge to secularism is postmodernism. But long prior to that, I am the product of a revival that challenged secularism and continues to do so, a wholesale revival across all cultural segments. It’s called the Kuyperian revival that started a century and a half ago and is still working and spreading its tentacles across the world. It has actually successfully challenged secularism at various fronts in Canada, in the courts, in education, in labour and in areas of social justice, but it has not dethroned it. While some of us pray and work towards such a revival, others of us should work on reducing the negative effects of the symptoms. Both need to happen, but in the next and other future posts I will concentrate on ways to reduce these negative effects, the symptoms.
In the next post I will begin to offer a suggestion or two about tackling the symptoms. These suggestions will likely be considered be equally outrageous by “experts.” In fact, one expert has already done so when I contacted her some time ago. As I occasionally get back to this subject, I will often ask you to think outside of our current boxes of political correctness. I am no expert on these subjects, but, judging from the results the “experts” have to show for so far, it may be the time for an open and blatant non-expert to throw his hat+ into the hopper and see if we can’t shake things loose a bit. In the meantime, if you haven’t done so yet, I urge you to check out this Kuyper and Kuyperian stuff I refer to occasionally, so you know what I am talking about. You can google and find plenty to chew on. You can also go to the Kuyperiana page on my website www.SocialTheology.com>.
The past few years BC has had to live with a very lively gang regime that goes far beyond anything reasonable and kilometres beyond anything we should put up with. Shootings, killings, guns, drugs and every kind of violence and vice make up the picture. We are living in a reign of terror. Innocent neighbours, bystanders or passers by are getting shot. The police are doing the very best they can under the circumstances. In the process, they are spending fortunes on staff hours, finances and every resource at hand.
Acording to Kim Bolan and her colleague Daphne Bramham, both of the Vancouver Sun, the murder rate has been going down. Quite a number of gang leaders are behind bars, awaiting trial in the province. Others have been charged and convicted south of the border. So, the police are making serious progress and we ought to appreciate them for their efforts. I so do.
What to do about it? It is clear from letters to editors of local newspapers that the public is getting tired of all this violence and danger lurking all around us. Not a few argue for stiffer laws and stiffer sentences. They get terribly impatient with judges who to them appear to be overly lenient with these thugs and do more to protect their civil rights than the security of ordinary citizens.
Both Bolan and Bramham—see above—are among my favourite columnists around town, Bolan especially because of her crime beat. Bramham has a couple of general suggestions. “We need to act boldly,” is one of her recipes. Fair enough, but how, in which way? “We need to address the root causes” is another one of hers. You don’t know how often I have heard that advice in various community workshops discussing social ills around town. It has become a mantra among those dealing with the issue. Indeed, address the root causes, but I have noticed that people never get beyond pointing to just another level of underlying symptoms such as drugs and alcohol. But why are those causes so common? They are not causes; certainly no underlying causes; they are mere symptoms of something deeper that Vancouver does not want to address.
I have an idea that most people around Vancouver will regard as outrageous and even offensive. When I suggested it once to my table mates at one of these seminars, they looked at me with shock in their eyes. The whole table was quiet for some seconds. Then someone started another discussion—a blatantly diversionary tactic. No one wanted to address the basic cause I suggested. I picked on secularism as a basic cause. Yes, secularism. Since my statement constituted a direct challenge to the worldview of almost everybody around the table, they were not in a mood to accept the challenge and look at it. No surprise, really. Most people resist serious challenges to their worldview. That comes too close to home. That could make me partly responsible for the problems under discussion.
Why did I suggest secularism as a basic cause? Because secularism has replaced Christianity in Vancouver but only in a general way. Though Christianity was never perfectly practiced by anyone, it had provided a perspective with which people could handle and interpret the challenges life hurls at us. Secularism may have replaced it, but it is largely an empty frame of reference on which most people cannot build their life. It is a weak base on which to build a society. It gives a person no moral hold with any degree of imperative. It does not offer firm standards by which to conduct oneself. Everyone sets his own standard.
When a society recognizes no spiritual transcendent standards beyond itself that it it regards as sacred and inviolable, all too many people cave in to the process of lowering standards that is taking place in society. Parents have little or no firm guidance to bequeath to their kids and so the next generation lowers its standards even more, a generational cycle without end. All you have to do is compare the movies of 50 years ago with the current crop and you will immediately notice the difference. Same thing for fashions. What was considered sexy, shocking and avant garde then, is now blasé. What is common now, would have been highly offensive then. This process has been going on at almost all cultural fronts—marriage and divorce, abortion, free-lance sex of every kind, reduced sense of authority and respect. People have lost their sense of meaning. Many wander around on this planet with a feeling of emptiness and uselessness. So they find some sort of relief in alcohol and drugs; others in diversions like sport. Moral sensitivities have dulled and the challenges of an exciting gang life with money and power overcome many young people.
I am not suggesting that every secularist is a drifting clod in a sea of meaninglessness, open to every temptation that comes his way. I have several secularists as friends and they are the finest of people. They are Humanists in the best sense of the word with high morals and clear vision of right and wrong. They are guided by an elevated moral reason that largely keeps them on track, though they also espouse the horror of abortion. They are strong intellectuals who can mostly resist the situation described above, but the next generations?
Here, I believe, we have a major basic cause, one that is hard to overcome, that most of us cannot and do not even want to overcome. So, if we wait until we have overcome this basic cause, we will be paralyzed and achieve nothing, since we don’t want to overcome it.
Now you may think I have really gone cuckoo, I bet! Question secularism?! Get off the pot! But it’s actually nothing new. The latest challenge to secularism is postmodernism. But long prior to that, I am the product of a revival that challenged secularism and continues to do so, a wholesale revival across all cultural segments. It’s called the Kuyperian revival that started a century and a half ago and is still working and spreading its tentacles across the world. It has actually successfully challenged secularism at various fronts in Canada, in the courts, in education, in labour and in areas of social justice, but it has not dethroned it. While some of us pray and work towards such a revival, others of us should work on reducing the negative effects of the symptoms. Both need to happen, but in the next and other future posts I will concentrate on ways to reduce these negative effects, the symptoms.
In the next post I will begin to offer a suggestion or two about tackling the symptoms. These suggestions will likely be considered be equally outrageous by “experts.” In fact, one expert has already done so when I contacted her some time ago. As I occasionally get back to this subject, I will often ask you to think outside of our current boxes of political correctness. I am no expert on these subjects, but, judging from the results the “experts” have to show for so far, it may be the time for an open and blatant non-expert to throw his hat+ into the hopper and see if we can’t shake things loose a bit. In the meantime, if you haven’t done so yet, I urge you to check out this Kuyper and Kuyperian stuff I refer to occasionally, so you know what I am talking about. You can google
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Secularists Opening up a Can of Their Own Worms?
Post 23—
We are still on the issue of why some secularists want to effect changes in the Public Schools of BC. The secularists under discussion are, of course, good friends of mine and fellow members of World Views Collaborative (WVC). So, I am talking here about and even to these friends. They are three and I could name them for you. Their initials are E and K and E. Well, you know that bit about privacy that’s in the BC air.
They invited me to join them in a “crusade” to have Public School authorities in BC agree to a new high school course that would teach about all major BC world views. That would include the various religions as well as Humanism, their own world view. I joined them because I agreed this would be a good thing and I am glad I did, for I have thoroughly enjoyed getting to know my WVC friends in a setting where everyone is very definite about their own world view but also very open, respectful and courteous about that of others.
I have tried to warn E, K and E that they could be opening up a can of their own worms. As it is, their world view is actually the reigning one in the Public Schools. There is no course teaching their world view, but theirs is the entire basis of the system and all courses are based on the secular world view. Now, of course, like other religions/world view, secularists are also divided amongst themselves, so that many of them will have some critique of the Public School system. However, by and large it is theirs that is the very atmosphere that the students and teachers breathe in these schools as the assumed truth that is hardly ever subject to scrutiny in those schools. The entire world view is simply assumed and considered neutral enough that everyone can subscribe to it. ‘t Ain’t so. Many do not subscribe to it and hence have transferred to schools more amenable to their own world view—after they have been forced to pay the taxes to have the establishment world view of Secularism taught.
E, K and E, do you not realize how privileged your world view is in the Public School? Without anyone overtly teaching it, students just soak it in effortlessly without realizing it. I know, for I have been through it and did indeed soak it up without realizing how I slowly veered away from my own Christian world view. Oh, I did not lose my faith, but my views of the world and events and scientific discoveries, etc. all became increasingly secularized. It was not until I began taking courses in Christian philosophy at university level that I began to realize that I had been secularized in much of my thinking. The secular world view of the system almost achieved its purpose with me.
But no one seems to realize that secularism is really the establishment faith or world view. It is exactly that. Now, if the schools are going to teach that course, including Secularism, students are going to question that world view that previously they simply imbibed unconsciously. Students and parents may suddenly begin to realize that there is nothing neutral about this perspective and that it is as subjective as all the other world views taught in the course. It, too, can be questioned and rejected like all the others or accepted. Its privileged status in the schools will be questioned. That is the can of worms I am talking about.
And with its privileged status now being questioned, people will begin to ask why the Public School only supports this one particular world view and not any of these others. Canadians have long ago rejected the notion of an establishment worldview, at least, when it was a Christian one. Catholics long had that dubious privilege in Quebec and they still enjoy the financial residue of that in Ontario. Anglicans have been the establishment in Ontario and, if my BC history is not completely off the track, even enjoyed a minor version of it on Vancouver Island. People have revolted against such arrangements and many take it ill of these churches for the establishmentarian roles they have played. E, K and E, is that what you are looking for? You really want those worms out of the can? Having an annual Christmas tree in these schools or one or two other tokens of our Christian past is a small price to pay for having your world view presented as unquestioned gospel truth.
We are still on the issue of why some secularists want to effect changes in the Public Schools of BC. The secularists under discussion are, of course, good friends of mine and fellow members of World Views Collaborative (WVC). So, I am talking here about and even to these friends. They are three and I could name them for you. Their initials are E and K and E. Well, you know that bit about privacy that’s in the BC air.
They invited me to join them in a “crusade” to have Public School authorities in BC agree to a new high school course that would teach about all major BC world views. That would include the various religions as well as Humanism, their own world view. I joined them because I agreed this would be a good thing and I am glad I did, for I have thoroughly enjoyed getting to know my WVC friends in a setting where everyone is very definite about their own world view but also very open, respectful and courteous about that of others.
I have tried to warn E, K and E that they could be opening up a can of their own worms. As it is, their world view is actually the reigning one in the Public Schools. There is no course teaching their world view, but theirs is the entire basis of the system and all courses are based on the secular world view. Now, of course, like other religions/world view, secularists are also divided amongst themselves, so that many of them will have some critique of the Public School system. However, by and large it is theirs that is the very atmosphere that the students and teachers breathe in these schools as the assumed truth that is hardly ever subject to scrutiny in those schools. The entire world view is simply assumed and considered neutral enough that everyone can subscribe to it. ‘t Ain’t so. Many do not subscribe to it and hence have transferred to schools more amenable to their own world view—after they have been forced to pay the taxes to have the establishment world view of Secularism taught.
E, K and E, do you not realize how privileged your world view is in the Public School? Without anyone overtly teaching it, students just soak it in effortlessly without realizing it. I know, for I have been through it and did indeed soak it up without realizing how I slowly veered away from my own Christian world view. Oh, I did not lose my faith, but my views of the world and events and scientific discoveries, etc. all became increasingly secularized. It was not until I began taking courses in Christian philosophy at university level that I began to realize that I had been secularized in much of my thinking. The secular world view of the system almost achieved its purpose with me.
But no one seems to realize that secularism is really the establishment faith or world view. It is exactly that. Now, if the schools are going to teach that course, including Secularism, students are going to question that world view that previously they simply imbibed unconsciously. Students and parents may suddenly begin to realize that there is nothing neutral about this perspective and that it is as subjective as all the other world views taught in the course. It, too, can be questioned and rejected like all the others or accepted. Its privileged status in the schools will be questioned. That is the can of worms I am talking about.
And with its privileged status now being questioned, people will begin to ask why the Public School only supports this one particular world view and not any of these others. Canadians have long ago rejected the notion of an establishment worldview, at least, when it was a Christian one. Catholics long had that dubious privilege in Quebec and they still enjoy the financial residue of that in Ontario. Anglicans have been the establishment in Ontario and, if my BC history is not completely off the track, even enjoyed a minor version of it on Vancouver Island. People have revolted against such arrangements and many take it ill of these churches for the establishmentarian roles they have played. E, K and E, is that what you are looking for? You really want those worms out of the can? Having an annual Christmas tree in these schools or one or two other tokens of our Christian past is a small price to pay for having your world view presented as unquestioned gospel truth.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Why Christian Opt out of Public Schools
Post 21
I promised you in the previous blog that I would explain why many Christians have opted out of the Public School system, the system that was supposed to make everyone feel comfortable but, in fact, seems not to do that.
By Christians I mean Protestants and Roman Catholics. I make a point of that, for I get the impression that at least some Catholics apply the term “Christian” only to Protestants. Catholics, we may have our differences, but when it comes to the public school system, we’re in the same boat. In fact, in BC, Protestants and Catholics, along with some other groups for reasons of their own, have banded together in an organization called Federation of Independent Schools Associations of BC (FISA).
Not all Christians attend these independent schools. Some cannot afford it, even after their faith community will often subsidize them. Others prefer the Public Schools; they are committed to them for a variety of reasons. I am not discussing these Christians and I am not casting doubt on their status as Christians.
This Federation has its secretariat in downtown Vancouver. Since 1966, it has fought a long and hard battle on behalf of the various independent schools in the province, both religious and secular. While it educates 11% of BC’s primary and secondary students, it receives only 5% support from the BC government school budget. The maximum grant to an independent school is 1/2 the per pupil grant to a public school. The rest has to be coughed up by the parents, who are already paying the same hard cash for the Public Schools that everyone else is paying. Good deal for the province and public school supporters. Should these schools close down, it would be a financial catastrophe for the Ministry of Education, especially in these days of dollar shortages and school closures.
I urge you to explore their website and then follow especially the links to the websites of the Christian members of the FISA, for they will give you more of the Christian rationale. I also highly recommend their major publication: Victoria Cunningham, Justice Achieved: The Political Struggle of Independent Schools in British Columbia. This is a very enlightening history of the work of the FISA in obtaining legal recognition and partial funding for independent schools in British Columbia, 2002 (311 pages).
Why do these parents choose private schooling? Speaking for Christians, it is that matter of worldview or belief or faith. Christians want to see God and His Word penetrate every subject that children are taught. Of course, there are different types of Christians and I cannot represent them all in these blogs. So, I will restrict myself to my own Calvinist tradition. These Christians—I should say “we,” for I am one of them—do not accept the secular definition of religion, at least, not of the Christian religion. The Christian religion is a wholistic world view that covers all of life. The idea that Christianity is personal, for private and church matters, is the idea of secularists, not ours. We do not accept their limiting religion to a small slice of life, while the rest of life is supposedly based on a neutral platform that is rational and that everyone has in common. We do not accept that education or politics or any other sphere of life can be conducted without reference to God and His revelation, which is found both in the Bible and in nature, history or human experience. We do not want our children to get the impression that God can be left out of our daily affairs and therefore do not want Him ignored during the many hours and years our children spend in school. As if He is of little or no account.
We are rational like everyone else, but not rationalistic. Our rationality, both Christian and secular, is not a neutral objective entity where we work with what we have in common. The neutrality of reason is itself a belief. Belief in the ability of human reason to find all truth and to solve all our problems amounts to an exaggeration of our rational abilities. That belief has never been proven by anyone; it is an article of faith. Christians believe in reason, but not in an independent reason. Human reasoning is imperfect and limited. There are many areas where it cannot reach or where it is liable to going astray. Thus, while secularists believe in the ability of independent or autonomous reason to find our way in this world, Christians, along with some other religions, believe in the need for divine revelation to correct our reasoning processes that have been affected by the fall. We all believe! We are all believers. We are all in a boat, but not in the same boat, since our beliefs differ. But it is all belief! You cannot get around that.
I promised you in the previous blog that I would explain why many Christians have opted out of the Public School system, the system that was supposed to make everyone feel comfortable but, in fact, seems not to do that.
By Christians I mean Protestants and Roman Catholics. I make a point of that, for I get the impression that at least some Catholics apply the term “Christian” only to Protestants. Catholics, we may have our differences, but when it comes to the public school system, we’re in the same boat. In fact, in BC, Protestants and Catholics, along with some other groups for reasons of their own, have banded together in an organization called Federation of Independent Schools Associations of BC (FISA).
Not all Christians attend these independent schools. Some cannot afford it, even after their faith community will often subsidize them. Others prefer the Public Schools; they are committed to them for a variety of reasons. I am not discussing these Christians and I am not casting doubt on their status as Christians.
This Federation has its secretariat in downtown Vancouver. Since 1966, it has fought a long and hard battle on behalf of the various independent schools in the province, both religious and secular. While it educates 11% of BC’s primary and secondary students, it receives only 5% support from the BC government school budget. The maximum grant to an independent school is 1/2 the per pupil grant to a public school. The rest has to be coughed up by the parents, who are already paying the same hard cash for the Public Schools that everyone else is paying. Good deal for the province and public school supporters. Should these schools close down, it would be a financial catastrophe for the Ministry of Education, especially in these days of dollar shortages and school closures.
I urge you to explore their website and then follow especially the links to the websites of the Christian members of the FISA, for they will give you more of the Christian rationale. I also highly recommend their major publication: Victoria Cunningham, Justice Achieved: The Political Struggle of Independent Schools in British Columbia. This is a very enlightening history of the work of the FISA in obtaining legal recognition and partial funding for independent schools in British Columbia, 2002 (311 pages).
Why do these parents choose private schooling? Speaking for Christians, it is that matter of worldview or belief or faith. Christians want to see God and His Word penetrate every subject that children are taught. Of course, there are different types of Christians and I cannot represent them all in these blogs. So, I will restrict myself to my own Calvinist tradition. These Christians—I should say “we,” for I am one of them—do not accept the secular definition of religion, at least, not of the Christian religion. The Christian religion is a wholistic world view that covers all of life. The idea that Christianity is personal, for private and church matters, is the idea of secularists, not ours. We do not accept their limiting religion to a small slice of life, while the rest of life is supposedly based on a neutral platform that is rational and that everyone has in common. We do not accept that education or politics or any other sphere of life can be conducted without reference to God and His revelation, which is found both in the Bible and in nature, history or human experience. We do not want our children to get the impression that God can be left out of our daily affairs and therefore do not want Him ignored during the many hours and years our children spend in school. As if He is of little or no account.
We are rational like everyone else, but not rationalistic. Our rationality, both Christian and secular, is not a neutral objective entity where we work with what we have in common. The neutrality of reason is itself a belief. Belief in the ability of human reason to find all truth and to solve all our problems amounts to an exaggeration of our rational abilities. That belief has never been proven by anyone; it is an article of faith. Christians believe in reason, but not in an independent reason. Human reasoning is imperfect and limited. There are many areas where it cannot reach or where it is liable to going astray. Thus, while secularists believe in the ability of independent or autonomous reason to find our way in this world, Christians, along with some other religions, believe in the need for divine revelation to correct our reasoning processes that have been affected by the fall. We all believe! We are all believers. We are all in a boat, but not in the same boat, since our beliefs differ. But it is all belief! You cannot get around that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
