“History reverberates with testimonies of a shameful
tragedy. Centuries ago a sage named Socrates was forced to drink hemlock. The
men who called for his death were not bad men with demonic blood running
through their veins. On the contrary they were sincere and respectable citizens
of Greece. They genuinely thought Socrates was an atheist because his idea of
God had a philosophical depth that probed beyond traditional concepts. Not
badness but blindness killed Socrates. Saul was not an evil-intentioned man
when he persecuted Christians. He was a
sincere conscientious devotee of Israel’s faith. He thought he was right. He
persecuted Christians not because he was devoid of integrity, but because he
was devoid of enlightenment. The Christians who engaged in in famous persecutions
and shameful inquisitions were not evil men but misguided men. The churchmen
who felt an edict from God to withstand the progress of science, whether in the
form of a Copernican revolution or a Darwinian theory of natural selection,
were not mischievous men but misinformed men. And so Christ’s words from the
cross are written in sharp-etched terms across some of the most inexpressible
tragedies of history: ‘They know not what they do.’”
—Martin Luther King, Jr. “Love in Action” in Strength to
Love
Dr. King could find similar examples in our own day. Sadder
still: We have come to the day that Dr. King seemed to want to prevent. The
blindness of which he spoke has deteriorated into sinfulness.
A great example is the now quadrennial dustup over pray-ers
at the Presidential inauguration. Some of us—apparently only a few of us—are overcome
with giddiness when the diverse spectrum of speakers is announced. Four years
ago Martin Luther King lieutenant Joseph Lowery (I was his backstage host at a
youth ministry event in 1995) and Rick Warren (I led our church’s version of 40
Days of Purpose in 2006) were invited to pray. This time the line-up included
Myrlie Evers-Williams (civil rights activist and widow of martyr Medgar Evers)
and Louie Giglio (of Passion Worship Movement fame).
But not everyone shares my glee at this diversity. Others
operate with obligatory disgust and begin their dirt research. And then the
Inauguration Committee’s gesture of unity gets trampled by polarization and
namecalling. Welcome to the culture wars!
True to form, someone, who obviously objects to a conservative
Christian praying at a Presidential inaugural event, found an old sermon that
they believe
disqualified Rev. Louie Giglio from praying. They justify this
inquisition, probably calling it their journalistic obligation. But more likely
it “needed” to be done to stop those Bible-thumping, ignorant, homophobic, right
wing fundamentalists from forcing their religion down our throats. Typical
outrage ensued, and Mr. Giglio withdrew. The anti-conservative-Christians camp had
won. And the unity of our nation took another little blow.
This event doesn’t end with the dirt-digging and the decision
to withdraw. Well-meaning Christian leaders decided that this is another chance
to decry the Obama Administration’s so-called War on Religion. They didn’t have
to look far or say much—just hint that
Louie was invited to pray and now he wasn’t praying. ‘Nuff said, right? We all
know what happened. And we must call out
the Godless, liberal, Leftist, gay agenda of the Obama Administration.
Except that this incident is an example of just the opposite.
The administration’s Inaugural Committee designed the event, invited the
guests, and received acceptances. Among
those accepting was Mr. Giglio, whose inclusion in the program was reportedly
at the President’s personal request. No further action was taken by the administration
until Mr. Giglio withdrew, at which point the Inaugural Committee issued a carefully
worded statement emphasizing their desire for inclusion, a desire they
demonstrated by inviting such a diverse roster of participants.
Some prominent Christian leaders have ignored the facts. One
example comes from
Rev. Russell Moore:
“When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic
Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now
have a de facto established state church. Just as the pre-constitutional
Anglican and congregational churches required a license to preach in order to
exclude Baptists, the new state church requires a “license” of embracing sexual
liberation in all its forms.”
But the “state” did no such thing. The “state,” meaning The
Obama Administration, meaning “The Enemy” invited a prominent Evangelical
Christian, who accepted the invitation, and then withdrew under pressure that
had nothing to do with the “state.” Perhaps there was a tinge of persecution in
the 48 hours between Giglio’s acceptance and his withdrawal, but his defenders’
outrage mocks real religious persecution and ignores the fact that the
“state” was the inviter, not the persecutor.
If I follow Martin
Luther King here, I acknowledge that these Christian leaders were just mistaken.
In their zeal to defend their rights and their beliefs, they were blind. King
warned us in the church of the seeds of this phenomenon which has sprouted and
blossomed into a malicious weed:
“Never must the church tire of reminding men that they have
a moral responsibility to be intelligent. Must we not admit that the church has
often overlooked this moral demand for enlightenment? At times it has talked as
though ignorance were a virtue and intelligence a crime. Through its
obscurantism, closedmindedness and obstinacy to the truth, the church has often
unconsciously encouraged its worshippers to look askance at intelligence.” --“Love in Action” in Strength to Love
It’s possible that their blindness reflects innocent
ignorance, but I suggest that their blindness was stoked by their desire to
believe something other than the truth. Their devotion to the “Obama is
anti-religion” narrative blossomed into an unwillingness to pursue the truth.
This is an object lesson. I am not interested in pointing
out who is the worst offender in this scenario. This kind of thinking is a
reflection of our times. We line up on either side of any number of issues and
lump all of those who disagree with us as into an evil entity identifiable by a
buzz word. All we have to say is “fundamentalists” or “Socialists.” We say,
“the Left” or “Right Wing.” Sadly even “conservative” and “liberal,” “Democrat”
and “Republican,” and “Bush” and “Obama” are code words for “the enemy.” And we
hyperbolically decry a War on Religion, a War on Women, a War on the Family,
and a War on Equality, and we feel justified, even obligated, to demonize
those—even those driven by their faith—who think differently.
As a Christian I am particularly grieved when Christian
leaders are perpetuators of these battle lines. In this case once they had
determined that those other folks are actually evil, nothing else mattered,
even the truth and love in the Gospel of Jesus. The actual facts didn’t serve
their narrative so they perpetuated a lie. And they
told it and
told it and
told it so that their lying storyline could survive. This is when their blindness
became sinfulness.
Intellectual blindness is not the problem; a total disregard
for truth is. My best prayer is “Father, forgive them,” whether or not they
know what they do.
Pundits, commentators, bloggers, and
other opinionated people like me have been lamenting the demise of
civility and the polarization of public discourse. I believe that
that polarization has made humility in our discourse nearly
impossible. 
