For two countries that share the longest unprotected border in the world, Canada and the United States are surprisingly quite different. A large percentage of Americans own guns as a constitutional right, whereas few Canadians have guns for personal protection.
Most gun owners in Canada are hunters or live in remote areas where their protection is against wildlife, not people. Americans seem to need guns because they live in a state of fear.
The rampant enthusiasm of American religious people, particularly Christians, also seems unique. People unashamedly combine religious fervor with national pride. Maybe we should be more like them, I once mused.
Recently, however, the nature of that religious commitment has me dismayed. More than 20 states are looking at laws that address the “right to religious freedom.” The nature of those laws is not so much to protect religious expression as they are seeking to permit religious and social discrimination.
North Carolina has been particularly targeted, as lawmakers examine legislation to permit people not to serve individuals who may violate their own personal and religious moral principles. That is code language to allow discrimination against gays and lesbians, transgendered and others who somehow do not fit into a “religious” perspective.
Now this issue is offensive to Canadians who have put aside such discrimination years ago. We have clear laws about how we should treat people, and how we must not discriminate on the basis of age, gender, sexual orientation, race, country of origin and many other factors.
Let me be clear: My concerns are not about political or social correctness, but about religious correctness. And religious freedom should at least include understanding one’s religion in a clear, concise, accurate way.
The first Christian council was held in Jerusalem while most disciples were still alive. The big topic of the day — as important as gay rights today — was the issue of circumcision. Circumcision was a ritual demanded of males within the Jewish faith. Very early in the life of the churc,h many who were not Jews attended synagogue worship, and also took an interest in the Christian movement. Should these gentiles also be circumcised to continue the tradition of the faith from which Jesus arose? Thus the issue to debate.
The result of the Jerusalem Council was to declare that circumcision, while a valid Jewish practice, was not something to be forced on new Christian believers. As Peter stated about these new believers: “God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us.” (Acts 15:8-9, NRSV)
Later on, Peter continues “we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” (15:11)
The church does well to return to that insight everytime some controversy about “religious correctness” pops up. There was a time in Canada when religious correctness demanded a certain kind of apparel to attend church. In 1960, prominent protestant leaders, including one of my spiritual mentors, Norman Vincent Peale (I am ashamed to admit), railed against the possibility of a Roman Catholic becoming president of the United States.
We all need to take a deep breath and remember what the Council of Jerusalem stated, in so many words: “We all will be saved through the grace of God.”
Assuming we have all of the religious truth is like assuming everyone should eat meat, or contrary, only vegans are true human beings.
Let’s set judgment aside and find ways to live with one another.
I say ‘Amen’ to that.
Comments