Craig, I thought of your discussion with Micael Kellahan when reading this book review: . I haven't read the book, but it sounds interesting.

What happened to the link?!
http://1l2.us/b81

Craig
OK I'll bite.
I think you’ve misunderstood Os Guiness and the Evangelical Manifesto which he helped draft.
Yes he sets out the Sacred/Naked/Civil Square Framwork.
You say you want to go for the Civil Square option this manifesto promotes.
But then you argue for a practice which looks much more like the Naked Square ‘no faith in the secular public space.’ Most tellingly you say:

How are decisions made? This is done using a framework that rejects dogmatic assertions, and instead focuses on shared values and reasoned debate.

The Evangelical Manifesto never makes a move like this - this is the Schwartze position rather than the Guiness one. The Christian faith, the Gospel, the Bible, Jesus - none of them are shared values. So although we might believe these things privately we must not speak them publicly. Instead we look for a lowest common denominator set of values/reasons that everyone in the secular space can sign up to. So you say"hurling quotes from the Bible..." is fruitless in our political context... [contd}

...You promise the possibility of having an influence over the future of the nation if only we’ll adopt this new way of engaging in the public sphere.
No thanks, I’d rather go with the conclusion of the Evangelical Manifesto:

We urge those who search for meaning and belonging amid the chaos of contemporary philosophies and the brokenness and alienation of modern society to consider that the gospel we have found to be good news is in fact the best news ever, and open to all who would come and discover what we now enjoy and would share.

In other words, the Civil Square isn't saying Don't speak as a Christian here, but that you must. Do it graciously, but speak, and listen to others who will come with other beliefs.

@Michael - I disagree that my position is the "Naked Public Square". I said very explicitly that people brought their value systems to the table. You've simply ignored these very plain comment.s

I don't agree at all that I've misrepresented Guinness, though I don't claim to agree precisely with everything he says, and I've certainly put my own slant on things. Here is what Guiness says in an interview in byFaith magazine -

I would argue for a third option: a “civil public square,” in which people of all faiths are free to engage in public life based on their faith. That’s freedom of conscience. But—and here’s a big but—within an agreed political framework of what is just and free for everyone else too. If it’s a right for a Christian, it’s a right for an atheist, a Mormon, a Muslim, and a Scientologist... Now that entails certain implications, like the fact that we need to persuade and not coerce, that we respect the so-called three Rs: rights, responsibility, and respect.

The great problem I have with your approach, Michael, is that is confuses evangelism with political activism. I thought your little exchange with Les illustrated perfectly why this wont work. Your explicitly religious presuppositions meant that the political subject was immediately left behind as you engaged in an apologetics discussion. What - do you have to convert first everyone you hope to persuade? This is not a strategy for effective political action.

Just to be clear - I believe we should be engaging in evangelism! I just think it is a different thing to political activism.

Evangelism => winning people to Christ

Political Activism => changing the law

@Michael - do you believe that we need to use "persuasion" in political debate, rather than coercion or assertion?

CPX interviewed Guinness about The Case for Civility, which more fully explores this issue that the Evangelical Manifesto does. You can see the interview here (sorry about the audio quality, it was recorded in a pub).

In it he goes on from what he said in the byFaith interview (see Craig's post #5 above) to say:

...we’re not taking about the faiths themselves, that's better left to the private sphere. In other words if I want to witness to someone about my faith in Christ that's not what we should be doing in the public square. We’re talking about issues of common public concern where citizens meet together. Obviously in those discussions faith is the root, but we’re not talking about faith itself, we’re talking about the results of faith applied to education or marriage or foreign policy or whatever it is. And so we have to do it persuasively.

I think Craig's given a fair summary of Guinness' position, and I agree that we need to leave "dogmatic assertions" out of political debate, but I don't think that means we can never say we take a certain position on an issue because our faith demands it. But we certainly need to say more than that.

Thanks Allan - that's helpful. Guinness said something similar in an interview he gave for the White Horse Inn, which I was partly drawing on (from memory, admittedly).

but I don't think that means we can never say we take a certain position on an issue because our faith demands it.

I think we can too, but I think if that is the only grounds we have for a certain position, then we need to concede that we are likely to lose the political debate on that issue. A relevant case in point is gay marriage, where I think it is very hard to mount a negative case apart from revelation.

I said very explicitly that people brought their value systems to the table. You've simply ignored these very plain comment.s

Not ignored.
Just said your claim to be against the naked public square position can't be reconciled with:

How are decisions made? This is done using a framework that rejects dogmatic assertions, and instead focuses on shared values and reasoned debate.

Unless you want to back away from this then bible is out, but reason & natural law are in.
This is not freedom for religious speech but freedom from it.
It is the very naked public square position you say you don't hold.

I stand by my reading of Guiness but am happy for us to leave the exegesis of him to one side.

@ Craig:

do you believe that we need to use "persuasion" in political debate, rather than coercion or assertion?

Yes. But you can't persuade unless you speak. And you can't speak the Chrisitian position if you can't appeal to Revelation.
As I speak a Christian position on same sex marriage I expect some people will be persuaded and change their mind. Politics is all about this exchange of ideas amongst people who differ. So bring on the debates between those pushing for same sex marriage and those opposing it.
Appeal to reason. Appeal to the way the world is. But don't hold back from speaking what the Bible has to say on this. If Christians don't speak about Marriage as a given from God then who will?
As we speak - hopefully graciously - politics happens. Some people move from a pro-same sex marriage to being against it. Some move the other way. We work it out.
But for the life of me, I can't see why a Christian would want to buy into a secular hobbling of speaking the Christian message because 'this is a political matter' not a private faith one. This isn't confusing evangelism and political action. It is refusing to buy into a 'private secular faith that only speaks in an evanglistic context' and instead saying 'God's word speaks to all of life - public and private - & our calling is to hold out that word'

I just can't see how your system will work in practice. Consider the following -

C: I am against euthanasia because the Bible teaches that everyone is made in the image of God

A: I don't accept the Bible, and don't care about it's teachings.


Where on earth do you go from there? Into an apologetic discussion? That might be a good thing to do (it is, in fact) - but it is not political advocacy.

OK - here is what it looks like in practice.
This is the Sydney Anglican submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs into Euthanasia.
Its brilliant. I wish I'd written it. It doesn't buy into secular demarcation of faith from politics but is explicitly Christian while also appealing to a whole range of other things.
But that is only part of the answer for political advocacy.
Politics is conducted not just with submissions to parliamentiary inquiries but in everyday conversations. Letters to the editor. Blogs. Water cooler conversations. Family dinners.
In each of these places I'd want Christians to keep mixing politics and religion.

For another example on Euthanasia, Andrew Cameron had this piece in the SMH recently. He explicitly addresses the objection of Christians imposing their values on others:

I write as a Christian. Before we hare off on the usual mantra that I am ''imposing my values'' - as if those who support euthanasia are not - here is a case where the Bible's prohibition of killing innocent humans is a no-brainer, even if we agree about little else. For this prohibition generates a community that upholds and cares for others at their weakest and most vulnerable. The prohibition against deliberate killing of innocent human life is what impels us to research and practise good palliative care.

So it can work in practice. But it is hard work. We need to do everything we can to encourage more of this, but also to equip every Christian to speak up and be heard.

@Michael - it seems to me that Andrew Cameron is doing exactly what I suggested as my third option. He owns his own faith ("I write as a Christian"), but he immediately acknowledges that this is of little relevance to Christians, and then he appeals to a shared common value ("a community that upholds and cares for others at their weakest and most vulnerable"). It is the latter that gives his argument any persuasive power it has, not his reference to the Bible.

@ Craig: consider again what he says -

For this prohibition generates a community that upholds and cares for othersat their weakest and most vulnerable. The prohibition against deliberate killing of innocent human life is what impels us to research and practise good palliative care.

Far from appealing to a shared common value, he is saying the Bible's prohibition creates a certain kind of community & impels us to a certain kind of action. He does the thing you won't allow - he keeps appealing to Scripture. He is saying that stepping away from the Bible will create a different kind of community and different kind of actions.
He acknowledges he's pushing a Christian position but says we all bring values to the table.
He does a good job of saying the kind of community and values created by Biblical faith are attractive - even to those who don't hold (or yet hold) that faith. Of course you don't have to be a Christian to see this is a better way to live than that of his pro-death opponents

Craig - I'd be interested to hear your response to the Sydney ANglican submission on euthanasia #15
Should we make submissions and arguments like this or not?

I would again say that his argument only has weight because he is appealing to the "shared value" of a certain type of society. If your opponents at the table don't care about a compassionate society, then the argument carries no weight.

I will give the submission a good read and some thought.

I don't think you guys as a far apart as you think...

It seems to me that Craig thinks Michael is saying, "we can only appeal to the Bible", and Michael thinks Craig is saying, "we can only appeal to reason and shared values".

But I think what Craig is saying is, "we must do more than simply appeal to the Bible", and what Michael is saying is, "we must do more than simply appeal to reason and shared values".

The two examples Michael has given for what his position looks like in practice (#15 and #16 above), could, I think, easily be used by Craig as examples of his position.

Unless I'm totally off the mark - in which case I'll pull my head in and leave you to it.

We are probably not miles apart when it comes down the brass tacks of the matter. My main objection to Michael's position is that he seems to think it is helpful to appeal to the Bible as an authoritative text in discussion with those who don't accept it's authority. I just don't understand this.

I've just read through the SIE submission, and I must admit I'm astounded that Michael believes it supports his position! It seems to me to be a perfect example of what I am advocating.

There is no explicit mention of God, Jesus, Sin or the Bible. Instead they are clearly appealing to common values such as dignity and the preciousness of life. Indeed, the only time they explicitly mention Christianity as the basis of a moral position, they immediately appeal to the universal nature of the value position -

"Christians believe that all life is precious, regardless of the person’s guilt, their age, their ability to perform certain functions or their value to society. However it is not only a religious viewpoint. There is widespread acceptance of this view..."

I'm truly puzzled...

I've put something up on the Have we lost our political bite. If Craig or Michael would like to organise a meeting to discuss these matters which I would put under the heading Religion in the Public Square, I'm up in Sydney for 5 weeks from about 20th July. I would like to include either Rob Forsyth or Andrew Cameron and John McClean from PTC, Burwood or Peter Hastie, editor Australian Presbyterian.

Let me know what you think.

O.K. let me see if I can help.

You said at #14 you couldn't see how my system could work because appealing to Scripture to justify your position would be deadlocked by someone saying I don't accept that authority. (your #22) is on similar lines - don't appeal to the Bible because it won't work. That fits your post that "hurling bible quotes" will accomplish little.

Instead, you say just work from common ground, from reason, from natural law in the political sphere. (which I say is actually the naked public square position that you say you don't like)

You asked (#14) what my approach would look like in practice. So I gave 2 examples, the Sydney Anglican submission (#15) and Andrew Cameron (#16). One of the reasons I cited these arguments were that they were more sophisticated and persuasive than the rather simplistic 'I am against euthanasia because the Bible teaches that everyone is made in the image of God'.

You like these examples so much, you claim them as your own & say they in fact are the kind of thing that you are pushing for - their argument has weight because it is an appeal to shared values.

Here is where I think the confusion kicks in - are our positions closer than we think? has one of us misunderstood the other? [contd...]

[contd...]
In relation to Andrew's approach I've shown at #18 that it is not what you would allow. He keeps appealing to scripture even when he knows people don't accept the authority of scripture. You can't spin what he is saying as an appealing to shared values.

Instead he is speaking to a world of contested values. Let me suggest 3 groups his position will speak to:
1. Christians who accept the authority of scripture & already agree with him or will be taught by him
2. The pro-death euthanasia lobby who think autonomy freedom & individual self determination should trump any notions like 'a community that cares for the weak' or 'humans are precious' let alone 'people are in the image of God'
3. a vast undecided mass in the middle who like ideas like freedom but also are open to talk of caring for the weak.
Most of 1 accept the authority of the Bible. Most of 2 reject the Bible. 3 will be a mixed bag.
The Christian should speak the faith clearly and unapologetically - this must be the first step & it is the first step taken by Andrew and the Diocesan submission.
There is also a recognition that the Bible won't persuade everyone, but a further argument that it is not just Christians who like these Christian values. They are showing that the Bible's message lines up with what a good world looks like. This is different from saying the authority of our position comes from the fact that lots of people already agree with it.

It may be hard to spot these differrences where the Christian position is close to that held by lots of people - and the killing of innocents is one where the significant overlap makes it easier to argue.
The differences between us are more obvious in an example like same sex marriage - lets assume the very worst and say that in 10 years 90% of the population is for it.
Your strategy says speak from shared values, reason, common ground & you think that on these grounds we'd probably lose the debate. Appeals to revelation won't work and shouldn't be made.
I say speak the Christian position. Use scripture. Use reason. Use whatever common ground is there. But don't be politically passive and think we can't enter this debate.
Will we lose? I don't know - I'm not as pessimistic as you on this one I think.
But in some ways, I don't mind losing so much as I would us failing to compete. Values are up for grabs in this and we have an important message to speak. We musn't only be speaking where we think we can already appeal to shared values.
Politically, I don't think this is radical or strange. All kinds of groups will want to speak their own position, knowing that values are going to be contested and fought for. They won't wait for agreement before they can take part in the political process.

@Michael - I've explained why I believe the diocesan submission fits my position. Please explain how it fits yours? I see no explicit mention of the Bible there, but rather an appeal to general values, that they (presumably) believe the senate committee will largely share.

I say speak the Christian position. Use scripture. Use reason. Use whatever common ground is there. But don't be politically passive and think we can't enter this debate.

I say don't enter this debate (the gay marriage one) because I don't see the point. Even if we win, I don't see what it gets us. We can't fight every battle, so we have to choose which ones carefully.

I think the euthanasia debate is winnable, and that we have strong arguments, and I believe there is a lot at stake. I believe there is very little at stake in the gay marriage debate, and I don't believe the debate is ultimately winnable either.

But in some ways, I don't mind losing so much as I would us failing to compete.

I'm not that interested in heroic lost causes. If I am to enter the political arena (as is my right as a citizen), then I want to be as effective as possible.

If someone decides they just want to preach the gospel, and ignore politics, I respect that decision as well. But I don't like seeing evangelism and political advocacy mixed up.

Craig,
its late.
thanks for the last comment - I think it shows just how far apart we are on this one.
I hope its been helpful to push you on this.
I'd like to see some others comment.

thanks for the last comment - I think it shows just how far apart we are on this one.

I think it was my first comment on the subject too! I take it from that that you believe evangelism and political advocacy ought to be combined? Then yeah, we are miles apart on this issue.

I'm curious to see how you put these ideas into practice over the coming months. I hope you'll post up your letters etc on SA and/or Facebook. I will read with great interest. Cheers!

I'd like to see some others comment.

Its hard to interject!

My response is my column "Harnessing the power of choice".

On gay marriage or laws concerning 'street workers' and these other matters of sexual morality, how does 1 Corinthians 5 line up with a 'Christian politic'?

9 I have written to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—

10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.

11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

13 God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you.

Interesting interview by John Dickson with Mark Driscoll on 'Christianity, Society and Politics'.

Re #24

Let me know what you think.

Dead in the water, I'd say.

I've put something up on the Have we lost our political bite. If Craig or Michael would like to organise a meeting to discuss these matters which I would put under the heading Religion in the Public Square, I'm up in Sydney for 5 weeks from about 20th July. I would like to include either Rob Forsyth or Andrew Cameron and John McClean from PTC, Burwood or Peter Hastie, editor Australian Presbyterian.

That's very interesting David P, because I was just thinking about how to recruit a climate scientist I know with some of the authors above to write both a scientific and theological reply to your upcoming anti-climate paper.

Ha ha.

Hi David P,
Wikileaks just got interesting. Basically it is evidence of "The Denial Machine" at work again.

- Leaked cables reveal Saudi minister of petroleum helped craft toothless Copenhagen climate accord
- WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord
- WikiLeaks cables: Seven key things we've learned so far
- "We Have Not Seen Anything Yet": Guardian Editor Says Most Startling WikiLeaks Cables Still to be Released
Details here