WiseReader

Leslie Rosenblood and Justin Trottier contend that religious groups have no claim on tax dollars. Since tax dollars come from a common pool of monies, provided by all citizens, they should be available only to groups and projects open to all without distinction. This is how they put it:

Some have argued that public money is not secular money. But we do not accept that argument. Public money consists of a large common pool of contributions from citizens of every persuasion and so for that reason it should be spent on programs that are available to every constituent. It makes no more sense to publicly subsidize programs only available to citizens of a specific belief system than it does spend public money on programs that benefit only left-handed citizens or those with red hair.

Their contention begs the question as to what particular group, regardless of its persuasion, would actually be open to every citizen without distinction. Indeed, Fred_001, commenting on the Rosenblood-Trottier blog speaks specifically to the paragraph cited above:

Then you won’t mind that we immediately cease all funding of ethnic cultural centres, women’s programs, programs for the disabled, and a host of other targeted tax-funding? Strange, I don’t recall the secularists getting all hot and bothered about any of these kinds of highly targeted expenditures. Why not just admit that this is a lot of polite justification for anti-religious hatred.

One could, I suppose, believe Rosenblood and Trottier are simply seeking to ensure that government does not, by means of granting public funds to faith-based groups, appear to promote one religious group over another, but it is difficult to reach that conclusion in light of their own closing remarks.

Religious groups should also favour keeping government at a distance. Government subsidies of religious activities leads to politicians defining what constitutes proper religious practices, if no other reason then to determine which religiously inspired programs should be funded. This could easily be construed as an unwarranted intrusion on religious freedom; therefore, a secular state benefits all citizens, religious or otherwise.

But there is more to this argument than mere finance.

Any honest observer of human behaviour will grant that religion has been and continues to be a source of division between people. It is true that religion is not the only source of friction between human beings — but why should government perpetuate and subsidize a fractious and anti-social force?

Ah, there we have it. The tired and threadbare charge that religion is the root of all evil in this world. To think otherwise, in the opinion of Rosenblood and Trottier, is to be dishonest.

One wonders why they chose not to name other sources of division since the point of their column seems to be that government has no business perpetuating and subsidizing a fractious and anti-social force? For example, following their argument, why would tax dollars be used to support organizations involved in any of the areas mentioned below?

Economic - free market capitalism vs. government guided socialism
Racial
Cultural
Pro-life vs. Pro-choice
Gay vs. Straight
Politics - is anything more fractious than Canadian parliament?
Environmental issues

And of course there is nothing fractious and anti-social about labeling and denigrating all people of faith in this way.

The proliferation of books touting the end of God, religion and the supernatural has proven disconcerting to more than a few Christians. How is it, we wonder, that the so-called new atheists - Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, et. al. - can so easily, so confidently and arrogantly dispose of the divine?

Edward Feser believes it’s time to pull the plug - reveal the sham! Writing recently in The American, he begins his op-ed, “The New Philistinism” with these words:

“The New Atheist writers are supremely self-confident in their ability to dispatch opponents with a sarcastic quip or two. And they show no evidence whatsoever of knowing what they are talking about.”

Feser compares the rantings of the new atheists to that of the stereo-typlical fundamentalist preacher who challenges opposing views by simply ridiculing them without ever having engaged them.

Feser’s article does not answer all the questions, but it will encourage readers in knowing that this atheist elite can be confronted and that those who believe in God can and should do so. His article is well worth the investment.

When decrying the precipitous numerical decline in the United Church of Canada (UCC), David Ewart, minister of North Vancouver’s Capilano United Church, said more than he probably intended, though substantially less than he ought to have said.

ChristianWeek columnist, Frank Stirk, writing about the dubious future for a status-quo UCC denomination, (“United Church losses projected to continue”, ChristianWeek, May 7, 2010) quotes Ewart, who believes that an “almost conversion-type experience” is required to save the denomination.

Ewart further says, “We keep hearing that people are spiritual and not religious. We’re (UCC) religious and, I would frankly say, not too spiritual … And for us to change, to figure out how to be spiritual as well as religious, that would be an act of God.”

Well, yes, Pastor Ewart, Christianity has always been a “conversion-type experience”, and genuine spirituality always involves “an act of God.” That, it would seem, is Christianity 101.

Without doubt, within the UCC there are true Christians, but the denomination as a whole has derailed, and that reality may just be breaking through the fog of relativism enshrouding the movement as a whole. People are leaving because the denomination has relatively little of biblical theological substance to offer.

Striking at the root of the UCC dilemma, is the response from Ambrose University College sociologist professor, Joel Thiessen. As for any weight given to UCC problems being theologically rooted, Thiessen counters that the UCC’s liberal values are attractive to many Canadians. He believes those liberal values resonate with “a specific market of the population that the conservative churches do not, whether evangelical or Roman Catholic.”

Thiessen’s conclusion is nothing short of sheer market-driven pragmaticism. Couple that with the admission of religiosity without spirituality and you have what one mainline pastor observed to me twelve years ago: “Let’s face it, the United Church is an apostate denomination.”

Ewart thinks the problems facing the UCC are beyond its ability to challenge – “secularism, individualism, consumerism, people being busy seven days a week.” But aren’t these the very challenges that face Christians, the very strongholds that the gospel is meant to tear down? Is this not what Christian ministry is about: challenging the idols of our culture, calling people to repent and return to God?

Saving a denomination from spiritual disaster surely will take an act of God seen in a conversion-type experience. It will demand repentance from the sins of denying the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the deity of Jesus Christ, the substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus and his visible, glorious return to this earth - essential doctrines that seem open for debate in UCC circles. It will require a return to the clear teaching of Scripture, refusing to bend God’s Word to fit with the prevailing mood of our secularized culture.

Thank God for every UCC pastor and parishioner who already knows this. Though I would find it very difficult to remain in a denomination that denies the essentials of Christianity, for those genuine believers who do, I offer this biblical counsel:

“And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will” [2 Timothy 2:24-26 NIV].

Let us all pray for that “conversion-type experience”, that “act of God” Pastor Ewart sees as crucial to the spiritual well-being of the United Church of Canada.