Indoctri-Nation (Postchristian Culture Series Part 1)

My pastor started a series on postchristian culture, which is a truly fascinating catalyst for discussion. (Or perhaps a blog series?)

Wikipedia defines postchristianity as: “[T]he loss of the primacy of the Christian worldview in public affairs, especially in the Western world where Christianity had previously flourished, in favor of alternative worldviews such as secularism, nationalism, environmentalism and militant atheism amongst many other ideologies.”

My pastor used the story of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego as a Biblical example of people who were subjected to indoctrination: they were removed from their home and culture, forced to adapt to a new language, and even names. I appreciated my pastor’s perspective on holding fast to God’s heart when the mainstream culture looks nothing like your faith.

But the larger concept of indoctrination and religious freedom has been eating at me ever since.

The dictionary defines indoctrination as “the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.“

I’d like to post two critical questions for the church to ponder as we look at Post Christian culture and our response to it.

The first question sets up the whole discussion: Who can be victimized by indoctrination or lack of religious freedom?

A minority by definition exists within the values of the majority culture, often against their will. Because (the European expansion version of) our country was founded on “Christian principles” (a separate debate for another time), Christian groups in our nation have been able to steer the larger culture, or minimally experience Christian values are to be somewhat normative.

After living with little opposition, a diminishing majority voice views changes as a loss of freedom, while the growing minority sees it as an equilibrium.

So for instance, many Christians feel victimized because of a shift in prayer in schools, the mainstream teaching of evolution, a shift in sexual identity or attitudes, or other cultural and legislative breakaways from a traditional Christian view of morality.

Whenever we sense that we are not in control, our first reactions are often fear and anger- a tightening of our fists around the issues we’re afraid to lose. I hope to delve more into that aspect of Post-Christian culture in a future post.

But today, I would ask us to turn this scenario around.

When the Christian voice and values have been the majority, have we been willing to call our majority thinking as a form of indoctrination of or imposition against those who do not hold Christian values? Consider the many other religious groups that are represented in America. How many of these people have felt that they had to raise their children in a world contrary to their beliefs? How many people have felt under-represented in mainstream culture? How many people, in fact, have felt that their beliefs are not as welcome?

I saw a friend’s post on facebook recently- she shared Lori Gallagher Witt’s summary of why she is a “liberal” and what that really means. In her response to people’s view that liberals are “anti-Christian”, Witt states this:

I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is – and should be – illegal) All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I’m not “offended by Christianity” — I’m offended that you’re trying to force me to live by your religion’s rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia on you? That’s how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don’t force it on me or mine.

Lori Gallagher Witt, January 7, 2018 via Facebook

Witt brings up a perspective that we don’t think of- we see the loss of widespread acceptance of “Christian” values as an affront to us; others perhaps have viewed our long-standing religious majority as an imposition on them. What do we do when “Christian” legislation seems to us a religious freedom, and to others a lack of religious freedom?

Now, I believe in Truth. I believe that God gets to decide morality, and that’s a good thing because none of the rest of us can fully agree on morality anyway. I’m not suggesting that God’s ways aren’t best. But I believe we need to rethink what it means for us to pursue God’s Kingdom on earth, and particularly what it means to follow God in a pluralistic society.

For starters, morality cannot simply be legislated. Even if everyone agreed on the origin and foundation of morality, the law has never been an effective tool to create a God-centered nation.

Moses would back me up here. He helped mediate between the people and God in a relatively short Theocratic reign, which ended long before it actually ended. Yet the laws God gave Moses did not create a godly nation, because humans. (period.) Case-in-point: the book of Judges, which follows Israel’s conquest of the Promised Land and, is a record of chaos and upheaval, interspersed with a few bright moments of godly leadership. Before Israel had a king, “everyone did as they saw fit.” (Judges 21:3) (Nobody blames you, Moses.)

But despite the failure of the people to honor Him through direct rule, God didn’t view human reign as the answer to create a nation that followed His heart. In 1 Samuel 8, we get a glimpse into the Israelite’s desperate pleas to Samuel for a King, and God’s blunt response about all the ways the king would be self-serving and problematic for the people. God allowed a King, but it was not His ideal.

Why not? And what does that say about our nation today?

I believe Paul gives us a piece of that answer when he says, “…if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.” (Galatians 3:21)

A law in itself cannot impart life. Instead, life and the fruit of obedience comes through faith in Jesus and through the power of His death and resurrection. Jesus ushers in relational law driven by love. Reiterating the prophecy about Jesus in Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 10:16 says,

“This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.“

This is a powerful image- not of a people governed by Christian legislation, but governed by a Spirit-infused law within them. This speaks to an inner change and motivation, not an externally imposed set of rules.

I believe this is the image of what the Kingdom of God is like- a group of people led by the Spirit of God in the ways and heart of God no matter what the legislation of the world says. The Kingdom can exist anywhere, and it doesn’t require the cooperation of the physical world, even though its beauty manifests there as well.

Please don’t mistake me: I don’t believe it’s wrong to seek legislation that lines up with our values and God’s heart. Many people may be called into that space. Yet as Christians we need to move beyond a simple hope for a Christian politician to forge a path towards a Christian nation. And we must see how a nation which is made of many peoples and beliefs will not have laws that reflect all of God’s heart. Further, we must ask whether our push for a Christian nation is even God’s ideal?

What happens when we try to force a nation which is not truly under God to exist under God through legislation?

Which leads me to my next question: Where have we specifically promoted indoctrination (or religious law) in ways that were harmful?

Throughout history (think Crusades), people have perpetuated many terrible and violent actions in the name of Christianity. Whether in an attempt to create a “Christian” empire or a “Christian” nation, we’ve definitely justified many ungodly actions in a misunderstanding of what it means to spread God’s Kingdom.

For instance, when European settlers arrived in America, they treated Native Americans far worse than Daniel and his friends. Government and missionary groups alike sent many Native American children to boarding schools, far removed from their homes and families, to be trained in supposedly “civilized” European language and ways. Missionaries tried to cut them off from their traditions and heritage and language with the end of retraining them with Christian values and religion. (See THIS ARTICLE for further reading.)

Having rights to practice our faith is one thing- but forcing that on others is not OK. Cruel means do not justify an end. Forcing someone to “convert” does nothing positive for any part of a person. This is indoctrination pure and simple, and it is a grievous story. We can’t criticize indoctrination when we believe we’re the victim if we cannot also accept our own stained hands in this area towards those outside the church.

Pastor Greg Boyd reminds us that the way of Jesus subverts our ideas of power and authority. He says,

“The cross is not coercive. We’re to manifest self-sacrificial love to whomever is in need.”

Greg Boyd “The Cruciform Kingdom of God” video series via “seminarynow.com“

We aren’t made to push and argue people into our faith or into values God has established. Yet we do it every day.

How often have I forgotten that God doesn’t require Christian control of politics in order to change the world? Where have we been seeking a “Christian nation” when God actually calls us to invest in the flourishing of something which encompasses much more? (His Kingdom)

How does our inability to see ourselves as perpetrators of indoctrination or religious restrictions on others affect us? How does it hinder healthy conversations with those who believe differently? How does an unhealthy view of our right to a “Christian nation” fuel unhealthy fears and anger against others?

And when it comes to views on indoctrination, we’d do well to start combating that within the church first. (Dun..dun…dun…stay tuned for part 2.)