The Silly Face of "Public Faith," Revisited

With the political conventions kicking into full swing, we're going to be barraged over the next few weeks with a whole lot of nothing masquerading as something. That being the case, I think it timely to re-post some previously shared observations.

True to its namesake Greek orators who perfected it many centuries ago, public discourse has never actually ascended above the level of sophistry. History has marched on; nations, kingdoms, and empires have risen and fallen; wars have been fought and won; but the debaters babble on in the vain hope that someday they will solve all the world's problems by the sheer force of the melodic intonations of their vocal emanations.

Contemporary sophists, known rather unflatteringly as "pundits," complain that the level of public discourse has now reached a new low. But a quick review of political history over the last few centuries would reveal similar sentiments expressed by the "pundits" of old. Public discourse, by its very nature, thrives on conflict. Consensus is the enemy of debate, so the debater of this age, like the debater of every age, not only detests unanimity but actively seeks to undermine it and stir up strife over the most trivial of issues. It matters not that an idea has merit. If it is put forth by a political opponent, it must be debated and, along the way, distorted beyond recognition so as to delineate the party lines and perpetuate the verbal slugfest which, by now, has eliminated any possibility of reconciliation over a question which should never have been divisive in the first place.

When Paul engaged the Greeks in Athens (Acts 17:16-34), he brought his considerable knowledge of the outside world to bear by citing some of their own poets and even acknowledging their religious heritage. But then he reinterpreted their tradition in light of the resurrection of Christ. For Paul, the resurrection was the end of the matter. In ages past, God had let the Gentile world follow its own foolish philosophies, but his truth had never been far from them. But now, through raising Jesus Christ from the dead, God had signaled the time for debate was over and the time for decision was at hand. Not all of them were convinced, but at least Paul got the Athenians' attention.

Contemporary public discourse is perhaps at its most banal whenever religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is inserted into the debate. This is most painfully apparent when opposing non-believers presume to debate the merits of Christianity from a perspective of mutual ignorance. The same should not be true for believers, yet it all too often is. There is a serious lack of substance in what I will call, for want of a better term, "public faith," that is, a particular interpretation of the Christian faith which sees active involvement in the shaping of public policy as a paramount concern. I would even go so far as to say that the face of "public faith" these days is downright silly and, since it is the only version of the faith with which the outside world is familiar, that silly face has become associated with Christianity in general in the minds of many.

The message of Christ and the resurrection overthrew the foolish assumptions of pagan philosophies which saturated the Greco-Roman world. It undercut the whole idea that truth was something that must be sought through logical deduction but could never be fully known. Jesus Christ was not just another way, but the Way; not just another seeker of truth, but the very embodiment of the Truth; not just another example of an exemplary life, but the Life. This was the substance of the early church's proclamation as it spread throughout the ancient world. It is precisely the substance that is lacking today among so many would-be defenders of the faith as they plunge unprepared into the arena of public discourse thinking only that they have something to contribute to the debate, rather than knowing the Truth which can still turn the world upside down.