Boxes and False Dilemmas

Letters From Behind the Lines

Enemy-occupied territory – that is what the world is. … When you go to church you are really listening-in to the secret wireless from our friends: that is why the enemy is so anxious to prevent us from going.

- C.S. Lewis – Mere Christianity, II-2

Boxes and False Dilemmas.

Here behind the lines, a good deal of effort has gone into both examining and influencing the way people think. Some seek to help us to think more clearly and effectively; others seek to convince us either of what, and how, to think, or to convince us that we should leave our thinking to others. The fruit of the examinations is useful in both sets of endeavors, and Christians behind the lines must look beyond the techniques and methodologies employed to discern the motives of those who seek to influence them.

There's an exercise, which both helpers and manipulators of thinking use, in their respective undertakings. One is presented with an array of nine dots, in the shape of a square. The task given is to connect all nine dots using four straight lines, and no more. One must do so without lifting the pencil from the paper. Each new line must begin at the end of the previously drawn line. It can be done. But it cannot be done by limiting the lines to within the confines of the square formed by the dots. To do it, the lines must go beyond the confines of the square -- "outside the box." However, many people begin, and some persist, in limiting their efforts at solving the puzzle to drawing the lines within the square, even though no one said they had to. They think, and work, "inside the box."

Jesus often urged his followers to think "outside the box." When his disciples, following one of his discourses, asked, "Then who can be saved?" Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God." (Luke 18: 26-27) The Archangel Gabriel also assured his mother Mary, before her utterance of the single most important “fiat” in human history, "For with God, nothing will be impossible." (Luke 1:37) In accomplishing God's plan, in doing his will, we should always remember here, behind the lines, that any sense of discouragement we might come by is a false sense, if we have left God's power out of our thinking, and restricted our considerations only to the human box.

A common accusation that revisionists level at believing Christians is that they do not think outside the box, or that they put God in a box. And it's not just the full-blown revisionists who level the accusation, either. So-called "thinking" Christians – people like the apostate Bishop in C.S. Lewis's "The Great Divorce," who cling to Christian identity but not to Christian beliefs – do so as well. Now what should be ringing in their ears when they do this, and giving them pause, is our Lord's admonition to St. Peter. Upset at the prospect of his Master's death, St. Peter rebuked the Lord at the suggestion, and was promptly told, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men." (Matthew 16:23) That kind of thinking that the Lord rebuked, in terms of our puzzle, is the kind of thinking that urges creativity in drawing the lines, but completely neglects making the lines pass through the dots. And we see plenty of that kind of thinking in the current attack on the institution of marriage.

Take the Canadian politicians who claim to be Christians, Catholics (some even "good Catholics"), but seem to reason that it is quite acceptable to act against marriage. Now they certainly want to be accepted as Christians by their Church, and by the whole body of Christian believers in the country. But they draw lines that simply do not pass through the dots. The dots are nothing less than the design of the God they profess with their lips. The design stipulates, "Male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27), and "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24) And Jesus himself pointed out these dots while he was with us on earth (Matthew 19: 4-5). Our Lord's mystical body, the Church, has also pointed out these dots through the thousands of years of its witness, starting with St. Paul the Apostle (Ephesians 5:31). Indeed, the Apostle thought that this dot, this aspect of God's design, was a pertinent factor in considering the whole topic of sexual morality (1 Corinthians 6:16), since that is where our sexuality fits in God's design. The simple fact is that whether the lines intersect the dots, or not, does not cease to be a pertinent consideration for a Christian because he, or she, holds elected civil office. As for the claim that it does, the words of the Calgary Sun editorial deal with the claim quite succinctly: "What hypocritical men they are." (3 August 2003)

But behind the lines these days, appearances are still important. It almost seems to be in an inverse square relationship to substance. Where substance is deficient, appearance is perceived to be of increased importance by a factor equal to the square of the deficiency. And as a result, there has been a scramble to save appearances. This past weekend, the Globe and Mail reported on a trial balloon whereby Justice Minister Cauchon would revise his submission to the Supreme Court of Canada. No wonder. He has to do something. Even the members of his own party in Parliament are in an uproar over the antics of him and the Prime Minister (as well as Mr. Martin, and Ms. Copps, the succession candidates). According to the report, Mr. Cauchon would ask, in hopes that it would be turned down, whether just letting same-sex fornicators have a "civil union" rather than a "marriage" would suffice. If the court indeed said, "No, it won't," presumably the pronouncement would have been used in an effort to keep up appearances – perhaps something like, "We all respected marriage, and Christianity, but our hands are tied." It wouldn't work, though. That’s probably why the Prime Minister announced that there would be no fourth question on Tuesday.

It’s very doubtful that any such ploy will work now. For one thing, the cat is well and truly out of the bag. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Calgary, the Most Reverend Frederick Henry, has belled the cat, and whenever the Prime Minister makes a move to sidestep his Christian calling, the clanging will be audible to all. (As an aside, Bishop Henry's action seems to have disturbed the tranquility of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, whose spokesman, Monsignor Peter Schonenbach stated, "Anything that doesn't represent the real overall picture is certainly not helpful." Maybe the good Monsignor has been working very hard, and could benefit from time off for a retreat.) One wonders who the Prime Minister and Justice Minister hoped to either impress or fool with this prospective ploy.

For another thing, this is a case where self-identifying Christians in the Cabinet clearly want to try to get the rest of us to think within the box they see fit to delineate. The Constitution seems to suggest that gays and lesbians must be allowed "marriage." So what? The Charter of Rights may leave no choice. So what? Neither the Constitution nor the Charter designed and implemented marriage, and if neither can protect it, both are glaringly deficient. Marriage is not something any government invented. But it seems that the Cabinet Christians hope we will overlook that reality, and get distracted by the fancy lines they are drawing, even though the lines do not connect any pertinent dots whatsoever.

Still, here behind the lines in Canada, we have one consolation. Prof. Peter Kreeft, in his book "Winning the Culture Wars," pointed out that where he teaches in Massachusetts, they have "Kennedy Catholics," rather than “Catholic Kennedys." We, it seems, may soon be able to have a choice. What will it be: Chretien Catholics? Martin Catholics? Copps Catholics? Or should we do the multicultural Canadian thing, and just settle for Cabinet Christians? And there is one further consolation. No amount of court references, court reference amendments, or appeals to a writ of election will fool anyone in the Christian Churches about the character of any of these people should they proceed to complete the selling out marriage. Their only moral dilemma around defending marriage is a false dilemma of their own making, and they will never succeed in trying to make it look real.

They are, however, confronted with a most serious choice, and it is the duty of every Christian to pray that they will receive both grace and wisdom to guide them in their choosing.