A Critical Distinction
Just now in the process of tackling the paper monsters that are always waiting in the wings at our house, I picked up the October Sword and Trumpet, leafing through it to see if I had read this one. An article by Christian attorney David Gibbs caught my eye. I had read it earlier, but this time I noticed an aspect of it that made sense in a context to which I had never applied it.
The article drew a firm line between two alternative kinds of religious belief--convictions and preferences. This concept is not new to me. I have not always been sure that it's a critical distinction, though. It turns out that in the eyes of the law it matters a great deal.
Gibbs used the example of Wisconsin vs. Yoder, the court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Yoder's favor, establishing his right to allow his children to attend school only through grade 8, and no further. The case has always been of special interest to me for a variety of reasons, among them these:
1. The case was wending its way through the courts at the same time that my father and others were involved in a similar case in Kansas. When the case was settled regarding Wisconsin, the precedent in such cases was established, and the controversy was over in Kansas also.
2. I kept encountering a record of this case in the textbooks for my college education classes and got a sense for what an important landmark this decision was. It is to the Amish what Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education is to non-Whites (ending racial segregation), in terms of how it changed the education prospects of the children involved.
3. Jonas Yoder is my mother's first cousin. His mother was a Beachy, a sister to my Grandfather Beachy. The children Jonas refused to send to high school are my second cousins.
David Gibbs made the point that only after a great deal of testing did the court accept Jonas Yoder's religious belief as a conviction that should be protected under the U. S. Constitution--because he would not change his mind. Yoder was told that if he was sued and lost, he would go to jail and his children would likely be taken from him. Jonas stood firm. In the face of such steadfastness, the court was convinced of the need to protect his choice legally.
In our local discussions about facility matters, I believe it would help us if we made a clear distinction between preferences and convictions, and then got as comfortable with emphatic declarations of convictions as Cousin Jonas did. We should identify preferences as such as readily as the law does. All of us should work together as diligently to defend and protect convictions as the government says it will do. All of us should surrender our preferences, even if it means re-evaluation and reversal.
I am terrified of a course of action steered according to preference. I weep at the sight of the train wreck my inner eye sees at the end of such a course.
The obvious question is how can we rightly identify our own beliefs? A corresponding question is how can the brotherhood move together according to convictions only? We'd all like to think that our own ideas can pass the conviction test, and we're likely easily convinced that others' ideas are mere preferences.
I crave certainty that we are proceeding on the basis of conviction and not preference, and believe that if we pass the following tests it will help us arrive at certainty:
1. We're willing to take however much time is needed to work through things satisfactorily. We do not act out of desperation to do something. Conviction is unhurried, patient.
2. We talk about everything before we act. We do not act and then wait to see if there's a strong enough negative reaction to necessitate reversal. We do not proceed according to preference and wait to see if others come along. Conviction is not conniving.
3. We pray about everything before we talk or act. We are content to wait to talk or act until we are prompted by God to do so. Conviction is prayerful.
4. We don't make a big deal of where we are on the authority scale. We see ourselves as servants of God who live it out by serving each other. We particularly are conscious of our need to serve those who are more helpless than we are. Conviction makes us willing servants.
5. We apply Scriptural principles to our beliefs. Conviction is an understanding of truth.
6. We are ruthlessly rational in examining our beliefs, tracing them back to their origins with meticulous scrutiny. Conviction is painstaking.
7. We are willing to be ill-thought-of for our beliefs. Conviction is willing to suffer.
That's it. I can't think of anything more on this critical distinction.
The article drew a firm line between two alternative kinds of religious belief--convictions and preferences. This concept is not new to me. I have not always been sure that it's a critical distinction, though. It turns out that in the eyes of the law it matters a great deal.
Gibbs used the example of Wisconsin vs. Yoder, the court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Yoder's favor, establishing his right to allow his children to attend school only through grade 8, and no further. The case has always been of special interest to me for a variety of reasons, among them these:
1. The case was wending its way through the courts at the same time that my father and others were involved in a similar case in Kansas. When the case was settled regarding Wisconsin, the precedent in such cases was established, and the controversy was over in Kansas also.
2. I kept encountering a record of this case in the textbooks for my college education classes and got a sense for what an important landmark this decision was. It is to the Amish what Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education is to non-Whites (ending racial segregation), in terms of how it changed the education prospects of the children involved.
3. Jonas Yoder is my mother's first cousin. His mother was a Beachy, a sister to my Grandfather Beachy. The children Jonas refused to send to high school are my second cousins.
David Gibbs made the point that only after a great deal of testing did the court accept Jonas Yoder's religious belief as a conviction that should be protected under the U. S. Constitution--because he would not change his mind. Yoder was told that if he was sued and lost, he would go to jail and his children would likely be taken from him. Jonas stood firm. In the face of such steadfastness, the court was convinced of the need to protect his choice legally.
In our local discussions about facility matters, I believe it would help us if we made a clear distinction between preferences and convictions, and then got as comfortable with emphatic declarations of convictions as Cousin Jonas did. We should identify preferences as such as readily as the law does. All of us should work together as diligently to defend and protect convictions as the government says it will do. All of us should surrender our preferences, even if it means re-evaluation and reversal.
I am terrified of a course of action steered according to preference. I weep at the sight of the train wreck my inner eye sees at the end of such a course.
The obvious question is how can we rightly identify our own beliefs? A corresponding question is how can the brotherhood move together according to convictions only? We'd all like to think that our own ideas can pass the conviction test, and we're likely easily convinced that others' ideas are mere preferences.
I crave certainty that we are proceeding on the basis of conviction and not preference, and believe that if we pass the following tests it will help us arrive at certainty:
1. We're willing to take however much time is needed to work through things satisfactorily. We do not act out of desperation to do something. Conviction is unhurried, patient.
2. We talk about everything before we act. We do not act and then wait to see if there's a strong enough negative reaction to necessitate reversal. We do not proceed according to preference and wait to see if others come along. Conviction is not conniving.
3. We pray about everything before we talk or act. We are content to wait to talk or act until we are prompted by God to do so. Conviction is prayerful.
4. We don't make a big deal of where we are on the authority scale. We see ourselves as servants of God who live it out by serving each other. We particularly are conscious of our need to serve those who are more helpless than we are. Conviction makes us willing servants.
5. We apply Scriptural principles to our beliefs. Conviction is an understanding of truth.
6. We are ruthlessly rational in examining our beliefs, tracing them back to their origins with meticulous scrutiny. Conviction is painstaking.
7. We are willing to be ill-thought-of for our beliefs. Conviction is willing to suffer.
That's it. I can't think of anything more on this critical distinction.
posted by Mrs. I (Miriam Iwashige) at
7:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home