This Week was Ugly; Next Week is Easter

March 23, 2024

HERE'S MY TAKE

“Revolution-talk” is pretty common these days. The word, “revolution,” came up at least a dozen times in news articles I read and conversations I had this week.

The topics ranged from technology to gender; economic realities to court decisions. We can debate whether we are really experiencing “sudden, radical complete change” as the dictionary defines the term “revolution,” or whether the changes we see around us are just “history happening,” as a conversation partner tried to argue this week. “It’s not that radically different from the French Revolution,” he argued (although I did point out the irony that we do call that a “revolution,” so maybe he was making my point). There’s some merit to his case. Every era goes through tumultuous times and the temptation is to think of our times as more defining than others.

Ultimately, our take on this day and age depends on whether we take a long view of those changes, or a short view. In the short term, we do see change so rapid, it can make us dizzy. 

One of the latest examples is the poor editorial judgement by Montreal newspaper La Presse this week, which allowed it to publish an anti-Semitic caricature of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu as a vampire. Clearly, something pretty basic is changing. The federal heritage minister’s initial reluctance to condemn such depictions in the name of editorial freedom betrays a frame of reference in which some opponents have a different category of “humanness” than others. It is very legitimate to have serious disagreements with Israel’s prime minister, his government, and its policies—and even to passionately describe them as evil. It’s core to the Western tradition to value freedom of thought and expression and to tolerate political disagreements.

Equally core to that tradition is a respect for universal human rights—the idea that your right to express your point of view is rooted in the same principle as your opponent’s humanity and rights. When you express your own rights without respect for your opponent’s humanity, you are invalidating the basis for your own arguments. 

Maybe it was naïve to think that the lessons Western society learned through the Second World War remained foundational to our shared social identity. But if we needed proof that a revolution in thinking has taken place and that new foundational ideas are taking hold, I fear this week was a sad confirmation of this fact. Mobs on the streets are one thing. A mainstream newspaper and a federal cabinet minister are quite another. Thankfully there was some immediate outcry followed by a quick apology and withdrawal of the cartoon. Strangely, though, everyone moved on as if it were no big deal. As best as I can tell, this wasn’t even a firing offence for anyone.

Normalised, public anti-Semitism is widespread. Less prominent but equally alarming was the postponement of a Jewish film festival scheduled for Hamilton, Ontario after the hosting venue backed out citing “security concerns.” The targeting of Jewish businesses, places of worship, and neighbourhoods is now everyday behaviour. B.C. Premier David Eby had to publicly acknowledge that the public service has “a serious problem with rising anti-Semitism” after an MLA resigned from the government caucus over a failure to address alleged hatred directed at Jews. Just another week in Canada.

Revolutionary times aren’t just about the issues we discuss. Anti-Semtism isn’t about anyone’s view of Jewish people; it proceeds from how we answer the question, “What does it mean to be human?” Revolutions are about changing the framework of assumptions within which political arguments land. The expressions of differences we hear today aren’t primarily political. Rather, they’re much more existential questions. In arguments over ethnic politics we are also contesting how society will answer more basic questions underneath the surface:

“Why are we here together?”

“What does it mean to be human?”

“Who is my neighbour?”

Our public debates today can often conceal rather than reveal the deeper more fundamental divides underneath our rhetoric.  

In 1993, just after the end of communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall, Peter Drucker wrote his Post-capitalist Society in which he argued that 1989 marked a “sharp transformation” and divide in history.

“Society rearranges itself–its world view; its basic values; its social and political structure; its arts; its key institutions. Fifty years later there is a new world. And the people born then cannot even imagine the world in which their grandparents lived and into which their own parents were born. We are currently living in such a transformation.” 

Wednesday evening I guest lectured to a group of Christian university students. The conversation referenced current examples from the worlds of politics, technology, culture, and religion. Together, we tried to make sense of the public square in our times and parse how it was that social change happens. I noted that it was now 30 years since Drucker penned the quote above. These students weren’t born and could hardly comprehend the “Cold War world” I grew up in. The Second World War and Holocaust were history book stories for all of us, although I had the benefit of hearing first-person accounts from my parents and grandparents.   

But that isn’t to diminish this generation’s experience with trying times. Arguably, this generation has lived through a series of even greater social transformations: 9/11, the digital revolution, a global pandemic, global political and military alliances evolving in real time before our eyes. On the one hand, these students have instant access to unprecedented information regarding what is happening in every corner of the globe. On the other hand, they have no reliable guide to sort through which information is true and which is misinformation intended to mislead. And most fundamentally, there is no consensus on what makes us human and gives us dignity. They were looking for practical advice, both understanding how we got to where we are, but also what they might do to change society’s direction.

The temptation is to pick a side. Revolutionary times almost always include calls to “join the revolution.” Revolutions catalyse counter-revolutions and frame the issues as stark choices, with everyone urged to pick their side. You are either with us or against us. Revolutions by their very nature tighten the timelines and provide a sense of urgency and identity. 

So how do Christians take the long view in this? I offered the students a four-part answer.

1. Draw clear boundary lines. A Christian witness has content and is based on sound theology. There are times when we have to pick a side and take a clear stand. However, I cautioned that picking a side on an issue is different than picking a team in the revolution. Staying aware of that distinction is important for a faithful Christian witness.

2. Christian witness is contextual. Daniel’s calling in Babylon was different than David’s in Israel. We need to know where we are, what the language is that our neighbours speak, and how to witness and influence others appropriately within our setting. Culture matters. We need to listen and respond to the questions our neighbours are asking—the needs of the moment—and not just start with our own agenda.

3. How we do things matters as much as the things we do. Christian witness is about life, not words. We make the gospel plausible by how we live more than by what we say. Excusing inconsistency in our witness and life, not treating others (including those we disagree with) as the image-bearers of God that our theology tells us they are, undermines whatever theology we claim.

4. Christian witness always operates with a theology of hope. We know that the world was created with a purpose. Yet, history sometimes unfolds in ways we don’t understand. Even so, none of this is ever beyond God’s purpose and control. Our witness must include submission to providence and seeking to serve in the best way possible, even amidst difficult developments in our times which we may not understand.

This week was ugly. Fellow citizens failed to recognise the basic humanity of their neighbours, a dignity that is inherent regardless of political perspective, religion, race, or ethnicity. Many failed to call it out, implicitly accepting the argument that there is some aspect to our humanity which makes some of our neighbours worthier of life and respect than others.

But next week is Easter. As a Christian, I try to make sense of the present challenges in light of a firm history I know. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the first century didn’t achieve revolution; they achieved redemption. God made a world of communion and peace between Himself and humanity possible again, undoing both the guilt and the curse of sin. I get that this requires faith—a belief in what happened and a confidence that God will finish the work that He has begun. Not all of my fellow citizens share this faith. And even among those who do share my faith, there are messy differences we need to be overcome.

However, the Christian faith is one that puts calls for revolution or counter-revolution—however understandable they may be—into perspective. I may not be able to connect the dots perfectly between my life and behaviour today and the promise of a better future. In the meantime, I will seek to love God and my neighbour as He commands. A framework of orthodox doctrine, apologetic sensitivity, integrity, and hope is just my attempt to make that a bit more tangible.

On behalf of the Cardus staff and Insights team, I wish everyone a most blessed Easter.

WHAT I’M READING

Redeeming Fallen Institutions

Christian Scholar’s Review published a piece by Adam Smith which very helpfully highlights the importance of “institutional” thinking alongside best practices. It focuses on the university and begins a bit densely, but it is worth working through. Smith makes many important distinctions not usually considered regarding institutional inputs and outputs that have broad application.

Transgender Capitalism

Jennifer Bilek is a journalist who for several years has been investigating the forces that are driving the transgender movement. Her thesis has been that the movement “is a glamorous ad campaign generated by elites, invested in tech and pharma, to normalise the changing of human biology.” In her interview with Jonathan Van Maren published in the European Conservative (and brought to my attention by his Substack), Jennifer Bilek argues that the transgender phenomenon is “an industry rather than a movement” that is “grooming both adults and, more significantly, children into industrial body disassociation–a thriving business.” Referencing scientific breakthroughs in genetics, artificial intelligence, and reproductive technology, she suggests a future in which “reproduction without copulation or gestation may be the norm” with the potential for significant profits.

Union Focus

A regular reader passed along this article on unions published at Unherd which helpfully parses the renewed “abstract interest in labour movements'' that has attracted media and political attention. The article argues that this interest is not translating into “actually-existing workers joining actually-existing unions.” From a quick skim of the author’s writings, my guess is we disagree about quite a few things, but the article is helpful in framing some of the issues that emerge when either capital and labour are out of balance without meaningful accountability structures.

Prize for Describing Trouble

The five books nominated for this year’s Shaughnessy Prize for Political Writing were announced this week with the winner to be proclaimed at a May 7^th banquet. The shortlisted titles include words or phrases like “eroding,” “indictment,” “grievances,” “fall apart,” and “fire weather,” which captures the current Canadian political mood. I’m familiar with four of the five authors and arguments. In fairness, the collective take might better describe ours as a “time of reckoning and choice” with some hope that there might be a uniquely Canadian way out of the global challenges we face.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

Are Liberal Christians more Political than Conservative Christians?

Ryan Burge’s data about the connection between religion and politics in the United States provides a useful check on some prevailing assumptions. He recently tackled the question of religious political engagement and suggests that the prevailing assumption about Christians’ political activity is wrong. Burge argues that liberal church attendees are more engaged in political activity than conservatives are.

TAKE IT TO-GO

A Logophile Takes the Bait

I’m a logophile–a lover of words–so the clever "ArriveCan of Worms" headline in the Globe and Mail immediately earned my admiration. I responded to Campbell Clark’s piece like a fisherman who just felt a nibble on his line, eagerly engaging it and looking for the next wordplay to strike. It proved true to my limited fishing experience–no additional wordplays bit. 

I’m not blaming Mr. Clark. His article commendably points out details regarding procurement policy and government administration. He actually fulfilled the promise of his worm metaphor, reeling in a lot of facts. Worms are most talked about when they are used as fishing bait but make their best contribution when they slither below the soil and recycle nutrients. His article did the dirty work and didn’t bother with the flashy stuff.

But that knowledge didn’t stop me from being allured by wordplay anticipation and disappointed when it didn’t surface. Alas, there was just one worm offered. Without the requisite clew of worms, there’s no school of wordplay fish to catch. So here I sit with a hook but no worms. And no word-play catch. This word-fishing expedition is finished.

A reminder that Insights does not publish on long weekends. We’ll be back in your inbox on Saturday, April 6^th.