Andrew Lansdown of Life Ministries WA is a prolific writer on topics of interest to the Religious Right. He has some strange ideas (for example, he believes that animals are morally responsible for their actions - Salt Shakers Journal, Feb. 2001, 13), but he is generally orthodox in his interpretations of the scriptures. I was surprised, therefore, when I came across this paragraph in a recent article he wrote called ‘Arguments against abortion’ (New Life, 28 Apr. 2005, 5):

Every human being has a right to life. This includes, of course, pregnant women. Consequently, on the exceptionally rare occasion when a woman is in mortal danger from the continuation of a pregnancy, her life cannot be forfeited against her will for the sake of the baby’s. Where there is a genuine conflict between the right to life of the child and the right to life of the mother it is legitimate to choose in favour of the mother.

Many readers will realise that Lansdown has fallen into the ’secular trap’ which lies in wait for all modern Religious Right authors. Briefly, there is no scriptural mandate for his stance and a very strong moral argument against it, namely that the foetus is unbaptised and, according to Christian literalists, on an express train to hell unless this sacrament can be administered. The mother, on the other hand, is either baptised or presumably had the chance to avail herself of the sacrament. It follows that the presiding doctor must try to save the foetus, even at the cost of the mother’s life. Lansdown has made his judgment on the same basis as I would make mine i.e. an essentially utilitarian one, and come down firmly on the side of the mother. A humanitarian decision, yes, but a scriptural one, no. Don’t believe me? Have a look at Mark 16:16, which traditionalists still accept as a legitimate part of the Bible.

Thinking in basically secular ways is an unavoidable aspect of modern life in Western society, even for most fundamentalists. Bill Muehlenberg of the Australian Family Association also falls into this trap, but much more often and rather more voluntarily than Andrew Lansdown. Doubtless inspired by Matt 10:16 (’… Be wise as serpents’ - Bill doesn’t seem to worry so much about the ‘and innocent as doves’ part), Muehlenberg directly advises his supporters to disguise themselves in secular raiment, the better to promote their theocratic message.

In his article ‘Learning the Language of Babylon: Lessons on How Not To Lobby’ (accessed at the Australian Christian Lobby website  - 12 Feb. 2004), Muehlenberg insists that lobbying ‘is an important part of being salt and light in an increasingly secular and immoral society’. However, ‘there are good ways to lobby, and there are not so good ways to lobby’.

He then quotes at length from an anti-prostitution diatribe sent to MPs in New Zealand by a Catholic morals group:

Any endorsement or recognition of ‘rights’ for prostitutes is contrary to reason; contrary to the law of nature; and especially contrary to the Law of God which is promulgated by the Catholic Church … Prostitution is an evil that always involves at least one mortal sin. Fornication is a mortal sin. Adultery is a mortal sin. Contraception is a mortal sin … Abortion is a mortal sin. Homosexual acts are a mortal sin. Any person who dies in the state of mortal sin is cast into Hell to suffer punishment for all eternity. Any MP who votes for the ‘Prostitution Reform Bill’ is on the road to Hell for all eternity.

Pretty hot stuff, eh? - but Bill doesn’t like it. The Eleventh Commandment for modern Christians is, ‘Thou shalt not let it all hang out’:

… [I]n a pluralistic and secular society, we need to learn to communicate more smartly and target our audience better … [T]his group has not only wasted an opportunity to really make an impact on the debate over the legislation, but it has simply further caricatured Christians as buffoons and far-out fringe groups, to be ignored and/or dismissed.

Here is the core of Muehlenberg’s message:

‘Turn or burn’ preaching may have its place [i.e. it's basically OK to threaten people with hell if they don't convert to Christianity], but not in public submissions to Parliamentary inquiries [i.e. we must keep our ultimate beliefs and objectives hidden when we're talking to politicians]. What religious folk need to do is learn to ’speak the language of Babylon’. That is, just as Daniel learned the language, culture and politics of Babylon, where he was captive, … so too we modern believers, in our own cultural captivity, need to learn to address our concerns in an appropriate manner to our secular audiences.

That is, we need to take our biblical worldview [i.e. theocratic ideology] and concerns, and express them in non-biblical and non-theological language, so that our non-Christian friends can understand.

This is a very ‘modern’, utilitarian approach, having little in common with biblical strictures about honesty: the ends are regarded as justifying highly questionable means. Muehlenberg has fallen so far into the secular trap that the line between (a) transparent and (b) misleading presentation of conservative Christian views has become dangerously blurred. Even the titles of many Religious Right groups (Australian Family Association, Australian Federation for the Family etc.) fail to communicate a clear idea of these organisations’ true goals.

So the next time you read a ‘letter to the editor’ which is expressed in broadly secular terms but which argues a Religious Right position, think about how well the writer has learned to ’speak the language of Babylon’.

Filed in: Morality, Secularism