I seem to recall one of my brothers—years ago—subscribing to a Columbia Record “deal”—where the first five records are free! He neglected to notice the fine print; setting in motion years of obligatory payments. I remembered this story this past week, as the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to lean toward retaining the phrase “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. For many, this seems like a good deal. But the fine print might set in motion years of judicial reasoning. Let me tell you why.
On June 7, 1965, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that a Connecticut statute (prohibiting the use of contraceptives by married couples) interfered in their private procreative decisions. That was a good decision—a good deal. But look at the fine print. The Court decided the case on the basis of a “right to privacy.” The payment plan was set in motion. In 1972, the “right to privacy” was in the fine print as the Supreme Court decided (Eisenstadt v. Baird) that a Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was unconstitutional. The next year—1973—the “right to privacy” was the foundation for the Roe v. Wade decision that invalidated a Texas law prohibiting abortion. Then the “right to privacy” was in the fine print again in 1992, when the Court decided the Casey case by advancing this “right” all the way to declaring “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” In less than forty years, “the right to privacy” took us from choosing contraceptives to defining the cosmos. How does the 1965 “deal” look now?
Fast-forward to 2004 and the current “one nation under God” case. I have no idea how the Court will rule. Justice David Souter has indicated he thinks the case has little merit. This sounds like a good deal for people of faith. But look at the fine print. Souter’s argument is grounded in the idea that [his words]: “Religion in this country is so diluted… it goes beneath the constitutional radar. Insofar as the way we live and think and work in schools and civic society… whatever religious direction there is, is simply lost.”
Souter is saying we should retain the phrase “one nation under God” in the Pledge because it means nothing in public life. That’s the fine print in this appealing offer. The irony is that Justice Souter gets it half-right. Religious direction is lost for most Americans. It has become a privatized affair that influences little of public life. It is mostly a compartmentalized matter that does not think coherently about the wider world. But if he’s right, where will we be in 2044?
I think Souter’s half-wrong because faith historically influenced the way we think, work, and built our civic society. I hope people of faith follow the Supreme Court decision carefully and read the fine print.
By now, we’ve all heard plenty about Mel Gibson’s The Passion of The Christ. Some of you have probably already seen it. Churches are organizing groups for post-film discussions, which is a great idea. But I think we’d do better with the wider world if we knew how to “bookend” these Passion conversations with a second, more imaginative film — J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. The fact that we organize ticket-selling drives for The Passion — and didn’t for The Lord of the Rings — might tell us something about how we’ve forgotten the role of the arts and imagination in the Christian story.
For most of us, the idea of being made in the image of God holds little meaning. Yet, for much of history, the imago dei meant that humankind has the capacity for more than analytical reason; we also have imagination. Even so, most of us value our rational capabilities more than imagination. Louise Cowan thinks this is a grave error. She writes: “This may seem radical to you, but I think we believe that our rationalization is the source of truth. I don’t believe it. C.S. Lewis said that the brain is the organ of truth, but imagination is the organ of reality.” Translation? Reason gives us truth, but imagination gives us meaning. As Lewis saw it, imagination is a precursor to truth. It enables truth to be meaning-full. This is why Lendor Calder says, “Spiritual awakening will not occur when Christian doctrines are better defended; rather, it will occur when holy imaginations make the Christian story more likely to be appreciated.”
C.S. Lewis understood this as well as anyone. He was part of a group of writers known as the “Theologians of Romanticism.” They met regularly on Tuesdays at a pub called The Eagle and the Child, enjoying an ongoing conversation that included J.R.R. Tolkien and Charles Williams. Also dubbed The Inklings, they all believed that reason and imagination have distinct roles: reason has to do with theoretical or conceptual truths; imagination has to do with the very conditions of truth. In other words, imagination precedes reason. As I said earlier, imagination makes truth reason-able or meaning-full. For Lewis, this meant that good fantasy literature and art has the power to “steal past” the religious associations and demands that destroy one’s ability to feel the truth of the Christian revelation as we should. “[B]y casting aside these things in an imaginative world, stripping them of their stained-glass and Sunday school associations, one could make them for the first time appear in their potency,” wrote Lewis. The writer could then, according to Lewis, “steal past those watchful dragons” to communicate with the wider world.
Because The Passion of The Christ is a realistic (but religious and historical) film, Mel Gibson has had difficulty stealing past those “watchful dragons”, as Lewis predicted. It’s still an excellent movie — not a poor second to Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. But I do think evangelicals need to bookend this film with more imaginative literature, art, and movies that would make the gospel and the passion of Christ more meaningful in a “whatever” world of competing stories.
