We arrive on the morningafter the election with some kind of freedom to speak about faith and publiclife in Canada. It was interesting that my colleague Shelby Gregg asked mewhether it was a newsletter on faith AND public life or IN public life. We areunusual as a culture that we are not able to comment about faith in public lifesince we simply don’t know anything about it. I’d love to make some observationsand see what you do with them. Here goes.

We have persuadedourselves as a culture that we have a nation which practices a profound andpowerful Baptist contribution to the general public by practicing separation ofchurch and state. This is not historically accurate by any measure. AtlanticCanada experienced the strength of both Protestant and Catholic influences.Ontario was predominately Protestant (in many ways until the 60’s whenmulticultural faiths and Roman Catholicism attained a greater influence).Quebec, without the quasi-religious politics since it’s founding and mostdestructively expressed by Duplesis culminated in the persecution of bothJehovah’s Witnesses and Baptists. You can not define the social values in thePrairies around poverty, the vote for women, prohibition or medical carewithout reference to evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. BritishColumbia has in turns taken on all the attributes of those I have mentioned.

The preceding couldeasily be critiqued as a superficial, historical overview. It is. But it’s astart.

The more interestingreligious landscape can be found in our past Prime Ministers and presentpolitical leaders. Louis St. Laurent, John Diefenbaker, Tommy Douglas, PrestonManning, Joe Clark, Paul Martin, John Turner, Stephen Harper have all eitherpersonally declared or been “outed” by others as people of faith. This is alsotrue of Pierre Trudeau in his latter years. I know that is hard to fathom forsome, but it was something that was important to him. The notable folk thatwere absent in terms of a self-declared faith were Lester Pearson (a surprisefor some), Jean Chrétien, Kim Campbell, Brian Mulroney.

I am concerned thathaving even raised the issue of the faith of Prime Minsters that I will stir upthe debate and quibbling amongst ourselves. All I am describing is those whoclaimed that faith was important to them. I am not promoting their “ChristianCredentials” nor defending their spiritual traditions. I am simply describinghow they believe themselves to be. I did not include, you will note, thatwonderful paragon of the mainline Christian establishment Mackenzie King,because I have never believed that a séance with your dog (named Pat, Irecently learned, all three of them) has ever constituted a worship service.

What may be moreinteresting is how little we know about the personal faith journeys of thepresent political leaders. Elizabeth May is an Anglican studying theology andintending to be…I was interrupted at this point by Shelby who quipped“Elizabeth May is intending to be an MP in the next election”… but as I recoverfrom that fiction (only kidding) I believe she intends to be an Anglican Deacon or Priest. She makes nobones about how important her faith is.

Gilles Duceppe and StéphaneDion areunknown quantities in an understanding of their personal faith, although Mr.Duceppe permitted a Roman Catholic priest who is a member of his caucus (andforbidden by the Pope to run in this election) to be present at the NationalPrayer Breakfast to read scripture. There have been some significant influencesin Dion’s party, which include John Manley and one of my personal heroes aroundAfrica, David Kilgour.  BothDuceppe and Dion face the challenges of being raised in Roman Catholic Quebecin which, until the 60’s, the church had an unhealthy and excessive influence.That neither explains nor excuses a lack of clarity on where they stand, but itgoes some way to explaining it.

Jack Layton was the onlyparty leader at the National Prayer breakfast this year in May. He sat at thehead table, read scripture, and bathed in the light and assurance of never beenportrayed as too religious. I find it an incredible irony that Mr. Layton, whois a profoundly compassionate man, is not seen in religious terms and thereforeis able to go to National Prayer Breakfasts. It was also incredibly difficult tolearn that under his leadership, free votes on personal moral issues arelimited. The NDP have attempted to redeem the dialogue between faith and publiclife by starting a new faith and public life institute under Bill Blakely.Several of the parties deny their members free votes on conscience issues. Isee that as the single most devastating threat to Christian’s in public life.

Lastly, we have Mr.Harper who has been grouped together as a particularly conservative person offaith. There is no public evidence of that, but I was profoundly grateful thathe quoted scripture in his acceptance speech last night, acknowledged the prayersof people and wished God’s blessing upon the country. I felt badly for thePrime Minister in the way he seemed awkward and embarrassed in the abrupt sortof afterthought that “God bless Canada” seemed to be uttered. But I was verygrateful that he said it none-the-less.

So there you have it. Abrief overview to stimulate discussion. I have worked hard at being fair andmay not have succeeded. For this I apologize in advance. I will, however, stickto my guns that it is important to talk about these issues. This newsletter isan outline of some things we may be able to talk about in the future. I amthankful that our second Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie, was part of ourclan and a committed Christian. I am grateful that John Diefenbaker, despitehis foibles, was the same and a man who saw justice and behaved in a righteousway when he saw the downtrodden and the broken (albeit it, he exempted hispolitical opponents). Above all, I am thankful that people of faith are nowspeaking of such when it comes to public life and that we are now becoming ahealthier society because of it. I am also deeply grateful for the dialogue forthe country we live in and the democracy we experience.

Bruce Hutchison, themost significant Canadian journalist in the first eighty years of the twentiethcentury was a lifelong agnostic, yet found an impatience with others who lackbelief. Here is a note from the end of his autobiography.

My own recognition, despite these bold words and Swampfantasies, was late and dim, the shadows dark and inscrutable, but after a lifeof scepticism I cannot doubt that the sun shines and a different life movesoutside the cave. I understand and respect the man who believes nothing unknownto the sense of his body, but I cannot understand why he should boast of thatlimitation as if it were a laborious achievement. Anyone can do it, and itsimplifies everything since there is no further need to think. Nor can Iunderstand why the agnostic should boast that, after profound thought, he hasno opinion at all, as a judge in court might claim superior wisdom because hecould reach no verdict. Above all, I cannot understand why a man who believesin things beyond the senses should be afraid to say so, as if belief weresomehow shameful and neutrality more respectable than commitment.

Yet sobelief is widely judged, in Western society at least…

(BruceHutchison; The Far Side of the Street).

Warmly,

In Christ,

Jeremy