Matthew Flannagan: One man’s actions do not undermine Christian beliefs

Opinion

Graham Capill, who pleaded guilty to molesting an 8-year-old, was a friend of mine and I was a policy adviser for the political party which he led at the time. Like most people, I did not know of his crimes until fairly recently and, like most, I am deeply shocked and disgusted by them.

Capill's actions were seriously wrong and his actions warranted him being censured and punished by society. I do not intend to defend what he did because it is indefensible. His actions violated the principles he had ardently defended and vocally proclaimed for the past decade. They reveal a serious character flaw, one worthy of censure.

If these were the only conclusions drawn from Capill's actions, they would be something of a truism. Some, however, have not left matters there. It has been suggested that Capill's actions not only illuminate his own character flaws but prove the lack of integrity or sincerity of conservative Christians in general. This line of argument is mistaken on several counts.

First, Capill's actions do not prove his Christian beliefs were mistaken. It's true he did not live up to ideals that he espoused - but that tells us only about his own weakness of character, not the ideals themselves.

The specific ideal Capill failed to live up to was his belief that one should not molest children, and surely he was correct to believe this. The fact that people can justifiably condemn and censure his actions actually confirms his views on this matter rather than calls them into question. Moreover, it is disingenuous to call into question many of the other beliefs Capill held. There is no evidence that he has engaged in homosexual sodomy, or stolen, or done any of the other actions he criticised. As far as these other views are concerned, Capill did live consistently with them.

The second thing this event does not prove is anything about the character or moral integrity of conservative Christians in general.

An example will help demonstrate this. In a textbook on Christian ethics, evangelical theologian Norman Geisler offers the following argument for the immorality of homosexual sex: "Homosexuality is associated with a whole cluster of socially undesirable characteristics ... child molestation cases involve three times as many homosexuals than the general population. Homosexual crimes, some against other homosexuals, are among the most violent committed. These undesirable characteristics are a cause for social concern. They counter the claim that homosexual behaviour is purely private and, therefore, of no concern to society in general."

What is problematic about this reasoning is that it infers that an entire class of people should be censored or marginalised because one or some members of this group have committed a crime.

The same reasoning could lead us to conclude that society should marginalise Polynesian men because some Polynesian men have committed crimes. Such generalisations are clearly unacceptable.

Interestingly, however, much of the response to Capill's actions exemplifies this same prejudice with regard to religion - that because Capill has committed a crime, the political discourse of all conservative evangelicals should be questioned. Any reasoning that is unsound and spurious when applied to homosexuality does not become valid when the topic is religion. Irrational prejudice is still prejudice when the victims are conservative Christians.

The fact that one person commits a crime does not mean that anyone who shares similar beliefs or values is implicated in the crime.

To be implicated, these people must have committed the crime in question or have been accomplices.

If they have done neither, mere similarity of belief does not make them guilty. This is common sense but appears to be lost on many.

Behind these mistakes by commentators is the rejection of two important principles that are essential to a tolerant society.

The first is that individuals are judged by the merits of their own actions, and a person can be condemned only if there is evidence that he or she has performed an action worthy of censure.

The second is that the rational acceptability of a person's beliefs stands or falls on the merits of the arguments that can be mustered for or against them. These principles apply to all people regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation or religion. It should be a concern to all if the media or populace at large does not take them seriously.

Pointing out the horrendous nature of someone else's crime would say nothing about the merits of my beliefs or my character. It does point out the irrational conclusions these commentators draw and the kind of prejudiced generalisations people will make to score political points.

* Matthew Flannagan - a former Christian Heritage Party justice spokesman who is studying for a doctorate in theology at Otago University - responds to the view of Laurie Guy that conservative Christians, having lost the high ground on issues of sexual morality, should butt out of politics.