 |
 |
 |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
 |
October 27
I have been progressively frustrated by the blogging and media discourse regarding Christian Faith and politics over the course of the last few months, from issues ranging from homosexual marriage to Supreme Court nominations to environmental issues. I have written about the general issue of The Christian and the State in writings entitled such, in installments I, II, and III, but I wanted to add a few thoughts here today.
First of all, a person who is a Christian may or may not be qualified for public service. Their Christian faith does not qualify them. Their Christian faith should not disqualify them. It is quite possible, and has been shown over and over to be possible, that a person who is a Christian, even of the old traditional conservative “bible-believing” type, can be a good public servant. Their faith does not mean that they are too stupid to realize the difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Greensboro (or North Carolina, or the United States) or the difference between the Church leadership board and the Greensboro City Council. Not does it mean that they’re itching to bring in a Christian theocracy. It seems about every time a person’s faith gets mention in the same paragraph as public policy issues, the “t” word shows up.
Second, there is long theological history within Christianity of “common grace” and the concomitant distinction between the common public good and civil law on the one hand, and the structure and “law” of the church on the other, that we should assume that at least some Christian people understand that.
Third, many of the thorniest issues we face, such as that of homosexual marriage, war, abortion, pornography, the plight of the poor and needy, and the environment require articulation at a “secular” or “civil” level in the public arena. In other words, if I am going to argue against homosexual marriage, which I would, I would NOT start in the public arena with an argument from the Bible. I would first establish that the State has a right to define what is and isn’t a legal marriage because of all the benefits that accrue to spouses, and because the family remains the basic building block of our culture (even if our own Constitution does not establish that, though, interestingly, UN Statutes do). Anyway, the State has an interest no matter what the churches say or do. Once that interest is established then the argument must proceed on secular and constitutional grounds as much as possible. I think a secular case against homosexual marriage can be made, but it has to be a secular case first of it involves public policy.
However, and fourth, with many issues, quickly we run up against the fact that no matter what way we turn, and no matter what books we read, and no matter how closely we try to exegete the constitution, at every tune, on issue after issue we find that we are face to face with a problem. The problem is that many public policy matters upon which elected officials must vote and decide, they must be voted on and decided by conscience alone in the end, and one’s basic fundamental values will impact such decisions. This is as true for the atheist as well as the Christian.
The constitution does not establish a moral norm, nor a moral consensus. It does not tell us what are the most truly fundamental human rights. It assumes such rights exist. It protects some. It does not define and describe all of them. Many are assumed. It does not specifically say what is the moral consensus that it assumes. But it does assumes such, and the lack of such moral consensus today (and on other issues at other times) is exactly why many of these issues are so terribly difficult and divisive.
Why outlaw slavery? Well, ultimately because it is wrong. The people who championed emancipation were mostly Christian people who knew that the institution was wrong and degrading and terrible no matter what the constitution said.
So, try as we must to make secular and constitutional arguments, we end up, on many issues, looking into a big black void. What is the right thing to do? How can and do we decide?
At that point one’s faith, one’s world view, one’s fundamental values, do enter into the picture. This is true of and for absolutely everybody, Christian, atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Jew, whomever.
To seek the public good requires everyone to have some conception of “good.” How we define and describe what that good is will impact how we seek to establish the public good.
So, there is no getting around the fact that there is a “battle” so to speak as to what constitutes the fundamental norms of the society and culture, that is, the nature of “good.” Sometimes in the midst of such battles there is much in the way of “moral persuasion” that goes on. There is no getting around it.
But still, sixth, arguments regarding public policy should begin not with Bible verses or anti-Bible proclamations, but with rational discussion of the public good, constitutionally based, and secularly oriented. Still, in the end, no matter what, fundamental values come in, and the problem of the lack of a moral consensus rears its head. At that point, no matter what well one draws upon in seeking one’s moral bearings, this process should be respected for each public servant, for Christian or atheist alike. This is a pluralistic and secular nation, but no nation, no person, can seek to establish the public welfare without at some point drawing upon such fundamental values.
To do that as a Christian is not being “theocratic.”
I long to see pluralistic public policy debate on truly thorny issues that do involve moral imperatives that is both civil in nature and respective of the other’s conscience. I am tired of seeing my religion used on the one hand (Harriet Miers) or abused, as lately seems more often the case, every time issues of public policy AND moral import are raised.
Peace. Joel.
|
 |
|
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
