Monday, September 15, 2008

Monday Editorial: Voting Morality

If someone asked me to design a state that would maximize (superficial) happiness, I might design a place where people were free to do anything they wanted, as long as it did not interfere with the happiness of others. This statement is not without its complications. What is happiness, truly? What are we to do with the fact that people often want things that don't really maximize their happiness?

In general, this is the way the United States is structured. The structuring is uneven, to be sure, but this is the general idea behind our "social contract."

The impact of this general approach is perhaps most visible when it comes to the Constitution's approach to religion. Although initially some states had official church connections--thus Maryland was Roman Catholic--the collection of states as a whole was not to have a state religion. To maximize happiness--and because many of the original settlers of America were fleeing religious persecution--individuals are free to choose whatever religion they wish here, as long as their practice of religion does not impinge on the freedoms and rights of others.

For this reason, it is difficult to see how someone could (technically) say that we were founded as a Christian nation, other than the fact that the original settlers were predominantly Christian in religion (at least nominally). Of course many of the "founding fathers" were Deists, which would not qualify them as Christians in the historic sense of the word.

Now, it was perhaps only in the late 20th century that the laws really began to reflect this basic principle of not having a state religion. And it is here that we see many Christians protesting a turning away from aspects of American law that had retained Christian influence. In my opinion, it is not that America was getting away from its Constitutional beginnings. It was rather that as the United States became more and more secular, those beginnings were finally making their way through the specifics of the legal system.

For example, it is difficult to see, on the basis of the Constitution, how homosexual practice could be illegal. On what non-religious basis would it be prohibited? But if Congress is not to pass laws that are based on specifically religious beliefs, how could such laws be constitutional?

The current conflict between political parties over issues like abortion or gay marriage are really a symptom of conflict over this constitutional principle. Can Congress pass laws that have a specifically religious basis but cannot be argued for on a purely secular basis? On what secular basis could Congress prohibit abortion in the first weeks of a pregnancy? Or on what secular basis could Congress deny gay couples the benefits of a civil union?

It is for this reason that we have heard talk in recent years of constitutional amendments on these sorts of issues. In this discussion is a tacit recognition that the Constitution provides no basis for prohibiting these things. Our drive to prohibit them comes from our Christian beliefs, beliefs that the Constitution does not afford status if we cannot demonstrate a concrete detriment to the happiness of others.

What we potentially find as Christians is thus that the Constitution is not nearly so Christian as we imagined. Indeed, we find that the Constitution may very well stand diametrically opposed to our Christian values. After all, do we not believe that our values are the right ones, and that true happiness would be for all of American society to follow them?

There is actually more than one model of Christian engagement with society when it comes to matters of this sort. Unfortunately, however, most Christians have no awareness either of the basis of their own position or how it relates to the others. They unthinkingly assume that their way of engaging culture is the right way and the Christian way.

For example, the Calvinist approach to society tends to follow the model set by Calvin himself, namely, to try to take over society. Puritan New England had no "non establishment" clause. The Calvinist assumption is naturally that Christians should take over the American government and make it our kind of Christian. After all, is this not how God relates to the world, manipulating those who will be saved and, by default, those who will be damned?

Of course this approach is the heart of why so many Christians fled to America in the first place, and why Quakers settled in Pennsylvania and others in Rhode Island--to get away from the Fascist Christian machines of Europe. Nevertheless, most of grass roots conservative Christianity has mindlessly absorbed this approach as well, even theological traditions like my own. The unthinking assumption is that, of course, we should try to make American law mirror our Christan understanding and force others to live the right way.

The inconsistency of this approach with my own theological tradition, coupled with how vigorously people in my church fight for it, is really ironic. For example, as Wesleyans we believe that God does not force anyone to choose him. We believe that God has sovereignly allowed humans to resist His will. Even in Romans 1, the language Paul uses in relation to homosexual sin is that God "gave them up." Certainly the presumption is that God will judge all at the judgment, but we believe that God does not force the world to obey Him for now.

In that sense, the American system is less in tension with the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition than it is the Calvinist system. Of course there are other approaches. Quakers and Anabaptists have tended to remove themselves from participation in the broader society altogether. The Lutherans tend to have a "two kingdoms" approach in which the government is the government and Christianity is Christianity and both just follow different rules. Probably the American system fits best with their approach to society.

But the question of how a Christian should vote in relation to these issues becomes a tricky one. On the issue of homosexuality, a Calvinist will vote against the American system and try to perpetuate specifically Christian laws. Indeed, Calvinists should probably plot to take over the Constitution and establish their form of Christianity as the state religion. I think Ariminians would vote in a way that they thought would most encourage movement toward God, which isn't always effectively done with a stick.

The issue of abortion is different because most Christians see it as murder. Concrete harm to others is a matter of the Constitution. I'm not sure that we will be able to make the secular case in the earliest weeks of pregnancy, but I think most states have become convinced that third trimester abortions should be severely limited. When people see what a second trimester unborn looks like, they are often convinced that it is murder as well.

Of course a vote for a president is not automatically a vote for or against abortion. Reagan and Bush were both in office for 8 years and abortion is still legal. If the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe vs. Wade, it would still be a matter of individual states whether abortion was legal or not. Most states would continue to allow it. It might require a little travel, but the vast majority of women would still be able to have an abortion if they wanted to.

Another serious question is what the side effects would be of appointing justices that are interested in overturning Roe vs. Wade. If we leave Roe vs. Wade out of the discussion for a moment, we should remember that it was the Clarence Thomas type justice that declared that the children of slaves--even if they were freed--could never be citizens and that Congress had no constitutional right to prohibit slavery (1857). And it was the Antonin Scalia type justice that upheld the Jim Crow laws that forced blacks to sit in the backs of buses in the South and would not allow them to go to the same schools as whites.

From a legalistic standpoint, these may very well have been the right decisions from a strict reading of the law. Part of me respects that. But true justice would have been to go the other way with the Dred Scott case, and true justice was done in the civil rights cases of the 60's and 70's. Those Christians who trumpet strict constructionism should pause to remember that, for the most part, they are championing an approach that most of the time rendered or would have rendered anti-Christian decisions. Roe vs. Wade is ironically far more likely to be the exception, than the rule.

A final thing to keep in mind here also is that the New Testament, and the roots of my own theological tradition, are far more interested in true change in a person than in making people follow the rules. To be sure, there was a 50 year period in my own church's history where we were rather shallow on the moral development scale and mostly just wanted people to look and act a certain way.

But this is not the true Wesleyan tradition that was interested in heart change. And it is certainly not the New Testament's "virtue based" approach to ethics, where it is from the heart that uncleanness comes and where the fruit of the Spirit comes not from the letter but from the Spirit within. From that perspective, the more Christian agenda is the one that aims to change people more than to make them follow the right rules.

How does this relate to the current election? I believe that McCain's position on abortion fits better with that of the majority of Christians. At the same time, we should not make light of Obama's goal of decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies. I think McCain would support this goal too. These broader concerns represent a higher level of moral development than the lower "law" oriented approach that simply wants to make sure no one breaks a rule.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

How on earth can a non-Christian woman or perhaps girl, receive maximum happiness if she is brutally raped, falls pregnant, and forced to go through with the full pregnancy and birth. Or a pregnant woman who will die if she proceeds with the birth? (I really don't see this as very pro life) How patronising to say the least. I also find the predominant Christian view of homosexuals as sinners, patronising to say the least. From a secular perspective I see us as all equal despite our differences in every respect, from size, colour, IQ, temperament, to sexuality - even heterosexuals are attracted to different types. Some women are attracted to macho men and some like more effeminate men and so on. Homosexuality exists in other species too. Yet some Christians would like homosexuals to reject their partner and sexuality in order to receive maximum happiness.

I hope people vote on real life issues, not abortion.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I think you are making some distinctions that are unnecessary.

If we believe that all truth is God's truth, then science is God's truth. So, there is no sacred/secular division.

Secondly, and on the heels of the first is making a distinction between the civil and the humane. In Christian faith or any faith that believes in a Supreme Being, the humane (human rights) are not at odds with the civil or religious...So, the collapse of the "wall between Church and State" is based on human rights and what is humane...This should be the place for discussing the "new theological view"...

Deism was the result of understanding God's governance through natural science...Science was the ordered structure of the world and therefore was the basis of the moral govenmental theoty of the atonement....Today's science is not understood as simplistically as it was in the 1700's, when Newton's law was "discovered". That does not mean that Newton's law isn't applicable, as far as science, but there are other ways of describing the universe, depending on what specific science one uses. A number of theories have been attempted to describe the social order with today's understanding of science, but it really ends up as socialism, social planning. This breeds difficulties with the individual's developmental pace and place within the organizational structure...too many variables to determine how to plan on specifics. Individuals change, and social science cannot be reduced to causal and effect (unless one is a behavioralist). This is where "emergence" comes in. But, emergence is just a way to "exile" those who do not "fit". It is not a way to accept and affirm difference within unity....I would argue that the individual is made in God's image, first and foremost, not the creation order. The individual or humans must be considered first as a theory to describe today's science/relgion interface...This was why Madrid's Metanexus conference was an important one.

As far as happiness goes, we cannot and should not determine another's way of happiness....as long as it does not impinge on another's life choices. This is where "laws" should protect each person's right to pursue his own ends before God, as one's faith is personal. If one's way to happiness is dysfunctional, as in addiction, family, etc., then there should be means to address that issue in society with social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, addiction counselors, ETC. This is why so many come to our shores. We are free to pursue our life without any extraneous intervention.

As far as how this personal faith is one of Christian faith, it isn't necessarily Christian. As Christian faith was founded upon the ethical understanding of the "law" via Jesus and the prophets. Christian duty is done within the walls of the Church in reaching those within and without in programs the Church sees need of...True faith is not based on creed, denomination, functionality, etc. It just is. One's faith can be based on a certain aspect of the Quadralateral, which can describe how one understands their faith. But the worldviews will have different ways of addressing issues, understanding faith, and how that looks in working out that faith...

But, I do agree with you that our government should continue to reflect the Deistic view that it was founded around. Law and order are important in society. That does not mean that our understanding of what is moral remains the same, just our way of understanding morality itself...What is moral to a child, might seem naive to an adult...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

BTW, (I know, I like the BTWs), virtue is defined differently depending on what aspect of the Quadralateral one focuses on...The Bible cannot be the ultimate, as it has to be defined itself within Tradition...and history...

This is why it is wrong to define another's virtue...is it more virtuous to do one's duty toward society, than to do one's duty at home? What virtue is most important? How is virtue to be pursued? Aren't goals virtuous by nature or can they breed vice? Are virtues culturally evaluated? ETC.

Ken Schenck said...

Angie, I think if we were talking about non-Republican issues here, you would Amen this post to the heights. I predict that you will take a more radical position than I have on such things as you work out your fundamental ideas on freedom into this not yet examined territory...

Elizabeth Glass-Turner said...

I think that one can argue, without being a Christian, that an important element of the law is its didactic purpose, as a means of general revelation. This is, I would guess, easier to do if one is working from a broad supernatural framework, rather than a naturalist assumption. But I think a deist could argue for the value of the didactic role that law plays.
That being said, I think it could also be argued that abortion is not only a Bible-belt bane, it is an abuse of human rights, and it moves human tissue from the realm of transcendent "human" to consumer product to be accepted or disposed of. Once again, it doesn't take a legalistic fundie to see the complex nature of when human rights begin. But I think one could argue to Senator Obama that if one decides it's above a certain paygrade, then best to err on the side of protection, when it comes to human rights.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

What are you talking about non-Republican? Are you viewing my entry as a political one? Did I mis-read you intent in the post? ?I'm not arguing for freedom from community, but freedom within community. Does the community have to be unified in specificties? I don't think that many people even think about their faith that deeply. Possibly I'm being presumptuous, but I think I have reason to believe, when one recites the Apostle's Creed, do they really think about what it means? Do they care? What does it matter anyway? Without a meaning or "way of understanding" one's faith, then there is no faith worth living. On the other hand, one's understanding cannot be so tightly held that it cannot be changed, without limiting growth. Don't you agree? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

(Did you mean your response as a rebuke? What is it you're saying to me?)

Anonymous said...

Angie, I think you should watch your tone...your last response sounds like it's veering a little towards the belligerent...you are, after all, a guest on this blog, and there's nothing by way of a tone of rebuke in Professor Schneck's response. After all the interaction you've had with him, surely you would have caught a sense of his character by now to know that.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Harper, I by no means meant to sound belligerent! I am sorry if it came acorss wrong. In what way was my tone warring or contentious? I was just requesting more information about how my post was recieved. I know that I can be pretty direct, but that doesn't mean that I intend to "war" nor bring disrespect to Ken. I also assume that I'm in the wrong, so that is where I asked about rebuke. I by no means disrespect Ken. But, no I don't know Ken all that well. It takes years of interaction to know and understand someone. And because of this, mis-communication happens. Sorry, hor...

Ken Schenck said...

Hey Angie, back from my last class of the day :-)

Maybe I didn't read your post well enough, but I thought you weren't going with your normal idea that society should be free of particular encumberances that are specific to specific religious ideas.

Anonymous said...

Hi Angie,

Judging from the way you phrased your apology, you must have guessed that I am a Singaporean. This is going to sound a little silly, but can I ask how? I can't help but feel impressed/stunned/freaked-out, haha.

::athada:: said...

After talking with some relatives lately about politicis (which, of course, was all about ¨B.O.¨ and abortion) they concluded with ¨just vote the Biblë¨. I wondered silently how to so simply apply a text written by dozens of authors over hundreds of years to a modern day secular state. You´re teasing some of that out...