Posted on 12/26/2009 5:49:08 PM PST by the_conscience
America as a virtuous society and America as a free society: citizens have held to these two ideals from our earliest days. The aspiration to freedom or to virtue—or to a confluence of both—was crucial in the founding of the British colonies, including the establishment of Rhode Island by Roger Williams. It can be seen in the Declaration of Independence as well as in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
It came to white heat in the Civil War. It inspired great reform movements such as Progressivism, the New Deal, and Civil Rights. It has driven moral struggles from the anti-vice Comstock Laws and Prohibition in past generations to abortion, affirmative action, and same-sex marriage today.
Is there a way for communal righteousness and personal liberty to coexist in national policy? This is a thorny question for any of us who seek to be not only good citizens, but also faithful adherents to Scripture. If some Christians assume that the two ideals blend seamlessly into a single practical world view, they oversimplify. There is increasing evidence that freedom and virtue are on a collision course in America, with unpleasant consequences already here or coming soon. Consider:
■ When Catholic bishops officially assert that government-provided health care is the right of every American, is this a step toward making us a more virtuous society? Or does it infringe upon the freedom of individuals by taxing one to pay for another’s “right”?In other words, how well is either the body of believers or the body politic really served by today’s anomalous situation where so many Christians, as citizens, declaim for “preserving marriage” and fight against same-sex unions—even while those same Christians, as private individuals, go with the cultural flow on cohabitation, disposable vows, and serial marriage?■ When no-fault divorce is deemed acceptable by more and more churches in the United States, is this a wholesome affirmation of individual liberty? Or is it an unwholesome debasement of societal virtue?
■ When two persons of the same sex are not legally free to enter into a civil marriage, due to the opposition of many Christians (as well as Muslims), is this a defense of America’s virtue as historically understood? Or is it a trap waiting to be sprung against religious believers someday soon, when secularists may try to pass laws branding opposite-sex marriage as a “hate” institution?
So we need to ask ourselves whether it’s really practical to hope that biblical standards could constrain the scope of individual liberty for everyone in our republican democracy. Believers are enjoined to freedom-in-Christ, which allows a wide realm of choice but disallows self-destructive behavior. They live under those constraints by choice if they so choose. For the populace at large, however, perhaps civil law ought to be content with a broader common freedom in which personal indulgences such as substance use and sexual expression have more latitude. And perhaps in the pluralistic America of 2010 it will be found wise to define this latitude more leniently than our stern forefathers did in 1910 or 1810.
Trends and Trade-Offs
Freedom-in-Christ clearly limits the common freedom desired and expected by millions of American citizens (including many Christians). Maybe even now it is a majority of Americans who want common freedom far more than freedom-in-Christ. And perhaps even Christians should now consider it crucial to the success of the church for common freedom, rather than freedom-in-Christ, to be accessible in everyday life.
When some Christians argue that requiring everyone to practice (or at least strive for) freedom-in-Christ makes for a more virtuous society, they may well be right. But, whether they acknowledge it or not, virtue truly pursued (and enforced) exacts a price on the common freedom of someone—whether it’s the church-going husband and wife seeking an easy (read: unbiblical) divorce, or the student seeking a secular-humanist (read: prayerless) school to attend, or the two men seeking to marry each other.
Many Christians seem to have convinced themselves that no tension exists in this worldview. They believe national policy in 2010 can still pursue both virtue and freedom, under the theory that the community is willing to give up some freedoms on behalf of achieving some meaningful measure of (a traditional understanding of) virtue. But whether they are right or wrong, their children (and perhaps even they) will not likely enjoy the luxury of that fading construct, since traditional virtues have already been eclipsed in many areas by progressive ideas of virtue. And in either case, an enforced national virtue, whether “traditional” or “progressive,” that goes beyond the core enforcement of crimes against property (e.g., theft) and persons (e.g., murder, rape, abortion) will end up in unpleasant—and probably unsustainable—tension with common freedom in both the economic and religious dimensions. As power vests ever-increasingly in government at the national level, Christians along with other interested citizens naturally have gravitated toward working for their policy goals at that level. But should virtue or freedom be the priority? Decide for yourself from the accompanying case statements.
POINT: Virtue Should Be the National Policy Priority
Face it, virtue is merely freedom exercised in a principled fashion. And the one thing that has truly set America apart for a couple of hundred years is the pursuit of virtue. From correcting slavery and other wrongs in their own culture, to fighting Nazis and other would-be oppressors in world wars, to rebuilding just-recent-enemies’ economies through the Marshall Plan, to meeting the needs of neighbors in periods of strife or natural disaster, Americans have long pursued a unique virtue worldwide through action, often sacrificial action.
To the extent that America is not considered virtuous, for example by Muslim leaders who assert we are the Great Satan for allowing businesses to freely export pornography, it is not for lack of desire by Christians to historically fight such vice. And even when such efforts fall short—as they often will in a free society—it is well worth the good fight in order to draw a line for standards, classic standards that every society should strive after. For better or worse, the dominant playing field for establishing virtue is now at the national policy level. Therefore, Christian citizens must work diligently on every significant social issue that promotes virtue (or at least helps retard the decline of virtue). To not do so in the name of preserving some individual freedoms, freedoms that in truth actually decay society, is an abdication of responsibility. Liberty—absent the boundaries of classic, important virtues—is indeed merely license.
Christians are called to be “salt and light” to the surrounding culture. To vacate the arena of national-policy social issues —just as power continues to inexorably accumulate at the national level in a very powerful country—is folly at the highest level. Just as the Apostle Paul knew, Rome is where the determinative action often is, and Christians who deliberately decline to play at such an important level have fallen vitally short of the fullness of what “salt and light” means.
A final note. Mark Twain, speaking through the actions of his fictional Tom Sawyer, understood well one of the most sophisticated approaches to being effective. Young Tom, you will recall, persuaded his friends that it was in their personal interests to do his work of whitewashing the fence. Similarly, Christians impact the culture by convincing atheists, agnostics, and every other non-Christian that, indeed, America’s job is to meet the needs of all their neighbors—a uniquely Christian worldview and action. Now, (look at ’em!) the convinced non-Christians (who wouldn’t get caught dead doing anything else Christianly) assume leadership and meet those needs with the treasure of all Americans. As a result, Christians’ time and treasure are freed up for the freshly prioritized investment: evangelization and material assistance worldwide.
Hence we can see that from every perspective, pursuing virtue is the right strategic priority for exercising astute Christian citizenship.
COUNTERPOINT: Freedom Should Be the National Policy Priority
Let’s be realistic. Virtue has never manifested in this country, or any other country, by national mandate or policy. (One must never mistake mere compliance for genuine virtue.) In fact, when Christians try to foster virtue via national policy, that not only hasn’t worked, but it also backfires in crucial ways.
One need only look to the decline of Europe. Where Christian ideals have become “the culture” via government action (as with the welfare state), the ideology of big-G government has been the ultimate “winner” and the church has significantly faded in influence. This is the Catholic teaching of “solidarity” in action, an emotionally seductive idea for many that, when applied as national government initiative (which of course consistently becomes deeply entrenched), is gravely flawed. One’s second look should be at the results of “national policy” virtue-initiatives here at home. For decades, centuries even, Christians have fought prostitution (Comstock and later efforts), pornography (again, Comstock and later efforts), imbibing of alcohol (Prohibition), gambling, etc. from the top down via national policy.
But, “by their fruits you shall know them.” How effective have these efforts truly been? Ineffective for certain, by virtually any measure, and many people have turned against the Christian faith because their resulting street-level perception of Christ is as a “social-issues naysayer” rather than as the grace-offering Savior of the World. Meanwhile, individual freedoms, hard-won and all too uncommon around the world, steadily erode.
It’s really Christianity 101: The New Testament teaches that even biblical law doesn’t create righteousness; only Christ can. If biblical law cannot create righteousness, how much more powerless is civil law to create it?
But the really critical fact is this: Whenever emphasizing virtue as a legitimate pursuit for national policy, virtue-focused Christians have simply opened the door for the politically correct mandates now creeping into our national way of life and for the kinds of Islamic practices and prohibitions that more and more of Europe is acquiescing to. Such Christians who insist on national requirements for virtue and then later lose the battles for just what virtues are enforced… well, they are following in the strategic footsteps of Haman and will be hung on their own gallows.
No, the overriding purposes of national government are to defend the country and protect individual freedoms.
Where’s Our Trust?
Many Christians who think themselves believers in freedom are caught in a paradox of their own making: They believe in free markets for economic liberty but apparently do not believe in free markets when it comes to religious liberty.
These Christians should reorient toward the primacy of sharing the faith; nothing will defeat the power of the Gospel (as long as the laborers are not too few).
Of all people, Christians should be willing to have a truly level playing field (of religious freedom for everyone) on which to then demonstrate the power of the Gospel; hundreds of millions of Christians worldwide would covet such a level playing field for sharing their faith.
The Catholic teaching of subsidiarity is the ideal application for freedom here. Or if you will, Edmund Burke’s “little platoons,” where local groups (families, places of worship, local schools, neighborhoods, local communities) have self-directed latitude to forge their groups as they see fit, as long as the foundations of the country are not threatened (as they are by the stated goals of such totalitarian ideologies as Communism or radical Islam). Thus, the Christian foundationally should work for the common freedom of all: economic liberty and religious liberty for everyone—the Buddhist, the Christian, the moderate Muslim, the secularist, the agnostic.
But there is no free lunch here: The Christian then must work very hard for real freedom via subsidiarity—securing common-freedom vehicles, such as school vouchers, and then robustly exercising those common freedoms.
This vision of freedom was what the Founders forged and secured. But it is increasingly difficult to hold on to because this is not a passive libertarianism—rather, it is a daily, never-ceasing fight to stop national policy which would erode or eradicate precious everyday, common freedoms exercised at the local level.
St. Augustine clearly and wisely delineated between the City of God and the City of Man. We need to recover that wisdom. Our faith will only be differentiated (and successful) when it does not allow the typical American to believe that the Christian faith is synonymous with laws and rules that limit common freedom.
Why are American Christian leaders bemoaning the rise of a post-Christian culture? Partly because they themselves, following Europe, have led the “virtue movements” that help speed the lapse of the faith into cultural Christianity, effectively eroding the authentic reality of the Christian faith.
Christians should well take heed: Our best course is to pursue individual freedom at every opportunity with regard to national policy, to diligently fight the constant encroachment of national policies limiting individual freedom (including the “virtue mandates” of Christians and political correctness alike), and to work unceasingly at applying the principle of subsidiarity, influencing every platoon where God has placed us.
James Madison observed: “Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”
The crooks and anti-Constitutionalists in Congress merely reflect their constituencies
A prosperous country without virtue is a country poking its middle finger in God’s face.
Good times ahead.
“Is there a way for communal righteousness ...?”
This sounds to close to social justice to me.
The question is “whose” virtues?
The Liberals are playing the virtue game as well [environmentalism, hate speech, health, ect...]
What’s being proposed is to get out of the virtue game nationally and allow for it in smaller communities.
We win if we allow for maximal freedom nationally and work for virtues locally.
Remember that during Madison’s time that society was much more homogeneous.
Exactly!
Ping!
BRAVO!! Kevin Miller has nailed it!! I have been thinking these same thoughts for years, but Mr. Miller has articulated them far better than I could. I tend to agree more with the counterpoint, although both points are worthy of consideration and well-presented. This is quite possibly the best post I have ever seen on FR!
I have as well. Mr. Miller is definitely "Counterpoint".
THANKS.
WILL CHECK IT OUT.
Still pondering.
1. The rush of history toward Armageddon will make all that article mostly moot.
2. Certainly Christians ought to err on the side of individual liberty and freedom . . . within some Godly constraints.
3. “Legalizing” rampant outrageous sin as kosher is deadly folly before Almighty God.
4. Certainly Christians have abdicated in a horrific list of ways . . . being salt and light as well as being Christian to one another and to a hurting world in a list of practical ways.
5. i.e. to many of us have been happy to have 5 or 6 or 10 coats while our brother had none. King David had lots of wealth and he probably didn’t make every pauper a millionaire. However, he did care for a lot of poor and Mephibosheth sp? ate at his table. To whom much is given, much is required. Should be interesting when Bill Gates meets God face to face.
6. Being broken bread and poured out wine for our brothers and sisters is still a Biblical mandate for authentic believers. There is freedom IN OBEDIENCE, not in rebellion. Rebellion is slavery.
7. Obedience to The Law of Love is one of the strictest obedience walks there is.
8. It is also one of the free-est. It is certainly the most joyous and rewarding.
1. The Bible claims all men are without virtue unless virtue is inscribed by the Spirit of Christ. Is forced virtue really virtue?
It’s really Christianity 101: The New Testament teaches that even biblical law doesn’t create righteousness; only Christ can. If biblical law cannot create righteousness, how much more powerless is civil law to create it?The Liberals are playing "virtue" politics as well. Is it better to fight over virtue politics or allow maximal freedom where Christians can practice true virtue in smaller communities?
What do we finite critters really know . . .
1. We can practice virtue in our families and smaller groups and communities almost in any context regardless. We can do so now. We could do so more . . . freely? redemptively? fully? with more legal freedoms? Probably.
2. I think God looks on the heart. If there is a heart attitude to know Him and His virtue, He responds accordingly.
3. Does He create the heart? Of course. Does He create the heart attitude to know Him? I think it’s a dance, a duo . . . Perhaps there’s a dance before we are conceived.
Plenty mystery involved.
I think it’s a fallacy that God would wink at national evil sanctioned by law.
We get, imho, more or less the leaders and laws we . . . set ourselves up for, deserve?
Could we be overwhelmingly virtuous in our families and local communities and still have national laws of great evil. Yup. Would depend on the critical mass involved, but Yup. Particularly between now and Armageddon.
We’ll likely have no choice. The globalist die is cast. The National laws will be evil to the max.
Authentic Christians, however, will do great exploits in behalf of God and His virtue, by His Grace, Blood, Spirit and angelic help . . . whether in the guillotine line or the market place or the net or wherever, in whatever context.
Authentic Christians are not, really, more limited—when God and they decide they are not—than anyone.
We are to consider the impossible routine. We are to live FREE INDEED regardless of the context and circumstances—because free IN Jesus we ARE FREE INDEED.
At His Grace/command/permission:
We are free in fiery furnaces;
We are free in shipwrecks;
We are free in lion’s dens;
We are free in Pharoah’s court;
We are free in famines;
We are free in waterless deserts when water comes out of The Rock;
We are free to walk on water;
We are free to travel in His Spirit bodily;
. . . I don’t think National Laws can improve a LOT on our Freedoms IN CHRIST.
Though I have no doubts whatsoever that some National laws HE EXPECTS US TO FIGHT FORCEFULLY AGAINST AND SOME FORCEFULLY FOR.
Becuase it is the good and righteous thing to do.
‘All that’s necessary for evil to triumph . . . is for the good to remain silent.’
There is the puzzling thing about the Righteous taking things by force. Maybe we’ll learn more what that’s about.
Still, the weapons of our warfare are not carnal . . .
to the pulling down of strongholds . . .
Though I have no doubts whatsoever that some National laws HE EXPECTS US TO FIGHT FORCEFULLY AGAINST AND SOME FORCEFULLY FOR.
Personally I believe the governments role is limited to the 2nd table of the Law: rule of law, theft, deceit, fraud, and covetousness. These are natural laws that even the most pagan of nations understand. Notice however that there is no prohibition against personal vice within the ten commandments. These laws merely protect neighbor from neighbor.
Still, the weapons of our warfare are not carnal
Agreed. It is the Church not the State that have the spiritual weapons.
See this TV Debate to see more of Mr. Miller's proposal.
I, me myself personally, like to say you can't outsource charity. I think the left, generally, thinks that if A tells B to take money from C and give it to D then A has been charitable. They don't KNOW that's what they think, but it is. (As Screwtape says, a lot of the devil's job is to prevent people from thinking, to keep things OUT of their minds rather than put them in.)
I think a baby is in some sense "due" care and food, etc. (I think the needy baby is the paradigmatic social challenge.)
That need is, duh, best met in the baby's family. The question is what is right to do when the (1)family, (2)neighborhood, (3)town or county, (4)state, and (5)nation all refuse to give the baby what it is due?
And the answer is, as far as I can tell, nothing good.
WE however, papist and Prot, ought, I think to be thinking, praying, and looking for ways to take care of the needy God puts in our way.
Self righteous jerk, aint' I? (It's a Catholic thing. ;-) )Sorry I don't have anything mo' better to say.
Good points.
Will try to get back to this but may not make it.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.