Politics, Persuading, and the Moral Law

I just saw this article, which is a more thorough, and more eloquent, version of the point I've been making with regard to Christians and politics. It's nice to find someone else who agrees with you, and does an even better job explaining himself! The article is long, but I recommend the read - well worth it.

The main point the author makes is that we concerned Christians need to frame our arguments in terms that are accessible to non-Christian Americans. We're deeply concerned about things like abortion, and the breakdown of marriage & family. So we need to learn how to make the case that abortion & family breakdown are bad for our country, whether you're a Bible-believing Christian or not.

The way to do so is to utilize Moral Law - the innate sense all people have of right and wrong, which is accessible through reason. This is the tool C.S. Lewis used so effectively to impact the thinking of millions of secular people in Book 1 of his classic Mere Christianity. And as I wrote previously, it's the tool William Wilberforce used in his anti-slavery crusade, and it's the tool MLK used with such success during the Civil Rights era.

A sample from the article, which illustrates the difference between making a purely "religious" argument and making a more broadly accessible, moral argument:

"Rather than argue that abortion is contrary to God’s law and that we need to bring the Constitution into conformity with God’s law, social conservatives should argue that as a matter of scientific fact the child in a mother’s womb is a whole, living human being, and that as a matter of moral truth the direct killing of any peaceable human being is gravely unjust..."

And another sample:

"Nor should social conservatives be afraid to argue for maintaining marriage’s structure. If marriage isn’t the union of one man and one woman coming together as husband and wife to become father and mother to any children their marital love may bring, then social conservatives should demand that their opponents explain what marriage is. Is it simply the union of any consenting pair of sexually active adults? If so, then why only two? And why does it have to be exclusive and permanent—why not open or temporary “marriage”? Indeed, if marriage isn’t about a bodily union, then why limit it to sexual relationships at all? How about codependent relatives? How are marriage and children connected? Do children need mothers and fathers, or not? These debates can and, in fact, must be had at the level of reason."

I daresay we "social conservatives" need to learn how to use the valuable tool of Moral Law and reason, which are both accessible by those around us, as we make the great proposal that there is a better way to live. Maybe a great place to start is to read Book 1 of Mere Christianity to get a sense of what arguing from Moral Law looks like, from a man who did it so well.

Another Proposer in Action - Why We're Involved in Politics (part 3)

The other "great proposer" that comes to mind has been written about so many times by so many different people, one almost hesitates to bring him up again. But one aspect of Martin Luther King's life is rarely gets mentioned: and it relates to this idea of being a Proposer.

King manifested the same two characteristics I mentioned previously about Wilberforce. First, Christianity was the basis of his worldview, and it fueled his quest to abolish discrimination. This is evident in one of King's better known writings, Letter From Birmingham Jail. There King distinguishes between just and unjust laws. The difference? "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." King shared with Wilberforce that stubborn quality of all great Christian influencers of culture: he actually believed the Bible was true, and he didn't seek to hide it.

Second, while politics was an important part of his crusade, King didn't simply attempt to get his way via political power (Impose). He appealed to the hearts of all Americans, seeking to persuade them of the evils of racial segregation (Propose). His commitment to nonviolence, developed in the early years of his effort after the front porch of his house was destroyed by a bomb, is the most obvious example of how King aimed to change hearts, not just laws.

And that was his understanding of the church's role in society. In 1963 King wrote, "The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority." (my emphasis)

Looking at both Wilberforce and King makes me think. In what ways can I be a Proposer in 2008 America? Many issues concern me, such as family breakdown, rampant abortion, lack of personal responsibility, and denial of truth, just to name a few. But in addition to supporting political efforts that affect these issues, how can I further appeal to the hearts and minds of people? I find I need to learn how to make the case that there is a better, Jesus-based way to live than what we're doing now. I may need to get better educated, learn how to paint a picture people can understand and relate to, and (perhaps above all) engage.

As the election draws closer I may take a stab at doing so right here, and I'd love to hear how you think I'm doing.

Why I'm Uncomfortable With The Texas Polygamy Raid

You've all no doubt watched the proceedings over the last 2 months: Texas Child Protective Services ("CPS") seized 460+ children from the FLDS (a splinter Mormon sect) and put them all in state custody. I initially watched the proceedings with fascination, and several questions came to my mind. Then as the days continued on and the answers to those questions were not forthcoming, I became increasingly uncomfortable with what Texas had done. I kept my misgivings mostly to myself, sharing them only with a few friends and waiting for the courts to sort it all out. But on May 22 the Texas Third Court of Appeals ruled that the state's grounds for removing the children were "legally and factually insufficient."

Time to speak up.

First, my up-front disclaimer: I believe the FLDS is a cult with a severely warped worldview. I fully support the illegality of polygamy and underage marriage (2 things this group is known for), and I think they could scarcely be more wrong about their ideas of God, themselves, and the world.

Having said that, I am greatly troubled by what appears to be a grave breach of civil rights in this case. What the Texas CPS did is unprecedented: never before has so large a custody sweep taken place, and with so little evidence to justify it. The phone call which prompted the raid in the first place is looking increasingly like it was a hoax. What's more, the abuse allegation surrounded teenage girls who were forced into underage marriages; yet all 460+ children were seized despite the fact that most of them are boys and very young girls - kids that not even CPS says were being abused.

To justify such unprecedented categorical action, CPS has argued that the FLDS was brainwashing all the children into abusive thinking, which justifies the seizure of many kids who weren't actually being abused. That line of thinking is scary to me. This kind of "guilt by association" logic with no hard evidence behind it is what dictatorships use to violate their citizens. "You read the wrong books, so for your own protection we're sending you to the state re-education program."

It did not escape my notice that these proceedings were happening in Texas at precisely the same time the State of California was trying to remove it's citizens right to homeschool their kids if they so choose. You see, while most Americans (including me) think the FLDS cult is sick and wierd, an increasing number of Americans think anyone who takes their Christian faith seriously is similarly sick and wierd. To many nowadays, a parent who sends his child to a Christian summer camp, or to a Catholic parochial school, or (gasp!) homeschools his kids is no different than this Texas cult. It's all religious brainwashing, and thus no less subject to state interference. We've already had the rabidly anti-theistic Richard Dawkins argue that parents passing on religious belief to their children is itself a form of child abuse.

And the book in which he says this is a bestseller.

An interesting hypothetical: our government says a girl has a right to an abortion. Yet if her parents raise her to believe that abortion is morally wrong, are the parents subject to state coercion for denying their daughter her rights and thus "abusing" her? Using the logic of the Texas CPS, the answer would be yes.

The religious freedom and civil rights implications of this case in Texas cannot be overlooked. This is the real reason America has a church/state separation in the first place: to protect the citizens and their practice of faith from state coercion (the fact that such a separation has been used to marginilize religious people in public life is ridiculous, but that's a subject for another day).

Now let me say that if in fact some FLDS girls were married off before their legal age, that's statutory rape and the law should be enforced. One cannot do anything one wants in the name of religion. But this nation has always placed significant restrictions on the government's ability to control the lives of it's citizens, and for good reason. Based on what I've read, I simply do not believe the State of Texas had sufficient grounds to act so broadly against the FLDS.

I'm glad the appellate court agrees with that assessment.