expressing love through civil government? by John N Veronica on Friday, 08 July 2011 at 13:53 In every great tradition and in many indigenous religions, too, certain values DO emerge that seem to go beyond anything we might come up with on our own using our ordinary moral and practical reasoning. Beyond mere justice, some would practice mercy and not merely because it has often proven to be a prudent strategy of good jurisprudence. Beyond the market mechanics of supply and demand and prevailing work ethics, some would practice compassion for the poor and not just because it might otherwise be necessary to prevent thievery and other societal ails born of resentment. Beyond the need to defend oneself, some would even embrace nonviolence to the point of martyrdom and not because they imagine that 72 virgins await their seduction. Beyond the universal norm of doing unto others as we'd have them do unto us, some would even go so far as to love their enemies, even doing good to those who hate them and not because they fear the fires of hell otherwise.
Now, some would dismiss such values as ideals expected to be realized not now but in the future when the Kingdom has fully unfolded (and so they call them "eschatological" ideals). But doesn't that sound like a wimpy cop-out that Bill Maher and his ilk would cynically characterize as a "lawyering" of the Bible? Others have suggested that the Gospel's imperatives (do this!) and injunctives (don't do that!) apply only to personal vocations and were not intended for political statecraft. But doesn't that sound oversimplified and doesn't it leave Warren's question left begging: " ... wouldn't effectiveness in one sphere carry over to the other?"
So, on one hand, sound Biblical exegesis is called for, which is to say that the Bible must be carefully examined from both literary and historical perspectives. On the other hand, is there really that much ambiguity and nuance in such concepts as mercy, compassion, nonviolence, forgiveness and love?
I have wrestled with these questions over the years and have not fully resolved them to my satisfaction. My own spiritual sensibilities lead to me to suggest that we do not really ever want to say that such Gospel values are intended to be realized either in the past or future but not NOW; or there, in that aspect of our lives but not HERE! So, too, with healings and signs and wonders! It seems to be too neat, too facile and too much of a rationalization to suggest that we live here or now under one so-called dispensation and there or then under yet another. Instead, I like to imagine that, as beautifully put by Max Ehrmann in the Desiderata: "... whether 1
or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."
No doubt, as St. Paul observed, the whole creation and ourselves are groaning every day in one great act of giving birth. But there can also be no doubt that we are being lured forward, mostly gently coaxed but occasionally more coercively cajoled (or, we might even say, aggressively seduced), by the Spirit, Who respects our freedom because it is so very integral to authentic love. Often enough, we do enjoy what can be called "proleptic" or anticipatory realizations of Kingdom values, where we experience consolations, healings, signs, wonders, mercy, compassion, forgiveness and love to a degree that is extraordinarily FULL, even to an extent that we could only describe as COMPLETE. And this should, at least, arouse our sneaking suspicions? or gift us with that measure of faith that is sufficient for the day?
Such Kingdom values, then, present in degrees of realization and not as simple either-or realities. And why should we not expect to realize their efficacies, as Warren asked, in one sphere as well as the other? So, I believe that it is a fitting aspiration to desire (again, in Warren's words) an "affirming, freedom enhancing polity." But I would not characterize that particular value as one that goes beyond anything we might come up with on our own using our ordinary moral and practical reasoning. But those were not your only words, Warren. You also invoked some that do clearly go beyond the simple demands of justice when you expressed an interest in what "love" would look like "in a civil government."
And I want to say that love could, in theory, make its way into a civil government in varying degrees. Further, we can recognize that the government optimally exists as an expression of the will of (hopefully, most of) the people and is constrained by certain checks and balances to limit the degree of its coercive influence precisely because coercion runs at cross purposes with freedom, itself. To the extent, then, that a government is ever to a very significant degree expressing the will of a substantial supermajority of its people in a way that goes beyond the simple demands of justice and the essential task of maintaining the public order in order to effect what are clearly Gospel-informed values like mercy, compassion, forgiveness and love ... ... well ... ... that government would be on the verge of putting itself out of business because there would be little need for coercion in such an ideal situation. We would still have social and cultural and other institutions because Homo sapiens is a radically social animal but these institutions would operate on a wholly voluntary basis (conforming with subsidiarity principles, which state that higher levels should never 2
unnecessarily coopt the prerogatives of lower levels) with no need of coercive governance. So, as Floyd pointed out, the Myth's premise is that dark influences make a govt fully informed by Gospel values impossible. The way I would frame it is that our radical human finitude, fallibility and sinfulness are what make a government necessary in the first place and that, absent those, we would not need or desire this "necessary evil" called government because, otherwise, coercion is not a value we would ever choose to place in competition with freedom.
The more we would become able to express love through any given civil government, the less we could justify that government's existence. Other relevant comments that contextualize this discussion:
seriously, though, I do not look to the Gospel, OT or any other scriptures from any of our great traditions for ethical, moral and practical solutions since that type of knowledge is already available to human reasoning without the benefit of special revelations
at the same time, I do not have a serious quibble with those who do choose to thus inform their perspectives as long as they are willing to translate those posits in a way that can be processed by all rational people
That was my simple response but reality is more complex than that so I will play devil's advocate with my own take in a few minutes.
There does seem to be a basic contradiction insofar as the church has both affirmed pacifism and nonviolent resistance as laudable personal vocations at the same time as it articulates just war principles and accepts the coercive means of government (from taxation to policing to military action). There can be no denying that pacifism and nonviolence are Gospel ideals. So, we draw an important distinction between a theoretical theological capitulation, which represents a caving in or surrender of our values, and a compassionate practical accommodation, which recognizes our human weakness and makes allowances for our human "condition" of radical finitude, fallibility and sinfulness. In other words, we'll call you a martyr and make you a saint if you surrender your life for a worthy cause but no one will judge you harshly for defending your life by killing in self-defense (a so-called 3
necessary evil).
There are at least four basic ethical approaches: 1) aretaic, asking if it is virtuous 2) deontological, asking if it is right 3) teleological (consequentialist), asking if it is helpful and 4) contractarian, asking if it's fair. Some see these approaches in competition; others see them as complementary.
And all of this is unavoidably going to be an oversimplification.
How it is that we get in touch (and just how in touch we get) with any of the "answers" provided by these above-listed methods is a whole other ball of wax.
Moral reasoning simply mustn't, although if often does, proceed with apodictic certainty from what one imagines are indubitable foundations, infallible authorities, unambiguous terms, unquestionably true premises and inescapably valid logic --- ahem, self-evident "principles" --- all leading to demonstrably sound conclusions!?? At least not all moral reasoning (as some moral realities are admittedly more transparent to human reasoning than others).
Most moral calculus is a lot less formal, in reality, and a lot more common sensical. And human emotions and sentiments, evaluative posits and aesthetic sensibilities, in my view, gift us with incredibly important clues and play an indispensable role in our moral reasoning, which is a lot messier than most folks would like to admit. To very crudely paraphrase the late Bill Buckley and recontextualize what he said to boot:
I would rather entrust the answer to such moral quandaries to the next 400 people who walk through the gates at Fenway Park than to the faculty of Harvard University. Warren's Facebook Wall is also a most acceptable alternative!
So, what would we do if, for example, we were armed and the only ones around and some stranger was in the apparent act of readying to shoot a baby and its mother (presumably his estranged lover/wife)? 4
And WHY would we do whatever we might do?
So, as far as is practicable, while many perspectives may inform our reasoning, would you say they would not all be given equal weight? that certain perspectives might only be invoked as tie-breakers, if and only if others are clouded? and that there's also a hierarchy, so to speak, of truths, some more central, others more peripheral? b/c that's pretty much how i see human knowledge operating, as we fall back on progressively weaker arguments, evidence, methods and approaches only when necessary ... but that those are necessary WAY MORE often than many would like to admit?
5