An Alternate Conception of the Chasm
Allow me to paint with a broad brush.
On his blog, my uncle, Doug Wilson, presents a vision of the way Christians should approach the liberal/conservative divide in American politics. I agree with him in his basic premise that the liberal/conservative dichotomy has very little to do with how Christians should view politics. However, I disagree with his conception of how the Christian approach is different.
He argues essentially that secular conservatives in America are those who have been able to see the big "E" on the eye chart of God's morality, and thus they oppose things like abortion and homosexuality. They have seen a piece of what God has revealed to the world about justice, what C.S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, calls the Tao. However, my uncle contends, the secular conservatives cannot be trusted to accurately understand the full extent of God's morality; thus, Christians should be reticent to fully endorse these secular conservatives who are merely fellow travelers on a few points.
Liberals, on the other hand, he says, have missed even these obvious points of morality. Thus, he argues, they are clearly blind, in ignorance of the Tao. While the secular conservatives probably cannot be trusted to understand the finer points of God's morality, the liberals most definitely cannot be trusted. How can we listen to liberal notions of justice when they have completely misunderstood fundamental principles of social morality?
Thus, if we drew up a chart of my uncle's conception of things, we would probably see the liberals on the far left, sitting next to some big block letters reading "WRONG." A little right of center, we would find the secular conservatives. On the far right, we would find my uncle and, presumably, God.
I differ with this conception of things because it calls the liberals blind. Assuredly, they are wrong about some very important pieces of God's will for mankind, but there are also matters about which they are correct. Inasmuch as the Tao has been revealed to us in Creation and has been written on our hearts, both the secular liberal and the secular conservative will be able to grasp after a part of it. I imagine the liberal and the conservative as the men in Plato's cave who do not see the forms of the world outside, but see the shadows of those forms projected onto the wall of the cave. The conservative sees the shadow of one truth, the liberal another. Both need to turn around (repent) and face the light.
Yes, the secular conservative is right to oppose homosexuality and abortion. God condemns both. But the liberal is also correct about a piece of God's plan, insofar as the liberal pursues social justice, caring for the oppressed, giving to the poor. "The LORD works vindication and justice for all who are oppressed." Ps. 103:6. "As it is written, 'He scatters abroad, he gives to the poor; his righteousness endures for ever.'" 2 Cor. 9:9. This a piece of the Tao that has been revealed to the liberal, though the liberal may not be able to see the rest of it.
In fact, the parts of the Tao that the conservative sees are the parts that the liberal is most in need of understanding, and vice versa. The liberal is in ignorance of the fact that men are evil to an extent that cannot be redeemed by social programs. The liberal has to deny much of reality in order to maintain this view, perhaps because he knows that he wouldn't be able to love people if he fully understood how irredeemably awful is the human race. The conservative, on the other hand, understands full well how evil people are, so he insulates himself from all of it and is content to let the huddled masses go to hell - they, in their wickedness, don't deserve his compassion.
The problem with both the liberal and the conservative is the one thing they agree on: that salvation comes through merit. The liberal believes that salvation is through merit, and so he pretends, in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary (making him myopic), that everyone deserves it, which will allow him to love everyone. The conservative agrees that salvation is through merit but thinks everyone (except himself) wicked, so he doesn't need to care about them. But the central message of Christianity is that salvation is not through merit - if it were, who could be saved?
The Christian, if he lives rightly, has the compassion of the liberal and the standards of the conservative. He has, from Christ's strength, a great capacity to love others in spite of what he will readily admit are their faults, understanding how he has been loved in spite of his own faults.
My uncle concludes his post with an absurd parable of a liberal who kicks puppies for fun but preaches the necessity of ending poverty as a matter of justice; he then suggests that the best way to argue with this man is to say, essentially, "What do you know about justice? You kick puppies for fun!" I disagree: the best way to respond to this man is to agree with him that the resolution that we long for, that God will someday provide, is the end of all sadness and poverty, but that the fact that he kicks puppies for fun is evidence that he is not capable of bringing this change on his own strength, for he cannot even change himself. This absurd caricature of a liberal needs to learn that man cannot save himself, that humanity cannot save itself. The conservative, on the other hand, needs to understand that he cannot even live up to his own standards; that even if merit were the way to salvation, he wouldn't make the cut.
Christianity is extreme not because it drops 500 lbs. of fundamentalist weight on the right side of the political scale; Christianity is extreme because it contradicts every human worldview at some point, yet at the same time embraces the purpose of each of these worldviews and religions. The graph of the relationship of Christianity to all other political-philosophical views would show it not to the right of all, but above all, negating each of them, but affirming, and providing for, the peace for which each of them longs.
Neither the liberal nor the conservative understands the great, incomprehensible folly of God, that He will not punish us according to what we have done, but will reward us according to what He has done!
1 Cor. 1: 20-25.
On his blog, my uncle, Doug Wilson, presents a vision of the way Christians should approach the liberal/conservative divide in American politics. I agree with him in his basic premise that the liberal/conservative dichotomy has very little to do with how Christians should view politics. However, I disagree with his conception of how the Christian approach is different.
He argues essentially that secular conservatives in America are those who have been able to see the big "E" on the eye chart of God's morality, and thus they oppose things like abortion and homosexuality. They have seen a piece of what God has revealed to the world about justice, what C.S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, calls the Tao. However, my uncle contends, the secular conservatives cannot be trusted to accurately understand the full extent of God's morality; thus, Christians should be reticent to fully endorse these secular conservatives who are merely fellow travelers on a few points.
Liberals, on the other hand, he says, have missed even these obvious points of morality. Thus, he argues, they are clearly blind, in ignorance of the Tao. While the secular conservatives probably cannot be trusted to understand the finer points of God's morality, the liberals most definitely cannot be trusted. How can we listen to liberal notions of justice when they have completely misunderstood fundamental principles of social morality?
Thus, if we drew up a chart of my uncle's conception of things, we would probably see the liberals on the far left, sitting next to some big block letters reading "WRONG." A little right of center, we would find the secular conservatives. On the far right, we would find my uncle and, presumably, God.
I differ with this conception of things because it calls the liberals blind. Assuredly, they are wrong about some very important pieces of God's will for mankind, but there are also matters about which they are correct. Inasmuch as the Tao has been revealed to us in Creation and has been written on our hearts, both the secular liberal and the secular conservative will be able to grasp after a part of it. I imagine the liberal and the conservative as the men in Plato's cave who do not see the forms of the world outside, but see the shadows of those forms projected onto the wall of the cave. The conservative sees the shadow of one truth, the liberal another. Both need to turn around (repent) and face the light.
Yes, the secular conservative is right to oppose homosexuality and abortion. God condemns both. But the liberal is also correct about a piece of God's plan, insofar as the liberal pursues social justice, caring for the oppressed, giving to the poor. "The LORD works vindication and justice for all who are oppressed." Ps. 103:6. "As it is written, 'He scatters abroad, he gives to the poor; his righteousness endures for ever.'" 2 Cor. 9:9. This a piece of the Tao that has been revealed to the liberal, though the liberal may not be able to see the rest of it.
In fact, the parts of the Tao that the conservative sees are the parts that the liberal is most in need of understanding, and vice versa. The liberal is in ignorance of the fact that men are evil to an extent that cannot be redeemed by social programs. The liberal has to deny much of reality in order to maintain this view, perhaps because he knows that he wouldn't be able to love people if he fully understood how irredeemably awful is the human race. The conservative, on the other hand, understands full well how evil people are, so he insulates himself from all of it and is content to let the huddled masses go to hell - they, in their wickedness, don't deserve his compassion.
The problem with both the liberal and the conservative is the one thing they agree on: that salvation comes through merit. The liberal believes that salvation is through merit, and so he pretends, in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary (making him myopic), that everyone deserves it, which will allow him to love everyone. The conservative agrees that salvation is through merit but thinks everyone (except himself) wicked, so he doesn't need to care about them. But the central message of Christianity is that salvation is not through merit - if it were, who could be saved?
The Christian, if he lives rightly, has the compassion of the liberal and the standards of the conservative. He has, from Christ's strength, a great capacity to love others in spite of what he will readily admit are their faults, understanding how he has been loved in spite of his own faults.
My uncle concludes his post with an absurd parable of a liberal who kicks puppies for fun but preaches the necessity of ending poverty as a matter of justice; he then suggests that the best way to argue with this man is to say, essentially, "What do you know about justice? You kick puppies for fun!" I disagree: the best way to respond to this man is to agree with him that the resolution that we long for, that God will someday provide, is the end of all sadness and poverty, but that the fact that he kicks puppies for fun is evidence that he is not capable of bringing this change on his own strength, for he cannot even change himself. This absurd caricature of a liberal needs to learn that man cannot save himself, that humanity cannot save itself. The conservative, on the other hand, needs to understand that he cannot even live up to his own standards; that even if merit were the way to salvation, he wouldn't make the cut.
Christianity is extreme not because it drops 500 lbs. of fundamentalist weight on the right side of the political scale; Christianity is extreme because it contradicts every human worldview at some point, yet at the same time embraces the purpose of each of these worldviews and religions. The graph of the relationship of Christianity to all other political-philosophical views would show it not to the right of all, but above all, negating each of them, but affirming, and providing for, the peace for which each of them longs.
Neither the liberal nor the conservative understands the great, incomprehensible folly of God, that He will not punish us according to what we have done, but will reward us according to what He has done!
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Cor. 1: 20-25.
posted by Lincoln Davis at 12:32 PM
10 Comments:
Sober.
That said and granted, if the secular liberal and the secular conservative each had different aspects of morality correct (say 20% each on different poles of the moral spectrum), is the Christian liberal in no more worse political company than the Christian conservative? I would say yes for the political task inside any border has, of necessity, a need to give a greater ordinate value to the political "virtues" of the Right. The moral shortcomings of the Right are also less deleterious to the State than those of the Left.
Tom,
Is sobriety a positive in this context?
Father,
In theory, I think that a government operating on extremely conservative principles (the sort of state that the Constitution, in its classical liberalism, was drafted to guard against) would be just as bad as a government operating on extremely liberal principles. However, in practice, I agree with you: our government is grounded in leftist thinking, and its errors are manifest, such that a push to the right is quite enticing. Because our nation is so thoroughly liberal, the positions for which major conservative thinkers advocate are not really extreme conservatism, but something of a moderate (and generally appropriate) balancing of the relevant principles of governance, and as a rule, I would opt for those principles.
Davis-
Of course.
In spite of what Cicero (and later, Barry Goldwater) said about extremity not being a detriment to one's principles in the pursuit of justice, it remains a detraction from the charm of one's message. And as we all know, Charm is the first task of every writer, be they novelist, poet, or political philosopher. This is why Plato, Ovid, Bocaccio, Chaucer, Fitzgerald and Waugh still hold up.
Or am I wrong?
Davis,
Enjoyed reading the post. In your comment to Tom above, you say that "our nation is so thoroughly liberal..." By what standard or rather, in what context?
Brian
Thanks Brian,
When I say that our nation is thoroughly liberal, I don't mean that most people in our nation consider themselves liberals. By that standard, it's a close 50/50 split, such that presidential elections can tip towards a Republican or a Democrat every 4 years; there is no presumptive victor.
What I do mean is that the policies and basic ideologies that run our country are thoroughly liberal. Whether a citizen is a Republican or a Democrat, he's grown up with big government programs, from the New Deal to Great Society, and whatever the feds don't regulate, the states do. Even where he takes conservative stands on social issues, such as gay marriage or abortion, he doesn't want a conservative solution. He would rather see a broad, federal act prohibiting gay marriage or abortion than leave it to local, elected government. Our government is thoroughly liberal because as a society, we all operate on the understanding that most problems are supposed to be fixed by government; this is why so-called conservatives don't necessarily argue for deregulation, but rather advocate for regulation favoring the groups that they like, such as tax breaks for big business, or faith-based initiatives.
What I mean is that the highest ordinate on the polical gradient is the definition of border (identity) of will. Not in the anti immigration of the "double-wide" set but the primary distinction of self and other. That conservative military extroversion is far more important at a state level than the interfering introversion of the Liberal. To be a moral introvert is be less adequate than a moral extrovert. Let us face it, Alexander the Great is more to the point of governed states than Obama the So-so. States are to first apply themselves to the decisions that we need of them (say joint defense) and not those decisions which a man finds delegated to himself (like his own health care).
Father,
I agree with you that the highest ordinate for the state as state is the definition of border, but that only defines the state vis-a-vis other states. There are separate and equally important considerations involved with the question of the citizen's relationship to the sovereign, and the relationship of citizens to one another. Alexander the Great, while the model of border-defining, doesn't teach us much about governance within the empire - he didn't even get the chance to do any before he died.
Apart from the consideration of how the state defines itself against outsiders, there are, within the state, counterbalanced concerns of corporate interests and individual interests. Liberal and conservative philosophies propose different ways of striking that balance. Rome, for instance, did an excellent job defining itself against outsiders and extending its rule, but it also provided those within (e.g., privileges of citizenship or the infrastructure of Roman roads). Both concerns are important; if the state does not define itself against outsiders, it has no might with which it can secure the happiness of its citizens, but if the state does nothing to secure the peace of those within its borders, what's the point of defining itself against outsiders?
Thus the comparison of Alexander and Obama is inapposite, not only because one purports to deal with the expansion of empire and the other with securing the peace of those within, but also as a matter of degree. Alexander is the superlative conqueror, Obama is a wide-eyed freshman Senator with a sharp mind. Further, though I am, like you, opposed to universal health insurance, you beg the question in asserting that health care is intrinsically self-delegated. It is the prerogative of the state to decide whether health care is self-delegated, and it will bear the consequences of its choice in the matter.
I agree with you but I think that the nuance is slightly more in favor of identity before its governance.
And a point we didn't cover, that of defensibility of complete moral stance. The sins of the Right are not definitional to the Right while those of the Left actually are. Yes, I can imagine a pro-welfare Christian but he would be fringe since the defining aspects of the Left include moral outrage. The defining aspects of the Right are not morally suspect. Remember I said defining. There is no shock and horror if I admit at a Republican Committee meeting tha But pro-Life, anti-homosexual positions are denied any standing at all.
Other than love for giving what belongs to others, I, without much data, am willing to bet that Republicans even give more philanthropically then do Democrats.
Here is a quote from a Hoover Institution paper on the subject:
Recent scholarship has demonstrated the disproportionate influence the secular left has over the modern Democratic Party. My research establishes a link between secular views and strikingly low levels of charitable giving and volunteering. While differences in charitable behavior are not particularly apparent between left and right per se, my findings do suggest that, if secularists play an increasing role in the direction of the Democratic Party, indifference (or even hostility) to private charity will probably rise within that party."
So, back to your initial claims, I think I will withhold the moral points I granted the Left and give them instead to the Right. They even care more for their fellow man than does the Left.
"Their mother smells of elderberries and the father was a hamster."
I'll grant you the point in our current political culture, but I think that is because what is called the Right in America is not very far to the Right as a whole, while the left is pretty far Left. Even CATO Institute Federalists are probably more Moderate than Right; they want a return to the values of the Constitution at the time of its drafting, which, in the context of world political history, were pretty liberal values.
Post a Comment
<< Home