At the urging of those who think I was too hard on the Evangelical Manifesto, I have read it over again. My view is unchanged. Each time the document says something true and important, it immediately backtracks to counter a (often exaggerated) stereotype about "fundamentalist" or "conservative" evangelicalism. In a conversation yesterday about the document, someone described the content as "unrelenting moderation." I think that sums up the document perfectly, and explains its central failing succintly. A growing number of evangelicals mistake moderation for civility. That is wrong and dangerous.
Am I opposed to moderation? Well, when it comes to the Christian faith and civic life, yes I am. Does that make me a radical or extremist? Perhaps. Does it make me a fundamentalist or uncivil? I don't think so. Allow me to sketch out an evangelical case for civility in public discourse that is premised upon both (1) universally-accessible principles of practical reason and (2) Christian convictions revealed by special revelation, and is in addition uncompromising on the political substance of Christian conviction. Herewith I begin a series of posts on what I will call "civic evangelicalism," inspired by, but not directly responsive to, the Evangelical Manifesto.
An evangelical case for civility must necessarily begin with the observation that what we believe is true. That is, Christian conviction is not true for us, it is not true in our opinion, it is simply true. The divinity and humanity of Christ, His death and resurrection, the creation of all human persons in the image of God -- these and the other fundamental tenets of evangelical faith are universal principles that are both descriptive and instructive. These principles are descriptive in that they state facts, which are true whether or not any particular person chooses to believe them. The sun rises in the east whether or not I choose to think that it rises in the west. Human life has intrinsic value whether or not I choose to believe that life ceases to be worth living when burdened by physical suffering.
These principles are instructive because we humans have free will, and thus have the freedom to choose not to live our lives in conformity with the truth. We are free to live lies. When we choose lies over truth, our lives become less life-like. We choose, in short, death. In some instances we choose death in its most obvious form -- abortion, euthanasia, suicide. In other cases we do not choose immediate cessation of physical life, but we choose some portion of death -- marital infidelity, fornication, hubris, gluttony, laziness. All the vices are really direction of the human will away from life and toward death.
And here we pause to make an important observation. Because the choice of truth leads to life and the choice of lies leads to death, we Christians have an obligation to lead others to choose truth, what we will generally call "the good," so that they may truly live as they are created to live. That is the end, the goal: leading others toward the good. That project is infinitely more important than the goals of leading people out of poverty, or giving them health insurance, or even providing them with medicine. One can truly live even when one is afflicted with illness or poverty. On the other hand, many people have no material needs but are walking dead.
So the end is to lead others to direct their wills toward the good. What means do we use to accomplish that end? In short, any means that do not destroy the good end toward which we are trying to lead. And here is our next important observation. There is nothing inherently or morally wrong with coercion. Indeed, coercion is often a very effective and morally permissible means of preventing harm and directing people toward the good. Parents rightly use coercion to discipline their children. Adults rightly coerce other adults to prevent them from committing suicide, homicide, rape, or other harmful acts. The State rightly coerces individuals -- juveniles and adults -- to prevent harms, including moral harms, by criminalizing and punishing a wide array of conduct, including narcotics use and possession, speeding, and perjury.
Evangelical Christians often come under attack for being coercive. We putatively attempt to "legislate morality," to create a "theocracy," to "impose" our "beliefs" on others. (The EM beat this straw man rather thoroughly.) Perhaps at the margins some evangelicals are guilty of trying to creat an evangelical nation, where those who do not bow the knee to an evangelical Jesus are punished or otherwise coerced. I know a lot of evangelicals. I don't know any evangelicals who have that vision for America.
So if coercion is not morally impermissible, is there ever any reason not to use it to accomplish good ends? Yes, but that reason is not a moral reason, it is a prudential reason. The Catholic philosopher Robert George has explained that some good ends are "reflexive," which means that they are goods only if freely chosen. The reflexive goods include friendship and religious practice. Coerced friendship is not friendship at all. Coerced religious practice is barren, devoid of true belief and adherence. The prudential reason to avoid coercion in defense of reflexive goods is that coercing someone to choose the good destroys the good itself, and is thus counter-productive.
Other goods are non-reflexive. These goods, which include beauty and human life, are good whether or not they are freely chosen. A beautiful symphony or sunset does not cease to be good simply because no one chooses to enjoy it. Human life has intrinsic value even when the person living that life wants to die. Sometimes it is permissible to engage in coercion in defense of non-reflexive goods. It is perfectly acceptable, morally and prudentially, to use coercion to prevent or punish murder, for example.
These observations suggest one reason why evangelicals ought to be civil in their civic speech and conduct. We want to persuade others to choose good ends, and only use coercion where necessary, morally permissible, and prudentially advisable. There are other reasons to be civil, including the rule that we ought to treat others as we would want to be treated. But the point here is that civility is important not for its own sake, but because civility is instrumentally valuable to accomplish an important evangelical goal: leading others to acceptance of the truth, and thereby helping them direct their will toward the good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't disagree with anything above, I don't think; however, a definition of "coercion" would be instructive. I am assuming the term refers to something stronger than persuasion; perhaps persuasion by force or deception (but that may be too strong a definition).
In any event, I think it is better to reach our end by the means of persuasion as opposed to coercion whenever possible. It won't be possible to do so in all situations, or with all people. And I think the more coercing that gets done in the name of Christianity, the more difficult it can be for others to engage in persuasion. Like it or not, you and I are lumped together in the collective mind of our culture with everyone who throws around the name of Christ, from Wright to Sharpton to Wallis to Dobson to Robertson to Falwell. Because we are linked to them (even though in reality there may be no connection), the crazies on both sides make it harder for those in the middle to be successful persuaders because all they do is improperly and ineffectively try to coerce. It is in that context that I read the EM. I read it as an attempt at clarifying for the unbelieving masses that evangelicals are a subset of Christianity, and that subset is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. In an attempt to put true evangelicals in a place from where we have enough credibility to persuade, the EM goes to considerable lengths to define us as moderate compared to the extremes on both sides.
As you point out, there are certainly things about which we are not, and should never try to appear as, moderate. Christ is the only way to salvation, like it or not. I, and we, should never apologize for that or try to reduce it to the lowest common denominator. Same with life issues; life is life and is to be protected without equivocation. And I think on its face the EM makes those stands. I would have made those statements stronger, and without the seemingly reflexive quasi-qualifications. But I think those issues are what the world knows about Christians already. They see "us" as hardlined on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, and often not very civil. And that is all they see. I read the EM as trying to enlighten the world as as to what genuine evangelicals believe, and that goes beyond these bright line issues that everyone is familiar with. They point out that true evangelicals are concerned with stewardship of the environment and broader social issues like poverty, justice and oppression.
If you took out a big chunk of section two, the part you aptly called self-flagellation, I don't think the doc would bother me all that much. It is not everything it could be, but it is more than I expected. Maybe I was overly skeptical, but I would not have been surprised if it had been considerably more culturally accommodating and less theologically sound. And I think it is at least a step towards separating real evangelicals from the distortions on both fringes of Christianity, which will hopefully provide a greater understanding that can be used as a foundation for civil discourse and provide a little more credibility for evangelicals which we can use in our attempts at persuasion.
You are certainly correct that a primary purpose of the EM is to distance evangelicals from the extremists (on both sides). Perhaps I am insufficiently attuned to the bad reputation that we evangelicals really have. Do the majority of non-Christians really associate us with Wright, Wallis, Robertson, etc., in your experience?
I have a lot of non-Christian friends, none of whom have never tried to put me in the same category as Robertson Falwell. Maybe they were just being polite.
I don't have any way of knowing how prevalent the misunderstanding is, but I imagine the EM was in large part aimed at hose who hold these misconceptions. I don't think that most people who live outside of Christian circles understand the differences. And why should they? I think I am probably more educated about these things than the average person, and I couldn't carry on a very long discussion about most other religions and the variations in their traditions. Although I know there are differences, my natural tendency is to think of Hindus or LDS members or whoever as more monolithic a group than they truly are. I imagine the same is true of how non-Christians think of evangelicals.
And while I haven't experienced a lot of the mistaken associations explicitly, I don't think that means they aren't there. I think a-religious folk who know (and like) me either think I am the exception rather than the rule by being "normal," or they subconsciously are proud of themselves for befriending the religious guy, and see it is as evidence of how open and accepting they are. I think those who don't know me personally but know I am a Christian assume I match up with whatever their preconceived notion of "Christian" is.
Post a Comment