Though not surprised I am saddened, and
ashamed, by the majority decision of our Supreme Court. I am saddened and ashamed for several
reasons. One is that it seems to me to
be “bad law.” What I mean by that is
that it is a reading into the Constitution and not a reading from it. The Constitution is a problem document
because at times what could be read “from” it was bad, i.e., the Dred Scott
decision, and what has been read into it, i.e., Roe vs. Wade, has been
bad. The way to correct what was in it
was to write a constitutional amendment, which we did, and now to correct what
has been read into it we probably need a few more amendments.
I am aware that amendments are politically
determined, and that is usually culturally determined, and that is another
thing that saddens me. The cultural revolution
that came out of the turmoil of the Second World War, by the “Greatest
Generation,” continues to put the nation into moral decline. Springing from the unraveling of much of our
traditional American culture, and our
traditional morality, came a huge sexual revolution. Parts of that revolution were the sexual
emancipation of women, the weariness of condemning premarital sex, the Playboy
titillation of popular culture, no fault divorce, the welfare support of
promiscuity, birth control, abortion on demand, the proliferation of legal
pornography, the ending of sodomy laws, the support of gay rights, and now the
legalization of homosexual marriage.
If you think about it that is quite a
cultural ride in a very short time. The
constant reality of sex is not new, nor is sexual temptation, nor is same sex
desire, only the onus we have historically, and now have not, put on these
things. Many of the reasons there was an
onus on those behaviors had to do with some very concrete and valid concerns,
let alone that of religious proscription.
Technology has given many the feeling that culture can now be changed
because birth control is possible, abortion is safer (for the mother), there are medicines for sexually transmitted
diseases, and sophistication about relationships and gender roles should
deliver us from masculine and paternalistic possessiveness, i.e., violence.
This of course is a delusion, and one
fueled by the idea that “screwed up” sex doesn’t screw people up. It is as if we as a nation have become
sociopathic when it comes to sexual relationships; as if connection,
disloyalty, abandonment, meaning, guilt, and shame can be dispensed with either
by technology, identity movements, or court decisions.
This essay is not about my views on the
practice of homosexuality, same sex attraction, nor how we ought to treat those
involved in homosexual lifestyles, and now what will pose as marriage. It is rather about how this affects
Christians in their understanding of political conflict.
I am saddened by this decision because as
some of the justices who wrote in the minority have predicted this sets the
nation on the course for lots of conflict over the freedom of religion. The worst fear I have is that this will
inevitably lead to violence by and from some who think that since this was one
of the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for it will be worth fighting
and dying for it once again. We will
certainly see civil disobedience at various levels. I am saddened that there is a naiveté that
this decision will somehow change the opinions of religious conservatives over
their religious values concerning homosexuality. Religious liberals (and it should be pointed
out once again that Christian Liberalism is a different religion than Christianity)
have standards they refuse to change, but a commitment to Biblical absolutes is
not one of them. That is not true for Evangelical
religious conservatives, who make up a fairly large segment of our population.
I am saddened because the will of the people
in many states has been overthrown by this court, and this will lead to
cynicism about the political process, and probably more extreme partisanship in
the playing of political games to frustrate the goals of the “other”
party. If there could be a
straightforward way to impeach such judges for misreading and misusing the
constitution that might be helpful.
Again that is a political decision based on the cultural commitments of
the populace, so I doubt that will happen.
I am saddened because religious
conservatives are not united as to a working theology of how to deal with
politics, government, or bad law. There
is a wide spectrum of opinion about these matters among Christians. Religious people don’t always have a conscious
awareness in themselves of the theology from which they are operating as to
political events, and some are very conscious albeit mistaken in their understanding
of Biblical imperatives and American historical reality. I speak here specifically of those who have responded
to this decision with a pietistic love
and Gospel rhetoric that seeks to be non-offensive to people who not only live
an immoral lifestyle and have now made it legal, but made it legal in such a
way as to force Christians to accept it and support it in various economic and
social forms.
It is popular to dismiss cultural
Christianity and civic religion as a distraction from the true Gospel. It is fairly common to hear criticisms of an
attempt to get back to the “faith of our fathers” especially due to what was a
sordid mixture of racism and cultural hegemony which justified and supported
slavery and genocide of native populations.
There is distaste for the flavor and trappings of the “Moral Majority”
movement and the integration of political conservatism with Christianity, as if
gun rights and more money for defense expenditures was Biblical. I admit that I pretty much agree with these
criticisms of Christian cultural movements.
However what I fear I am hearing and seeing
is an abdication of civic responsibility by Evangelicals. As if this nation was not formed to be “of
the people, by the people, and for the people.”
There seems to be an acquiescence to cultural depravity and evil, and an
apologetic that the best thing we can do is be a minority and have a witness of
love no matter how unjust or immoral the laws might be. This political surrender is as if to say if
we have no voice or say in those laws and that is neither true nor safe for us.
A vigorous and prophetic call for justice is
not incompatible with the Gospel call.
The articulation of sin and judgment is not the same as being judgmental
and self-righteous nor should be. We are
a nation where the people define morality and legislate it, as the recent court
decision so aptly reveals. Our cultural
movements lead to political movements which lead to Presidents who pick the
judges who reveal their commitments to the cultural movement which brought them
to power. Why are we walking away, and
justifying to ourselves that it is okay for wickedness to own our country?
Our choice is not the Gospel or politics,
not in this country, not yet. We don’t
have to be the church of the catacombs or the house church movement of China,
no matter how romantic that sounds. If
you wish to discard all the righteous cultural impact the Church has made for
goodness in society you can be blind if you choose to be, but why would you
want to deny what the presence of salt and light has given to the world since
the Roman Empire? If we remain silent
and accept defeat, and even wallow in an idea that we should be defeated
because it is better for our witness, I don’t think we understand the Word of
God or American democracy. If you are cheering on evil because you think
it will hurry up the rapture I don’t think you will find any encouragement from
Scripture for that posture.
We don’t have to be demagogues, we don’t
have to take to the hills and be freedom fighters. We can and ought to be
lovers of all people, self-confessing as to our own weaknesses, humble and
willing to listen and discuss yet determined in our commitments to the
absolutes of God. We should be determined to press for righteousness at all
levels of government, in its application of laws and especially in their
formulation. We obviously will suffer
some defeats, this doesn’t mean we are wrong in our convictions, nor even in
our involvement in the legal and political process. The other side has certainly believed in
political organization and expenditure.
There is a way to be loving, kind, and
righteous in our relationships with both allies and enemies, especially
enemies. This is one place where some
have failed in their ability to reconcile the issues of justice and morality
with a Gospel witness.
I am saddened, and I am ashamed, as other
believers must have been when they heard the pronouncement of the Dred Scott
decision. What a long suffering they
endured, and a war, to correct it. God
forbid it should come to that, but may God give us the tenacity to care for our
nation and the souls who live in it as they did.
No comments:
Post a Comment