Back in the saddle
So good to be back among you!
No need to worry, friends, I haven't disappeared. But as many of you know, it's coming up on Town Meeting Day in New Hampshire, and for that reason things have been a lot mere hectic at work this last week. So here I am after some delay.
I return in time for the beginning of the Lenten season (I wish a prayerful season to those who celebrate it!), which is appropriate considering my topic: Mere Christianity.
I've finally completed C.S. Lewis's defense of Christianity, and since I've already offered two posts on the book, what's another between friends?
All in all, I think it's a solid, if unspectacular, grounding in the rudiments of the faith without getting too bogged down in particular sectarian details.
Much has been made of my supposed "theocratic" leanings, and so I thought I would share with you a very relevant passage:
"When you find yourself wanting to turn your children, or pupils, or even your neighbours, into people exactly like yourself, remember that God probably never meant them to be that. You and they are different organs, intended to do different things. On the other hand, when you are tempted not to bother about someone else's troubles because they are 'no business of yours,' remember that though he is different from you he is part of the same organism as you. If you forget that he belongs to the same organism as yourself you will become an Individualist. If you forget that he is a different ogram from, if you to suppress all differences and make people all alike, you will become a Totalitarian. But a Christian must not be either a Totalitarian or an Individualist."
Easier said than done, of course.It's no surprise that I think my natural leaning is to the 'Totalitarian' side. At work today I caught myself ranting about the evils of illicit substances and realized what a delightful tyrant I must sound!
I think Lewis hits it right on the head here. Just as I am in the wrong - and there's no doubt of it, friends - in waxing poetic about, say, absolute temperance, so I think the person prone to the 'Individualist' side errs in thinking that the sins of our fellow humans are mere personal indulgences and not worth our concern or involvement.
I don't understand why more liberals do not favor this basic approach, because it provides the underpinnings for a 'liberal society,' properly conceived. What do I mean by that?
I mean it's clear from Lewis's Christian perspective that the government should not regulate a certain morality (a central tenet of the liberal state), because some people are more prone to some vices than others. I, for one, am a tea-totaler with no desire to gamble. Given carte blanche to regulate morality, wouldn't I be prone to banning alcohol and gambling with all good intent? By the same token, wouldn't a prudish sort (I believe they are called 'Santorums') be prone to banning all non-procreative sex? The problem with these bans - aside from being impractical - is that they only apply the part of morality the regulator likes. What could be more hypocritical, prideful, and in the end sinful?
The genius of the liberal society, on the other hand, is that we avoid all this hypocrisy. I don't try to regulate you, you don't try to regulate me. But I think, following Lewis, we can't just walk away from our neighbors at that point. In fact, we still should be just as concerned. But we must meet as equals, aware of our own sins first, and seek virtue voluntarily and with the help of others. This, after all, is the purpose of free will and our liberal society.
This is why I cannot agree with the concept of society that is not based on the ideal of virtuous outcomes. Are we really going to retain mature, reasonable, and prudent self-government if we take no interest in creating mature, reasonable, and prudent people? If as a people we don't care what sort of self-centered pricks we and our neighbors are becoming?
If we don't care, aren't we admitting that the purpose of liberal society is our own indulgence and nothing else? How tenable would that society be?
No need to worry, friends, I haven't disappeared. But as many of you know, it's coming up on Town Meeting Day in New Hampshire, and for that reason things have been a lot mere hectic at work this last week. So here I am after some delay.
I return in time for the beginning of the Lenten season (I wish a prayerful season to those who celebrate it!), which is appropriate considering my topic: Mere Christianity.
I've finally completed C.S. Lewis's defense of Christianity, and since I've already offered two posts on the book, what's another between friends?
All in all, I think it's a solid, if unspectacular, grounding in the rudiments of the faith without getting too bogged down in particular sectarian details.
Much has been made of my supposed "theocratic" leanings, and so I thought I would share with you a very relevant passage:
"When you find yourself wanting to turn your children, or pupils, or even your neighbours, into people exactly like yourself, remember that God probably never meant them to be that. You and they are different organs, intended to do different things. On the other hand, when you are tempted not to bother about someone else's troubles because they are 'no business of yours,' remember that though he is different from you he is part of the same organism as you. If you forget that he belongs to the same organism as yourself you will become an Individualist. If you forget that he is a different ogram from, if you to suppress all differences and make people all alike, you will become a Totalitarian. But a Christian must not be either a Totalitarian or an Individualist."
Easier said than done, of course.It's no surprise that I think my natural leaning is to the 'Totalitarian' side. At work today I caught myself ranting about the evils of illicit substances and realized what a delightful tyrant I must sound!
I think Lewis hits it right on the head here. Just as I am in the wrong - and there's no doubt of it, friends - in waxing poetic about, say, absolute temperance, so I think the person prone to the 'Individualist' side errs in thinking that the sins of our fellow humans are mere personal indulgences and not worth our concern or involvement.
I don't understand why more liberals do not favor this basic approach, because it provides the underpinnings for a 'liberal society,' properly conceived. What do I mean by that?
I mean it's clear from Lewis's Christian perspective that the government should not regulate a certain morality (a central tenet of the liberal state), because some people are more prone to some vices than others. I, for one, am a tea-totaler with no desire to gamble. Given carte blanche to regulate morality, wouldn't I be prone to banning alcohol and gambling with all good intent? By the same token, wouldn't a prudish sort (I believe they are called 'Santorums') be prone to banning all non-procreative sex? The problem with these bans - aside from being impractical - is that they only apply the part of morality the regulator likes. What could be more hypocritical, prideful, and in the end sinful?
The genius of the liberal society, on the other hand, is that we avoid all this hypocrisy. I don't try to regulate you, you don't try to regulate me. But I think, following Lewis, we can't just walk away from our neighbors at that point. In fact, we still should be just as concerned. But we must meet as equals, aware of our own sins first, and seek virtue voluntarily and with the help of others. This, after all, is the purpose of free will and our liberal society.
This is why I cannot agree with the concept of society that is not based on the ideal of virtuous outcomes. Are we really going to retain mature, reasonable, and prudent self-government if we take no interest in creating mature, reasonable, and prudent people? If as a people we don't care what sort of self-centered pricks we and our neighbors are becoming?
If we don't care, aren't we admitting that the purpose of liberal society is our own indulgence and nothing else? How tenable would that society be?
posted by Joshua @ 10:07 PM
5 Comments:
Let me briefly answer your questions in turn.
Last of the Writ, when I spoke of the 'hypocritical' application of morality, my assumption was a human regulator. How could this person, with their innate biases, place the proper emphasis on each aspect of morality? I was assuming it's a zero-sum game; to become overly obsessed with legislating illicit substances is to neglect the importance of charity, and so on.
For an example of this put into practice, I cite the current Religious Right's overly zealous focus on homosexuality and abortion to the exclusion of other legislative goals. Are we to believe from this that the whole of Christianity is summed up in hostility to gays and premarital sex?
Cato - I would think the ideal society is one whose main objective is happiness. But I'll stretch it a bit further and say that the main objective of virtue and piety is also happiness. So there's nothing inherently in conflict there.
The conflict is when, as you say, there are many different visions of the ideal. Classical liberalism solves that by removing government from sectarian debate. But my point is that's not the same thing as society saying "it's party time!" Rather, we're saying that individual religions' particular morals should not be enforced on everyone, but areas of general agreement should be part of society's fabric. Example: while moralities disagree on alcohol, they do agree that stealing is bad and harmful for society. And so on.
Here's it being put somewhat the same way in an Islamic context.
Whoops! I need to make one major correction. When I wrote 'pre-marital,' I meant 'non-procreative.' I have absolutely no idea why I wrote the wrong one.
But let me turn to the Christianists and their current efforts to combat homosexuality. I still assert that this is a perfect example of the emphasis of Christian morality being warped because of a particular dislike of homosexuality.
The purpose of Christianity, in the main, is for the believer to embrace a new life through Christ. As part of parcel of that, one must strive for the three chief virtues: Hope, Faith, and Charity.
Charity - the greatest of these - calls for the believer to love God and his neighbors as himself. This means being, as Paul says, as 'patient and kind' with other peoples' failings as you are with your own. The logic goes: "When I slip up, I give myself every benefit of the doubt, so I must extend this same courtesy to everyone else."
I don't see that embodied in moralistic efforts aimed solely at homosexuality. Where is the charity? Are chants of "God hates you!" (to be extreme) really the kind of charity they would like their sins to be received with?
The Christian virtues work in concert. Over-emphasizing the enforcement of the Holy Law does require that we sacrifice Charity. This is why I said that solely focusing on eradicating one 'sin' - however well-intended - cannot but lead to greater sins elsewhere. It's a tightrope walk, to be sure, but that's my point.
Sorry to divert this from the 'liberal society' thread, but Christian ethics fascinate me too. I would love to hear other Christian perspectives on the ethic!
Oh, too true. "Tough love" is the model here. I think you're right. It's a tightrope walk between accepting sin on the one hand and hating the person on the other. Not an easy gig in some cases!
I just came across your blog and wanted to drop you a note telling you, Friend, how impressed I was with it.
I give you my best wishes for your future endeavors. Nirvana
Post a Comment
<< Home