You may have noticed (though probably not) that I haven’t had a column published at The American Spectator Online for a while. This doesn’t mean I’ve been banned there, or that I’ve gotten into a dispute with the editor or anything. It’s just that, ever since the last election, I’ve had almost nothing to say, on any subject having to do with culture or politics, that I think is worth asking to be paid for, even at the Spectator’s rates.
I won’t deny it. The election shook me. It wasn’t primarily the reelection of the president that disheartened me (though that was part of it). It was the results of the referendum on same sex marriage in my own state of Minnesota. Up until that moment I was able to hang on to the believe that “the silent majority” still held to traditional moral values. But the referendum failed, and failed big. Minnesota’s social conservatives got put in our place.
Sometimes I tend to talk like a prophet. I shouldn’t do that. I don’t have a line on God’s plans any more than anybody else who reads the Bible. But I do belief that righteousness exalteth a nation. I do believe that those who turn their backs on the plain words of Scripture will suffer consequences – and because much has been given to those who have access to Scripture, much will be demanded of them.
The other day our friend Gene Edward Veith linked to a Buzzfeed article by McKay Coppins, in which he notes how the “traditional values” fight has shifted ground (which is another way of saying “lost ground”). It used to be that we struggled to teach our neighbors what God’s rules are, and to try to convince them to adopt them, for their own good and that of society. Now we are in a situation where the best we can do is to try to carve out a little cultural reservation where we’ll still be allowed to live the way we choose, without being forced by the government to conform to its morality.
The surging Libertarian movement – and there are an increasing number of Christian libertarians out there – see little problem with this. It doesn’t matter, in their view, how the populace behaves, just as long as taxes are kept low.
But I believe actions have consequences. I believe that redefining the central, organic institution of society (marriage) to the point where it has no objective meaning, will mean inevitable horrific consequences over time. I am not happy to watch my country descend into social chaos and the inevitable expansion of government which must accompany social chaos.
I just don’t know how to make that argument at this moment in history.
I’ve come to the conclusion that “Christian libertarian” is an oxymoron. The two words are mutually exclusive. How can one take seriously Christ’s commandment to “Go and make disciples of all nations” while at the same time professing that it doesn’t matter that one’s neighbors are “Slouching towards Gomorrah”?
They seem to believe, contra 1 Tim 1, 1 Peter 1, and Romans 13, that the civil government has no authority when it comes to public morality.
God is working even when we can’t see what He is doing. I recommend prayer and more prayer. I’m praying Psalm 15 for the president and all who surround him. Maybe Psalm 1:1-3 would be good to pray too.
Perhaps the wrong battle has always been one over rules. If instead we talk first principles, if we point to the cross of Christ in our arguments and our practice, then we will win some and perhaps suffer for the right reasons. Still, in our day, I think if we are the ones standing up for the helpless and marginalized, then we won’t suffer anything worth the term.
It’s true that “pointing to the cross” is always valid, but that leaves me with nothing to write for the Spectator. I can’t do plain evangelism there. I have to make pragmatic arguments that make secular sense. My whole problem is that there’s no more audience for our prudential arguments. And I believe prudential arguments still matter.
Yes, I was thinking generally. Perhaps the answer is to step back to cover more basic principles, to restate what should be understood. Did you see the news story of the three boys who beat the tar out of a 13yo on the bus while the bus driver called for help? The driver was in a catch22 of a kind. He feared for his own safety, but he wanted to stop the abuse. If he had slugged the nearest kid or shoved him into the others, I’m sure he would be abused by the authorities and some parents. All I could think of was that we have no honor anymore. The man should have risked his safety and job to help this boy, but I’m sure he would be punished by those who claim to want to the best for our kids.
We cannot have liberty without moral law. We cannot celebrate freedom without submission to the One who gave us that freedom.
The point you are after will be made. We have just passed the point at which it will be made rhetorically, rather than through what Kipling called the return of the Gods of Copybook Headings.
And that’s what makes me weep. I do love this country.