When discussing political economy from a Christian perspective, or even business goals from a Christian perspective, I frequently run into the problem of having long conversations, with each party talking about a subject from rather different perspective, without knowing it. Often I talk about issues from the "policy-making" perspective while the opponent addresses the issue from the "preaching perspective".
The "
policy-making" perspective is chiefly concerned with questions such as
- How should a good nation be run?
- What kind of political system is consistent with Christian principles?
- Is there one political system that is better than others in allowing us to be good stewards of our resources?
Clearly, these are important questions. In today's inaugural interdisciplinary discussion, for example, a question was raised about
how should we feel responsible to our fellow men. Is an ordinary person in a nation responsible for providing for an elderly stranger who is facing expensive medical treatments? I tend to immediately gravitate to answering this question from the "policy-making" perspective, and argue that a political system should respect a person's right to his own life first and foremost, thus ordinarily an inhabitant of the nation could not be forced to surrender her earnings on behalf of a stranger for the stranger's medical care or a stranger's farm subsidy. Certainly, there can be a disagreement on this issue, but at least I want to clarify that I am approaching this issue from a policy standpoint, not from the "preaching" standpoint.
Alternatively, one may address issues like this from a "
preaching" standpoint. From this perspective one would be concerned with questions such as
- How does the Bible teach Christians to act?
- To live as a Christian with integrity, do I need to abide by a certain norm in this area
Again - these are important questions. But, interestingly, approaching an issue from this perspective will often lead to a seemingly different conclusion. Again - one might ask
how should we feel responsible to our fellow men? Is an ordinary person in a nation responsible for providing for an elderly stranger who is facing expensive medical treatments? From the so called "preaching" perspective, I see that many might argue that there is only one response that is consistent with Christian living - Christians are called to feel responsible for those in need. In the
parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, Jesus calls his followers to be concerned for strangers.
Thus, it is entirely possible (as I have experienced on multiple occasions) to be talking about a certain (political economy) issue with an appearance of a disagreement, while in reality the two people are simply assuming a different perspective - either a
preaching perspective or a
policy perspective. So while one person says "We should NOT be made responsible for a stranger in need!" and the other says "Yes we should be responsible for a stranger in need!" perhaps there may be no disagreement at all, just a different perspective that is adopted without being spoken?
It seems to me that your distinction between a "policy" perspective and a "preaching" perspective is more fundamentally a question either/or:
ReplyDelete1. How should be understand the relationship between the state and the church (or perhaps even culture and Christ)?
2. Whether questions of public policy should or should not take into account the teleological ends that God has for humanity and the creation?
3. What role should one religious faith play in considerations of a political and public nature?
My initial instinct is that, while we may speak of the City of Man as something secular and temporary in that it concerns this eon and must accomodate fallen beings, we can not really speak of the ends of the state without some kind of presuppositions about the nature of human beings and of the world we exist within. Couldn't someone charge that your gravitation to an "individual's right" is already assuming a post-Christian view of the human person as an autonomous being free to self-create his or her own meaning and definition? Any thoughts?
The reason I want to separate the two perspectives is this: while it is good and desirable for people (Christians or not) to engage in moral behavior, such as charity or paying someone's health bills, it is bad and immoral to force(!) others to do the same.
ReplyDeletePreachers, teachers, parents should say to their listeners - 'Choose to be moral!' That's the 'preaching' perspective. But the 'policy' perspective acknowledges that we cannot be consistent with Scripture if we force(!) others into morality.
I think this view is post-Christian ONLY IF we can say with certainty that Christianity places sacredness of life (and human's God given right to life) as somehow lower in priority than other teleological ends that God has for humanity and creation.
Are you willing to go down this road and say that this ordering is true in Christianity?
The three questions you raise seem to me to be important only if we decide first that Christianity does endorse the policy-makers' right to force(!) morality on their subjects. After all, if Christianity values life and freedom above certain other teleological ends God has for humanity, then the role of the church (any church) quickly becomes limited to voluntary private advisory role. In this understanding the church can offer to illuminate policy decisions, to inspire voluntary actions of charity etc, but the church cannot force a particular morality on the state or the individuals.
I think we see this view modeled in the life of Christ, don't we? He offers voluntary advice, illuminates policy-making, encourages private charity, but forces nothing.
Perhaps I'm off in my ordering of sacredness of life as something that Christianity defends first and foremost?
Hmmm. . . . Doesn't all law enforce someone's moral behavior? Positive concessions are as much moral behavior as negative prohibitions. We force someone not to destroy my yard, rape my neighbor, beat me up, etc. To do is to force that person to inhibit desires he or she would like to act on.
ReplyDeleteFor much of Christian history in the West the church and the state were seperate, yet ideally (practice is always messier) the state acted on Christian principles and laws. including charity--which I suppose we need to define. I wouldn't advocate a control of the state by the church (as an institution) or vice-versa per se.
Help me out with your terminology here. Am I missing something, or are you assuming that all property belongs to individuals, and this constitutes "sacredness of life"? Couldn't "sacredness of life" be a call for charity, that is trump other goods when neeeded, such as extreme drought? (Maybe not the best example.)
>>>Hmmm. . . . Doesn't all law enforce someone's moral behavior?
ReplyDelete-No, much of the law is written to stop people from initiating unwanted force with impunity. "Thous shall not kill" is an example of such a law, as is its equivalent in any nations criminal code. Law that enforces someone's moral behavior would be law that initiates(!) unwanted force (or threat thereof) to solicit positive moral action. Direct example of such a law would be "One must stop and offer help if he sees a stranded car, and be fined if he does not". Such a law would seem ridiculous. However, indirectly many laws in the US and other nations do unfortunately coerce people into positive moral action by the threat force.
>>>Positive concessions are as much moral behavior as negative prohibitions.
-If I understand correctly what you mean by 'positive concessions' and 'negative prohibitions' then I disagree. I think that the key difference between positive concessions and negative prohibitions has to do with force and rights (there goes that language again, hehe). Positive concessions (saying "Help him, or else..) threaten (!)initiation(!) of force if one refuses to act morally. Negative prohibitions (saying "do not beat him up..) call initiation of force illegal, and only threaten force in retaliation of some original force.
>>>Help me out with your terminology here. Am I missing something, or are you assuming that all property belongs to individuals, and this constitutes "sacredness of life"?
-Yes, that is exactly where I am coming from. My terminology is indeed awkward, and that's probably an indication of a lack of clarity in thought. But - I do assume that an extension of an individual's right to life is his right to his time, his energies, and the fruit of the two - his property. I do assume that created property belongs to the creator of that property until it is voluntarily given up, say, through a sale.
The piece I sent you on theology and property will be interesting I think, though let me go ahead and say that I think his conclusions go too far. Nonetheless, he does raise issues of common property and the needs (rights?) of the community outweighing at times individuals' use of their property. He also raises the issue of stewardship, as well as how Christians should see property as always on loan from God.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, such laws already exist--a person can be fined or arrested in certain cases for failure to render aid, though typically the officer (and then the judge) has to size up the situation on a case-by-case basis.
Let's take the abortion debate. A woman's "right" to choose whether to bear a child to full-term I would argue is rightfully restricted in that abortion does harm to another. That would seem to reflect your point above. But some would suggest that is using unwanted force, forcing her to help the child or else. "That's your value system, not mine." But then I would argue that it's far more than "mine."
>>>..the needs (rights?) of the community outweighing at times individuals' use of their property.
ReplyDelete-I haven't read the article yet, since it is at DBU, but I would be very interested in a particular example of this.
I see your point about the abortion debate. Laws which maintain that the medical professionals must help a struggling newborn live (in, say, botched abortion cases) would certainly be examples of 'positive concessions' laws. As a society we justify such laws by saying that the newborn has his right to life, and is incapable of protecting it, so we coerce others into protecting it. So I agree with you, we do have some 'positive concessions' laws, although they are a big minority to the negative prohibitions laws, right?
My general feeling, as I've stated in the past, is that cultivated virtue is better than law; that voluntary action is better than regulated action; and that local action is better than state action. It is better for people to have an internalized habit of caring for others than being forced to; it is better for them to choose to help others than to be forced to; and it is better for programs that help those in need to be organized and run at the local level subject to little or no state-level regulation.
ReplyDeleteBut I also believe that in light of human sinfulness, regulated law even at some higher, less non-local level may be necessary at times, though of course regulation and centralization are just as subject to sin and corruption and left to themselves are likely to encourage vice and lack of creativity and initiative.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete