Before getting into analysis of particular policies, it’s important to get underlying assumptions right: to what extent should Christian seek to impose their views and values on the nation through the political process.
We live in a democracy, so Christians have as much right as any other member of the public to make their views known and vote for policies they agree with and the people who espouse them. However, there is a larger question about the degree to which governments can or should legislate values.
A common cry of secularism is that governments can’t or shouldn’t legislate morality. On the face of it, this is obviously wrong: we have laws that disallow theft and murder, and others that put a restraint on what you can say about another person, e.g. libel, defamation and hate speech. Of course, these laws have also been instituted to protect life and liberty, not just because they were in line with Christian morals, but because they are about moral values that the population as a whole commit to.
While the Bible states that political authorities are instituted by God and operate under his authority (e.g. Romans 13) and prompt Christians to do good in the world (e.g. James 2), there is not much said about the interaction between these two things. 1 Timothy 2:1-4 indicates that Christians should pray for kings and all those in high positions, which seems to be in the context of seeking that kings make laws that allow Christians to live a Christian life and share the gospel of Jesus Christ. That's something that is still relevant today - Christian's seeking laws that allow freedom of speech that they can tell others what they believe about God; perhaps the verse could even be extrapolated to indicate a desire that the king would make laws that are godly, or at least that do not prevent the Christians from living a godly life.
Perhaps it is helpful to acknowledge that governments regulate 'morality' in two different ways at present:
- Proscribing behaviour that impinges upon the liberty of others, e.g. murder or theft
- Setting rules about 'private' morality that does not impinge upon others, e.g. defining marriage in such a way that disallows homosexual unions.
There are also grey areas in between these two: e.g. the age of consent for sex is set to protect minors from predatory sexual behaviour, but makes it illegal for people under the age of 16 who genuinely wish to engage in consensual sex to do so. Similarly, not being allowed to smoke or drink alcohol before the age of 18 protects minors from the harmful effects of those drugs, but also limits their freedom to choose to experience those effects. And the same argument can be applied to bans on illicit drugs for the whole population.
Without debating whether governments should legislate morality, to what extent should Christians seek to have government enact their values?
With regard to Case 1 above, I think it is clear that Christians have historically sought to enforce their values on the world in this way, and it is appropriate to do so. For example, it was his Christian values that prompted William Wilberforce to campaign so effectively to end the slave trade.
The second case is more complex: Christians don't really expect non-Christians to behave in a 'godly' way. Of course, the Biblical position is a desire that all people trust God and live in line with Him, but the reality is that sin is prevalent in the world and that people don't. Christians are concerned first and foremost with preaching the good news about Christ and seeing people 'converted' to trusting in that; godly behaviour flows froma trust in God, not the other way around. On the other hand, it seems that Christians would, on the whole, still prefer to live in a world that where people act in a way that is consistent with 'godly' behaviour, even if it is not motivated by a love for God. The degree to which Christians should expect governments to enact this in law though is still a difficult question.
My current thinking on this leads me to three statements:
- If we accept that government's can legislate about 'private' morality, then Christians should feel free to vote for moral positions they believe in. We trust that in a democracy the will of the people as a whole is enacted by government and that the nation as a whole submits to the will of the people as a whole, as enacted through government [this is debateable - maybe a topic for another time]. From this perspective, Christians have the same chance and right as everyone else to see their values enshrined in the nation.
- If we accept that government's shouldn't legislate private morality, then Christians should still commit themselves to seeing government's legislate values that effect other people and are in line with Biblical teaching, such as the opposition to slavery or murder as mentioned above.
- The distinction between statements 1 and 2 is complex. For example, a secularist might see that legislating to allow homosexual marriage is in category 1, as it affects no-one other than the two people involved. On the other hand, others might see it as the start of a slippery slide that may have wider affects on society as a whole, and thus a matter for category 2. A more obvious recent example is debate over stem-cell research and abortion: some people see it as being purely a matter for the people concerned, particularly the woman who has the embryo inside her. Others see that life begins at conception, at which point abortion (killing an unborn human) or stem cell research (creating and harvesting unborn humans for scientific research and ultimate death) is a matter that affects others, and outlawing it is essential in order to protect life.
So, I'll throw this one open now: what do people think?
- Do you want to (whether religious or not) enforce some values on the population as a whole?
- Do you accept that you can be bound by government legislation that allows or disallows certain 'moral' behaviours?
- Is there a better framework for this debate that should be taken into account?
3 comments:
A thought on the framing of the discussion: the language of 'values' is a red herring that makes us think that what is good and true is a matter of personal choice, outside the scope of rational enquirey and common understanding. I think it is nearly always a distraction in discussing matters of morality as it gets us off on the wrong foot. Otherwise, I think this is an excellent post that summarises many key issues with nuance and insight. Looking forward to future posts.
Thanks for the feedback Byron.
re Values: I don't know that we are discussing morality here - we're discussing politics.
Jokes aside, it's true that what I was really asking is whether Christian morality (and/or the Christian worldview) can be legislated. However, in a discussion of a democracy, values is an appropriate term: the democractic process entails different groups of people voting for what they value, which may be what they believe is moral or right, but not necessarily so. What term do you think is better than 'values'?
I also don't agree that values are outside the scope of rational inquiry - which is part of the point you were making. You have now inspired me to write more about this in the near future.
Values needn't be disconnected from rational enquiry and public truth, though the discourse of values commonly (though inconsistently) assumes that there is a distinction and even separation between 'facts' and 'values'.
What term might be better than values? How about 'the common good'? Or what is right and true and good? These more traditional terms have different (and IMHO superior) connotations to 'values', which is usually associated with what we want to be the case, irrespective of what actually is the case. Values discourse often (though as I said, not necessarily) assumes an ethical voluntarism - in which the individual will is primary in determining what is right. Although this meshes neatly with late capitalist individualism, Christianity has generally adopted ethical assumptions that are less subjective, teaching that what is good and right and ethical flow from how God has made things, not directly from the human will (the place of God's will is more complicated and can perhaps be left for another discussion).
Post a Comment