Immoral
and/or Illegal
It
is a common failing of right-wing Christians to assume that anything that is
clearly immoral should also be illegal. It is sufficient to point out the
dangers and deficiencies of that view; this may, therefore, open some eyes.
Principle:
enforcement
The
first reason that something may be immoral but not illegal is the question of
enforcement. There is no great sense outlawing something that the state cannot
enforce. This brings up some practical objections:
- First,
does the general population support the law? No doubt we could make
wearing a miniskirt illegal by anyone but anorexics, but would the people
support this? Enforced against the will of the people, enforcement would
soon collapse. (Think how you’d react if you were told you had to wear a
Moslem burkha.)
- Next,
is it within the capabilities of the state to enforce it? Our technology
may have the potential to detect it, but we may not be able to enforce it
due to economic considerations. It should be illegal to pick your nose in
public – but are we willing the spend the money to enforce such a law?
- We
might also look at the pure economics of strict enforcement. We have
occasional, token enforcement of traffic laws – just enough to discourage
bad behavior, with the resources to track down and collect the really
egregious violations. Where’s a cop when you need one?
- Finally,
consider what harm might arise from such enforcement. Cameras in every
bedroom should allow us to catch acts of adultery; but is it worth the
price of knowing that husband and wife are not alone together, even in
bed?
The
state is…
Much
of our view on church and state matters is tempered by our view of just what
the “state” really is. There are some interesting views on this:
- The
Roman Catholic view is that the state is the “handmaid of the church.” In
countries dominated by Roman Catholics, the state is assumed to have
certain responsibilities for enforcing church doctrine. Abortion is
murder; birth control is illegal. The state gets the job of enforcing.
- The
Protestant view is more along the lines that God has empowered the state
for certain, limited purposes. What those purposes might be is a tough
question, but (for example) stopping bank robbery is one of them.
Prescribing right and wrong is not.
- Often
enough, however, the state is the enemy of the church. This is
historically the most common situation. There are a number of reasons for
this. A common one is that the state in question is in a Moslem country –
where just being a Christian is grounds for the death penalty. If the
state is a corrupt dictatorship, the teaching of the church (on honesty,
for example) may be seen as meddling, not preaching. But ultimately we
must recognize this as the “right” answer; the powers of this world,
spiritually, are the enemies of the church. Eventually, the state and the
church will both claim that the highest allegiance is theirs. When this
happens (and it will here in America as well), the state will use its
police powers to enforce such loyalty. The response of the church is yet
to be seen.
Separation
of church and state
The
usual response from Americans is that there should be separation of church and state.
It sometimes surprises us that this idea is a relatively new one, dating back
only to the 16th century. Constantine’s attitude, for example, was
one which asked, “How do we make sure that this God blesses the empire?” But
since then, however, the phrase has grown in importance.
But
trying to pin it down is like chasing a greased pig. To the liberal it means
that the church should shun anything likely to bring the church and state into
conflict. Even if this means changing church doctrine to fit the whims of the
moment (like our current blessing of homosexuality.) To the conservative it
means that the government should not interfere with the church, but the church
by right must speak out on the moral issues of the day.
Jump
to the other side of the fence with me, please. Should a Christian, whose
ultimate highest loyalty is to Christ, be allowed to vote? We wouldn’t let
someone whose highest loyalty was (for example) to Mexico do that. Why should
we allow it for someone in the heavenly kingdom?
Social
(Sexual) Issues
The
limitations of the state are a reflection of our sinful world. We may take the
principles above and apply them to some of the issues of our day.
Teenage
Pregnancy
There
is little doubt that teenage, unwed pregnancy carries with it great social
cost. The debate is over the role of parents in dealing with the problem. The
arguments can be summed up thusly:
- Parents
are morally and legally responsible for their children until 18 years of
age. They should thus be notified; their decisions, not the child’s,
should prevail.
- This
is a public health problem. If we involve the parents automatically, a
great percentage of such pregnancies will end in secret abortions. Girls
are afraid to face their parents; rebellion is now good. Be practical;
birth control pills, condoms and legal abortions must be provided if we
are to deal with this problem.
You
can see the problem; there is no consensus on what is morally right in this
situation. The liberal encourages teenage rebellion and certainly encourages
teen sex. We are to the point that fornication is now a virtue; those who
don’t engage in it are defective. The population as a whole simply will
not support the Christian method, abstinence. Liberals find themselves
therefore in the delightful position of taxing conservatives to pay for birth
control, and encouraging the conservative’s daughter to defy her parents
without the usual penalties. So what should the Christian do?
Prostitution
A
similar situation might seem to exist with regard to prostitution. The
Christians oppose it; the liberals think it should be open and explicit, right
next to the hardware store. But prostitution carries with it the baggage of
drug dealing, declining property values and the frequent destruction of
families. There are some differences in view, however:
- The
liberal objects to prostitution for what it does to the prostitute.
Hollywood to the contrary, the prostitutes life is generally a miserable
one.
- The
conservative, of course, objects on moral grounds.
So
there is consensus here that prostitution, as currently practiced, is immoral.
Therefore the state should continue to enforce laws against it. It is the
future for which there is no consensus. Should we continue to pursue the
present course, or should we legalize everything involved?
Gambling
One
area in which we are rapidly legalizing everything involved is gambling. How
is it that gambling, once considered as immoral as prostitution, now flourishes
everywhere? We can see the limitations of the state in this:
- Gambling
brings in large amounts of revenue to the state. It is therefore seen,
from the state’s point of view, as “an industry.” For a state government
strapped for cash, this is an important reason for approving.
- Gambling
is no longer considered immoral – just harmful. (A similar argument may
be made for alcoholic beverages.) The compulsive gambler is a small
negative; revenue is a large positive.
- Perhaps
most convincing is this: gambling allows us to raise the American Indian
from poverty to affluence. It is seen as an instrument of social justice.
From
the state’s point of view, we exchange a situation in which enforcement was
difficult at best (do you really want to bust Grandma for playing bingo in the
church fellowship hall?) to one in which the state benefits greatly. The
church is permitted to ask for perfection; the state knows better.
The
Problem of War
No
problem of church and state is so consistently debated as that of war. As of
this writing, there is still much debate over the war in Iraq. We will not
rehash those arguments, but take a more general view.
Two
approaches
In
the broadest strokes, Christianity has come up with two approaches to the
problem of war. They are pacifism and chivalry.
Pacifism
Pacifism’s
reaction to war usually comes in three flavors:
- The
state may make war; the Christian is barred from participating. In this
view, war is seen as interchangeable with evil. The Christian may not
object (render unto Caesar) but also is forbidden to participate.
- In
another view, the Christian may not participate but is required to object
to the war – any war. This is not as common as it once was, as the
possibility of “just war” is more apparent.
- Finally,
the third view is that the Christian may participate in the war – but not
kill anyone. The common example of this is the Jehovah’s Witnesses who
become medics during war.
C.
S. Lewis, writing in World War II, called pacifism a theological mistake and a
practical disaster. Having been a soldier, I agree. But the pacifist-medic is
worthy of a soldier’s respect.
Chivalry
This
view holds that we shall have “wars and rumors of wars.” We therefore have
those whose duty is to fight those wars. We see the solution most clearly
portrayed in the Medieval knight. A man who is perfectly capable of conducting
the slaughter of battle, but who is also a man who reads philosophy, writes
poetry and otherwise behaves himself in times of peace. That’s our knight; a
man who is fundamentally conflicted – and embraces the conflict. It is not his
to choose what war to fight, but rather to fight it in a just manner.
Our
own military has gone through various views on this. We may consider one
problem to see how our thinking changes with the times – and technologies. In
World War II it was common to have large formations of bombers fly over the
enemy’s territory, dropping thousands of bombs to hit one particular industrial
target. Gradually, the effect of such bombings on the civilian population
was seen to be valuable – it affected the enemy’s will to fight. So we began
to conduct fire bombing raids with the explicit purpose of killing as many
enemy civilians as possible. The most devastating attack on Japan was not at
Hiroshima, but Tokyo. One wonders what the knight would have thought of a
tactic whose sole purpose was to kill the civilians.
Now,
however, we see “collateral damage” as undesirable. This is greatly influenced
by our ability to hit targets more precisely – but note that we now accept the
idea that bombing innocent civilians is wrong, even if accidents do happen. Is
our intent any less evil because we don’t want to “waste ammunition” on the civilians?
Hmmmmm.
One
thing chivalry still holds is this: if you become a warrior, you must be
prepared to die. If you point a weapon at a man, you give him the right to try
to kill you first. Chivalry obliges you to think about ultimate things.
Just
War
The
issue for the older ones of us is no longer one of service in the military, but
rather do we support the war? In that regard, we look for what is called a
“just war.” In other words, is this war morally approved or not? There are
many criteria for such; we shall take the simplest, as given by Aquinas. He
poses three questions which have not lost their usefulness today.
- First,
is the war waged by the supreme authority of the state? In his day the
lesser nobility often desired to settle arguments by war; by forbidding
this we have far less war. (Should California be allowed to wage war
against, say, Wisconsin?)
- Next,
does the war have a just cause? That’s an object raised against today’s
war in Iraq. If our purpose is to secure oil supplies – greed, in other
words – then the war is not just. If it is to liberate Kuwait from the
dictator who just stole it, the war is just.
- Finally,
do those who fight the war have just intentions? Are they signed up for
the rape and pillage, or for other motives?
Epilog
We
have raised more questions than we have answered in this lesson. This is
purposeful:
- Do
you now see that questions concerning Christian ethics are not necessarily
“black and white?”
- Do
you see also that such questions can be debated rationally, and not
needing personal invective?
If
we have opened your eyes to the thoughtful side of Christian debate, then these
lessons have achieved their purpose.