MARRIAGE, CHRISTIANITY AND POLITICOS

The boys over at the Evangel Society are raising a ruckus about the Federal Marriage Amendment. They think it's a good idea. I'd like to agree. The argument that marriage should be constitutionally defined as between a man and a woman is appealing. Similarly, I approve of Derek Muller's statement that such a constitution should merely protect the word "marriage," defining it as excusively between a man and a woman, while allowing for individual states to establish civil unions with benefits identical to marriage for two partners of the same gender (whether or not they were sexually involved with one another). I have a certain fondness for the notion that even a Christian government ought not seek to enforce all the niceties of Christian morality, but rather foster an environment conducive to them, allowing for human freedom. So part of me likes the idea.

But I don't know. Something unsettles me about it, and specifically about the ES's campaign for it. My uneasiness is rooted, I suspect, in the fact that I tend to find the entire conservative philosophy of government at best incompletely constructed and articulated, at worst untenable. I have no problem with the idea of an explicitly Christian nation, but am uncertain whether the structure of American government is compatible with such an idea. Even if the structure itself is (or was originally), I do not think it remains so in practice. All the political, cultural and societal signs indicate clearly to me America is emphatically not a Christian nation. Post-Christian, maybe. But not Christian.

In addition, the suggestion that the Constitution should be given the function of a dictionary is already strange to me (however much I might sympathize with the goals which drive that proposal). In light of what I have said above, however, it seems far stranger that, with America as it is, its Constitution should adopt a definition which is so explicitly Christian.

After all, America was not even founded as an explicitly Christian nation. It could have been--but that was actively avoided. To found a nation as explicitly Christian with any degree of consistency requires an alliance with a specific expression of Christianity. Different branches articulate different arguments in different ways in defense of certain principles--the manner in which those arguments are framed would affect the manner in which those principles are applied. It would be possible to do this and still permit religious freedom--in effect to say, as I would (were I given a nation and the power to frame an Orthodox Christian government:

"This nation recognizes the Holy Orthodox Faith as the correct form of worship, the right and ideal manner of life for its citizens and the heavenly prototype which this government is created to emulate. Our citizens are free to live and worship as they will, so long as they do not violate the free life and worship of another, but the laws and practice of this government are built upon the principles of the Holy Orthodox Faith."

But such arguments were not made during the framing of the Constitution (to my knowledge)--rather, the Founders shunned any alliance with a particular expression of Christianity, or even with Christianity at large. Conversely, Christian politicians today make numerous explicit alliances with various expressions of Christianity, seeking to further the cause of those expressions politically, but fail abjectly to create any consistent political philosophy relating the Church and the State. They battle the liberals/atheists/homosexual activists etc. for the reins of power, but have no articulated philosophy for what they mean to do with them should they acquire them. Some of their rhetoric lends itself to grave concern on the part of the American people (which concern is manipulated and heightened by the rhetoric of their political opponents: e.g. The Republicans want to restore the old South, enslave blacks, prosecute homosexuals, etc). Moreover, their arguments are addressed directly to the evangelican Christian community--they're preaching to the choir. Indeed, it seems that Christian Evangelical Conservatism has reduced itself essentially to the function of merely getting out the vote. It is doing little to nothing to convince those outside, offers little to those who are not already in agreement.

And unfortunately, so far, the boys of the Evangel Society are doing little better than their predecessors of past decades and generations, repeating the same tired negative rhetoric and the same stale fearmongering. They and I both believe that a truly Christian nation would be a good place to live for all men--but they are not discussing what precisely that vision would look like, are not presenting that vision to the people. It is difficult to take them as seriously as they would like when they ignore such fundamentals.

This is not an attack, but a critique. I urge them to pay more heed to these matters, to describe what they seek, and why, and why Christians of all stripes and even men of no faith at all should embrace their vision for America. Otherwise they are merely cogs in someone else's machine.