The Moral Lens
It is helpful but not sufficient
This post has been delayed by two weeks of tumultuous news. I have been letting the dust settle and all that.
My main point: Rather than follow partisan media with their partisan filters, I believe God calls his people in Christ to see as he sees, to interpret as he interprets, and to live in light of that. The message of Christ is supreme and stands over all partisan agendas.
The Moral Lens
With that as my assumption, let’s talk about the most common way Christians interpret events and reporting on them. It is the moral lens.
What do I mean by that? God has revealed his character in the Law, summarized in the ten commandments, and also written on the hearts of all people (natural law). His laws are good. As a someone in Christ, I use the law of God to evaluate the morality of ideas. I compare all news, all politics, all policies and all media against the law of God.
Sounds fairly easy, except . . . morality is only a part of the world of media and politics.
All politics and media is moralizing
Morals are everywhere. Read any reporting or listen to any political platform or speech and you will find an assumed moral standard, using that standard for a measurement of a caricature of the other side’s candidates and policy , a condemnation of their policy, and an assertion that we are the ones upholding this moral standard.
Sometimes the moral principle is a buzzword, left undefined for the same of stirring us up. Sometimes it is spelled out. We uphold law and order, they do not. We are for the poor, they are not. They do not care for all human life, we do. They are a threat to democracy, we are not.
In a certain sense, there is no amoral position. In essence, politics and opinion journalism is preaching the law, condemning sinners, and justifying ourselves as in the right. Politics feeds on moral grievances.
If this is the case, then I must make an apologetic for God’s revealed laws. But it is more complex than that.
Political thinking selects some morals and turns them into a cause
God reveals 10 commands, we chose 6 of them. Blues are for justice, care of the poor, equal outcomes for all races, and facing the dangers of climate change. Reds are for protecting the unborn, equal opportunity, upholding laws and fighting crime, and human responsibility and agency.
Can you see that each party selects their moral platforms for their purposes. And they are silent about moral principles that do not fit their agenda. It is helpful to look at the laws of God and figure out which ones are being selected and ignored.
Increasingly our two parties play God — they demand absolute adherence to their platform. This is so much so that to be a pro-life democrat or a Republican concerned with prejudice against the black community means facing denunciation.
There are more layers to this . . .
Morals are chosen to get votes
They do it to get elected. They identify voting blocks and determining how to appeal to them. Discovering the grievances of blocks of people, finding the moral principle being violated, and asserting that you are there to make things right again — that is the “art” of politics.
It is anything but moral. Morals are not our servants.
It is certainly anything but concern for the truth. We can falsely caricature the other side at will. But truth is truth. It is not a tool for acquiring votes and calling out the other side as liars.
I am pretty convinced that if saying the moon was made of roquefort cheese would win the votes of a large block of people, many in media and politics would add that to their platform.
In other words, politics is the tail that wags the dog of moral absolutes. But that is backwards. But why?
They get votes to access the levers of power
Why do we do this? We live in a time in history when it is assumed that the coercive force of government, combined with the massive sums of money generated by taxation and borrowing, and guided by expert elites can solve any problem.
Jacques Ellul unmasked this in his 1967 The Political Illusion. He writes an exploration of what it means that everything is now political. He notes that modern people cannot “conceive of a society except as directed by a central omnipresent and omnipotent state.”1 That was more than 50 years ago! He asserted and proved that the differences between American views of government in 1900 and 1967 was greater than the differences between America and the Soviet Union in 1967.
“We believe that for the world to be in good order, the state must have all the powers.”2
The sum of all politics is this: We have this problem, and we need to mobilize government to fix it. Moral causes serve that end.
We believe that the levers of power can be moved to solve all problems
A few years ago a perfect illustration presented itself. In the face a widespread problem of social isolation, the British government created a Minister of Loneliness. If you think that is a sensible solution, welcome to the cult of the Almighty and All-wise state.
If I may offer two American examples, one from both sides of the divide.
In 2008 President Obama said that under his administration we would “heal the planet.” This is the equivalent to saying we will end all earthquakes. It is grandiose in the extreme. Yet people cheered.
Last week former President Trump said that in his administration there would be no more global wars and we would prosper in a way never before seen in human history. This is an equally preposterous claim, and once again people cheered.
We cheer because we believe the lie about the power of government.
Why do we fall prey to this con?
The Moral Utopia of Politics
Ever notice that grand promises of politic and media? People love a moral cause. Oratory that appeals to moral causes stirs us to action. Our human condition is such that we think we are righteous, not because of what we do, but because of what we say is right. We glory on being on “the right side of history” ( con line if ever there was one because the history referred to is in the future).
A few years ago, after watching some news, I asked my wife, “Since when did everyone become a Marxist?” More to the point, how is that a political ideology that since 1900 has murdered 100 million of its own citizens to achieve a utopia of equality — how has it gained traction?
On the other side, I listen to those who say American democracy and liberty of all citizens is the good news we proclaim that will free all nations from tyranny — and I wonder how that can be said when it has not freed us from national sins?3
Why is Marxism appealing? Why does idealizing our American founding stir such passion? The answer is the appeal of high minded morality and utopian visions. Marxism promises a society of full equality. Messianic American founding promises a world of freedom from tyranny.
Let me pull this together:
First, in politics morality is a tool. When people present their party and policies as expressions of high minded moral principles, they are lying. They are playing you. Their principles and policy are means to access power and privilege. That power and privilege is their god. You are a means to their end.
Second, many people in power are hypocrites. All politics is about using moral causes to get voted into office so that our party can use other people’s money and the power of government to accomplish purposes for which no one personally has spent a dime or to which or have given personal time.
This means that when moral causes are servants of power-grasping political idolatry, arguing morality misses the point. Moral principles must be accompanied by
critique of political deceit and idolatry.
Moral principles can be argued and exemplified
That being the case, how do I as a Christian function in a society of competing political moralities?
As Christians we may run for office and vote for those who run for office. Our agenda can include moral principles. We must be non partisan in our moral principles. That will likely mean critiquing Democrats and Republicans. The party platform cannot be allowed to force me into selecting from God’s law only what serves my party.
As Christians, we must argue moral principle from reason, not fiat. It’s called natural law, an inner awareness of the owners manual. We have always lived in a pluralistic society. Freedom to argue and disagree and make one’s point is guaranteed.4 But you have to make your case. You have to do the research. You have to show how it applies. You have to be ready for the battle.
Look at examples like Ian Rowe. He is a doer, not a talker. Based on solid research, he has created a program to deliver children from victimhood into productive living. He fights for his purpose, argues his case, deals with incessant detractors, and is proving his point.
Many years ago, our neighbor in Portland exemplified a pro-life position. Without any engagement in politics, she built an addition on her house, housed unwed moms-to-be through pregnancy, paid for their living expenses, and helped them get their feet on the ground as new moms.
Whatever moral principle you argue must critique the political agenda
Let me give one example:
We have been told that immigration is a huge political issue. Will we have open borders and maintain national sovereignty with closed borders. We all know the accusations made against the other side.
Those are all smokescreens. The real issue is how can either party use the immigration issue to keep their hands on the levers of power.
I believe in human dignity. That means no one should be treated with contempt. People are not a means to a political end.
My moral question is: how do we create an immigration policy that treats potential immigrants with honor, protects them from the predatory actions of cartels and con artists, preserves their families, and moves them into American society so they become productive citizens?
A wide open border is anti-human. A totally closed border is too. How many immigrants we take in is not the issue. How we take them in is. But no one talks about this.
To advocate for these principles would be a battle on the right and the left.
What we need is people of character.
Our lives in Christ must be marked by character shaped by the reality of redemption and God making us new people. What our nation needs is people of the highest character, seeking to serve all citizens, and doing so with respect to the diverse peoples of our nation. The kind of person we are is more important than the policies we establish.
We must never conflate Christianity with a moral or political cause
A warning: Our primary message is not about right and wrong. It is about the redemption of sinners (which we all are) through a grace provided sacrifice for sin. We cannot conflate them.
Our hope for morality is not in government. God recreates us to make us holy. Moral pressure changes no one’s heart. I would go so far as to say that morality and religion are enemies of Christ as much as immorality and secularism.
We can use a moral filter if we understand how morality plays out in politics and media.
Let’s talk about the narrative of Scripture in the next post.
p. 12, The Political Illusion
p. 13
I do not mean to say all forms of government are the same. They are not. I mean to say all forms of government are idols.
Jonathan Rauch has written a great defense and explanation of this form of government in a pluralistic society. The Constitution of Knowledge.
How wonderful to see you mention Ian Rowe! I've been an admirer of his work for many years.