In the last post we explored the meaning of natural law primarily based on the perspective of Paul in Romans 1, with a particular focus on Paul’s meaning in the following passage, and this passage continues to serve as the foundational concept for evaluating the report with the short title of THE PRINCETON PRINCIPLES –
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.” Romans 1:20-22 NIV
The traditional view of natural law heavily influenced the worldview on which the founders of the U.S. were able to find agreement, as expressly stated in the Declaration of Independence when they claimed the status and rights “to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them.” I think this common background assisted them in forging the U.S. Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, allowing both deists and traditional theists to unite in a common language that gave birth to what Robert N. Bellah defined as a “well-institutionalized civil religion.” In this way Enlightenment rationalism and traditional religion became partners together.
The Constitution they gave us created a forum for an ongoing process of development as a nation. It did not impose specific moral values for the most part, and it maintained religious neutrality. It was vague on most liberty issues, which allowed for continued interpretation of meaning as time went by. And as John E. Finn suggests in his lectures, the Constitution does not specify any final arbiter for it’s interpretation, but creates a system in which the three branches of government and the citizens themselves engage in an an ongoing dialogue and reinterpretation of its meaning, which might be subject to change over time according to the ebb and flow of disagreements that might arise. Perhaps the greatest wisdom of the founders is that they created a system that channels social conflict constructively, through a process of energized debate between different power centers in society rather than through violence and revolution. As depicted in the previous post, our national system may be seen as analogous to the biblical picture of the nature of nature as the ongoing conflict of chaos and order - order gives structure and boundaries; chaos is the energy that drives changes and creativity; and God made use of both of them to form the world: nature consists of various structures in an ongoing process of gradual transformation.
Even though some of the founders had vastly different religious perspectives, and even if a few had lifestyles that bordered on the secular, they all shared a common moral sensibility about the world that enabled them to agree on the wording of the Constitutional documents, and that is always the troublesome task in any group project. It probably helped, as Daniel N. Robinson points out in one of his lectures, that they knew they had to create a document that the general public would accept, if it was going to be an effective document, so it had to reflect the general Christian ethos of the nation at the time. But the original focus of the authors was so strictly on the mechanics or system of government that what we might think of as content - the “Bill of Rights” - was only added afterwards at the insistence of the states as a condition of acceptance. But even there, as John E. Finn points out, those amendments are worded in the very vague manner that allows for diverse viewpoints to agree, when in reality that ambiguous wording admits to a wide range of interpretation. Although we can see signs of its roots in the natural law theory of the time, the Constitution itself was constructed in such a way that it allowed for development and changing interpretations over time. It is important to keep this basic understanding of our national beginnings in focus as we discuss major strategies involving religious issues, as recommended by the document examined below.
As we engage in this national dialogue over marriage, when we hold that somehow we are able to deduce morality from nature, as traditional natural theology does, and then proceed to make logical deductions based solely on reason (which is the approach of natural law), we easily depart into deism and then into thought forms that find no need for God. This was the direction headed by some of our founders, and it seems to be the essential approach taken by the document under review below, since the authors announce, “As scholars, we are persuaded the case for marriage can be made and won at the level of reason.” Although many of them have strong biblical convictions that color their viewpoints, they believe they can validly propose public policies based not on religion, but on reason alone. In this post I want to suggest why this not only leads to contentious conclusions, but also to some conclusions that misrepresent the Christian faith and do not even seem to be concerned with the public good.
In the last post I tried to demonstrate that the traditional view of natural law is not what the Apostle Paul teaches and that it is inconsistent with the tenor of biblical theology. Although Paul teaches that we may have an innate knowledge of God at some stage in our lives, Paul teaches that we must respond positively to God in order to build on that knowledge, and we must align ourselves with God’s purposes if we want to use nature in constructive and profitable ways. What this means is that the religious thought that melded with Enlightenment thought in the creation of the foundational documents of the U.S. was not of a biblical character, although it may have been in the general Christian mold. As the New Testament puts it, this natural law approach to morality has a form of godliness but denies its power.
The Witherspoon Institute aims “to enhance public understanding of the political and moral principles inherent in free and democratic societies, and to promote the application of these principles to contemporary problems.” They believe there is an abstract body of ideas somewhere that can be discovered and that if we impose them on ourselves we will thereby benefit from them. The Institute “sponsors research and teaching through a fellowship program, and organizes conferences, lectures, and colloquia,” “assists scholarly collaborations among individuals sharing the Institute’s interest in the foundations of a free society,” and “serves as a resource for the media and other organizations seeking speakers and public comment.” This summer they have sponsored a 12 day session on “Natural Law Theory and Political Liberalism: John Finnis and John Rawls,” which is described as “an examination of the Natural Law, and its implications for political life, individual action, and legal institutions.” Other sessions include: “Arguments within the Family: Serious Divisions among the Conservatives on Natural Law,” “Does Natural Law Need God?” and “Natural Law as Fact, as Theory, and as Sign of Contradiction.”
According to their report, The Ten Principles on Marriage and the Public Good [The Princeton Principles], and the document in which these principles are presented, are the product of scholarly discussions that began in December, 2004, at a meeting in Princeton, New Jersey, sponsored by the Witherspoon Institute. This conference brought together scholars from History, Economics, Psychiatry, Law, Sociology and Philosophy to share with each other the findings of their research on why marriage is in the public interest. A consensus developed for sharing the fruit of their collaboration more widely.” I noticed Bruce Metzger also signed the document and he is a biblical scholar, a discipline not listed, so I wonder if he was at that meeting or if some of the signatories have added their names after the fact, in which case this document does not represent the findings of the signatories, but rather the agreement of people who have merely read the document and thought it sounded good to them.
Princeton, New Jersey
May, 2006
This document continues the Enlightenment project of attempting to achieve human betterment by “reason alone.” As stated in the executive summary, “The purpose of this document is to make a substantial new contribution to the public debate over marriage… As scholars, we are persuaded the case for marriage can be made and won at the level of reason.” There is no reference to the different viewpoints in the debate, and there does not seem to be any interaction with different viewpoints; but it appears that a primary purpose of the document is to make a case against same-sex marriage, and to do it in a way that shows how good and profitable traditional marriage is, in order to argue that to change the system is to risk losing those benefits.
The executive summary emphasizes that marriage “plays a vital role in preserving the common good and promoting the welfare of children” but that “in the last forty years, marriage and family have come under increasing pressure from the modern state, the modern economy, and modern culture.” Cited changes include divorce, sexual ethics, media influences, medical technology, and non-traditional families. These changes have led to undesirable social consequences, and in response “activist defenders of marriage, while often successful at the ballot box in the United States, [have] had limited influence on the culture, and in many cases those who deliberately seek to redefine the meaning of marriage or downplay its special significance have argued more effectively” [emphasis added]. One will have to read the report for oneself to see how quickly and without explanation the solution to the problem they have identified is assumed to lie in the legal arena.
They have defined the problem and stated their agenda. The problem is that the defenders of traditional marriage have not been able to influence our culture significantly, but those who seek to redefine marriage have argued more effectively for change. The agenda of these Witherspoon scholars is to get legislators to impose legal barriers to prevent any changes in the understanding of marriage that may be emerging out of the democratic process from bearing fruit.
This is just the beginning of woes for this report. In their overreaction to the proponents of same sex marriage, they lose focus on the weightier social issues that really matter for the importance of marriage as a social institution. Rather than expositing an understanding of marriage to promote public support for the traditional standard, and rather than addressing the threat of decreasing fertility rates, they are instead consumed with what they view as the threat of same-sex marriage.
It is not until one gets to the last section that one discovers the compelling rationale for why this study should be important - “every society (including our own) that we think is best for human flourishing” … “is experiencing a radical crisis around human generativity,” including family fragmentation, fatherlessness, and infertility. It is a shame that this document allows its preoccupation with same sex marriage to overwhelm the need for increasing fertility rates by finding ways to encourage families to propagate, which should very much be a compelling state interest. They must realize, however, that addressing the fertility issue does not exclude the simultaneous permissibility of same-sex marriage, which would only involve a very small portion of the population, so that might explain why they de-emphasize this issue - their real objective is to oppose same-sex marriage. However, their case against same-sex marriage, as we will see, is not upheld as a compelling state interest in this document; and they have made extremely few practical suggestions for dealing with infertility, so it almost appears that the fertility problem was an afterthought, even if it is the more compelling issue.
This document summarizes its case for marriage with ten principles and supports these principles with a long chapter of evidence for the benefits of marriage from the social and biological sciences and a short chapter on the intrinsic goods of marriage from the perspective of political and moral philosophy, which they acknowledge to be a natural law argument that not all the signatories of the document agree to. What they seem to agree to is that traditional marriage is our cultural heritage and as such constitutes an objective value that should (or indeed must) be retained just because it is our heritage; but I argue that our cultural heritage at its core is based on natural law and therefore expresses a religious value; and that no matter how one fine tunes these concepts to make them appear non-religious, when values are divorced from their religious context, then they no longer have any compelling force and are subject to change. I do suspect that if these scholars were more forthright they would have to admit that what they mean by our cultural heritage (which seems to imply it is in some sense “secular”) is really what Robert N. Bellah defined as our “civil religion” (in which case a response might develop somewhat differently, but the outcome would be the same - that responding to God’s will and not simply to nature’s laws would be essential for adequate moral guidance). I will not explore that “natural law” chapter since it apparently just represents more specific views of some of the signatories. The entire report is ultimately based on a more generic version of natural law by virtue of the fact that they believe there are guiding principles “inherent” in social organisms, from which we should derive our “culture.”
The final section of the document specifies and briefly develops five areas where the signatories believe government action is most needed in the United States to “reinforce and support” the growing “marriage movement” that is active in America, in order to ensure that our country continues to benefit from all the good that marriage brings to society.
The ten principles are as follows, but the grouping and group labels are mine. In reality, it looks like the principles basically constitute a sort of classical Aristotelian syllogism, though I use this for analytical convenience and it should not be taken too literally-
The Princeton Principles
MAJOR PREMISE - LEGAL MARRIAGE HAS AN ACKNOWLEDGED DEFINITION AND PURPOSE
1. Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husband and wife.
MINOR PREMISE - LEGAL MARRIAGE RESULTS IN SIGNIFICANT SOCIAL BENEFITS
2. Marriage is a profound human good, elevating and perfecting our social and sexual nature.
3. Ordinarily, both men and women who marry are better off as a result.
4. Marriage protects and promotes the well being of children.
5. Marriage sustains civil society and promotes the common good.
6. Marriage is a wealth-creating institution, increasing human and social capital.
7. When marriage weakens, the equality gap widens, as children suffer from the disadvantages of growing up in homes without committed mothers and fathers.
8. A functioning marriage culture serves to protect political liberty and foster limited government.
CONCLUSIONS - IF MARRIAGE LAW IS SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED WE WILL LOSE THE SOCIAL BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF MARRIAGE
9. The laws that govern marriage matter significantly.
10. “Civil marriage” and “religious marriage” cannot be rigidly or completely divorced from one another.
MAJOR PREMISE
LEGAL MARRIAGE HAS AN ACKNOWLEDGED DEFINITION AND PURPOSE
This document majors on its minor premise. Of the 27 pages of text in the body of the report, not more than two paragraphs are devoted to the major premise on which the entire argument of the report hinges, and only four pages are given to the specific recommendations it derives from all this investigation. But since their entire argument depends on their definition of marriage, how they define it warrants careful scrutiny.
The first principle — the major premise – is, in effect, their definition of marriage. By this they mean the predominant way marriage has been understood “in Europe and America for most of the past two thousand years” (p. 11). As they have worded it, this is actually a biblical definition and not based on Roman law or the way marriage has been understood as it developed in western culture. This definition might conceivably be lifted from the marriage entry in a standard scholarly reference for biblical theology. Let it be clear that I agree with this definition, but that I do not agree that it is derived solely on the basis of reason, as the authors of this document seem to suggest, although they coyly state in the executive summary that “this understanding of marriage is not narrowly religious” [emphasis added]. Look again at the definition -
“Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husband and wife”
The words “the whole of life” have several implications: (1) complete faithfulness to one another in the relationship, (2) development of an intimate relationship encompassing all the spheres of life, not just the physical, and (3) commitment to one another until death. The words “intended for” raise the question of who does the intending, since they force one to question whether it is God, or governments (which is doubtful since there are no laws that express this expansive definition), or the participants themselves who do the intending. In the past, a lifetime commitment was presumed by virtue of the Christian heritage and supportive laws, but as the authors acknowledge, society has changed in the past forty years, and they know right well that no printed laws are going to change that trend. In their exposition of this principle the document weasels around this issue by merely stating that the legal oath taken “is strengthened by the pledge of permanence,” which of course recognizes that not everyone includes that in their pledge. But the more significant issue is whether young people today intend permanence in marriage anymore than they intend to retire on social security income. The general tendency toward non-commitment observed by many might reflect the younger generation’s outlook towards a future filled with unprecedented uncertainty in the face of constant technological change, and a lack of conviction that society offers a secure foundation for long-term economic stability. In this environment, efforts to enforce commitment at even higher levels are likely to be prove counterproductive.
By choosing this definition of marriage and choosing the 2,000 year time frame, the authors have set themselves up for the claim that the Christian church has imposed it’s religious view on society, because there was much more openness to homosexuals before the church dominated European society and changed the direction of western culture for better or for worse. These protestors would suggest that now that Christianity is no longer such a strong influence, the original social impulse should be allowed to resume. Of course marriage brings benefits, they would agree. So it is fundamentally unjust to deprive homosexuals from the social institution of marriage, as the church has been doing for so long.
Property and marriage have also been interconnected throughout most of the history of marriage, but we tend to conveniently forget that in this psychologically oriented definition. The property implications of marriage are noted for their benefits in this report, but are not essential to this first principle unless they are subsumed in the union for “the whole of life;” but we should recognize that in doing this we are again adopting Christian theology. Women and children used to be considered part of the property involved in marriage, and this affected other related issues such as the right to own land, the right vote, etc., rights that have not been shared equally throughout the past 2,000 years. The rising level of women in marriage to the point where they can be viewed as equal partners in this definition of marriage is generated by the power of the core teachings of Christ in spite of the resistance of Christ’s followers to accept them. So you can see our dilemma: we would not have the benefits we experience today without the church; but we dare not seek to maintain the old dogma because it has shown it always needs to be reevaluated and reformulated. That leaves us needing to rethink the basis for our future direction in marriage law.
RETHINKING THE “NATURAL LAW” OF SEXUALITY
An objective look at the foundational physical facts of nature teaches us that sex has two primary purposes: reproduction and pleasure, with each function featuring organs supporting those functions. In the female those organs are separated; in the male they are combined. The male fallacy of natural theology has been the mistake of combining these two separate functions into one common purpose for sex. Instead of deducing that the reproductive function leads to a morality governing procreation and that the pleasure function leads to a morality of pleasure seeking, the mainly male theologians have effectively combined the functions into one ethic and illogically limited it to marriage.
Consider how a conventional theologian summarizes the traditional view of sexuality based on natural law -
“The Church teaches that sex has two main purposes that must be sought in the marriage act: sex is for reproduction of children within a valid marriage, and it is a loving, unifying act between husband and wife.” [emphasis added]
Notice how in the case of the natural law derived for reproduction, equivalence between the physiological function and purpose is properly recognized (i.e. for reproduction). Now notice how in the case of the physiological structures for pleasure, natural theology has created an illogical leap from the function to the purpose, supposing that the purpose of the pleasure is only for “a unifying, loving act.” Where did that conclusion come from? Not from the physiology itself. Not from nature or the structures of nature. In the case of the male, elimination (urination) is also combined in the same physical structure as that for reproduction and pleasure, but no one suggests that elimination should be limited to marriage! That demonstrates how illogical it is to necessarily combine the pleasure function and the reproductive function. In the case of the female, the clitoris is a unique organ in that it functions solely for sexual pleasure, thus highlighting that pleasure is indeed a distinct function of sex. We cannot rationally determine the purposes of sex solely from the structures themselves. Nor does the structure of human bodies for the function of intercourse determine that the purpose is marriage.
Consider also how a contemporary legal scholar attempting to refute natural theology still confuses the two functions –
“I begin by laying out some of the foundations of the natural law position. Central to the position is an account of human goods that are seen as good in themselves, and hence as rational bases for choice and human action. In regards to sexuality, the two most important goods, at least from the natural law perspective, are those of marriage and personal integration.” [emphasis added]
Notice that this scholar is willing to grant natural theology its assumptions, so pervasive are they. But what I am saying is that these very assumptions are based on a decidedly religious and incorrect interpretation of nature. Perhaps our modern perspective on anatomy allows us to see it differently. There is evidence that the ancients developed a hierarchical view of social relationships that affected the way they understood what was “natural,” which in turn made later attempts to interpret the Bible and other ancient documents such a problematic exercise. This hierarchical social structure seems to underlie much of traditional natural theology, which also creates an intricate moral hierarchy of sins based on the principles that it claims are thereby derived from nature. Reason demonstrates that the natural law principles of sexual morality that we have examined are not simply based on nature, as empirically observed, but on preconceived ideas imposed on nature. The same point could be made about slavery, which as late as our nation’s founding was also considered to be part of natural law as well as authorized by the Bible.
I suggest that a more rational outline of Genesis 1:27ff. would look something like the following -
Reproductive organs >> reasonable conclusion of need to reproduce responsibly >> precedent set by God’s provision to use the structure of marriage as the foundation for society (followed later by commands and instructions in the Mosaic Law).
Organs of sexual pleasure >> reasonable conclusion to consider the needs of others rather than simply pursue one’s own pleasure >> no command needed (i.e. nakedness) until people turned away from God. Jesus summarized the entire history of the Old Testament as moral instruction addressing this very issue: the need to love God and others as oneself. This kind of personal extension of oneself for others involves all of one’s being, which in modern language would be said to involve the function of personal integration. There is no reason to limit this to marriage, though marriage and family life are where this process ideally begins. Likewise, the energies that become focused into the sex act need not be seen as limited to the marriage relationship, and may well be seen as motivating a wide range of non-sexual human interactions.
What is particularly interesting from the modern Christian perspective is that nothing approaching “law” was given to humans until Moses, although the directives of Genesis 9 may be seen as additional general guidelines for human culture, beyond those mentioned earlier. If the commands of Genesis 1 were given for the first time today, they would be viewed as permission for free sex; and apparently social conditions did deteriorate leading to the judgment associated with the great Flood. The delegation of responsibility is very much like Jesus’ parable of the talents, where the landowner divides up his property among his tenants before going away, but does not actually give them any commands what to do with it. It is only their personal relationship to him that will determine what they will do. It is how they view him, not so much the property they are given, that is the key to what kind of stewards they are and how they are judged in the end. Jesus seems to be teaching that morality is primarily based on one’s orientation to God and not on anything else, and that people are quite free to make creative use of the material world to the extent that is possible within their cultural environment as long as it is consistent with God’s purposes. As with those originally placed in Eden, and then in the fresh start after the Flood, the actual universal restrictions from God are few. Paul’s claim that “sin is not taken into account when there is no law [i.e. the Mosaic law]” demonstrates that he does not believe that there is a law that can be derived from nature that can adequately guide human morality.
As a system that attempts to derive morality from the creation rather than from the creator, natural law tends toward the same worldview as those criticized by the Apostle Paul because they “worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.” Though they have higher moral standards, they are still subject to the same ultimate judgment: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” Like Jesus, Paul considers the heart orientation and the social orientation when evaluating human behavior. Paul is ultimately arguing for transformed minds - God centered minds - not merely a moral lifestyle.
MAY “CULTURAL HERITAGE” SERVE AS “OBJECTIVE MORALITY’?
By omitting reference to God, the authors of The Princeton Principles leave themselves open to the charge of choosing an arbitrary position and should not expect sympathy if people disagree with them. Leave out “intended [by God]” in their first principle and all you have is a descriptive statement of past practice. That is NOT enough to demand that it must be continued as the ONLY practice for the future. The reader is forced to either grant that God really is in the background of that definition (in which case the overall argument ends up proving what it assumes: that we should follow God’s will); or the reader takes the statement at face value and leaves God out, in which case it appears to be an arbitrary definition, a beautiful ideal perhaps, but out of touch with contemporary practice.
Another conceptual problem with this document as a rational argument for the conclusions it wants to reach is that it cannot be demonstrated that all the evidence is actually measuring marriages that fit the proposed definition of marriage. This points to the fact that from every reasonable perspective, I believe our cultural definition of marriage is essentially that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman - a legally sanctioned, binding sexual relationship between a man and a woman. This is a much more individualized concept of marriage than in the past, but it is where western civilization has led us. The logic being argued by this report, however, wants us to believe that there is a larger definition of marriage that is actually giving us all the benefits of marriage that these studies show us. I do not think it is worthwhile to get into a rationalistic debate about what definition of marriage these studies are supporting. I am more concerned with the moral approach these authors are taking.
The key moral issue is that if traditional marriage is so good and society is changing so much that marriage as traditionally conceived is eroding, then why are these authors focusing on legal tactics to keep the institution the way it has been instead of seeking solutions addressing the substantive needs of society? My conclusion is that this document is so focused on fighting proponents of same-sex marriage that it does not seek to contribute to the common good, but simply attempts to encourage those who are already convinced that legal action to prevent same-sex marriage is the solution to the nation’s marriage crisis. It almost looks like they have chosen a scapegoat for our current difficulties with marriage.
Can we be “Objective” about Sex?
The first principle focuses on marriage as a commitment for “the whole of life.” Yet based on the physical realities involved, procreation has certainly been the central concern of marriage in its various forms ever since the beginning. Under Principle #9 the authors get around to acknowledging this because they want to lay a case against liberalizing the laws of marriage “as historically understood - i.e., the sexually faithful union, intended for life, between one man and one woman, open to the begetting and rearing of children.” It is only because of modern birth control technology that we are now able to speak of the personal benefits of marriage as if they are a separate issue from procreation, now that reproduction is optional. It is precisely because of this development that they choose to contemporize the definition and embed the procreation function as but one possible aspect of the total commitment of marriage. But it is for this very reason that we are also compelled to now ask whether the traditional system of marriage law makes sense given that procreation is now usually a deliberate choice rather than the default pattern. Perhaps there is now a reasonable case for changing the definition of marriage and/or the reassignment of some civil rights traditionally associated with marriage. So many of the legal benefits of marriage accrued because of the assumed reproductive function that went with it. But that cannot be assumed any more.
As the report goes on, it mentions another important aspect of marriage that is crucial for the argument. When discussing same sex-marriage, it recognizes “marriage as the preferred vehicle for ordering sex, procreation, and childrearing in the West.” The authors thereby acknowledge that government has an obligation to order sexual behavior as well as procreation. This gets deeper into the roots of civilized culture and the basis for social identity. But what I see in this report is a total disregard for the sexuality of anyone but heterosexuals who pursue the traditional marriage ethic, despite the fact that they recognize that sexual behavior outside of marriage is widespread. There is no concern to “regulate sexuality” for the common good, but only to preserve the priority given to traditional marriage. Granted that it is a vastly more difficult task to think so comprehensively; but it would be much more likely to be accomplished if a think tank such as this included homosexual scholars who could contribute diverse viewpoints to achieve such a consensus, or, alternatively, if it at least proposed something like a presidential commission to study the issue to make broadly based proposals - if they think the legal solution is so important. That is a realistic approach in a pluralistic democracy.
I think our role in a democratic pluralistic society is to stand for our beliefs as clearly as we can, whether Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Rationalist, or whatever; try to understand each other in a process of dialogue; and then try to reach consensus for the common good based on the best compromises we can obtain. Unfortunately there seems to be very little will to “try to understand each other in a process of dialogue.” Yet I think this is exactly what the founders of our country envisioned, as described in the introduction to this post. They resisted the idea of political parties. They wanted an ongoing process of dialogue and resolution of conflicts. But they quickly learned it would not turn out that way. And we follow in their footsteps with ever more polarizing politics. Once it got started, even the founders could not “return” to their original vision, but had to adjust to the ongoing process they themselves had initiated; and we also need to invent new solutions as time goes by. As I try to understand the rationalists who wrote this report, however, no matter what way I consider their thoughts, they still seem to be saying that they do not want to negotiate the democratic process. Rather, they want to impose legislation to impede the democratic process. Rather than leading with vision, they want to manipulate with power.
A Culture based on “Objective Morality”
In a 2004 interview, one of the signers of this document, Gerard Bradley, who also helped draft the failed Federal Marriage Amendment, explained what appears to be the general approach of this document and of The Witherspoon Institute by saying
“…where people make arguments in the public square that they offer on the basis of reason and experience, but arguments about which they hold some theological convictions as well, I think those theological convictions operate not at all in the public square. This is more or less the meaning of our Free Exercise Clause. The mere coincidence of some legal norm with religious convictions of even a great number - even a majority of people - is neither here nor there. It is mere coincidence of religion and civil law - it is meaningless. Also, a law should be deemed to have a secular basis - that is, a constitutionally permissible basis - unless the basis for it is entirely religious. That is to say - and this I think is a faithful rendition of Supreme Court doctrine as it presently stands - if there is a secular basis for a law, then it is constitutionally permissible. It is impermissible only if it is entirely rooted in theology.” [emphasis added - he here undermines American marriage law, in my opinion, since as we have seen above, it is mostly based on natural law which is a religious ideology, particularly as it is developed in America]
In the same interview, which was conducted by E. J. Dionne, and which involved a conversation with both Andrew Sullivan and Gerard Bradley, Bradley went on to analyze the social conflict in this way –
“Now, at the root of the movement to legally recognize same-sex marriage is not religion but rather culture. More specifically, the argument that I take most seriously is the argument posed by Andrew Sullivan in his remarks today. It’s an argument that anybody defending traditional marriage has to reckon with. It’s an argument from culture and it’s an argument from law, but the argument goes something like this: given what marriage has already become in our law, what it already is in our law, and how it is lived, how marriage is lived, inhabited, carried out, by a very large number of married couples in our society, it is unfair to exclude same-sex partners from that legal status.” [emphasis added]
Bradley tries to separate the religious and the “cultural” sources of our national heritage, and then he goes on to bemoan our collective loss of commitment to the “objective moral norms” which gave birth to the benefits we now experience, a moral viewpoint he specifically identifies with the Roman Catholic Church and thereby most clearly indicates he is referring to traditional natural law as the basis of our “culture,” which we have already discussed as being an inadequate explanation of moral responsibility. And in any case it certainly represents a religious viewpoint, even if it was coincidental with our general cultural outlook for a very long time. The very fact that this perspective is in the church called natural theology indicates it is a religious viewpoint, even if it does make universal claims. I doubt any average lay person could indicate what traditional natural law theology tells us is self-evident in nature, yet the main Pauline passage on which that theology is based refers to knowledge that is or at least was at one time accessible to every person.
Bradley believes that the underlying social conflict is primarily between those who are committed to an objective morality and those for whom “the heart of liberty is a very deep and strong subjectivism[,] and morals, the idea of making up your own moral universe.” He also holds that “traditional religious people are more or less committed to an objective morality and do indeed reject subjectivism and morals.” What I tried to show in my last post, although I admit it is not a scholarly treatment since I am no expert, was to demonstrate that a biblical approach includes both subjectivism and objectivism with conceptual boundaries for each. Nature provides a foundation and starting point but it is a system of networks that is constantly evolving. We are created physical beings capable of consciousness of God and responsiveness to God and the moral sensitivities God would lead us towards if we accept him. At some point in a network of physical relationships, we define an entity as “alive”; but we are only fully ”alive” to God when we gratefully respond to him and begin to honor him with our lives and service. The physical world gives us reason enough to look to God; God lures our consciousness to respond to him at some point in our lives. This is the best “objective,” non-doctrinal way I can summarize the picture I believe Genesis, the Gospels, and the Apostle Paul present us, though they do it mostly in relational rather than systems language. This biblical perspective supports neither traditional natural law theory nor modern subjectivism as described by Bradley. He views natural law as the bedrock of our “cultural” foundation, which stands independently of religion, and characterizes the prevailing cultural drift as subjectivist.
Culture as a Process
I think we may be experiencing a cultural paradigm shift and that Bradley and the general perspective expressed in The Princeton Principles just do not comprehend systems theory and how it can help us better understand reality, nature, and the Bible. I wish they would learn from C.S. Lewis who continues to be influential today despite the fact that he acknowledged that there was a paradigm shift going on, admitted that he was a dinosaur representing the old paradigm and did not fight the new, but spoke to it. He also publicly integrated his faith with his scholarship. Those like him, who think deeply but stay within their limits, have much to contribute in the new paradigm. I also find it intriguing that in his treatise, The Abolition of Man, in which he defends objective truth, he adopts the eastern concept of the Tao for universally held truth based on nature. Some who think he misunderstood the Tao think he made a mistake. But perhaps he understood more than he let on. His empirical approach to natural law was definitely different than the deductive approach of natural theology, and much more resembles the consensus approach we see in the Bible as discussed in our last post. Whether Lewis intended it or not, the eastern concept of Tao is much more consistent with systems theory and with the biblical account of origins than the traditional static state heirarchicalism embedded in traditional natural law thinking. The translation and commentary of the Daodejing by Roger Ames and David Hall provides an accessible understanding of the Tao concept for western readers. There is nothing particularly “religious” about the Tao. Like evolution in the west, it is more like a comprehensive, secular worldview that leaves out God. But it configures its understanding of nature in more relational terms that make it more compatible with the biblical account and I believe make it more reflective of systems theory than of traditional natural law theory, which has also contributed to our tendency towards scientific reductionism. Eastern thought tends to be more holistic, western more atomistic. But reality needs both perspectives, and we also need God in our view if we want to maintain equilibrium.
The paradigm shift may be seen historically in as simple a symptom as the fragmentation of the Roman Catholic Church in the Protestant Reformation, and then into extensive denominationalism thereafter. What was classically viewed as the unity of knowledge has divided extensively into smaller and smaller units at every level of society. Monotheism assumed a grand unity of everything, but failed to account for the fact that God also created chaos, that he designed a system intended to include diversity and creativity, and that would nevertheless develop in an ordered fashion. This dynamic is the basis for Freud’s great insight - that total order essentially amounts to death, a total lack of movement. We need both chaos and order to live. Bruce K. Waltke points out how Genesis is making a theological and cosmological statement in this regard when he points out that, “these myths [Babylonian, Sumerian, Egyptian, Hittite, etc.], against whose worldview Genesis 1-11 is in fact a polemic” were known and being refuted in the biblical account. The biblical account was making its own statement about the relationship of chaos and order, and found both to originate with God and to be directed by God. The result of God’s creation was a system of networks that had a beginning point in time, and should be channeled in keeping with the Creator’s directions. Ancient peoples may not have had the analytic vocabulary that comes with centuries of literacy, but they understood a lot more than we often give them credit for; and it appears that those in the ancient Hebrew tradition sometimes thought more multi-dimensionally than we do today.
I wonder if the Witherspoon scholars have ever considered the possibility of whether there can ever be another successful democracy now that they have excluded God from public discussions with their attempt to derive abstract principles that work quite independently from God. There certainly can never be another Declaration of Independence! It seems to me that if our culture is transitioning into a new paradigmatic worldview, then it is more important than ever that we acknowledge our Creator, just as our founders did when they inaugurated our nation.
The U.S. Constitution as described in the introduction to this post supports a systems paradigm in a unique way. It provides a forum for the participants in the “network” to work together to resolve conflicts in the most satisfactory way possible. People bring what they believe into the process and work through the structures of government to bring about whatever change will result. But those who think that using governmental structures to impose past culture onto the future by whatever legal means is available are not accepting the reality of the system, and will have minimal and perhaps even adverse effects on the future. I consider myself a social conservative because I believe social change is best handled gradually with broad social consensus; but these authors are advocating what in the past would be called a liberal agenda (i.e. change forced by government decree), with the kinds of laws they would like to see enacted any way they can be forced through Congress, despite the deep divisions in society. I would rather see no major changes until there is broader agreement; but rather a focus on resolving the human needs that we can clearly see that exist, especially in child welfare and in making life less complex for those who are choosing perfectly legal, non-traditional lifestyles.
The Failure of “Objective Morality”
One of the problems of the “marriage movement” that these Princeton scholars praise is that it really looks more like an anti-homosexual movement, judging by all the scare tactics that are circulated about the homosexual agenda. The anti-homosexual orientation is perhaps nowhere more clearly illustrated than in Colorado when voters there refused to allow unmarried couples to consolidate the contracts they are already allowed to make on an individual basis with each other, to make it simpler and less expensive to accomplish. This is the dark side of the crumb these scholars toss from table to these moral reprobates when they decree that they do not object to such couples “entering into legal contracts to own property together, share insurance, make medical decisions for one another, and so on.” They can do it; but don’t expect any reasonable accommodation. Since they do not offer a helping hand, they are actually communicating profound rejection and promoting contempt. Such is the way of reason alone. Reason can mask intentions, but all this report does is give the appearance of giving permission for private contracts; there is no recommendation for reducing hardship. Jesus said we should do good even to evil-doers, and he minced no words depicting those who made life hard on others by promoting high standards of behavior, but did not even “lift one finger to help” - he called them “whitewashed tombs.” It is not good enough to just leave nonconformists alone.
The loss of “objective morality” that Bradley morns is to be expected, for the Bible teaches us that if we leave God out of our considerations, reason alone will not lead us to the conclusions this report tries to reach, despite all the good evidence it presents. Facts cannot determine purposes; they can only describe conditions. Understanding marriage as simply a human institution makes the rational argument of this document a dismal failure, although politically it might work fairly well, since most Americans do still agree that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. How far these advocates dare push the issue before this social consensus breaks due to its appearance of arbitrariness and exclusivity is the crucial issue groups such as The Witherspoon Institute need to face. It might just be a matter of time since younger generations coming up may change the consensus dramatically. We do not yet know how the younger generations will respond to sterile and manipulative rationalism such as this. I believe think tank approaches that make recommendations for solving conflicts between all the parties rather than just promoting the interests of one side will have a much more positive impact than those that just fan the flames of polarization. I know that, for me, hearing all the anti-Catholic rhetoric when JFK ran for president gave me a profound skepticism of fundamentalism as I was growing up in it. Who knows what affect all this anti-gay marriage rhetoric will have on the current generation being impacted by this larger political debate? By one account they don’t care; but my bet is that what looks to them like attacks on gays is going to have a profound impact on our nation’s future. Young people figure out the real impact of what they experienced afterwards, in their later years. We reap what we sow - that is one of the “laws” of nature.
This critique of THE PRINCETON PRINCIPLES is continued in Part 2B…
