1. expressing love through civil government?
by John N Veronica on Friday, 08 July 2011 at 13:53
In every great tradition and in many indigenous religions,
too, certain values DO emerge that seem to go beyond anything
we might come up with on our own using our ordinary moral and
practical reasoning. Beyond mere justice, some would practice
mercy and not merely because it has often proven to be a
prudent strategy of good jurisprudence. Beyond the market
mechanics of supply and demand and prevailing work ethics,
some would practice compassion for the poor and not just
because it might otherwise be necessary to prevent thievery
and other societal ails born of resentment. Beyond the need to
defend oneself, some would even embrace nonviolence to the
point of martyrdom and not because they imagine that 72
virgins await their seduction. Beyond the universal norm of
doing unto others as we'd have them do unto us, some would
even go so far as to love their enemies, even doing good to
those who hate them and not because they fear the fires of
hell otherwise.
Now, some would dismiss such values as ideals expected to be
realized not now but in the future when the Kingdom has fully
unfolded (and so they call them "eschatological" ideals). But
doesn't that sound like a wimpy cop-out that Bill Maher and
his ilk would cynically characterize as a "lawyering" of the
Bible? Others have suggested that the Gospel's imperatives (do
this!) and injunctives (don't do that!) apply only to personal
vocations and were not intended for political statecraft. But
doesn't that sound oversimplified and doesn't it leave
Warren's question left begging: " ... wouldn't effectiveness
in one sphere carry over to the other?"
So, on one hand, sound Biblical exegesis is called for, which
is to say that the Bible must be carefully examined from both
literary and historical perspectives. On the other hand, is
there really that much ambiguity and nuance in such concepts
as mercy, compassion, nonviolence, forgiveness and love?
I have wrestled with these questions over the years and have
not fully resolved them to my satisfaction. My own spiritual
sensibilities lead to me to suggest that we do not really ever
want to say that such Gospel values are intended to be
realized either in the past or future but not NOW; or there,
in that aspect of our lives but not HERE! So, too, with
healings and signs and wonders! It seems to be too neat, too
facile and too much of a rationalization to suggest that we
live here or now under one so-called dispensation and there or
then under yet another. Instead, I like to imagine that, as
beautifully put by Max Ehrmann in the Desiderata: "... whether
1

2. or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding
as it should."
No doubt, as St. Paul observed, the whole creation and
ourselves are groaning every day in one great act of giving
birth. But there can also be no doubt that we are being lured
forward, mostly gently coaxed but occasionally more coercively
cajoled (or, we might even say, aggressively seduced), by the
Spirit, Who respects our freedom because it is so very
integral to authentic love. Often enough, we do enjoy what can
be called "proleptic" or anticipatory realizations of Kingdom
values, where we experience consolations, healings, signs,
wonders, mercy, compassion, forgiveness and love to a degree
that is extraordinarily FULL, even to an extent that we could
only describe as COMPLETE. And this should, at least, arouse
our sneaking suspicions? or gift us with that measure of faith
that is sufficient for the day?
Such Kingdom values, then, present in degrees of realization
and not as simple either-or realities. And why should we not
expect to realize their efficacies, as Warren asked, in one
sphere as well as the other? So, I believe that it is a
fitting aspiration to desire (again, in Warren's words) an
"affirming, freedom enhancing polity." But I would not
characterize that particular value as one that goes beyond
anything we might come up with on our own using our ordinary
moral and practical reasoning. But those were not your only
words, Warren. You also invoked some that do clearly go beyond
the simple demands of justice when you expressed an interest
in what "love" would look like "in a civil government."
And I want to say that love could, in theory, make its way
into a civil government in varying degrees. Further, we can
recognize that the government optimally exists as an
expression of the will of (hopefully, most of) the people and
is constrained by certain checks and balances to limit the
degree of its coercive influence precisely because coercion
runs at cross purposes with freedom, itself. To the extent,
then, that a government is ever to a very significant degree
expressing the will of a substantial supermajority of its
people in a way that goes beyond the simple demands of justice
and the essential task of maintaining the public order in
order to effect what are clearly Gospel-informed values like
mercy, compassion, forgiveness and love ... ... well ... ...
that government would be on the verge of putting itself out of
business because there would be little need for coercion in
such an ideal situation. We would still have social and
cultural and other institutions because Homo sapiens is a
radically social animal but these institutions would operate
on a wholly voluntary basis (conforming with subsidiarity
principles, which state that higher levels should never
2

3. unnecessarily coopt the prerogatives of lower levels) with no
need of coercive governance. So, as Floyd pointed out, the
Myth's premise is that dark influences make a govt fully
informed by Gospel values impossible. The way I would frame it
is that our radical human finitude, fallibility and sinfulness
are what make a government necessary in the first place and
that, absent those, we would not need or desire this
"necessary evil" called government because, otherwise,
coercion is not a value we would ever choose to place in
competition with freedom.
The more we would become able to express love through any
given civil government, the less we could justify that
government's existence.
Other relevant comments that contextualize this discussion:
seriously, though, I do not look to the Gospel, OT or any
other scriptures from any of our great traditions for ethical,
moral and practical solutions since that type of knowledge is
already available to human reasoning without the benefit of
special revelations
at the same time, I do not have a serious quibble with those
who do choose to thus inform their perspectives as long as
they are willing to translate those posits in a way that can
be processed by all rational people
That was my simple response but reality is more complex than
that so I will play devil's advocate with my own take in a few
minutes.
There does seem to be a basic contradiction insofar as the
church has both affirmed pacifism and nonviolent resistance as
laudable personal vocations at the same time as it articulates
just war principles and accepts the coercive means of
government (from taxation to policing to military action).
There can be no denying that pacifism and nonviolence are
Gospel ideals. So, we draw an important distinction between a
theoretical theological capitulation, which represents a
caving in or surrender of our values, and a compassionate
practical accommodation, which recognizes our human weakness
and makes allowances for our human "condition" of radical
finitude, fallibility and sinfulness. In other words, we'll
call you a martyr and make you a saint if you surrender your
life for a worthy cause but no one will judge you harshly for
defending your life by killing in self-defense (a so-called
3

4. necessary evil).
There are at least four basic ethical approaches: 1) aretaic,
asking if it is virtuous 2) deontological, asking if it is
right 3) teleological (consequentialist), asking if it is
helpful and 4) contractarian, asking if it's fair. Some see
these approaches in competition; others see them as
complementary.
And all of this is unavoidably going to be an
oversimplification.
How it is that we get in touch (and just how in touch we get)
with any of the "answers" provided by these above-listed
methods is a whole other ball of wax.
Moral reasoning simply mustn't, although if often does,
proceed with apodictic certainty from what one imagines are
indubitable foundations, infallible authorities, unambiguous
terms, unquestionably true premises and inescapably valid
logic --- ahem, self-evident "principles" --- all leading to
demonstrably sound conclusions!?? At least not all moral
reasoning (as some moral realities are admittedly more
transparent to human reasoning than others).
Most moral calculus is a lot less formal, in reality, and a
lot more common sensical. And human emotions and sentiments,
evaluative posits and aesthetic sensibilities, in my view,
gift us with incredibly important clues and play an
indispensable role in our moral reasoning, which is a lot
messier than most folks would like to admit. To very crudely
paraphrase the late Bill Buckley and recontextualize what he
said to boot:
I would rather entrust the answer to such moral quandaries to
the next 400 people who walk through the gates at Fenway Park
than to the faculty of Harvard University. Warren's Facebook
Wall is also a most acceptable alternative!
So, what would we do if, for example, we were armed and the
only ones around and some stranger was in the apparent act of
readying to shoot a baby and its mother (presumably his
estranged lover/wife)?
4

5. And WHY would we do whatever we might do?
So, as far as is practicable, while many perspectives may
inform our reasoning, would you say they would not all be
given equal weight? that certain perspectives might only be
invoked as tie-breakers, if and only if others are clouded?
and that there's also a hierarchy, so to speak, of truths,
some more central, others more peripheral? b/c that's pretty
much how i see human knowledge operating, as we fall back on
progressively weaker arguments, evidence, methods and
approaches only when necessary ... but that those are
necessary WAY MORE often than many would like to admit?
5