Controversies like the Roy Moore affair raise two kinds of issues: topical issues specific to that particular choice or situation; in addition, they illustrate general issues and principles in ethics and decision-making. I think the Alabama Senate race is probably a lost cause at this juncture (although it's certainly worth salvaging if at all possible), but another reason to comment on controversies like this is because they raise issues of perennial interest. With that I mind, I'll comment on a post by Denny Burk:
Moral Clarity and Witness are the Priority, not PoliticsAs Christians, our first response to such allegations should not be a political calculus. Our first response should be horrified compassion for those traumatized by sexual misconduct. And that response should also include moral clarity and consistency. The balance of the United States Senate is not our chief concern. Our witness is. More than anything, we must be concerned to bear witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ and to its transforming power. That witness is undermined when God’s truth is set aside for any reason, much more for worldly political ends.Yesterday before these most recent allegations came forth, Albert Mohler made the following remarks on The Briefing:
We also understand a particular responsibility to defend the defenseless and to speak up for those who need that defense, and we must make very clear that predatory sexual behavior, especially predatory sexual behavior addressed to a child, to a minor, is absolutely heinous, reprehensible, and cannot be accepted by any morally sane society. Even in our sexually confused age, we should be thankful for the fact that there is at least enough residual moral sense in the American people that they understand that any contact by an adult male with a minor female, or for that matter you could even change the genders, it’s absolutely wrong, immoral, and unacceptable. So we should at least state that about the charges right up front: If indeed the allegations are true, they are genuinely, morally devastating and they should be politically devastating as well.
I couldn’t agree more. Every person who names Jesus as Lord should agree as well.
i) I don't know if Denny is using "witness" in reference to moral witness or evangelistic witness. He says things that seem to cover both categories.
ii) Is he using moral witness in the sense of moral credibility? Does he think lack of moral consistency (as he deems it) damages our moral credibility? Is that what he's angling at?
iii) If so, what's his source and standard of moral witness or moral credibility? Is it public opinion? The impression that evangelical social conservatives are hypocritical and/or worldly?
If that's what he has in mind, then his objection is highly problematic. For one thing, it begs the question of what is the moral thing to do in situations like this.
iv) In addition, it's circular. By that I mean, he and like-minded critics (e.g. Albert Mohler, Russell Moore) are reinforcing popular prejudice. They agree with outside observers who think the (alleged) lack of moral consistency damages the moral credibility of evangelicals.
But should public perception be our benchmark? Certain positions may indeed erode our moral credibility in the eyes of unbelievers, but the question is whether their judgment is sound. We have a duty to correct the moral confusions of the pop culture. Their knee-jerk reaction to our positions is not the touchstone.
iv) Denny says our "first" response to such allegations shouldn't be a "political calculus". But it's unclear where a political calculus figures in his position at all.
He says "the balance of the United States Senate is not our chief concern," yet he approvingly quotes Mohler's statement that "we also understand a particular responsibility to defend the defenseless and to speak up for those who need that defense."
But in that event his position is myopic and contradictory. It's not as if the balance of power in the US Senate has no bearing on our responsibility to defend the defenseless.
There's more than one defenseless group to take into account. Many innocent individuals as well as entire classes of people will be hurt, and have been hurt, when Democrats are in charge. It is woefully and willfully shortsighted to imagine that a shift in the balance of power won't be detrimental to Americans who've suffered, and will suffer, under the oppressive policies of the secular progressives.
Social ethics is not equivalent to "worldly political ends". Law and public policy intersect with social ethics. That can't be compartmentalized. Morality and "politics" overlap.
v) On the face of it, Denny is subverting moral clarity. Our positions can't be dictated by public perception. Rather, we need to explain the reasoning behind our positions. Our moral witness can't be hostage to the thoughtless and uninformed reactions of the general public. Their first impressions are morally unreliable.
I must admit I'm struggling with the Moore situation. Do we assume guilt based on allegation? It's highly unlikely we will ever know whether or not the allegations are true or false and I'm loathe to convict without concrete evidence.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, if these allegations are true, we are at risk of dismissing a significant moral failing in order to support the "broader good". But is the "broader good" acceptable if it contributes to the further decay of American moral fiber?
It's natural to struggle because it's one of those bad situations where there are no good answers, are no good options.
DeleteAllegations can be credible depending on the witness, the number of witnesses, and how the accused responds. At this point I certainly think there's credible evidence that he had an unhealthy (kinky?) obsession with teenage girls, to the point of hanging out at shopping malls and high school football games to hit on teenage girls. And that in turn lends greater credibility to the allegations of sexual assault.
At this same time, this isn't a legal trial where the defendant faces jail time if convicted. So the standard of evidence is lower.
We often have to make provisional judgments based on the available evidence.
Now, it's possible that this is like fake hate crimes. But it's piling up.
One strategy is to temporarily elect Moore to block the Democrat, then oust Moore, in which case the governor will appoint a more acceptable candidate. But that may not be realistic.
Soli Deo Gloria,
DeleteWe don't need "concrete evidence". We have to distinguish between preferences and necessities. The fact that we'd prefer to have more evidence doesn't prove that we need more. All it takes to conclude that something probably happened is a probability. It doesn't require a high probability or certainty. Any probability will do.
I've discussed some of the evidence pertaining to Moore's situation in the comments section of another thread. You refer to a reluctance to "assume" a conclusion "based on allegation". But no allegation exists in isolation, and reasoning your way through the evidence isn't a matter of just "assuming". When an allegation is made, it comes from an individual or group. You can evaluate the credibility of that individual or group. And the allegation has content. You can evaluate the content of the allegation. You can also look at the surrounding circumstances, how the allegation lines up with the behavior of the person being accused, whether the behavior of other people involved suggests that the allegation is true or false, etc. We frequently reason through issues in this manner in our everyday lives. We do it in the home, in the workplace, in courtrooms, in Christian apologetics, etc.
That's one of the reasons why I've been giving stories like these (Herman Cain, Roy Moore, etc.) so much attention. Conservatives and Christians often apply bad reasoning to these situations that would have disastrous consequences if applied consistently. They say things in defense of somebody like Cain or Moore that you hear from atheists and other skeptics in other contexts, like when discussing the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. The skeptic makes a simplistic objection to the Christian bias of early Christian sources. The defender of Moore, et al. makes a simplistic objection to liberal media bias. The skeptic dismisses claims he doesn't like by inaccurately referring to them as "hearsay". The defender of Moore, et al. dismisses claims he doesn't like by inaccurately referring to them as "hearsay". The skeptic appeals to agnosticism, claiming that we don't have enough evidence to justify reaching a conclusion either way, even though we actually have more than enough evidence to justify a conclusion the skeptic doesn't like. The defender of Moore, et al. appeals to agnosticism, claiming that we don't have enough evidence to justify reaching a conclusion either way, even though we actually have more than enough evidence to justify a conclusion he doesn't like. And so on.
I've seen this happen over and over and over again. Christians will use arguments in defense of somebody like Cain or Moore that they would or should reject in other contexts, like Christian apologetics. Many of these people don't know much about apologetics, I suspect, and some of them probably don't care much about it either. Something that Christians ought to do when addressing a situation like the one with Cain or the one with Moore is to ask what reasoning they'd apply in an analogous situation in Christian apologetics or if the person being accused were a Democrat rather than a Republican.
Steve wrote:
Delete"One strategy is to temporarily elect Moore to block the Democrat, then oust Moore, in which case the governor will appoint a more acceptable candidate. But that may not be realistic."
There are a lot of options people have been discussing, like getting Luther Strange to resign and thereby trigger a new primary or go with Jeff Sessions as a write-in candidate. Hugh Hewitt has been discussing some of the options on his Twitter feed over the last few days.
One of the issues in this situation is political viability. Even if you think Moore hasn't done anything wrong, the fact remains that he's become too big a liability to the Republicans. It would be irresponsible to make decisions like whether to vote for Moore or what to do if he gets elected without taking that context into account. Given the high probability that he's acted unethically in the situations under consideration, and given how much of a liability he's become, the focus at this point should be on getting a Republican other than Moore into that Senate seat. That may have to be done through a scenario like Steve mentioned, involving electing Moore and removing him from office just afterward, but letting Moore hold the seat over the long term is unacceptable under the current circumstances.
Delete