Showing posts with label Joe Carter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Carter. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
What Christians should know about vaccines
Joe Carter wrote an article on TGC that garnered a plethora of comments and considerable debate on Facebook:
"What Christians should know about vaccines"
Just a few comments in passing:
Saturday, March 16, 2019
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Friday, March 30, 2018
Saturday, March 10, 2018
Thursday, December 07, 2017
Moore's the pity, pt. 1
https://www.facebook.com/robert.a.gagnon.56/posts/10159861539550045
Can an evangelical or conservative Christian in good faith and with good reason vote for Roy Moore, the Republican candidate for the Alabama Senate, and thus against Doug Jones, the Democratic candidate?
Many answer with the strongest denial possible, accusing those who support Moore’s candidacy with betraying the values of the faith. Joe Carter, a respected editor and writer for The Gospel Coalition, a thoughtful Christian whom I personally appreciate even in cases of disagreement, attempts to make this case. My guess is that he speaks for all, or virtually all, of the members of TGC. How convincing is his case?
Joe’s case boils down to this: For him nothing “justifies voting for a sexual predator simply because the molester opposes abortion.” The problem with this way of thinking is that it presupposes that 70-year-old Roy Moore is, and has been for the past 35 years, a sexual predator. Whatever happened 38 and 40 years ago (the serious allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Young Nelson, respectively), that way of formulating a vote for Moore today bears false testimony. It is slander. Does Joe really believe, contrary to all the evidence, that Moore is, and has been for decades, a danger to teenagers? A man whom, so far as we know, has never had sexual intercourse with anyone other than his one and only wife?
Because Joe presupposes that voting for Moore is inherently evil, Joe claims that any evangelical Christian who does vote for him is a “consequentialist,” allegedly thinking to make an intrinsically evil action (voting for Moore) good solely through achieving a good result (defeating Democrat Doug Jones who is pro-abortion, pro-LGBT-agenda, and anti-religious-liberty). Yet in presupposing that a vote for Moore is an inherently evil action, Joe presumes what must be proven.
In the first instance, the position of never voting for a person who is morally tainted in some way or who holds one or more positions that compromises at some level with an immorality cannot be maintained absolutely in all circumstances and cases. For example, on a runoff between Adolph Hitler redivivus and any other candidate with some immoral behavior and/or positions (including Bill or Hillary Clinton), it would be immoral to sit out the election and vote for neither candidate. You vote against a Hitler-like candidate at any cost. In other words, everyone can imagine an alternative so bad as to warrant a vote for a candidate with a significant moral downside.
Even as great a person as Abraham Lincoln held some views about African Americans that today would be considered so racist as to disqualify him for public office, certainly in his senatorial campaign against Stephen Douglas in 1858 and even in his presidential campaign against Douglas, John C. Breckinridge, and John Bell in 1860. Indeed, some abolitionists (including William Lloyd Garrison, stalwart editor of The Liberator) sat out the election of 1860 rather than vote for a candidate (even Lincoln) who had made major compromises with the grotesque evil of slavery. I would submit, however, that not to have voted for Lincoln, however residually racist he was as a candidate, was an immoral act, simply on the basis that he was by far the best of the available options.
One could easily retort, “Well, Jones is not a Hitler and Moore is not a Lincoln.” Granted. I am not arguing equivalence here. I am merely making the point that the absolute, one-size-fits-all approach taken by Joe Carter and others isn’t morally reasonable. This doesn’t mean that there are no cases where the choices are so equally bad that one should sit out the election. Nor does it mean that a politician’s moral life could never be so abysmal as to mandate voter abstinence even when espousing congenial policies. It just means that facile charges of Christians hypocritically abandoning their moral values have to be assessed on a case by case basis.
If voting for anyone but Hitler, or voting for a somewhat racist Lincoln to prevent far greater racists from gaining office, turns someone into a “consequentialist,” then we should all be consequentialists at some level. Yet that is not really what is going on in the electoral process. This brings me to my second point.
In voting it sometimes comes down to the lowest common denominator of choosing the candidate who will do the least harm. Choosing someone who has a questionable moral past four decades ago and who will beat you with a rod once per month over someone else who will beat you and your family with metal-spiked whips daily doesn’t make you a “consequentialist.” To abstain from choosing altogether may make you foolish. Choosing the former is not a validation of everything that the former does or is, so there is no claiming to turn an evil into a good by its supposed good consequences. There is no ends-justifying-the-means approach here. You are simply asserting that you are not a masochist and prefer the one who will do the least harm for the greatest number.
Yes, personal moral life counts in politics. Nevertheless, it can’t always be the only factor that is considered because personal moral failings vary in severity, timing, and level of proof, just as policy platforms range in number and severity. How one compares one element to another is not always easy. Elections are often complex because they bring into play many different variables. That is true of this week's election for Alabama Senator.
Joe Carter thinks the Alabama Senate election between Moore and Jones is simple: Moore is a sexual predator and Jones is pro-abortion so the moral Christian cannot vote for either. He calls this approach “convictional inaction.” He claims that to do otherwise would violate 1 Thessalonians 5:22: “Abstain from every form of evil.” Yet again Joe presumes what must be demonstrated: namely, that choosing between two candidates, each with significant (but not necessarily equivalent) moral deficiencies (one allegedly as regards personal life, the other certainly as regards policy), involves one in evil. In the immediate context of 1 Thess 5:22 Paul has in mind testing revelatory prophetic utterances in the church, not elections. While a more general application is also appropriate, there is no way that Joe or anyone else can conclude from this verse that voting for Roy Moore as an alternative to Doug Jones is a “form of evil.” That application is foisted on the text by Joe Carter as though it were supporting evidence for his position.
Joe claims that voting for Moore is no different from supporting for the Ohio state legislature a family-values Republican (Wesley Goodman) who a year or two before had attempted to unzip the pants of an unwilling 18-year-old male college student and who this year was caught having adulterous, homosexual sex with man in his office, as well as “sexting” college-age male conservatives (homosexual or not) and self-identified “gay” men. He also advertised for male companions on Craigslist and allegedly had sex with one or more other men. However, this case differs from Moore’s at several points: It involves recent events, indisputable events, and actual sexual intercourse (not to mention the compounding high biblical offenses of homosexual practice and adultery).
[To be continued]
Sunday, December 03, 2017
"Convictional inaction"
I'm of two minds about commenting on this. I like and respect Joe Carter. We agree about 95% of the time. So presumably he won't be incensed if I disagree with him on this occasion. It's actually a mark of intellectual respect to take someone's argument seriously enough to carefully assess what they say:
Borland’s argues that voting for a lesser of two evils doesn’t undermine your integrity. But Borland doesn’t seem to understand either the concept of integrity or the principle of “lesser of two evils.” To have integrity means that we have a consistent standard, and that our application of that standard is exemplified by our pattern of behavior. As Paul says, “Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity” (Titus 2:7).For example, if you claim that character is important for leadership, both in yourself and also in others, to be a person of integrity requires that you adhere to that standard even when it might conflict with your political preferences. To oppose sexual misconduct in general and yet excuse it when done by politicians is the opposite of integrity—it’s a prime example of hypocrisy.
i) One problem with this argument is equivocation. Joe's argument only works by converting "character is important for leadership" into "character is all-important for leadership".
Put another way, you can honestly say character is important for leadership without saying that's the only salient standard. In fact, it would be very odd to say there's only one standard we should ever take into account when voting.
That's artificially abstract. To treat one standard in isolation, when in reality Christians are thrust in a fluid, concrete, and complex situation where they must make many comparisons. When they have to balance many factors.
ii) Another problem, which is endemic to articles like this, is when a social commentator projects his own priorities onto the target audience, then accuses them of hypocrisy because they act contrary to how he'd act in the same situation. "If I were you, this is what I'd do". Again, though, someone can only be guilty of hypocrisy by violating his own standards, and not the standards of the social critic. For Joe, "character is important for leadership" is apparently nonnegotiable. For him it would be hypocritical treat that standard as one of many considerations. It hardly follows that it would be hypocritical for someone else who doesn't share his priority structure.
Not every standard is ultimate compared to other standards. Take the standard of a Christian family man who wants to protect his wife and kids from the agenda of the secular progressives. What makes that a less important standard? And why can't that be the "consistent standard" he applies in voting?
iii) In addition, the way Joe frames the issue–"to oppose sexual misconduct in general and yet excuse it when done by politicians is the opposite of integrity"–is a caricature. The principle is not that politicians in general are exempt. Rather, the principle involves a comparison between different alternatives. Usually it comes down to two viable candidates with specific policy differences. Their policies, if implemented, will impact others.
Furthermore, some elections are more critical than others. Sometimes we're at a tipping-point.
It's never a once-size-fits all situation. Each election is different. The stakes vary.
iv) Joe is an ex-Marine. He signed up knowing that he'd have to follow lawful orders, regardless of whether his commanding office had integrity. He'd be deployed according to the foreign policy of whatever administration was in power, regardless of whether the President or Defense Secretary had integrity. So isn't Joe himself more flexible than he lets on to being?
v) And to be blunt, there are more important things than character for leadership. Jimmy Carter gets higher grades for character than most any other president in recent memory, but he was a terrible leader, and his social views have steadily deteriorated since leaving office, despite his idealism. He always means well. But well-meaning people with bad ideas are dangerous.
THE UN-CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE OF ‘LESSER OF TWO EVILS’Borland also misunderstands the concept of “lesser of two evils.” He claims, “All voting is voting for the lesser of two evils, and it’s almost never wrong to vote for the lesser of the two.” The basis for his claim is that since both candidates are sinners, we should vote for the “lesser” of the two sinners. This is not the principle of lesser, which itself is not a Christian concept.The lesser of two evils principle says when faced with selecting from two immoral options, the one that is least immoral should be chosen. But the Bible makes it clear that we are not to choose any immoral option. As Paul says, “Abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22).
i) There's not just one interpretation of the lesser-evil principle. For instance, there are atheists and freewill theists who think we sometimes find ourselves in situations where we have no ethical options. On that view, it's pointless to say we mustn't choose any immoral option, for the claim is that we don't have the luxury of a morally pure option. Whatever we do or refrain from doing will be unethical. It's a forced option between illicit options. Wrongdoing is unavoidable The only limiting factor is degrees of evil.
ii) However, another interpretation of the lesser evil principle is not a moral dilemma in the strict sense that we have no ethical options. Rather, it means that we have to play the hand we've been dealt. In a fallen world, it's sometimes a choice between bad and worse alternatives. The best we can do is to mitigate harm. Which option will be the least damaging? Take human shield situations in wartime. On that interpretation, the lesser-evil principle doesn't mean relative wrongdoing.
This lesser evil principle twists the Catholic moral teaching about the principle of double effect, the claim it’s permissible to cause a harm as a side effect of bringing about a good result when it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end. Whether evangelicals should hold to this doctrine is debatable. But it a gross misunderstanding to claim this principle justifies voting for a sexual predator simply because the molester opposes abortion.
i) One issue is whether the double effect principle is in fact a single principle or a family of principles, which are sometimes in tension:
ii) Moreover, the question at issue isn't voting for a politician just become he opposes abortion. It's more complex than that. The Senate is like two opposing sports teams. It's the combined effect that needs to be considered. To have a working majority. And the culture wars are much broader than abortion.
What Borland is really advocating is consequentialism, the view that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act. Borland makes this clear when he says that critics of Moore (and Trump):
. . . fall prey to what philosophers call a reductio ad absurdum, an argument that reduces itself to absurdity. If one can’t vote for someone who is better (that is, less bad or less evil) or who is equally bad but has better policies, then one should opt out of politics and the voting process altogether! But since that’s not the case, the #Never_____ position fails. It’s that simple.
Note that Borland considers the idea of not voting to be an absurdity. Even faced with two immoral candidates he believes we must choose one over the other. Why? Because of the bad consequences that might come about if we don’t vote for the candidate who supports our preferred policies.
i) I don't know whether or not Borland is a consequentialist. Keep in mind that one version deontological ethics is threshold deontology:
As I recall, that's Bill Vallicella's position. I myself don't subscribe to threshold deontology or consequentialism. However, the probable results of a particular course of action are often germane to moral deliberation.
Notice that Joe appeals to consequences to recommend his preferred alternative:
If every evangelical committed to convictional inaction, politics in American would change within four to five years (about two election cycles). Knowing they were truly at the whim of Christian voters, both parties would be forced to make radical changes. Convictional inaction is a nonpartisan approach that solves our political crisis by literally doing nothing.
ii) Nowhere in the passage quoted by Joe does Borland say or imply that consequences are the only consideration.
iii) There is, indeed, a danger of having no moral floor. Where, as social conditions degenerate, we keep lowering our standards. We adjust our standards to the candidate.
iv) God hasn't given Christians a moral blueprint. Scripture contains general principles, some specific commands and prohibitions, some hypothetical and real-life examples. This gives us necessary parameters. But there are lots of things we have to hash out on our own, in our fallible, groping, shortsighted way. There's no cosmic computer that will answer all our ethical questions.
Keep in mind that even with respect to Biblical ethics, there are perennial disputes about the relevance of OT ethics to Christian ethics, or how to interpret the Sermon on the Mount (e.g. pacifism).
Saturday, September 02, 2017
Saturday, July 01, 2017
Tuesday, February 07, 2017
Monday, January 30, 2017
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Friday, October 28, 2016
Friday, May 13, 2016
Hunger strikes
This comment was left on a post by Joe Carter, who's done a number of useful posts on transgender activism. I will use the commenter as a foil:
Neil Pratt Also, there is not "silence" by Christians on the issue. The problem is that what we say is not what the secular world wants to hear. Young people and adults who feel that they do not "identify" with their biological sex need psychological help and healing.
That's true. They need counseling that helps them come to terms with their biological sex.
What they don't need is more people telling them that they should live in a state of confusion about how God made them.
Once again, that's true. And people like Neil are fostering confusion about God's design for human nature.
First, psychology and biology are driven by science and evidence…
In theory, but these disciplines can become highly politicized.
…and it is well documented the very real physical, emotional, and psychological harm that comes from reparative therapy, especially when it is forced on unwilling participants.
I don't have a considered opinion on reparative therapy. But it should be legal.
Moreover, consider the harm that comes to people whose psychology is out of whack with their biological sex?
Second, I fully agree that transgender people should be told about the way God made them, and I will happily quote to them Jesus's words in Matthew 19:12, "For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Apparently, Neil is using this as a prooftext to show that gender dysphoria is natural and normal. If so, he fails to explain how he derives that from the text.
i) "born eunuchs" is is a metaphor for people who are impotent and/or born with genital deformities. An involuntary condition or birth defect.
(An analogous category would be people who become impotent or suffer from damaged genitalia due to accident, exposure to certain chemicals, radiation, &c.)
Is Neil saying the transgendered correspond to that category? If so, that would mean they suffer from a genetic defect or brain damage. Is that his position?
Intersex individuals fit this category. But most transgenders aren't intersex.
ii) "made eunuchs" is a literal designation for castrated men. Sometimes that was voluntary.
That is, indeed, analogous to sex-change operations. However, that's something normative Judaism would frown on. Jesus isn't commending that.
iii) "eunuch by choice" is a metaphor for Christians who voluntarily choose celibacy over marriage.
That's not obviously analogous to the transgendered. Is Neil suggesting transgender people should be celibate?
In addition, the framework of Mt 19:12 is gender-binary.
For detailed exegesis, consult John Nolland's commentary on the Greek text.
Finally, that response (again) does nothing to protect transgender people from the massive amount of discrimination and violence that they face. I understand that we will not agree on the above point I made regarding God's plan for them, and I will happily continue to discuss our various understandings of what the Bible says on this issue. However, to put it bluntly, transgender people are dying. They are being forced into sex work, beaten, harassed, raped, and killed. It doesn't matter if I am reaching out to them with my affirming view or if you are reaching out to them with your non-affirming view if their basic safety isn't being protected. This kind of heartlessness to the suffering of others has left both our witnesses to the Gospel in tatters in America. While we can continue to passionately disagree on this issue, can we not work together to ensure the safety of all people to ensure our witness to the Gospel seems genuine?
i) There are already laws against assault, battery, and rape.
ii) His complaint reminds me of activists like Dick Gregory and Randall Robison who used to stage hunger strikes. "If we don't get our way, we will starve ourselves to death, and it will be your fault!" Aside from the fact that their threat was a bluff, if you play a game of chicken and you lose, that's your responsibility, not mine. Society can't cave into this kind of emotional manipulation. For one thing, you could have pressure groups with opposing agendas play the same suicide card. But you can't very well accommodate the demands of both.
Moreover, it's not an appeal to reason, but manufactured guilt-tripping. That's not a proper way to set public policy. Suppose someone thinks cars contribute to global warming, so they threaten to kill themselves unless all of us stop driving cars. It's unfortunate for them if they carry through with their threat, but that's not a basis for social policy.
Same thing with people who form a human shield to blockage a train to Trident submarine base, because they disapprove of nuclear weapons. Well, you should do so at your own risk. You're not entitled to endanger the national security. Same thing with protesters who chain themselves to fences or climb trees and refuse to come down. Fine. We'll leave you there.
iii) Neil is disregarding the harm to children when they become guinea pigs for transgender "couples" in adoption or foster care.
iv) Neil is disregarding the harm that transgender people do to themselves through hormone therapy and sex-change operations.
v) Unless they do something to artificially modify their appearance, transgender people appear to be normal men and women. They can only be subject to harassment or discriminating if they act out. No one requires you to be a cross-dresser. You do that to yourself. If you behave inappropriately, you may be stigmatized. You brought that on yourself.
Schools and businesses typically have dress codes. A lifeguard may wear a bikini to work, but an investment banker should not.
vi) Consider the demand that insurance companies cover hormone therapy, plastic surgery, and sex-change operations for transgender people who wish to "transition". That will raise insurance premiums for everyone.
vii) What about a husband or wife whose spouse comes out as transgender? What if the spouse takes the next step and "transitions" to the opposite sex. This is no longer the person they married. The husband married a women who was a physiologically normal woman. The wife married a man who was a physiologically normal man. Are they now required to remain married to that person? Will they be unable to obtain a legal divorce because that would be "discriminatory"? Indeed, will they be subject to prosecution for "harassment" or "discrimination" against a spouse who went transgender on them? If they lose friends, will the friends be prosecuted for "discrimination"?
viii) Will Orthodox Jewish and Christian institutions be prosecuted if they refuse to accommodate the transgendered?
ix) Will police be forbidden from issuing an APB that describes the suspect in gender-specific terms? Will gynecologists be forbidden from describing patients in gender-specific terms?
Monday, March 14, 2016
Rhetoric v. reality
For example, Trump is a wealthy crony capitalist who has previously exploited the lower economic social classes for his own advancement. But because he uses rhetoric (i.e., “he isn’t politically correct”, “he tells it like it is”) that appears to trash the Establishment and their interest, he’s given a pass and considered one of their own. They assume that despite his lifelong connection to the Establishment that Trump is, at least in his heart, a traitor to his own class.
http://blog.acton.org/archives/85553-how-to-understand-the-folk-marxism-of-trump-supporters.html
That's analogous to Democrats/liberals who consider Al Gore to be an environmentalist because he pays lip-service to global warming and green energy even though his private lifestyle is diametrically opposed to his rhetoric. Ditto: James Cameron.
Same thing with the despised One Percenters, which is never applied to rich liberals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)