Legislating your circumstances

One of the most emotionally gripping moments of this year’s political debates came when VP candidates John Edwards and Dick Cheney discussed homosexual marriage-like unions. Mr. Cheney basically said that the President sets policy and he supports the President. Mr. Edwards took that opportunity to point out that the Cheneys’ daughter (who is working for the Bush/Cheney campaign) is a lesbian. Mr. Cheney thanked Mr. Edwards for some kind words and then said nothing more. It looked as though his family circumstances made him reticent on a crucial moral issue of the day.

A similar, and clearer, example of the phenomenon came up in the second presidential debate. Criticizing the Bush administrations “anti-science” stand against government funding of new embryonic stem cell lines for research?destroying human life in Mr. Bush’s opinion?John Kerry brought up the poignant examples of actors Christopher Reeves and Michael J. Fox. Mr. Reeves, who died a couple of days later, was paralyzed after falling off a horse. Mr. Fox suffers from Parkinson’s disease. Both men have lobbied for embryonic stem cell research in hopes of curing their ailments. The use of the example implies that sad circumstances should trump/change more timeless convictions.

It’s a moving but irrelevant argument. Human suffering is not an irrelevant fact. Pain is a fact that does not tell us what ought to be, though. It is not an argument for much beyond the fallen-ness of all creation. We should be moved to sympathy by the troubles of our neighbors. That is not the same thing as being moved off our values. Here, our heads must govern our hearts. If, in light of an event or reality, one finds his convictions to be inappropriate (wrong), it’s time to reform them; but that is not the same as changing them every time something tugs at our emotions. Our judgment of right and wrong should not be written in chalk.

One general principle of administration is that you should form values and policies before they are needed. You don’t, for example, form policies for using the church van after a wreck has occurred. At that point, your policy prevents no problem and appears to be aimed at the individual driving the van at the time of the wreck.

Personal values should be like that. An important role of family is to provide guidance and safety while children form their priorities. It is a sign of maturity when a young person has convictions adequate to address the unexpected issues we all face. A second sign is his ability to maintain those convictions when they are tested. Think of these priorities as a person’s constitution; amendment is an option but rarely used.

Can it be that way for politicians? It’s an honest question. When we look at the Reagan years we remember his firm stand against the global domination of Communism. Some histories waver between diminishing his role in defeating the Soviet Union and claiming he was too stubborn in his opposition to them. I remember protests against his policies that dwarf the anti-war protests of today. Humorists, columnists, “news” readers, and politicians spoke of President Reagan as a dangerous, bumbling, senile, war lover. He was at once the most beloved and hated president of our generation.

What made him, and makes President Bush, such a lightening rod except for the firmness of some of their convictions? John Kerry hinted at this in the first debate when he answered a question about Mr. Bush’s character by pointing out the dangers of being “too certain.” Mr. Kerry spoke of it again when he claimed that the Federal Marriage Amendment was an attempt by the President to use the Constitution to divide our nation. Is it the content of his convictions or is the fact that he sticks to any convictions that makes the President so controversial?

Obviously everyone has firm convictions about something, even if only that someone else’s beliefs are wrong. The test comes when your values are offensive to another person. The divide, and not just among politicians, seems to be between those mold their beliefs to fit the sensibilities of the largest group present and those who are certain, even if they must stand alone at times.

Circumstantial morality and appeals to sympathy appear to be more debating tactics than dialog. If we operate in the realm of the practical alone, every “what about this” can be answered with an “OK, but what about that.” We can always bring up a no win situation that another cannot answer without changing his tack. That’s why we should operate in the realm of true and false, or right and wrong, rather than works or doesn’t work.

The whole stem cell research argument is a good example of this. It is risky to say that we oppose embryonic stem cell research because adult stem cells show more promise. If a breakthrough reverses that practical argument, will we change our minds? I suspect not. We will only lose credibility when our convictions remain the same but our reasons change with the wind. Better to start with our primary reasons for opposing the destruction of human life. If life begins at conception (and if we consider that fact important), a human embryo is a human life begun. If that life is the property and prerogative of God, no “what ifs” are pertinent. No circumstances, however poignant, will compare with that belief.

A circumstantial ethic is no mercy to the suffering. What purports to be a kindness has resulted in a generation of women ravaged by legal abortion. So-called mercy in another place may devalue the sickly, the depressed, the old, until they are “helped” to die before their time. Will we add to our growing list the occasional, possible extension of one life at the expense of another? Unforeseen consequences follow every time we despise the truth of God.

As you read this, the presidential election is all but over. It is not my intent to say something big about presidential politics. This election has presented us several opportunities to hear how different worldviews apply to real time decision making. The debate must go on beyond the general election. We are a divided nation, and I’m not convinced that’s a bad thing or a new thing. So long as we judge truth and ascribe value in contradictory ways within our culture, the conflict is real.

I welcome the exchange. If we, God’s people at the very least, acknowledge the serious nature of the divide in our culture, that’s the first step in choosing our side. We’ve been on the sidelines too long.

We must demand our leaders tell us who they are and that they do according to the character they claim. I don’t want to know what a leader promises or hopes or regrets or even dislikes?all these things are open to revision for reasons beyond his power. I want to know who he is. And I want him to stick by that when things get tough. Then we can all rightly judge our leaders and vote based on clearer choices and yes, some certainty.