As I argued here, discussion is necessary and good, but conclusion is the goal. Without a conclusion in mind, there is no basis on which to discuss and no ultimate reason for arguing. “Raising awareness” is meaningless when it has no actionable end.

Isaiah 1:18 says “Come, let us reason together.” Scripture is God’s infallible and specific revelation to us. It contains the Truth, and it is often difficult to understand. But it is still knowable. We must use our brains, says God through Isaiah, and we must trust God’s grace in our study of Scripture. What we cannot do is avoid difficult issues. This is an injustice to Truth.

Obviously, human comprehension and rationality are finite and prone to error. John Calvin and Martin Luther doubtless penned incorrect doctrine at certain points. Nonetheless, specifically because it is our duty to reason and our duty to pursue the Truth as a means of glorifying God, it is also our duty to grapple with difficult issues head-on — and form conscientious, Scripturally-based conclusions from them. Provided someone has done his homework and seeks God’s wisdom, the distinct possibility of still being wrong is no justification for avoiding conclusion.

It is easy enough to speak conclusively about provable things. It is even easy to speak conclusively about issues Scripture directly addresses. These are the Truths that we know or the Truths that we believe with confidence. Yet for the difficult issues shrouded with uncertainty, they also have an answer. Though we do not know a given answer with certainty (and may never know it), we must still pursue that answer for the very fact that it is Objective Truth.

So if we know that every last issue on earth, down to the most problematic and controversial, has an objective answer, it is our duty to try to the best of our abilities to determine that answer. The pursuit of Truth is not a pursuit of Discussion. The pursuit of Truth does not end when difficult problems begin. The pursuit of Truth requires a conclusion based on the known facts, or based upon Scripture, and not simply a presentation of “both sides of the issue.”

God requires us to do what the Bible says. God requires us to use our heads, our humility, and his Grace to determine what Scripture requires. This means doing hard things. This means taking positions that are unpopular. This means following the words of Scripture, with a clean conscience, despite its complete foreign-ness to current culture’s conception of truth. And this, very importantly, means taking positions with no regard for the fear of giving offense. When offense is taken, it has often not been given. And when offense has been taken, it often means you’re on the right track.

As a necessary (though hopefully obvious) disclaimer, some will take this exhortation to confident assertion as license for bombastic and arrogant tirades. “Why, the perceptions of my listeners don’t matter so long as I speak the Truth!” Not quite. No one will listen and everyone will be disillusioned if you cut off their nose before handing them the Rose.

Original: “Sam! Long time no talk. What’s going on with you? I’m pretty good. Just trying to hang in there.”

Reply: “Hey, Eric, I’m good. Work at the office is picking up but nothing too crazy. We should get together sometime and talk.”

Friendly communion thus. The irony, of course, is that they never really communicated. They just think they did. Though it’s been said before, email and Facebook foster this sort of skeletal jaw-prying, and it doesn’t particularly benefit true conversation. Beyond informal conversation, observation and argumentation are additional casualties, stifling the ability to reason and the willingness to read.

The other night, I watched a PBS feature on Ernest Seton, the naturalist and wolf hunter who bested Lobo, a legendary wolf of late 19th century New Mexico. Seton, as was customary, documented his thoughts and observations. He mused on the intelligence of wolves, their strategems, and the rest of nature. However, in this PBS feature, a current wolf specialist out of Yellowstone provided “present-day” commentary. Most notably, he said that after “cutting out Seton’s flowery language,” he was able to determine where Seton erred and when he was correct. Thank goodness. Here we had the saving grace of stodgy, 19th century verbosity; now, we can see his writings objectively.

Although redundancy and needless embellishment exist, they are more often than not an incorrect diagnosis of an actually scintillating and logically solid analysis. There appears to be a common assumption that, because an observation or bit of writing took place in the past that there is needed a present-day elucidation of the facts (which must clearly be wrong in some degree) and a translation of needlessly complex language.

More relevantly, proper elucidation and logical progression is necessary for effective communication. If a discussion of ideas simply revolves around quick, one-paragraph assertions of belief, little is accomplished. One paragraph of under-developed, personal belief is followed by a “rebuttal” of equally short, anemic, contrary assertions. Perhaps a few weak attempts at support or reference are thrown in. And then the next round of contrary assertions, always short, never too long. Because there is simply no time to write anything longer, and (more sinister), there is certainly not enough time to read a long, well-reasoned essay. So go the excuses.

I submit that there actually is time to write at length; there is time to write thoroughly. However, there is little willingness. There is even little ability. Formulating a logical thesis followed by structural, logical support requires commitment. This is why writing successful essays in college was always a bit of a nuisance; you had to do it right. Now, however, one can get away with popping off a quick few lines on email or in a Facebook box, and you’ve made your contribution. Except it’s not adequately supported. It doesn’t sufficiently address all related issues. And it will not be met with acceptance or respect by the opposing view.

But this anemic methodology is understandable. Because if you write a worthy essay with sufficient support, length, and though (on the nature of law, say, like Sir William Blackstone did), nobody will read it. They will glance at the title, skim through the first paragraph, and stop reading. At best, they will internally commit to reading it later, when they have more time. At worst, they will dismiss it as “too long” and perhaps even boring.

If you wish to participate in a debate or discussion of any kind, you must be willing to spend time at it. You must commit yourself, or you do the issue at hand (and your fellow debaters) a disservice. Language is rarely too flowery, it is rarely too long, and you are always better served by reading and creating useful contributions to the issue. And quick, bare assertions are never useful contributions.

Occasionally, political idolatry exists among other believers. However, this is a problem of their own heart attitude and not an argument against voting. Our duty in life is to glorify God and build his kingdom on earth, and I think this can be accomplished specifically by voting, by successful campaigning and support for godly Christian candidates. To be sure though, “We cannot get anything right in the political sphere until we get it right in the Church first. When we get it right in the Church, other areas will follow. When Christians are worshiping God rightly, in spirit and in truth, we will then be in a position to reform an existing party, or establish a new one,” (Douglas Wilson).

I think it’s important to remember that Christians need to pursue power and influence in the world — and not withdraw from it — so that we can establish God’s kingdom here. If we want to be able to worship as our consciences dictate, if we want to truly abolish things like abortion, then we need Christians with power and influence in places of power. We need leaders who have character and ability who are active in the church and active in the political world. When William Wilberforce converted to Christ, he wrote, “My walk is a public one. My business is in the world, and I must mix in the assemblies of men.” I think Hugh Hewitt is correct when he says “history’s record is a silencer of those who argue that Christians are to live apart from the world.”

Interestingly, Saul Alinsky, an atheist, said we must “recognize the world as it is. We must work with it on its terms if we are to change it to the kind of world we would like it to be.”

Many are agreed that Christians do need to be leaders in both the congregation and the world — but how that’s to be done is where there’s disagreement. I think that because Christ called us into the world, though, we need to pursue real means. Political means. From Hewitt again: “Christians are called to defend the church, and that means politics. That means voting and campaigning and contributing — at a minimum. A politically inactive Christian in the United States is turning his or her back on the church in the world, especially its most persecuted parts. This uncomfortable fact obliges you to get involved in the often repellent work of politics. Your personal feelings about politics don’t really matter. Having been blessed with this gift of freedom, you cannot bury it.” I think the parable of the Talents from Luke 19:11-27 confirms this.

I am not advocating a vote for someone like McCain or the Republican party, or any other major candidate, on moral grounds. What I am saying is that we must pursue strong influence in the world, and we can do that best through our political system. Any insidious occurrences in the democratic process are faults of its players, not the process. Proper participation in the democratic process is the means we have to enact godly change in the world. I think a choice of non-participation in politics only fosters an attitude of withdrawal from the world. This is directly contrary to our commission. “We have made the Church strange and alien to the world, as if she were a completely different order than the institutions of common social and political life,” says Peter Leithart. Rather, “the Church can cut across the grain of existing human social and cultural life only if she bears some likeness to existing societies. If she is a completely different sort of thing, then societies and nations and empires can go on their merry way ignoring the Church, or, equally deadly, find some murky alleyway to push her into.”

Following conscience is paramount. If your conscience honestly does not allow you to vote for a major party’s nominee, then obviously don’t vote for them. But vote and raise support for somebody else. What if enough Christians sincerely campaigned for somebody like Ron Paul or Alan Keyes or somebody else? I think the morose resignation that “there’s never going to be a fair nomination of someone actually good” is dangerous. Nobody is perfect. No presidential nominee ever will be. But Christians need to get with the program and make it happen. Democracy is not a corrupt system. It’s our means — our very practical and useful means — of electing godly leaders that will bring God’s kingdom to earth.

And finally: “Fight in the culture wars as those who gladly serve the triune God of heaven. We are not dogs fighting over a piece of meat, and we must never allow the surly or shrill attitudes of the self-righteous to creep into anything we do. We must be puritan cavaliers, and merry warriors. Fight like a regenerate D’Artagnan, and not like a thug with a Bible he stole from the motel, or a like prim and censorious Miss Grundy, she of the pursed lips. We are Christians, not wowswers” (Wilson).

One of my (many) major problems with the Obama campaign is its support of policies that would function as wealth redistribution. Like most conservatives, I find such socialistic tendencies abhorant*, but why?

Common answers would almost all appeal to fairness. It seems inherently fair that each person should receive compensation relative to the extent, difficulty, and quality of his work. To take compensation from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not is, without a doubt, unfair. But is that enough? Life after all, and as parents are so fond of reminding children, is not fair. Why should taxes be?

Or consider that the distribution of circumstances for those who are extremely wealthy and extremely poor has not been fair. The majority of the extremely poor were born in circumstances that significantly contributed to their poverty.**

The government could never make the world’s circumstantially fair. But if it redistributes wealth, then to some extent hasn’t it mitigated the unfairness of the world? If bad circumstances tend one toward bad decisions which tend one (and one’s children) toward bad circumstances, then isn’t it the case that not redistributing wealth is systematically contributing to the unfairness of the world?

I’m interested to hear what any of you think about this. Is it more fair to try to increase equality in the end result? Or to try to treat everyone the same as possible?

There are plenty of people in both camps, a good number of which like to argue. But, as per usual, I would bet that there is actually a more fundamental disagreement between the two camps than the surface quarrel over taxes. My guess is that the two groups will fall more or less in line with the following two ethical theories: those who tend toward a deontological ethic (focusing on duty and action) will have the intuition that everyone should be treated the same, and those who tend toward a utilitarian ethic (focusing on outcome) will have the intuition of endpoint equality.

My intuitive ethic is something of a Duns Scotian mix of deontology and divine command theory (a standard package, I’d wager, for most conservative Christians), and I bet that that accounts for my status as a wealth-redistribution-abhorrer. But I also question whether all of ethics can be propositionalized, which means that I’m open to understanding ethical decisions in other manners (e.g. faithful interpretation of a role rather than instantiation of a rule). And that probably correlates pretty well with my feelings that the case against wealth redistribution is not open and shut.

_____

*-I know it’s not a word… I’m working on making it one.

**-It may be argued that no one in America will be in abject poverty unless they make conscious decisions to act in a manner that directly leads to poverty (immoral or illegal activity, failing to perform well enough to even meet the minimal work requirements of a minimum wage job, etc.). These people are fully responsible for the decisions that they have made and therefore fully responsible for their impoverished state.

But for that argument to work mustn’t it be true that the (unfair) circumstances do not affect these decisions? But of course they do. A child raised to think that criminal activity is the norm would seem in some way to be less (ethically, not legally) culpable for criminal activity than one who has had a clear demonstration and example of right and wrong since we know that these sorts of examples leave a distinct impression on children and inform their decision making.

Later, the Duke of Sutherland spoke to Birkenhead, saying, “[Eric Liddell] is a true man of principles and a true athlete. His speed is a mere extension of his life, its force. We sought to sever his running from himself.”

In A Man For All Seasons, Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England, is tossed in prison and sentenced to death for defying Henry VIII in his quest for a divorce and remarriage.

The Duke of Norfolk says to More, “Oh confound all this. I’m not a scholar. I don’t know whether the marriage was lawful or not but . . . Why can’t you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship?”

More replies, “And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? . . . I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience or the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”

For those “true men of principle,” conscience is not merely a reference point but rather an innate part of themselves.  Some sear their conscience and leave it by the wayside, pursuing different courses.  But for those like More and Liddell, violating conscience is a violation of their identity.  Violation of conscience is an impossibility.  Thus a willingness to forsake something as great as the Olympics.  Thus a willingness to be decapitated for ones convictions.

Aye.  You heard it aright.  J.S., aye, Sandy himself is skirting his responsibilities and is, frankly, beginning to resemble a plump, flaccid bit of swine flank.

Get on the horse, boy.  Got a mind to comandeer this whole outfit soon.

1.1 Some poor blighter goes traipsing off into the woods to pop off a few beer cans with his .458 Lott.  Unfortunately, due to a general lack of dexterity (or some similar reason), said Lott instead pops off Poor Blighter.  Poor Blighter’s surviving brother, who couldn’t traipse off with his brother due to a dental appointment, swears never again to touch a gun.  They are far too dangerous.

1.2 A few deranged creatures board a plane on September 11, 2001, hijack the craft, and go careening into the World Trade Center.  Brutal stuff.  Airline flight bookings subsequently plummet.  Flying is simply too risky, say (now driving) travelers.

Another tendency is termed “Familiarity Bias.”  Here, phenomena that are more familiar to folks are perceived as less risky than something foreign.

2.1 An intriguingly miserly woman bikes to work every day through a bustling medical center.  She’s done this all her life.  “I wouldn’t dream of driving to work,” quod she.  “Never have.  Besides, it seems decidedly too dangerous with all the auto accidents that happen.”

2.2 “The devil take stocks.  Especially the ones from Brazil,” says Linus.  “Why, I’ve always operated with cash from my top dresser drawer.  Nothing but cash.  No risk for me.”

The decisions of the world’s humble denizens thus.  While much can be said for comfort, more can be said for logic.  What both biases (and all four examples) have in common is irrationality in the decision-making process.  What all four examples also have in common is emotionally based decision making  (N.B. the presence of emotion doesn’t necessarily indicate the presence of irrationality; here it is incidental.).

To effectively decide things, all decisions in any sphere must be based on logic first and emotion second.  If logic is considered and then subsequently rejected, and instead emotions (assuming them contrary to the logical component) are chosen as the ultimate rationale, this affects the universal validity of the decision, though it does not necessarily affect the rightness of the decision.  An emotion-based decision, so long as it defies the objective truths of the situation, cannot be grounds for a universal promotion of that decision.  While there is nothing wrong with Poor Blighter’s Brother turning his back on firearms, he has no logical grounds for mustering a demonstration promoting gun control, based on his tragedy.

And while it should delight us that Linus is delighted with cash, his rationale is based strictly upon his individual familiarity with cash and his lack of knowledge of any other investment vehicle.  His decision is not necessarily incorrect; however, without establishing equivalent familiarty with other investments, he cannot validly promote his views as universal wisdom.

None of this involves morality but rather prudence.  A decision may not be immoral, but it may certainly be imprudent.  Peace of mind is important; truth is better.

Thoughts?