Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) in his book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good recognizes a fundamental truth that America is running away from – a healthy family is the building block of a stable society. While this may not be earth shaking news to many readers of my blog, it is ground breaking for a political advocate to state his position so clearly and boldly.
Santorum along with his wife, Karen, have six children, and the couple has been very generous in sharing their family life with the larger public.
In his book, Santorum points out that the proper focus of government concern should be the family, both its preservation and promotion as the true starting point for a conservative political philosophy.
Santorum argues that civilization is based upon five essential pillars – social capital, economic capital, moral capital, cultural capital, and intellectual capital. In his book, he deals with each of these in turn, but at the center of his argument lies the assertion
“that the key to building capital in all of these areas is fostering the formation, stability, and success of the traditional family.”
Referring to what others have called the “cultural elite,” Santorum speaks of the “village elders” who now attempt to forge a social revolution in terms of their own ideological commitments–commitments that are directly subversive of families.
According to Santorum, the liberal elites hold to what he identifies as an ideology of “No-Fault Freedom.” The ideology of No-Fault Freedom insists that personal choice, grounded in an assertion of personal autonomy, is the highest good. In the name of liberation, the prophets of No-Fault Freedom insist that limitations upon personal liberty are repressive and unhealthy and that freedom should thus be unconstrained by a larger moral context, set of rules, or other limitations. Liberals are addicted to idea of freedom blinded by the reality that with every syllable uttered they are enslaving themselves. As we discussed on in our teaching on Sunday (07.16.06) only Biblical submission will bring about maximum freedom and security.
Regardless of one’s political leanings, any responsible political philosophy must identify the central unit of civilization and, as Santorum sees it, the critical distinction between contemporary forms of liberalism and conservatism is that the liberals see the individual as the basic unit of society, whereas the conservatives see the family as the focal unit.
“Liberal social policy has never put an emphasis on the family because the village elders, frankly, don’t believe in the importance of strong, traditional families… For a raft of reasons, the village elders view the strong, traditional, married-mother-and-father family as contrary to their social agenda. They think of society as fundamentally made up of individuals guided by elite and ‘expert’ organizations like government, not the antiquated, perhaps uneducated, independent family. The village elders want society to be individualistic, because a society composed only of individuals responds better to ‘expert’ command and control.”
Questions:
1. Is this type of argumentation (i.e. that societies best is linked to a Judeo-Christian ethic), to be championed by the church in America today?
2. Are we selling out or becoming to “of the world” minded is we employ this type of rationale?
Based, in part, on a July 5,06 article by Dr. Al Mohler
“No-Fault Freedom” sounds a lot like relativism.
Should the Church argue in terms of “society’s best?” Yes and no.
No, because you end up debating what “society’s best” is, and it exposes you to the trap of supporting a societal interest more strongly than the character and priorities of Christ. That would indeed be too worldly-minded.
On the other hand, yes, if you focus on why Christian values lead to “society’s best,” then you make the Gospel central to the argument. In other words, don’t “take up” Christianity so that society will benefit — rather, follow Christ because the Gospel is true, and truth benefits society. That’s a hard sell — there’s a lot to get distracted with in there.
My bottom line: I don’t think it’s illegitimate, but there is a question of tactical wisdom to be dealt with here.
I agree Hugh, but just because something is hard or difficult doesn’t mean we shouldn’t forge ahead. Counting the cost is prudent, but when society undermines the basic institution that God created we do need to fight back. It is important and it makes for a great vehicle to get the gospel out there as well.
Nice points to remember. I see a parallel to Senator Santorum’s approach in the message of Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) during his appeal to the Roman Senate on behalf of Christians who were being persecuted. Justin wanted the Senate to know the good that Christians bring to society and persecute any group that would seek to harm them. Justin saw ignorance of Christianity as a pervasive issue and wanted to clarify what were the beliefs and practices of the early church.
In Justin’s first Apology he makes a strong argument along very rational lines. See particularly chapter 15 and on in regard to a Christians moral influence in society.
Is this type of approach not a good one or should we be content to not try to reform a world we are leaving anyhow? Is this not a strong parallel because America knows Christianty and we are in more danger of being absorbed back into the world by pursuing change. Should we maintain a strict adherence to a “Gospel only” type of change? What is our responsibility in this area before God?
I think the reformers notion of two kingdoms can be helpful in thinking about matters like this. According to Luther, followers of Christ maintain dual citizenship–one is in the earthly kingdom, the other is in the heavenly kingdom. God is sovereign over both. He has established civil governments to rule the one kingdom (see Romans 13) and has given Christ reign over the other (see the entire New Testament).
As dual citizens, we have responsibilities in both arenas. As a matter of loving our neighbors, we should be good civil citizens, using our votes and power of persuasion well. But this should never trump our responsibility as citizens of the heavenly kingdom.
The two not need be at odds. For one thing, standing for religious freedom (a civil concern) enables the free expression of the gospel.
As with most things in the Christian life there is a tension here that defies simple, bumper-sticker answers, and we hate that. Don’t make me think, just give me the answer.
Pat, for the record — I didn’t say “do nothing.” My “not so fast” posture flows from a specific concern I have:
Promoting the Gospel in terms of anything other than repentance for the forgiveness of sins puts those terms ahead of the character and priorities of Christ.
Another way to look at it is that you run the risk of portraying Christ as merely effective — not essential.
We should not proclaim the Gospel because it works. We should proclaim it because it’s true.
With that in mind, tactical wisdom is necessary because the results-oriented world may or may not be interested in why the results come about.
On one hand, the effectiveness of the Gospel in transforming lives is powerful evidence for its validity. That may well induce people to consider the Gospel on Christ’s terms.
On the other hand, when people see something effective and find that it comes at a great cost, they usually start looking for shortcuts. For example, real nutrition and rigorous exercise are hard; they get traded for fad diets and “7-minute abs”.
Maybe the answer comes in two parts: First, tactically, we can argue that the Gospel will indeed bring about society’s best. Second, strategically, the Church must be prepared to defend the true Gospel from the temptation to cut corners or otherwise detract from the purity of the message.