The Acton Institute: At the Intersection of Christianity, Capitalism, and Nihilism


Source: Pakistan Today

Source: Pakistan Today

The Acton Institute is a Christian organization that seeks to promote individual liberty based upon religious principles. Put another way, it’s a Christian organization that attempts to uphold individualism, so you can probably see where this is going.

While they do have many good things to say, overall – especially when it comes to their economic views – they tend to let conservative (Austrian) economics walk ahead of their Christian beliefs. While they do attempt to tie their beliefs back to Christianity, it’s often filtered heavily through a dedicated philosophical viewpoint; the end product is something that would appear foreign to the early Christians. Of course, the same can be said of Christian Marxists or Christian Communists who look at the book of Acts and go, “See, Communism!” But just as we think it silly to justify Communism via Scripture, it’s equally absurd to justify individualism (or laissez-faire capitalism) via Scripture.

Enter Joe Carter’s latest article, making an argument in defense of sweatshops. To give some background onto why he would do this, let me just quote him:

Liberal and conservative, right and left, red state and blue state—there are dozens, if not hundreds of ways to divide political and economic lines. But one of the most helpful ways of understanding such differences is recognizing the divide between advocates of proximate justice and absolute justice…

The primary appeal of absolute justice is its purity. Why align with compromisers and those who are satisfied with “good enough” when you can fight for full justice? Being satisfied with proximate justice sounds more like an excuse to do less rather than a principled position.

The primary appeal of proximate justice is its realism. Since absolute justice is not attainable this side of the new heaven and new earth, settling for less is the best we can ever expect. When absolute justice is our standard we can even end up allowing injustice to continue and flourish.

 

With that understanding, he goes on to write:

But first I want introduce one of the most paradigmatic, and controversial, of proximate justice positions: the defense of sweatshops.

A sweatshop is the pejorative term for a workplace that has working conditions those of us in the West deem socially unacceptable. Because of Western laws and norms, sweatshops are now found mostly in developing countries…

The absolute justice advocate would say that the working conditions in sweatshops are unacceptable—and the proximate justice advocate would agree. But the proximate justice advocate would ask, “What are the alternatives?” Invariably, the absolute justice advocate’s preference is either unworkable, unrealistic, or would lead to worse living conditions for the sweatshop worker.

Proximate justice requires that we don’t improve people’s lives or bring them justice by making their lives worse. As Benjamin Powell says, “Because sweatshops are better than the available alternatives, any reforms aimed at improving the lives of workers in sweatshops must not jeopardize the jobs that they already have.”

To summarize Carter’s own words, the argument is essentially, “Yeah, sweatshops aren’t ideal, but they’re better than nothing, so it is what it is.” He points out that in places such as China, while we might find the conditions deplorable, the Chinese factory workers like it because it’s better than the alternative:

What Chang is saying is that whether we understand or agree, the Chinese workers believe accepting their current working conditions is better for them than their realistic alternatives and that the work will help them to life a better life. Many of us intuitively understand this point because it has to with meeting material needs (e.g., without the factory job the workers might not be able to feed their families). What we have a harder time understanding is when people endure less-than-optimal working conditions for other needs, such as self-actualization.

Thus, the argument boils down to that while things might not be ideal, they’re better than an alternative, or, it’s better to be a slave than to starve. Now Carter would certainly object to such a summary, but his objection would be without merit as it’s almost word-for-word what he says, only without the round-about way of saying it.  Continue reading

Further Thoughts on Planned Parenthood or, Why Not the Church?


IMG_0330The debate and controversy over abortion might seem relatively new, something arriving in the last century, but in the ancient world the practice of abortion wasn’t entirely uncommon. Both the Greeks and Romans engaged in it, as well as infanticide. The early Christians, unsurprisingly, forbade abortion and infanticide. The morality of protecting human life within Christianity is a constant from our foundation to the present day, but how that life is protected has changed. In our earliest days the Church would take care of women or abandoned babies, helping them along the way. Today we protest and petition Caesar, whereas in the ancient days Christians protested the action, but petitioned the heart. Therein lies the difference.

With all the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood and its utility to a community contrasted against the abortions it provides, there’s one question few people have asked: Why has Planned Parenthood supplanted the Church? Why is it that a pregnant woman, unable to provide for her pregnancy, is sooner found knocking on the door of her local clinic rather than her local church? Even if she doesn’t seek abortion and instead seeks medical aid, the Church seems to be the last place she’ll go. It seems that we’re faithful to our roots in keeping our morality, but not in living our morality.

What is the greater harm to the world; a doctor selling the parts of a baby, or a Christian refusing to provide church funds to help a pregnant woman because she “conceived in sin?” Perhaps we could argue over which is worse – and certain trafficking and profiteering in human body parts ranks up there – but it’s impossible to deny that our actions are somewhat responsible for the current evils. What if, when a woman needed prenatal care, she knew she could go to her local Church and they could at least get her in with the right services? What if she knew a local member who would employ her and give her maternity leave, without fear of losing her job? What if she knew that all her needs – and the needs of her child – could be met by the simple act of walking into a Church? Even with the State’s blessing on abortion, surely we’d see abortion rates plummet.

Perhaps our problem is we see the abortion debate as a debate over an issue and not over persons. Abortion, as a term, is quite abstract. As someone trained in philosophy I can sit here and provide solid arguments on why a fetus is a human being with certain rights and never once mention religious reasons, but such a debate often ignores the realities of the world. After all, once aware a Holocaust was taking place in Europe, the world did not engage in academic debates over whether it was right or wrong, but acted against it. Likewise, there is no real debate over the rightness or wrongness of abortion, everyone, at some level, knows it’s wrong. But few, especially within the Church, are taking action against it beyond calling for legislative change. I believe we act this way because we treat abortion as an issue and not as a crisis of humanity.

Yet, abortion is a crisis in every sense of the term. That a woman feels her only resort is to kill her child in order to get by in life indicates she faces crises in her life, that pregnancy is the last one and she cannot handle it. Abortion is the act of taking one life, but always takes two souls; the body of the child is crushed and destroyed and the soul is lost, but the mother’s soul faces years of pondering and regret thereafter. Abortion is always a tragedy, for both the child and mother, for while the two are separate, they are linked.

The solution to ending abortion is to act as our forefathers did, to engage the person and serve the community. Where our ancestors had an advantage – they were unified and didn’t have thousands of denominations to overcome – we are disadvantaged, but the present time requires us to put aside some differences for the common good. Perhaps we can pool our resources and begin to offer an alternative, a better organized alternative, to Planned Parenthood. While we may never be unified in the time of the Divine Mysteries, perhaps we can find enough unity to protect life and bring a little more light into this dark world.

Lions, Tigers, and Humans, Oh My! About the Life and Outrage


Kevin Carter's famous Pulitzer Prize winning photo, 1993

Kevin Carter’s famous Pulitzer Prize winning photo, 1993

As everyone has heard, Walter Palmer of the United States shot Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe, causing international outrage and making people hate dentists even more than usual. People are rightfully upset; the lion posed no threat to Palmer, he merely wanted to mount the head (and leave the body) as a trophy, the death served no purpose, and worst of all, the killing was illegal. People are (rightfully) calling for prosecution against him. Others have gone a bit further, arguing that we ought to capture him, hunt him, tie him down, and skin him alive. Of course, such suggestions are hyperbolic, but the rage is there.

Where we aren’t seeing any anger or rage, however, is over other doctors choosing to kill humans and sell their body parts. The videos are so upsetting that even Planned Parenthood’s staunch defender Hillary Clinton admitted that the organization ought to be investigated. Imagine if Jimmy Kimmel broke down in tears over this controversy, or Piers Morgan called for the killing and selling of the doctor’s body parts. Why is it that a lion – majestic though it is – gains more sympathy and attention than a human being, who is infinitely more majestic than a lion?

Rage also lacks in multiple other areas. There are no celebrities shedding tears over the fact that one in three people in sub-Saharan Africa face hunger and starvation on a daily basis, or that nearly half (46%) live on less than $1.25 a day. Africa remains a continent in crisis, but we avoid outrage because such outrage would demand action, and action requires work, and we’re lazy. It’s understandable and noble to be upset over the unjust killing of an African lion; but it’s inexcusable to lack any feeling or outrage over the death or suffering of an African human.

Rage lacks – at least for the white portion of America’s population – for African-Americans who live in fear of the police. A week can’t go by where we hear about another innocent black man (or recently, black woman) getting killed by the police under suspicious circumstances (at best). Yet, more energy is spent over the unjust death of a lion than the unjust death of a black man in an Ohio Walmart, or black child in an Ohio park, or black woman in a Texas jail cell.

The saying “life is cheap” isn’t exactly true; for Dr. Palmer to kill Cecil the Lion it has cost him his business, his reputation, and – hopefully – his freedom. The man deserves justice for what he has done, there is no doubt. Life, for Dr. Palmer, certainly isn’t cheap and comes with a cost. But, there is a certain truthfulness to the saying if we simply say, “Human life is cheap,” unless of course you’re Planned Parenthood, in which case human life is quite profitable.

Lord knows we can’t be outraged over every act of murder, over every loss of life, as we’d simply stew in anger for the rest of our days. It seems that as humans we sometimes require violence on our brethren almost as much as we require oxygen. Their blood is our water, their body is our bread in some twisted, evil, demonic version of the Eucharist. Perhaps, however, we should show some outrage over the loss of human lives. Not just hashtags on Twitter, but protests and – hopefully – action. Not on a legislative level, but on a personal, communal level.

We can ask the government to investigate Planned Parenthood (and we should require such a thing), but we can’t ask them to investigate the life of a woman considering an abortion. Only on the local level can a community come together and help such a woman and provide care. We can ask the government to send money and food to Africa, but we can’t ask them to do so in a sustainable way. After all, such an action is basically neo-colonialism, and colonialism is what got Africa into this mess in the first place. Until we begin to help Africans make Africa stronger on a personal and communal level, we won’t see much change. We can ask the government to put laws in place that keep police accountable, and we should, but there’s only so much they can do. Until the community – especially the white community – stands up against police abuses against African-Americans and other minorities, nothing will change in any drastic way.

Human life is valuable by virtue of being human. Human life is more valuable than any other type of life on this planet. That doesn’t give us an excuse to abuse such life (because we are dependent upon it, and they are still God’s creation and we are their stewards, not masters), it does mean that for all the noble and justified effort we put into preserving animal life, we ought to put at least as much into preserving human life. After all, when we cheapen human life, whether that life belongs to a fetus, a person of a different color, or a person of a different nationality, we inherently devalue our own life as well.

Oh the Things You Shall Never See: The Culmination of Individualism


IMG_0259What began as a YouTube video spreading across mostly conservative websites has gained some attention from mainstream media outlets. That video is, of course, of a Planned Parenthood executive admitting to selling body parts (or, as Planned Parenthood clarified, “tissue” for research), which is not only explicitly illegal, it’s highly unethical. I’ve written enough about abortion on this site that, I believe, there’s simply no refuting the absolute immorality of the act. By every scientific standard, from conception to birth, what exists inside a woman and grows within her is a human being.

After all, we wouldn’t say that in donating a limb, lung, or leg that we’re donating the woman’s limb, lung, or leg. Everyone, regardless of their leanings on pro-choice or pro-life, admits that what’s being sold by Planned Parenthood was formerly the fetus, not formerly the mother. It’s not her body we’re selling, it’s the fetus’ body we’re selling; so to say a woman can do what she wants with her body, while true, is inapplicable in the abortion debate as the fetus isn’t a part of her body (in the same way that her skin, or arm, or heart is a part of her body).

But what is true is that the fetus is entirely dependent upon the mother for existence. Up until about 7-8 months (thanks to modern medicine), a fetus must depend upon the mother’s body for sustenance. It is here where many attempt to make the ethical argument for bodily autonomy: The mother is autonomous from the fetus, therefore even though the fetus is a human being, and human beings are entitled to rights, those rights cannot trump the autonomy of the body. In other words, at the very moment you impact my body I can kill you.

I’ve written about the contradictions conservatives show in being pro-life while supporting anti-life actions, but liberals aren’t any better. See, abortion is ultimately an argument that arises from individualism. One cannot, within the bounds of reason, sanity, and science, argue against the humanity of the fetus or embryo. It is a human being and there is nothing magical about vaginas (or C-sections) wherein a fetus is sprinkled with fairy dust and comes out a new creature, a human being. From conception to birth, from infancy to childhood, from childhood to adolescence, from adolescence to adulthood, from adulthood to elderly, we’re dealing with a human being. Human beings, by virtue of being human beings, hold innate value; if we did not, then a majority gets to decide who has value and who doesn’t, and if history is any indicator allowing the majority to decide who is valuable and who isn’t always ends in horrible things.

The only real defense for abortion – other than appealing to the practical outcomes, such as healthcare, woman’s future, and so on, which though real concerns are not arguments for choice as they’re arguments against a horrible system – is to appeal to the autonomy of the individual. But who among us is actually autonomous? Who among us can say that we live in a vacuum where our decisions do not impact the world, where we can live in complete isolation without aid from anyone else? The idea of individual autonomy is a leftover value from the Enlightenment, and it’s a horrible value, one that acts as a centerpiece for Randian Objectivism, modern conservatism, modern liberalism, and pretty much any daft frat boy roaming a college campus. The idea that as individuals we are autonomous is just stupid on the face of it, but somehow it’s held as a sacred and divine right when it comes to abortion (and only to abortion).

Think about it: Does a business owner have a right to do anything and everything he wants with his company? After all, if he’s an autonomous individual, why should he be held accountable to his employees (in treating them fairly)? Why should we, as a society, care about the poor, or bombing other countries, or about any societal obligations if we are autonomous individuals? We can’t say, “Do what you want so long as you don’t harm anyone,” because abortion harms a distinct, different, and wholly other individual.  In the end, we must acknowledge that we do have ethical obligations to others, and the closer the relationship (especially our involvement in creating that relationship), the bigger those obligations become.

See, Americans are individualists when it’s convenient. Americans are apt to speak about being fulfilled in a marriage, but hardly ever in fulfilling a marriage. An American might defend a woman’s right to her own body when it comes to abortion, but criticize that same body if it gets too fat for our tastes. We believe we have a right to do what we want with our bodies, but by God you better not smoke in my vicinity. When you smoke in public, your actions towards your body impact those around you; when you get an abortion, your actions towards impact the fetus within you. In both cases, your choices negatively impact another human being.

Our obsession with an individualism of convenience allows us to never question which sweatshop made our clothes, never allows us to question the treatment of workers, never allows us question abortion. By ignoring our societal obligations we continue to rob human beings of life, both in the womb and even outside of the womb (do you think we were thinking about the common good when we bombed the hell out of Iraq?). “So long as there is life, there is hope,” so the maxim goes. But if we consistently destroy life for our selfish desires, no matter how noble we think those desires might be, then what hope do we have?

So yes, what Planned Parenthood is doing is quite disgusting, but it simply adds to the already horrendous act of abortion. It’s quite sad that a group that offers other good services – needed services – to women feels it must engage in such a horrible act. Some attempt to say that, “yes, but abortions only account for a fraction of what they do!” But who cares? If abortion is the taking of a human life, does it matter what percentage it accounts for? Abortion in and of itself is wrong and it’s quite difficult to make a strong argument in support of abortion. Again, the only legitimate arguments boil down to the health of the mother, the cost of healthcare, the sacrificing of the mother’s career, placing the child in perpetual poverty, and so on; but all of these deal with procedural failures on the part of our society and speak nothing to whether it’s right or wrong to kill a fetus.

In the end, we really need to look at ourselves and ask if this is a society we want. Do we really want a society where not only we allow the killing of other human beings, we allow the profiting off of their body parts? Do we want to live in a world where life isn’t valued, but harvested? Such a world is dark and disgusting, but such a world has existed in the past, and we condemn previous generations for allowing that world to exist. Shall we be condemned as well?

There is no “Us or Them”


“We reject the either or
They can’t define us anymore
Cause if it’s us or them
It’s us for them
It’s us for them”

– Gungor

Last year Gungor released a delightfully dark, lyrically deep, and musically sophisticated album entitled I Am Mountain. Michael Gungor, the band’s founder and front man, also wrote an honest and insightful blog exploring his doubts about biblical literalism and fundamentalism. As a result, they were heavily criticized and even anathematized by many conservative evangelicals (Cf. Ken Ham, Q90 FM Radio, & Al Mohler).

On a personal note, I was living in Wake Forest at the time the controversy broke out and very disappointed when, at the last minute, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary canceled a Gungor concert I had been planning to attend for six months.

Gungor recently released a new song entitled “Us for Them” (which is embedded above). I find the song both moving and inspiring; especially in the wake of the tragedy in Charleston and the backlash regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage. Nevertheless, I suspect, it will only embroil Gungor in even more controversy.

The reason for this is simple: it calls for us to love unconditionally. 

Rejecting the Either/Or

Gungor’s song decries our fallen tendency to divid people into categories (e.g., white/black, cool/uncool, rich/poor, educated/ignorant, gay/straight, etc.), to stigmatize and judge, and to segregate and hate. This is the either/or that Gungor rejects and which fuels their declamation against those who would “define us”. Many, however, will misunderstand the message. They will, instead, interpret it as an attack on objective truth.

After all, one might argue that, to reject the either/or distinction is to violate the law of non-contradiction; literally to say that A is both A and Not-A at the same time and in the same sense. If this is true,”Us for Them” advocates the logically absurd and is, ultimately, a misguided call for us to embrace moral relativism.

To interpret the song in this way, however, would be misguided. For Gungor is not attacking the laws of logic, nor are they denying the possibility of objective truth. They are, in fact, doing the exact opposite. They are affirming the objective existence of the God who is love and who loves all men unconditionally; and calling for us to follow His example. 

Two Ways of Viewing Humanity

Broadly speaking, there are two ways of viewing humanity. The first way denies that human beings have an essential nature–i.e., a “what-it-is” to be human. According to this view, humanity is merely a random collection of accidental properties and what it is to be human is contingent upon the vacillating whims of society and individuals.

The second way affirms human beings have an essential nature–i.e., that there is a “what-it-is” to be human. According to this view, humanity is more than a mere random collection of accidental properties and what it is to be human is an objective feature of reality. This means that what it is to be human does not depend upon accidental features of individual human beings (e.g., the color of your skin, your social status, your sexual orientation, etc.).

Christianity views humanity in the second way.  It maintains people are essentially good, in as much as they are made in the image and likeness of God. For the Christian, all human beings are intrinsically valuable and worthy of love in spite of their accidental properties. This means that you are valuable, you have dignity and worth, and are lovable, in spite of the way you look, the level of your IQ, or the things you’ve done.

It is the second way of viewing humanity, through the eyes of Christ, that Gungor’s new song champions. As such it stands squarely against those who define and judge other human beings in terms of some accidental feature of their existence. It is, thus, opposed to any worldview that would cause us to hate another human being due to their race, age, religion, or sexual orientation.

“Our Only War is Love”

To reject the either/or–i.e. humanities fallen tendency to divid, categorize, and judge others based upon accidental features of their existence–is to call for us to love one anther as Jesus does: unconditionally.

To embrace the way of love is literally to wage war on our fallen dispositions and against the fallen world system. It is to stare in the face of ISIS with open arms, as Jesus did on the cross: praying for the very people who murdered him.  It is to look at all of humanity, regardless of their sins, and to see the very image of God; to see that there is no “us or them.”

It seems appropriate to close with these words from St. Maximus the Confessor:

“For him who is perfect in love and has reached the summit of dispassion there is no difference between his own or another’s, or between Christians and unbelievers, or between slave and free, or even between male and female. But because he has risen above the tyranny of the passions and has fixed his attention on the single nature of man, he looks on all in the same way and shows the same disposition to all. For in him there is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, bond nor free, but Christ who ‘is all, and in all”

Christians are Facing Persecution in America: Church Burnings and Racism


Chuck Burton / AP

Chuck Burton / AP

Since the Supreme Court decision on Friday the talk is about the coming persecution of Christians, but we act like persecution isn’t already occurring within the United States for Christians. The fact is, Christians in the US have faced persecution since its foundation; the constant threat of being beaten for prayer, for being arrested for going to church, or for even having that church burned (or bombed). Of course, we don’t often think of Christians being persecuted in America because what we mean is we’re afraid of white Christians facing persecution: The black church has faced persecution from its foundation, and continues to face that persecution.

Consider that in just five days, six traditionally black churches were burned to the ground. Not in the 1950s, but in 2015. Yet, the media has remained mostly silent on the issue. That’s simply how it’s been for a number of years. The African American community has fear when pulled over by the police, has fear in their own neighborhoods, and has fear when they go to church.

If a pro-homosexual group or atheist group were burning mostly white churches, there’d be constant news coverage, constant Facebook updates, and the whole circus would show up. As it is, however, these churches represent the African American community, and therefore no one is really talking about it or doing anything to challenge the fact that it’s happening.

An African American church faces a gunman and nine people die. Six African American churches burn to the ground. All of this happens within a week. But it’s the gays getting married I’m supposed to worry about. But what about my black brothers and sisters, who simply wish to worship the same Christ I worship, must fear for their lives in attending their houses of worship. How can we not see that persecution is already here? How can we refuse to act or do anything to help?

I wish I had an answer, but I don’t. I wish I could place some big conclusion here that wraps up everything above, but I can’t. I can’t because it seems that for all our effort to remove the Confederate Flag, we’re unwilling to remove the racism that flag represents. That racism turns into persecution and attacks the central aspect of most African American communities (especially in the South), the church. I wish I could say things will get better, but it seems that most Christians will choose to keep their eyes glued to gays getting married than to the actual persecution that continues to their black brothers and sisters. That the world and media would ignore the plight of our black brothers and sisters is bad enough, but somewhat expected. That we would is shameful and sinful, and it has to stop. Our refusal to deal with the problem of racism – a mostly one-sided problem stemming from white people – is getting people killed and perpetuates fear within the black community. It has to stop.

Great, Now We All Have to be Fabulous: On Gay Marriage and the End of the World


us_gay1Today the United States Supreme Court ruled that states can’t outlaw homosexual marriage. It’s a move that really doesn’t surprise anyone and of course will leave liberal activists saying, “It’s about time” and conservative activists decrying the decision as “tyranny from the bench.” Of course, the world has yet to end, it still turns, day turns into night, we all have jobs to go to, and life goes on.

Of course, reading mostly Christian websites, one would be left with the impression that the government has changed the entire definition of marriage and that the end of the world as we know it is upon us. We’re met with overreaction after overreaction, hyperbolic statements, and hypotheticals that will probably occur at some point in the future (decades, if not centuries, down the road), but not tomorrow. If – as Christians believe – marriage is established by God then marriage was never within the State’s domain. Technically, especially from a sacramental view of marriage, all marriage licenses have been an attempt by the government to reinterpret marriage and all have been equally invalid; under a sacramental view of marriage, only marriages within the Church (or later consecrated by the Church) are truly legitimate. What the State defines as marriage is by nature separate from what the Church defines as marriage (unless we’ve been in a theocracy all these years and I didn’t know it).

Think about it: how does this modern ruling impact the “sanctity of marriage?” The sanctity of marriage was gone long before the movement came about for homosexual marriage. When the American divorce rate is still high (especially for late Baby Boomers/Generation X’ers, and showing no signs of abating for late Generation X’ers/early Millenials), how can we say we hold marriage sacred? When the average American family will spend more time apart due to careers and daycare than they will together and such an economic system is rabidly defended by the same people who decry homosexual marriage, exactly what’s so sacred about marriage? Even on a more base level, for those who have done away with the sacraments, how can marriage be sacred? If there is no sacrament to marriage then it’s impossible for marriage to be sacred. In other words, we did away with the sanctity of marriage long ago, long before there was a movement for gay rights.

That isn’t to say there aren’t some reasons to worry. After all, it’s not impossible to imagine a scenario in which a church is sued because they won’t officiate a homosexual wedding or refuse to rent out their property for a homosexual wedding. If a baker is sued for refusal then what arbitrary line do we place between the baker and the church; regardless of one’s personal beliefs, both engage in a commercial endeavor. Why, then, should the baker be forced to participate but not the church? This is one argument that I foresee coming to the forefront of the next part of the debate. More than likely, people will idiotically attempt to remove the tax-exempt status from churches, forgetting that they exist based on donations anyway and would qualify as tax-exempt regardless of their religious nature (and to ban their tax-exempt status simply because they have a religious affiliation would be a gross violation of the First Amendment).

Yet, even if such a world came to be – and such a world will probably come to be within a few decades to a few centuries – Christians have only themselves to blame. Unlike persecution in the Middle East, where Christians suffer merely for existing, anything that would bear the semblance of persecution within the US was brought about by the hands of Christians. Rather than through prayer, love, and spreading the Gospel, we attempted to ban homosexual unions using the tools of the State. We tried to protect that which is sacred by utilizing that which is secular, which isn’t necessarily wrong (such as using the State to protect the sacred nature of life), but when it becomes the primary tool it becomes wrong. After all, “We war not against flesh and blood, but against principalities.” But for the past three decades the Religious Right has warred against everything, declaring war on people, using the government as a weapon, and such a tactic has consistently backfired.

Had Christians, early on in this debate, recognized that marriage doesn’t belong to the State to begin with and rather utilized civil unions, one must ask if today would have ever occurred. If the State dealt exclusively with civil unions and removed itself from the marriage game, then what would have changed? Rather, Christians attempted to enforce their view of marriage – a view that isn’t even solidified within the Christian community (as Orthodox, Catholics, and other sacramental elements differ on the nature of marriage than say, Baptists, Pentecostals, and so on) – upon a secular institution. They then used the natural to defend the supernatural. But as is the case, always, the natural ate up the sacred.

The world did not end today, nor will it end because of homosexual marriages. Perhaps, and one can only hope, Christians will realize they have to begin acting like Christians. Rather than ostracizing and creating political outcasts, or attempting to legislate the Gospel into existence, they will see the importance of living it. Maybe they’ll finally abandon the Religious Right, dying an undignified and very deserving death in the Republican primary (where all typical Religious Right candidates trail behind Jeb Bush and Donald Trump…welcome to America!). Then again, they probably won’t, but hey, I can dream, right?