If Franklin Graham came to PS 32 in NYC, in the middle of world history course for 8th graders and preached that Jesus died, rose again for their sins, it would be controversial, to say the least. In fact, it would be all over the news as well as blogs and several FB links. The outcry would be on the grounds of 'separation of church and state'. Pressed further, that argument would be an appeal to interpretation of the rules of the road, in this case, as they apply to speech in a publicly funded setting. But the outrage wouldn't be over the breaking of a rule. The outcry would be visceral and from the perspective that preaching Jesus in a public school, aside the prescription against mixing church and state, would be objectively wrong. Some might say that you can't force your opinions on to others, especially religious ones. Others might claim that Jesus being the only way to salvation is bigoted or that even suggesting something is wrong with us would be insulting.
In essence, Graham's preaching to a world history class in a public school would be considered a moral violation, in addition to being perceived just as rule breaking. Not only that, it would be considered normative and objective and universal moral violation. As the argument might go, preaching Jesus to kids in public school would be a real state of affairs that should never be permitted (normative). The same argument more than likely would conclude Graham's speech, or others like him, from preaching to kids in a public school should never be permissible, regardless of other opinions (objective) and that it would apply anywhere, at anytime, to anyone (universal).
Those with the outcry would come from a strict secular perspective where religion and state should not mix. Some might even be avid church goers, so it wouldn't necessarily split down the categories of religious and non-religious. The underlying and fundamental reason backing the secular idea would be that religion in general and Jesus in particular are not knowledge claims but only express cultural idioms and traditions. This isn't in the context of a school's curriculum but more behind the moral objections to bringing this sort of speech into a school to begin with. In this view, science gives knowledge. Mathematics gives knowledge. Any claims Graham has about Jesus are personal, individualized and isn't knowledge, per se. Along side science and mathematics, can there be knowledge claims about religious claims? Is knowledge purely gained from the five senses? Well, that's another topic (but a good one). I bring it up because it is related to this topic. What sort of moral arguments against Graham's speech are out there? Here's a summary of some that are popularly held.
Moral relativism believes that morals are relative to the individual or society and cannot be objective, normative or universal. Anyone who believes that Christianity is 'true for you but not for me' is subscribing to this thinking. There are several types in this category. There are those that just feel its wrong (emotivism), or that it simply expresses the desires of society (prescriptivism or imperativalism). However, if separation of church and state, in general, and someone like Graham preaching Jesus in a public school, in particular, is REALLY wrong, no matter who does it, where they do it, then there is an exception to the moral relativist, in this regard. But if there is this one exception, are there others? If pressed, it would seem that if morals are relative, then even a moral claim about moral relativism would have to also be relative. So, if the moral relativist is right, she's wrong and if she's wrong, she's still wrong, by her own rulebook. So out goes that theory. It certainly can't be used against Graham's alter call in world history class. Under moral relativism, neither Graham or those against him would have a moral argument that would apply to anyone outside of themselves or their group. There's simply no way to adjudicate between either side of that argument under moral relativism. What ends up with moral relativism is a inclination towards simple prescriptivism or imperativalism. In short, that's what you see on The View and other day time talk shows. Overpowering, rather than justification, is the game plan under those settings. If there happen to be more Graham supporters, then Graham wins. If there are more secularists, they win. Nothing more can be added. So much for that.
But then there are those that would not side with moral relativism and say what Graham did is really wrong. These folks would fall into two types: 1) ethical non-naturalists, like crazy evangelical and catholics (tongue in cheek, obviously) and 2) ethical naturalists. Ethical naturalists hold to objective moral values, so they would condemn Graham but it would be based on evolutionary biology. In other words, they would hold it as wrong because most people would hold to that value as a societal convention created for survival purposes. Most in this category are considered utilitarianists or those that believe the rules are based on maximizing outcomes, as outcomes are perceived by a species or society. You could have relativists that are utilitarians but there are also ethical naturalists that are as well. But the grounding feature of the latter folks would be evolutionary biology, more than likely. Graham, in this view, would be wrong because it goes against the tribe's rules and the tribe's rules are there for the survival of the tribe. In this case, the tribe would be America and the tribes rules would be having religion overlap in publicly funded settings.
So, do these views have any merit and how would they fare against Graham's speech? Ethical naturalism devolves, rather than evolves, into subjectivism...meaning, things aren't really right or wrong. The reason why is that they confuse an 'ought' with an 'is'. What does this mean? It means that saying something is really wrong, but then backing it up with it being attributable to biological or societal instinct is only describing behavior, rather than justifying anything or condemning anything. Describing the color of tree bark is entirely different from saying that tree bark should never be brown. Silly analogy, but you get the drift. You can't successfully go from the first description to the second prescription, without it ultimately being relative, subjective or privatized. Notwithstanding the persuasiveness of the argument, the naturalist would say that condemning Graham is how our society has chosen to protect and promulgate itself. But that isn't an argument against Graham's speech. It's just a perceived description of those that are against Graham. First, it could be an entirely different set of tribal rules are more effective at survival than those, in which case one would have to suspend judgment if cogent arguments were raised. Second, even if those were the best rules for survival, it wouldn't tell us anything regarding its rightness or wrongness. It would just be describing animal behavior. So, that's out.
What's left to argue against Graham's alter calls in a public school? Power. In the end, the only framework secularism can devise any moral propositions is through power. Whoever is in charge rules and whoever isn't doesn't. The only reason Graham's speech is detestable is because Graham isn't in charge. Secularism is in charge, so Graham is wrong. However, that also means that if Graham is in charge, then secularist arguments are all wet. In the end, secularist ethics devolve into king of the hill realities. I would contend the only reason why secularism's power struggle hasn't already devolved into bloodshed and tyranny is because of an old, fading Christian consensus. As that continues to fade, as it is today, there will only be the non-theistic cognitive and non-cognitive alternatives to morality and as we have seen, they can't hold any water and are really just power struggles disguised as arguments.
So, what would the Christian possibly argue against the Graham alter call? You might be surprised. Although the Hebrews in the Old Testament were a theocracy, initially (they became a monarchy before the kingdoms split), the New Testament recognizes a secular state, as was the reality in the 1st century as it increasingly has become today, and commands respect for those authorities. Romans 13 is a case in point. You can also go to Jesus' teachings about paying taxes to get the same principle. Why should the believer in Christ observe and respect secular authorities, even if they are anti-Christian? Two reasons are given in Scripture: 1) All human beings are given a moral barometer that reveals the character of God, whether they believe in God or not. This demands respect. 2) Love. Pure and simple, we are to love others and serve others. We are to show Jesus and be the salt and light He proclaimed we should be. The New Testament teaches under a setting of secular rule, not a theocracy, as some would try to incorrectly portray Scripture. So, Franklin Graham would probably not give an alter call in PS 32 world history class, out of obedience to these overarching biblical ethics. Would that mean Graham would simply not talk about Jesus? No. He would simply find a venue that would not create contention and contempt, so that he could show Jesus Christ, rather than another political power struggle. That's the Scriptural and real view of the situation at hand. We should be lovers, not fighters, because Jesus is our example. He didn't raise an army. He didn't protest the consulate. He told the truth, excepted the consequences of doing so, but never disrespected others. Quite the contrary, His entire ministry and His work on the cross is one of a servant.
So, only the evangelical, ironically, would have an argument. You may not agree with it, but the real issue at hand isn't whether you agree or disagree, but whether or not there are good reasons out there. Ironically, secularists' arguments all fail, morally speaking. Folks with an outcry against it may simply be emoting their feelings for or against, in what ultimately is only a power drama, rather than an argument about real right and wrong....or they are confusing a state of affairs with a moral argument and are skirting the issue altogether while claiming to be providing an answer to it. Only the believer's adherence to a moral sense that is inherent in all people, reflecting the character of God, rather than biology, sociology or relativist musings, is the only argument that stands. Again, you may not agree with it and there are arguments that can be taken. I will say that it can be sufficiently defended, but the point in this article is to put the cards on the table, given a specific situation and see how secularism fares. And it is a non-starter, despite itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment