One day, I was explaining the tension between modernity and
fidelity to orthodox Christianity and the implications of that
discord to an intern. Nodding along, she interrupted my eloquent
lecture: “Yeah, it’s like, we go to church, but we also watch
The Daily Show.”
Exactly.
The troublesome relationship between Christianity and its
cultural surroundings is nothing new. A chunk of the New Testament
is devoted to instructions for churches in Galatia, Ephesus,
Philippi and Rome struggling to figure out what it means, exactly,
to be “Christian.” Two-thousand years later, the Church continues
to struggle with similar questions, albeit with a twist. The sect
went viral. Some folks even got on a boat and established a new
nation based on the idea that human beings were endowed by God with
some fundamental rights. Soon, the script was flipped. It was no
longer about carving out a unique witness in the midst of pagan
culture, but about preserving the Christian story in a somewhat
theistic one.
Or, as my intern explained, it’s a showdown: Orthodoxy versus
Oprah-doxy.
There was a time when ideas were taken seriously, considered
carefully, and implemented cautiously. When Abraham Lincoln ran
against Stephen Douglas, they engaged in debate seven times in
three months. Each time, one candidate would speak for 60-minutes,
the other would give a 90-minute response, followed by a 30-minute
rejoinder. The nation was captivated.
More recently, William F. Buckley’s Firing Line gave
the stalwart grandfather of the modern conservative movement
opportunity to engage in lengthy dialogue and debate with leading
intellectuals in a variety of fields ranging from politics to
literature. In 1988, the show was reduced from 60-minutes to
thirty; in 2000, Buckley stepped down.
Intellectual curiosity still exists in pockets in the United
States, but more common is a pseudo-intellectual curiosity of the
sort evidenced by Sunday morning talk shows, Sudoku and Starbucks.
One need not explore the history and heritage of furniture to give
the appearance of taste; just go to Pottery Barn.
More common still is intellectual abandonment. Americans don’t
think, they feel. They stumble through life gut first. Such
e-motion stems from a culture that preaches “Baby, you were born
that way,” and is subsidized by mediating social institutions —
families, schools, the media — built on shifting sand. The result
is an ever-expanding nanny state that refuses to allow its chicks
to experience — and learn from — negative consequences.
One victim of this is marriage. Senator Rob Portman is the
latest to allow his heart to supersede his brain on this issue, but
he won’t be the last. Those who understand what marriage is and why
it matters have a two-fold task: first, to teach their lessons far
and wide; second, to recognize the superiority of emotional
arguments and make some.
What is marriage? It’s a permanent, exclusive bond between one
man and one woman for the creation and nurturing of children. Why
does marriage matter? Because experience and data tell us that
family breakdown — especially the absence of fathers — results in
calamity. Expensive calamity.
No amount of love from two moms can replace the contribution of
a dad; and no amount of love from two dads can replace the role of
mom. Someone should ask Rob Portman which of his parents was
extraneous.
Preserving the traditional meaning of marriage has nothing to do
with the morality of certain forms of sexual expression. In a free
society, the state should preserve the right of consenting adults
to do what they want within the broad confines of the law. Where
certain inequities exist in the law, legislative fixes can be made
without undermining the unique role of marriage as a social good.
For example, the Windsor case coming before the Supreme
Court results from a taxation disparity. Rather than redefining
marriage for the nation, wouldn’t it make sense to simply repeal
the Death Tax? Everyone wins.
CPAC 2013 was a depressing showcase for those of us who
understand what marriage is and why it matters. Conservatives
passionately cheered for the next round of presidential hopefuls,
waved “Stand with Rand” signs, and had their picture taken with
Michele Bachmann. But few remember that the party to whom they are
so devoted was founded in opposition to the “twin relics of
Barbarism” slavery and polygamy. In contrast, freedom and marriage
stood as the twin pillars of society, sufficient cause for a new
political movement.
As marriage is lost, whether to emotion or the sycophantic
pursuit of political victory, can freedom be far behind?
