Although the focus of the book is not political, in this chapter Dreher discusses what we ought to do politically: "The Benedict Option calls for a radical new way of doing politics, a hands-on localism..."
He notes that the 2016 Presidential election was not a hopeful one for committed Christians. This is not to say that recent elections have been much better, only that in this latest round, even the Republican candidate had given up pretending to offer much to Christian voters. His reward was 80% of the Evangelical vote, and the Presidency.
More importantly, although the State can be a threat to Christians who wish to live out their faith--just ask the Little Sisters of the Poor--ultimately, the State's power flows from the culture. So long as the culture is militantly secular and treats earnestly held Christian belief as a dangerous superstition, we will need to be on guard.
As he has taken pains to point out, Dreher is not advocating quietism. We must still do what we can in the political arena, even as we recognize that we may achieve very little. "The first goal of Benedict Option Christians in the world of conventional politics is to secure and expand the space within which we can be ourselves and build our own institutions."
For all that Dreher has been accused of being too pessimistic, I find the opposite to be true. It would be a quibble to chide him for misreading After Virtue; his intention is clearly to use MacIntyre as a springboard rather than develop that philosopher's thought. On the other hand, it is fair to ask whether MacIntyre sees more clearly than does Dreher, at least insofar as the political situation is concerned, for this will alter the political component of the Benedict Option.
The notion that there is any space within which orthodox Christians can build their own institutions is a dubious one. Clearly, we are still granted that privilege now, and it would be dishonest to suggest we cannot have what we currently possess. However, one of the contentions of the book is that the State has expanded its sphere beyond any reasonable bounds. In Obergefell, the court insisted that the State has the right to redefine the institution of marriage, which is to say, human nature itself. That conceit has been on full display in the push for transgender rights.
It's possible that Christians will be left alone, and they probably will--for a time. But the logic of Obergefell is totalitarian. To disagree with gay marriage is not to express a different understanding, it is to challenge the ability of the State to decide. Hence the vitriol over florists, bakers and the like who refuse to acquiesce.
I hesitate to think what people would have thought of Dreher had he cast doubt on the validity of liberalism itself--though that is what MacIntyre did, I think rightly. Suffice it to say that even the very modest goals Dreher proposes may prove too much for the State to grant us. Time will tell. It behooves to do what we can to enshrine religious liberty in law, but we would do well to put no more faith in that than we do in princes.
Dreher's examination of Czech dissident Vaclav Havel is more valuable. For Havel, the essential thing was to live in truth. Dreher borrows Havel's example of a greengrocer who refuses to display the sign: "Workers of the World, Unite!" in his shop window. He will be punished for this, precisely because his act addresses the lie inherent in the communist propaganda. For Havel, this wasn't a foolish protest; it was authentic and important. Comforting words, one hopes, for the aforementioned beleaguered bakers and florist. Havel wrote that: "Only by living a better life can a better system be developed."
Dreher also draws inspiration from the pro-life movement. They haven't stopped trying to overturn Roe v. Wade. But they have focused their efforts on creating a culture of life, for instance, by opening crisis pregnancy centers to give mothers a better option for them and their child. Whatever the State may do to us, in the meantime, there is urgent work to be done.
Friday, April 21, 2017
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"in this latest round, even the Republican candidate had given up pretending to offer much to Christian voters. His reward was 80% of the Evangelical vote, and the Presidency."
Interesting to note in this case that the likelihood of voting for Trump was inversely proportionate with a person's frequency of church attendance. Dreher emphasizes, especially in interviews that he has done, that Trump, even if he were a saint, cannot by himself restore American culture to a point of being friendly to Christendom. At most, Trump has bought us a little more time from more extreme repression.
"As he has taken pains to point out, Dreher is not advocating quietism. We must still do what we can in the political arena, even as we recognize that we may achieve very little."
Bishop Barron used a great analogy for this. He described a huge World War II battle in which allied forces were being sent against the enemy, and no matter how long they kept attacking the enemy just mowed them down and many thousands were lost. The armies had to pull back, regroup, and devise a different plan.
"It's possible that Christians will be left alone, and they probably will--for a time. But the logic of Obergefell is totalitarian."
At times I think that the only thing to do is let the forest fire burn itself out, but then I wonder how much of the city it will take with it if we do.
Great post!
Post a Comment