How Should We Then Live Part 9: The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence (II)

Switching gears somewhat Schaeffer turns to the question of 'arbitrary law' and the relativism born of it.

Again, he misses the inherent contradictions between democracy (along with concepts such as rights, the social contract and public consensus) contrasted with republicanism and its commitment to rule of law and its necessary (if occasional) reliance on anti-democratic authoritarian principle when challenged – a check to the power of the demos or in later contexts, the mob.

Schaeffer's view – which is interesting in light of his patriotism and Christian America narrative – is a view many American intellectuals and political theorists would consider to be anti-American in that (according to Schaefer) democracy only functions within a social consensus. If the consensus collapses then the society will collapse or authoritarian powers must be exercised in order to restore and retain it. It's a view that almost begs for an oligarchic structure utilising custodial powers.

He's actually an authoritarian believing the law-empowered state is supreme but that when there's a consensus one can have a limited form of democracy.

Aside from the fact that this is many ways is a rejection of Classical Liberalism and smacks more of the old order the Founder's rejected, there is also the question that must be asked – does this view even reflect the realities of American history? Schaeffer and others seem to suggest this supposed consensus existed until the 1960's, but is that so? It's beyond the scope of this critical essay to dive into American history but it's safe to say that the narrative doesn't square with the facts. The so-called Christian consensus is upon examination revealed to be mostly fictitious and the advocates of such a view not only tend to play fast and loose with historical facts and events but there's definitely a romantic gloss to their presentation.

It also must be said, that in the aftermath of the Civil War the Federal government took on a different character especially in light of the 14^th Amendment and the concept of equal protection. Rather than enforce an authoritarian order (based on the fiction of Originalism) the Federal government was empowered to guarantee equal protection for all citizens. As this was implemented in the 20^th century, Schaeffer and many on the Right cry foul, 'Federal overreach', and even tyranny – but of course if the Federal government intervened in a similar manner for their causes they would laud the effort and deem it a necessary corrective to the tyranny of the 51% or mob rule.

The 14^th Amendment (right or wrong) is intended to be an outworking and application of the concept of all men being created equal and the federal government is granted powers to override state and local laws in order to ensure this reality. It's exactly the kind of authoritarian check to democracy Schaeffer seems to want – but once again when the politics are wrong they seem to find such political expressions to be tantamount to tyranny. Schaeffer seems to want a federal government that intervenes on the basis of 'Thou shalt not', while the 14^th Amendment seems to be built on the premise of 'Thou shall' – implying that states, businesses, schools etc. must include minorities – and of course shall not exclude them.

The only argument against this view of Federal and Supreme Court custodial authority (as a check to local or state democracy which has fallen into anti-Constitutional tyranny) is a kind of 'states rights' libertarian framework which while popular today is not something Schaeffer embraces – a point we will return to momentarily.

Falling into a non sequitir Schaeffer tries to draw a parallel between the 'arbitrary law' of the Communist bloc and the threat of arbitrary law in the United States as expressed in the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973 – which is an example of federal law overriding state law on the basis of a constitutional argument.

Once again, this is to willfully ignore much of American history and jurisprudence. Indeed the 20^th century saw a real crisis in the democracy-republicanism dynamic – once again especially in light of WWII. I know Schaeffer and the many proponents of the 'Originalist' fiction of Constitutional jurisprudence would argue that historical events and social changes cannot affect the unchangeable law – but no traditionalist legal scholar (or credible historian) would agree.

Portions of the Constitution were left deliberately vague for future generations to suss out. Other portions were left vague and unelaborated as a form of compromise. The amendment process points to the fact that the drafters and ratifiers did not share the Originalist view that even goes so far as to actually posit that many portions of the Constitution (in the form of amendments) are in fact unconstitutional. They treat the 14^th Amendment's modification (and partial nullification) of the 10^th Amendment as unconstitutional but this argument fails in terms of Constitutional law and certainly on the basis of stare decisis – 150 years of precedent cannot easily be dispensed with. The fact that this supposedly 'unconstitutional' amendment to the Constitution has stood so long gives it considerable legal standing.

Other concepts like Judicial Review were once deemed controversial and still are by some Originalists, but given that the concept was established in 1803, it's hard to argue against it. Indeed, to overturn Marbury v. Madison would require a complete overhaul of American jurisprudence. It's just ironic that so many on the Right are outraged by the power given to the Supreme Court with the idea of Judicial Review but at the same time men like Schaeffer seem to argue (at least in principle) for a legal custodial oligarchy that can check the power of the demos, the congress and/or lower tiers of government such as the states.

In addition, an honest Originalist read would have to re-embrace slavery, reject popular senatorial election, presidential term limits and much else. And ironically the proponents of this school are often the most rabid advocates of the extremely authoritarian concept of the Unitary Executive – an innovation most of the Founders would have recoiled at. By playing fast and loose with the wartime powers granted to the president they have in fact argued for a form of dictatorship and the advocates of this view have (certainly since 2001) attempted to argue for conditions of permanent war and a battle zone that incorporates the entire world, including the domestic United States and the conversations, communications and data use of all citizens. How this squares with the premise of 'Originalism' simply beggars belief and in my opinion exposes the theory as little more than a political tactic.

The basis for the Unitary Executive is in no small part a practical development of the nuclear age and the Cold War. While it was amplified in the aftermath of 9/11, its advocates have been pushing the view since the advent of the atomic era. Facing setback with the collapse of the Nixon administration the theory was put into practice once more under Reagan and has in many respects never looked back. Apparently historical context can indeed change the implementation of the law. The nature of war changed and so therefore the nature of the commander-in-chief function changed. It's an argument that can be made but not on the basis of Originalism.

The whole world was shaken by WWII and realised that old norms and concepts could not be returned to – the Schaeffer camp of so-called Originalists continue (to this very day) to ignore these questions and the post-war context. And by the way it wasn't just WWII that shook things up. For the United States it was the Civil War which really upset and reoriented constitutional jurisprudence and in many respects the post-war settlement represented a complete re-casting of the American experiment. Like the Communist bloc nations which retain the Marxist iconography and narratives even while rejecting them, America too has re-cast itself more than once and while it loves to evoke the memories of the founders to the sound of drum and fife – the truth is the nation that emerged in 1865 was a different country than the 1787 formation. This would happen again at the turn of the 20^th century, again in 1941-1945 and again in 1989-2001.

But this kind of complexity and nuance doesn't market well especially if you're trying to stir up an ecclesiastical audience to embrace dominionist activism. But to be frank, I'm not sure how deeply Schaeffer understood these things. He should have but as I've revisited the series I am repeatedly struck by just how simplistic and one-dimensional his analysis is revealed to be.

In terms of medicine and questions of euthanasia much could be said. When reckoning with questions of potentiality one is quickly caught in a philosophical entanglement. Let me be clear I am 100% opposed to abortion but at the same I have always had my doubts about the conception argument. It would seem that at least a case could be made for implantation as the moment the dividing cells become 'a baby' as life is not viable until that point. And unlike many I don't believe that every miscarriage results in a soul. We just don't know when or even quite how the soul is attached to physicality. I am well aware of the theological debates on this point and while I lean traducean, I nevertheless am inclined to reject the debate out of hand as ranging well beyond the text and is instead a classic case of systematic inference run amok.

That said, it has always been problematic to me that some forms of birth control may in fact allow for fertilisation and yet block implantation – which technically speaking would not be something that a socio-politically pro-life advocate could embrace. And yet a further examination of the science behind birth control is pretty muddled with few able to agree on just what is happening. And yet as we know most Evangelicals happily embrace the use of contraceptives – and many go further embracing in vitro fertilisation.

In terms of euthanasia, as Christians, we are of course opposed to the notion but again in light of modern medicine it's not so simple. First of all in terms of Christian anthropology I'm a little confused as to what is meant by 'natural' death – as death is by definition part of the curse. 'Natural' death is in fact not natural but a reality brought about by the Fall. That said, many Evangelicals resort to (in an often strange and somewhat tortured) series of ethical imperatives regarding 'end of life care' which seem determined to thwart and sometimes confuse 'natural' death often by employing means that in themselves are actually harmful to human health. Medical professionals I've talked to have admitted that in some cases patients are probably dying from morphine and other treatments than actual cancer – the cancer would have certainly killed them eventually but in some cases the treatments and recourse may in fact accelerate death. And then of course such prolongations by means of machines create dilemmas about the end of life and the ethics of ending such obviously unnatural methods of perpetuating biological activity. I'm afraid I am troubled by this whole line of discussion and find myself rather at odds with most of the Evangelical community. I am far more pro-life than they are and yet I am not impressed by much of what modern medicine does and claims to be able to do. The 'blessings' of modern medical technology are often (to me) forms of dehumanising savagery and represent a rejection of Christian anthropology and the belief in Divine Providence – but I fully realise that I am in an extreme minority at this point so I won't labour it.

I found it extremely ironic that a recent Christian leader died having refused cancer treatment and some Evangelicals began to question if such refusal was tantamount to suicide. This is madness and demonstrates the real confusion when it comes to these issues.

Additionally, there is the bizarre development having taken place recently in light of Covid-19 in which I hear conservatives arguing that the economy should fully reopen even though old people will be put at tremendous risk. The retort often seems to be – 'we'll they're old anyway' – which if that isn't euthanasia in the name of the market then I don't know what is.

Additionally the capitalist system all but mandates the death of the terminally ill and the disabled as the privatised corporate health industry will not pay for the extraordinary costs associated with keeping the very sick or near-terminal categories of people alive. As far as the disabled it is largely through government grant and programme that these people are able to be cared for and funded. The private profit-driven industry has driven costs into the stratosphere rendering the Right and the Free Market or Libertarian charity-based health care position as laughable and even absurd.

Frankly I tire of the Evangelical argument regarding these issues as the discussions are insincere and are really little more than political exercises. Schaeffer is credited by some for attaching the anti-abortion narrative to the Evangelical Right or to put it differently, he's the one who motivated the base and made it an issue because not a few in the movement will admit that Roe v. Wade was not an event that particularly motivated them in the early days – which harks back to a previous generation in America that thought very differently about 'life' issues when it came to immigrants and also encouraged small families as a means of economic advance.

This has ranged beyond the scope of Schaeffer's discussion in the film but these are live issues and Schaeffer's somewhat lame and tiresome framing of the issue is still making the rounds.

Finally, Schaeffer was most correct to label the hedonistic ethos as anti-social – and yet that ethos is today expressed not only by identity politics associated with the Left but in the rabid ascendant Libertarianism coming from the Right. As I've repeatedly stated Libertarian thought and ethics were not held in regard by the Christian Right. This began to shift in the 1990's and has really picked up steam in the 2010's. But in the late 1970's and 1980's such Libertarianism was whole-heartedly rejected – even though in many respects it is the natural outcome of democratic values.

Hence the confusion. Schaeffer affirms the liberal pro-American narrative but with qualification and at the end of the video candidly admits the problems with democracy and that it can only function within a Christian consensus – which I argue can only be obtained by the redefinition of the term 'Christian'. This is not the democracy of Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson or Washington. The Reformation-Constitutional American Democratic Republic narrative is a myth – a hybrid entity that never truly existed but in the dying dreams of a handful of romantics and (how they were viewed in their day) radicals.

Schaeffer closes with his Dominionist appeal and once again we're struck by the absence of Scripture. Where's his appeal to the New Testament, to the teaching of Christ and the apostles? There isn't one because the New Testament not only doesn't address these issues it rejects the very assumptions of Schaeffer's paradigm. He's guilty of begging the question as from a Christian standpoint his apologia isn't scriptural but philosophical. It's actually rooted in the very humanism he condemns, just as the personal peace and affluence he criticises is in actuality deeply rooted in the social system he affirms.

I can get very frustrated and even angry with him at times and yet there are other moments that I find him to be a somewhat tragic figure – one engaged in a self-defeating quest, undermining his own goals, the blind father of a blind movement that necessarily and ultimately is bound to destroy itself.

Continue reading Part 10