By Christian Miller ’21
Before writing this opinion, I attempted to reach out to the artists responsible for the We Are All Houghton art exhibit. My goal was to gain insight into the subject itself and the intentions of their artwork, as well as to discuss its impact. Unfortunately, this request was denied. It had almost led me to alter the subject of this article to the question of dialogue and its quality. We are in danger of losing the positive elements of meaningful communication. Where once the Roman Forum and the Greek Agora produced the discourses of Cicero and Plato, today Facebook has become the American Forum. Social media imitates face-to-face dialogue but strips it of that which reminds us of our humanity, such as presence, time, proximity, and impact. Contrast for one moment the nature of the comments on the Houghton YouTube streams, with the discourse between persons in the video itself, and, even further, of in-person conversations. Like the breakup which occurs over the phone as opposed to in-person, we are all too familiar with how the medium alters the nature of the dialogue.
What will be the nature of the dialogue that emanates from painting the rock, in either case? The immediate answer was a string of social media posts. The first problem with symbols, as opposed to words, is their inherent vagueness and the vast spectrum of possible interpretations that arise. But words, without elaboration, can still be vague. Something I hoped to ask the alumni artists was what their vision of a “better” community looks like. It is easy to identify problems. Karl Marx and Maximillian Robespierre both identified real problems in their respective societies. The issues with these men arose in their proposed solutions. Therefore, identifying the problem and solving the issue are separate matters. Let us not risk “congratulations that may soon turn into complaints,” as a wise man once said. Thus, we may debate or celebrate identification of the problem, but I shall still hold off on applause before I fully understand the proposed solution. In other words, what is the solution? What is better? I have my own ideas, but to achieve any understanding or even mutual ground, dialogue is necessary.
Well, perhaps they will see this and write their proposed solution in another article. I will be the first to read it, and happily, for, “you can never be over-dressed, or over-educated.” One last thing about dialogue. Is even this article, my article, the proper means of dialogue here? To begin with, this medium disallows intonation or eye contact, and, furthermore, the word limit constrains the formulation of my words. In-person dialogue would undoubtedly be best. But there is something about the written article that permits delineation and explanation, which goes beyond vague and incendiary symbols, or unspecific words like “hate” and “better.” Very well then, I proceed.
The first thing to do is to delineate, to specify, to define, as best I can, the word Conservative. The word has been hijacked by vague expressions tacked onto formless policies and generalized for argumentative utility.
Conservatism is what it says it is. Simply, it means conserving that which is good. Consequently, we must know what good is, if we are to conserve it. How then does conservatism occur? The answer is not short, and you are better off consulting philosophers like Edmund Burke for the nuanced and comprehensive answer. For our purpose, I will only say that conservation of the good is rooted in truth and the traditions that carry out truth. Traditions maintain values that arise from the Judeo-Christian ethic (which is an understanding of human nature). I mean traditions like the family, the Church, the Judiciary, common law, and other valuable customs, some of which become institutions. Well and good. We have our shot-in-the-dark definition of Conservatism.
Now, when Conservatism claims to conserve that which is good, the difficulty arises in determining what is good. Bertrand Russell may have to depend upon vague instincts, and the writings of Jeremy Bentham, but we, as Christians, are in the unique position of having the good articulated for us by the Creator of the universe and of humankind. It so happens that Jesus told us what is good, and God allowed the irrefutable good to be written down by others for our convenience and due benefit. He made Truth available to us.
Now comes the really difficult part, in speaking for the Conservative viewpoint on the prevalent subject. Of course, you must bear in mind, this is my understanding of the Conservative perspective, which is not universal.
I would like to distinguish between two things. Individual behavior and what ought to be law – or community covenant. I will address the latter first. Conservatism is an understanding of human nature applied to legislative decision-making. In foraging any determination about what ought to be law, we are really saying: what is moral? Very simply, all law is morality. That which is moral is that which is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior. When legislators outlaw murder, they are implicitly stating that murder is wrong behavior, or immoral, precisely because it hurts the self, others, or the Nation. The same is true with theft, forgery, kidnapping, and so on. Even conventional laws, such as speed limits, are implying that without speed limits, chaos would ensue, and wrong, harmful behavior would follow. Therefore, all legal determinations are judgements about morality, at some level. We cannot avoid making moral judgements in questions of law.
The covenant of the Christian community is the statement of values and principles that gives rise to the community. While the United States Constitution may have rooted its statement of values in Natural Law, the Christian Community roots its statement of values in the Bible. Then I would ask this question: is there any reasonable expectation that the statement of values expressed by the Christian Community should be inconsistent with the teachings and rigorously tested interpretations of the Bible? I answer: were that inconsistency to be permitted, the community would no longer be valid. It would be like forming a book club and not allowing books. If the value statements in the Bible are inconsistently adopted, that inherent inconsistency results in fragmentation, and the community will split apart. If you require that the Christian Community not be permitted to be consistent in its values, you might as well not expect the community to be Christian. Houghton would only be Christian in name, not in principle or fact. Is that reasonable, or even desirable to expect or require?
Now onto the other distinction. Individual behavior. This part is much easier to write. Here, the same principle applies. Christianity makes statements about the formation of communities and moral imperatives binding upon the Christian individual, and these include behavior towards those outside the Christian community, or struggling within. These statements of proper behavior are exactly those alluded to in the alumni artwork and espoused in sympathetic social media posts. I am talking about virtues of love, kindness, respect, and so on.
I am no Theologian. I do not claim to be any kind of expert on Christian behavior, and I myself am riddled with flaws. But, if the example of Christ were all I had, the inference would still be clear to me. These principles of unconditionally loving others, whoever they may be, are absolutely and immutably maintained by the example of Jesus Christ. These then, are also good things. However, we cannot ignore that warning people of harmful behavior is inherent in the nature of love. Christ did this as well. He loved and He warned of behavior harmful to the self. For this, we require dialogue rooted in love. Let us look no farther than Christ for the best example thereof.
Thus, we have distinguished between two spheres where this question is concerned: what ought to be the community covenant, and what ought to be the individual behavior. Conservatism means conserving that which is good. Conservatism understands the good through the lens of the Judeo-Christian Ethic. Conservatism, then, states that the Community Covenant ought to be one thing, namely, the properly accepted interpretation of Biblical Truth – that is what is good and what is best for the community – but that individual behavior ought to be another thing, namely, the good example set by Christ, of unconditional love, kindness, and respect, no matter the law, or the covenant. We must ask ourselves: What is good? Where we look for answers will determine significantly the answers we get. That is my opinion.
