Toubabou

My daughter asked me this question the other day. I found it difficult to reply, because there is no one answer. However, I did find the opportunity to note that there may be two basic types of conservative.

The first type of conservative, probably the most common type, believes that people are basically good. Because of their innate goodness, they should be given the freedom to do most of what they want, being restrained only when what they want hurts other people. Therefore, government should be minimal, because large government hinders freedom. Charity should be left to the private sector, because naturally good people naturally want to help others. This is a sensible perspective, if the premise is correct.

I am not this sort of conservative, however. I belong to a second group of conservatives, whom I will call Christian conservatives. (Note that there are many people who would identify themselves as Christians who would belong to the first group.) I am a conservative because I believe that people are basically evil. Because of their innate badness, people tend to infringe upon the persons and properties of their neighbors to the extent that they have the power to do so. It may be something as simple and personal as the rape of a woman by a man who is physically stronger than she, or as impersonal as a business using money to create a situation in which a property owner is forced to sell his land to them. If this is sounding like liberalism, wait just a second. Government is made of the same, basically bad, people as those who comprise the general population. In fact, because of the power bestowed by politics, one could argue that most people in government actually exercise their badness more than usual. As a result, government should be small, because the larger government is, the more power it exerts over the citizenry (or the subjects) and the greater the opportunity for the abuse of power. I believe that the founders believed generally in my sort of conservatism, based upon the way in which freedoms were outlined in the Constitution. Government is prohibited from censorship, not because censorship is bad, but because it gives the government too much power. Government is barred from instituting a religion, not because religion is bad, but because it gives the government too much power.

Ironically, it is the first sort of conservative who is closest to being a liberal. After all, if people are basically good, then where does the evil come from? And if people are basically good, then groups of people should be even better. And what is government, after all, but a mutual aid society? The second sort of conservative would answer that government is not a mutual aid society, but rather a means for us to keep an eye on our neighbor, to prevent him from doing us harm.

Continuing the theme of family images and the church, my wife and I recently inquired about adopting a child. We were given an application form/questionaire to fill out, and many of the questions dealt with “open” adoption. This is when the birth family stays connected and involved in the child’s life after the adoption process is finalized. As it happens, my opposition to many of the principles of “open” adoption were a big disqualifier for us, and at this point it looks like we won’t be enlarging our family.

I’m afraid that many Christians approach our adoption as sons with a preference for “open” adoption. They’re pleased to be invited into God’s family, and are anxious to realize the benefits of their new relationships. Unfortunately, they also want to maintain contact with their destructive “birth family” and eventually compromise the faith to which they have laid claim.

The reason we need adoption is that we need a change of family. Trying to have the new while keeping the old not only insults the charity of the new family, but also undermines the very foundation of the adoption.

I had the wonderful occasion to attend a wedding on Saturday. The bride is a close friend, and the groom is the son of assistant dorm-parents I knew in the ’70s. The sermon was spot-on, and it was a lovely occasion all ’round. I got thinking (partly due to a question from my daughter) about the wearing of white by the bride, and specifically the wearing of white by the Bride of Christ. I’ve always been fond of a joke by the late Dave Allen where a bride-to-be asks her priest what the qualifications are for wearing a white wedding gown. The priest replies that if the bride is a virgin she may wear white, otherwise she should wear blue. The bride-to-be announces that she’s going to wear a white gown “with little blue spots all over it.” This tends to be our approach much of the time, wishing to minimize our sin. At the same time, we are hesitant to accept charity. “If I end up in hell, I’ll have earned it,” or some such nonsense.

In this context it struck me that the Bride of Christ is compelled to appear at the wedding, not just in a midnight-blue gown, but one tattered and begrimed, as well. Scripture says that our righteousness is as filthy rags, and also indicates that even guests at the wedding who aren’t properly dressed will be removed and cast into the outer darkness. So, what’s a girl to do? We must accept the gown that the groom offers us. “Oh, but surely that was intended for another girl. I’m sure it won’t fit. It’s too clean!” There is nothing for it. Having been washed clean in the Blood of the Lamb, we must now wear the white gown we do not deserve, because it is in this way that we become His glory. “The woman is the glory of man”

There is undoubtedly much more that could be said, but my head is filling with sleep, so this will have to do …