In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
I love to get all Mark Steyn-y and lament the inexorable decline of Western Civilization. I do. But sometimes I think it can be overdone.
What specifically brings this to mind is something I read over at Rod Dreher's excellent blog at The American Conservative. He's talking about how some people who gave up on the marriage redefinition debate have joined forces with people who support same-sex marriage in order to have a conversation about how to strengthen marriage.
It’s something, but I don’t think it’s going to amount to much. There are writers and thinkers on that list of signatories whom I respect, and in some cases who are personal friends. I wish them well. Anybody who is trying to strengthen marriage in this culture is doing good work.
But I think it’s not going to amount to much for much the same reason various government attempts to raise the birth rate — as Singapore, Russia, and various European countries have done — never succeed. If marriage and family are considered institutions that we can manipulate to suit our own wants, as opposed to institutions to which we must be conformed, then they lose their power to bind and to direct. Nobody gets married, or has more than two children, because it is good for them, or good for society. They do so because they believe marriage and/or children are a positive good. If you have to make a “case” for marriage, or for having children, the battle is largely lost.
Emphasis mine since it's that last part that I want to focus on. Is this true? Further, is it a helpful way to respond to such efforts?
I guess, on this point, I'm more optimistic. One of my favorite passages from Luther is where he says that fathers (yes, fathers) changing diapers is a holy blessing. I'll go ahead and quote from it here (though some of the language might form a bit of a distraction to my larger point):
Now observe that when that clever harlot, our natural reason (which the pagans followed in trying to be most clever), takes a look at married life, she turns up her nose and says, “Alas, must I rock the baby, wash its diapers, make its bed, smell its stench, stay up nights with it, take care of it when it cries, heal its rashes and sores, and on top of that care for my wife, provide for her, labour at my trade, take care of this and take care of that, do this and do that, endure this and endure that, and whatever else of bitterness and drudgery married life involves? What, should I make such a prisoner of myself? O you poor, wretched fellow, have you taken a wife? Fie, fie upon such wretchedness and bitterness! It is better to remain free and lead a peaceful. carefree life; I will become a priest or a nun and compel my children to do likewise.”
What then does Christian faith say to this? It opens its eyes, looks upon all these insignificant, distasteful, and despised duties in the Spirit, and is aware that they are all adorned with divine approval as with the costliest gold and jewels. It says, “O God, because I am certain that thou hast created me as a man and hast from my body begotten this child, I also know for a certainty that it meets with thy perfect pleasure. I confess to thee that I am not worthy to rock the little babe or wash its diapers. or to be entrusted with the care of the child and its mother. How is it that I, without any merit, have come to this distinction of being certain that I am serving thy creature and thy most precious will? O how gladly will I do so, though the duties should be even more insignificant and despised. Neither frost nor heat, neither drudgery nor labour, will distress or dissuade me, for I am certain that it is thus pleasing in thy sight.”
OK. So Luther is doing quite a bit in this passage. It's mostly about vocation and what a blessing it is to be able to serve others. But he's also making the case for getting married and having kids.
And he was doing this 491 years ago.
Luther might have even believed, to some extent, that "if you have to make a 'case' for marriage, or for having children, the battle is largely lost." But he still made it and did good work (at the very least for helping me understand how to serve my husband and view childcare as a holy blessing).
So when we get all discouraged about the decline of civilization as it relates to whatever our issue of greatest concern is, I think we should also try to keep some perspective.
These battles for things that matter -- be they religious liberty or property rights or the right to defend our families or to defend our weakest neighbors in the womb -- have seen better days and they have seen worse days. But the worst thing is to just descend into the land of "What, at this point, does it really matter?" Right?
- Comment (87)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (18)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
I agree the emphasis should be on strengthening marriage as opposed to preserving an idealized version of marriage.
Mar '12
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
This expresses my feelings about the matter. If one has to start selling a sacred covenant or a God given blessing, then you are definitely swimming against the tide of modern culture.
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
OK, while it was a discussion of marriage that occasioned this post, it's not really about marriage.
What I'm talking about is the idea that if you have to make a case for something, that the battle is largely lost.
We constantly have to be making the case for everything that matters.
Humans are inclined to do the wrong thing -- and left to our own devices, I'm sure we'd be doing them. The whole point of civilization is just that -- the civilizing elements. And they must always be fought for -- and always have.
I think we tend to have an overly favorable view of history and an overly negative view of our current condition.
Things didn't used to be good and now are bad. Luther was speaking against abortion and failure to marry and a thousand other ills 500 years ago. He didn't despair (well, not too much, at least).
Sep '11
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
How does Dreher think that people view marriage as a positive good? Are people just born with that view? Or is it merely a view that is culturally absorbed? Is culture ever shaped by propositional truth or only through theater departments and the television show GLEE?Am I missing something or is Dreher embracing a culture of opinions without reasons? Seems like we have that, but it's a problem, right? Not a pillar of reality.
Sep '11
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
Isn't the case "that if you have to make a case for something the battle is lost" self-refuting?
Sep '12
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
The case for truth and the things that matter in life is always harder. Living a worthwhile life is harder. That's why we need to make the case and live the worthwhile life. Isn't that part of Luther's point?
Dreher is right. So we are going to strengthen marriage by supporting a definition that will weaken it, and especially its tie to children? In other words, if we are going from a definition that sees marriage as an institution that legally and morally ties a man and a woman to each other and to any children they may have, to one that merely ties any two people of whatever gender together, we are not strengthening the institution, and we're sure not strengthening ties to children. Add to this the announced intention of many supporters of redefining marriage to make open marriages, group marriages and polygamy legal. In light of this, their claims to be trying to strenthen marriage are not convincing. People like David Blankenhorn may be well-intentioned, but they have become complicit in destroying what they hope to defend.
Edited on January 31, 2013 at 4:40pmMay '10
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
I believe in economic incentives and at the moment, among a whole class of folks that could benefit from marriage, we have made it very comfortable to avoid marriage. In fact, we have created financial incentives to make babies out of wedlock. Change this and the natural long-term economic benefits of marriage will become more obvious with obviously much broader positive goods accruing in the process.
May '10
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
And while I have made this argument ad nauseum and expect to change few minds, I will pitch it again:
Encouraging a whole class of individuals that have been living at odds with mainstream bourgeois society to join it through the legal, emotion and (for some) spiritual ties of marriage strengthens both society, the institution and the lives and self-esteem of the children that are already part of, or result from, that union. Making a bigger tent for marriage holds it up as an ideal and strengthens it in the process. Maintaining exclusivity weakens it.
May '10
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
OK, while it was a discussion of marriage that occasioned this post, it's not really about marriage.
Nice try. Too late.
Jun '11
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
Mollie, this post is absolutely inspiring. It is all too easy to throw up our hands and say "what are you gonna do?" rather than commit to doing the hard work (the diaper changing, if you will) of defending the essential attributes (e.g., marriage, faith, and family) of a healthy culture. I'm rolling up my sleeves...
Sep '11
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
I do think Dreher's point about definitions is super--that marriage is an institution to which one needs to conform.
There is a character in a Tom Stoppard play who remarks that he no longer has to do the things by which was meant art, but he could now make art mean the things he does. Isn't this the same idea?
One used to have to do the things by which were meant marriage, now one can make marriage mean the things one does?
Some people think things like Duchamp's urinal, Piero Manzoni's tinned excrement , and Yoko Ono yelling into a microphone have strengthened Art from the stuffy days of Bernini, Caravaggio, and Bouguereau. I'm not so sure.
Nov '10
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
All that is true, but once you've done it, and lived through the generations that follow, I am not certain that reversing the economic incentives is enough to undo it.
And Mollie, I agree that we need always to be making the case for those things that matter. That's sort of a fundamental point of Christian theology, isn't it? That we are fallen and our natural state is not in line with what is best for us?
Jun '11
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
Well, and holding my nose...
Jun '11
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
Zach Franzen wrote:I do think Dreher's point about definitions is super--that marriage is an institution to which one needs to conform.There is a character in a Tom Stoppard play who remarks that he no longer has to do the things by which was meant art, but he could now make art mean the things he does. Isn't this the same idea?One used to have to do the things by which were meant marriage, now one can make marriage mean the things one does?Some people think things like Duchamp's urinal, Piero Manzoni's tinned excrement , and Yoko Ono yelling into a microphone have strengthened Art from the stuffy days of Bernini, Caravaggio, and Bouguereau. I'm not so sure.Brilliant. 1000 Likes.
Sep '11
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
This just isn't true is it? Let's say the Boy Scouts had fewer people receiving Eagle Scout badges. In order to up their numbers they decided on a big tent strategy. Now, to get an Eagle Scout badge you could count things like playing video games and sleeping 13 hours a day. Would a bigger tent for Eagle Scout badges strengthen it in the process?
Say that you had to conform to some pretty difficult standards to become a Green Beret? Would changing the standards to create a wider tent strategy strengthen the Green Berets? Could we legitimately brag about the size of our special forces?
Isn't that bit about the weakness of maintaining exclusivity just guidance-counselor-esque rhetorical flourish?
Aug '12
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
Patrick Deneen:
"What can it possibly mean to defend marriage when one cannot also defend or even conceive of a culture in which individualism is not the reigning basis for self-understanding? Our “debate over marriage” is emaciated and unsatisfying precisely because the contending parties – Left and Right alike - are not even capable of discerning the more fundamental issues at play, and are content to play out the drama in the most deracinated and culture-less venue imaginable – the legal brief. At the distant end of a broken connection, we debate over an institution – marriage – that carries ancient connotations but for which the cultural preconditions have ceased to exist. We debate over a dried and dead husk."
May '10
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
I don't accept this. The culture is mutable and economic incentives matter. The family structure may not return to what it was, but there is certainly room for improvement from what it has become.
Lucy Pevensie
All that is true, but once you've done it, and lived through the generations that follow, I am not certain that reversing the economic incentives is enough to undo it.
And Mollie, I agree that we need always to be making the case for those things that matter. That's sort of a fundamental point of Christian theology, isn't it? That we are fallen and our natural state is not in line with what is best for us? · 10 minutes ago
Oct '10
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
What I'm talking about is the idea that if you have to make a case for something, that the battle is largely lost.
We constantly have to be making the case for everything that matters.
The whole point of civilization is just that -- the civilizing elements. And they must always be fought for -- and always have.
The first paragraph quoted doesn't seem to be compatible with the next two. I tend to agree with the latter two, not the first.
Aug '12
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
Yup. And it's foolish of Mr. Dreher to say it. Obvious points to make: The abolitionists of Wilberforce's day and the Civil Rights advocates of not so long ago were doing the same thing and kept at it for decades. If we get enough people consistently, effectively pushing against the tide, the tide will turn. Another case in point (and implicit refutation of the recent gloom and doom on the topic), the pro-life movement was much more defeated and dispirited in the '80's than it is now- the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act were pipe dreams.
Sep '12
Re: In Battle for Civilization, Don't Follow Hillary Clinton
Phenomenal post, Mollie. I think you're absolutely right. Everyone has to be convinced in their own way what are the most rewarding things in life. Sometimes it requires no convincing because one convinces himself, but everyone is different, and there are several paths to convincing each individual.
I often think about the lementation we feel today. I look back in history where people had it much worse and felt the end was nigh; it seems once a generation. People felt doomed back then, but they didn't have the wealth and technology we enjoy now. It is almost impossible for our lives to get worse in the aggregate, in any real sense; though we may feel philosophically lost.