George Washington's Birthday

The third Monday of February, by federal statute, is designated as a public holiday: Washington's Birthday (5 U.S.C. 6103). It is not, as commonly believed, President's Day.

Sadly, and a bit oddly, George Washington, in a recent polls, ranked below Lincoln (acceptable), Franklin Delano Roosevelt (understandable), Reagan (one sympathizes) all the way down to sixth and seventh, below Bill Clinton (strange). Here is the AP story by way of the Seattle Post Intelligencer.

It is a good and honorable thing to spend a few moments thinking about the pre-eminent of the American Founding Fathers. Washington's role in the founding of the United States of America cannot be underemphasized. The divergence between the visceral love his countrymen had for him during the Founding period and the apparent lack of interest today is troubling. However, it is expected, given the passage of time.

Hopefully, however, the causes do not lie in intellectual and educational trends, for example, a "scientific" approach to finding laws of history that render individual human lives irrelevant or at best epiphenomenal, or a cynical approach that narrowly focuses on a few character flaws and on the social context, such as racism, sexism, and classism, or on a psychological approach that attempts to find the true man by probing his private life and idiosyncracies.

Better to take the life of a great man seriously, to recognize his individual contributions to human history, to strive to understand the man as the world understood him in his public deeds, and as he understood himself in his own writings.

Here is an all-too-brief biography at the White House website. You may also view biographies of lesser American presidents there.

Here is a pair of longer pieces on Washington's life America's Essential Revolutionary from a 2000 issue of The American Enterprise Magazine of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), capturing some of the highlights of his remarkable life and giving a glimpse of the character that inspired young teenagers to take up arms against the British professional army.

It's Still George Washington's Birthday (Not President's Day) makes a few points about why Washington is so important, listing some key Washingtonian points of advice concerning the American political system. This is a short memo by Matthew Spalding, a scholar of American studies at the Heritage Foundation, written last year.

Washington was known as a man of manners. Here is a sampling of his Rules of Civility from The Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg, VA. Here is a a full transcript.

Washington's estate Mount Vernon, is a historic house, providing extensive services for visitors as well as researchers. Try one of Washington's favorites, peanut soup.

The papers of George Washington are available at the collections of the Library of Congress and the University of Virginia.

Here is a short reading list on Washington and other popular presidents from the Washington Examiner (including the enigmatic Calvin Coolidge), by way of the Claremont Institute's Ken Masugi in today's entry of their weblog, The Remedy.

In closing, Washington's Farewell Address, delivered at the conclusion of his service to the new republic. The American Cincinnatus went home shortly thereafter.

Next: Abraham Lincoln.

The Virtue of Virtues

"Look here, this is a book he had when he was a boy. It just shows you."

He opened it at the back cover and turned it around for me to see. On the last fly-leaf was printed the word SCHEDULE, and the date September 12, 1906. and underneath:

Rise from bed ... ... ... ... 6.00 A.M. Dumbbell exercise and wall-scaling ..... 6.15-6.30 " Study electricity, etc ... ... ... 7.15-8.15 " Work ... ... ... ... ... . 8.30-4.30 P.M. Baseball and sports ... ... ... . 4.30-5.00 " Practice elocution, poise and how to attain it 5.00-6.00 " Study needed inventions ... ..... 7.00-9.00 "

GENERAL RESOLVES No wasting time at Shafters or [a name, indecipherable] No more smokeing or chewing Bath every other day Read one improving book or magazine per week Save $5.00 {crossed out} $3.00 per week Be better to parents

"I come across this book by accident," said the old man. "It just shows you, don't it?"

"It just shows you."

"Jimmy was bound to get ahead. He always had some resolves like this or something. Do you notice what he's got about improving his mind? He was always great for that. He told me I et like a hog once, and I beat him for it."

He was reluctant to close the book, reading each item aloud and then looking eagerly at me. I think he rather expected me to copy down the list for my own use.
(F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby, Chapter Nine)

Browse a local magazine rack and look for titles that might speak to the subject of improving oneself. You will find numerous health and fitness magazines with titles such as Health and Fitness. Obviously they concern the body. You should find several magazines of the mind that trade in ideas, usually on business or politics, such as Foreign Policy, whose articles usually contain helpful sidebars with suggestions for further reading. Yet there are comparatively few magazines that focus primarily on the inner life, on the business of soulcraft, on the development of moral sensibility. Maxim, notwithstanding its name, is decidedly unconcerned with the received wisdom of the ages.

The recently inaugurated magazine, In Character: A Journal of Everyday Virtues is an important step forward in redressing this deficit. "In Character seeks to illuminate the nature and power of the everyday virtues — and how these virtues shape our vision of the good life." (about) See the National Review Online article for a longer description about the journal, the editor in chief, and the major project donor.

What might we see in the issues of In Character?

If the editors decide to follow classic Roman Catholic virtues we would have the following:

Cardinal/Moral Virtues
Prudence
Justice
Temperance
Fortitude

Theological Virtues
Faith
Hope
Charity

Capital Virtues (opposing sin)
Humility (Pride)
Liberality (Avarice)
Brotherly love (Envy)
Meekness (Wrath)
Chastity (Lust)
Temperance (Gluttony)
Diligence (Sloth)
(From Roman Catholic Second Exodus)

Or In Character could focus on Aristotelian virtues:

Courage
Temperance
Liberality
Magnificence
Magnanimity
Proper Ambition/Pride
Patience/Good Temper
(From college instructor chart)

Perhaps the editors might focus on the Biblical "Fruit of the Spirit" as listed by the Apostle Paul:

Love
Joy
Peace
Patience
Kindness
Goodness
Faithfulness
Gentleness
Self-Control
(From Galatians 5:22-23, ESV)

That covers over a year of distinct virtues, if In Character focused on one virtue per month. However, In Character publishes only three times a year. That may be too slow a pace for a Internet generation that is becoming accustomed to instant commentary, but these are rich, textured writings that take time to digest. Consider Alan Wolfe's review of the bestselling Purpose Driven Life. Though Wolfe admits that he is not born again, he commends Pastor Warren's faith commitments without condescension, and provides thoughtful criticism, drawing from Christian theology, such as Luther's conception of calling and Augustine's understanding on human nature.

The present issue focuses, as one might have guessed, on purpose. The previous issue dealt with thrift, and the forthcoming issue, on creativity. Creativity as virtue? Why not? Consider a theological perspective. William Edgar, a professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary and a professional jazz pianist, speaks of an Christian aesthetic that is grounded in the narrative of creation, fall, and redemption. It is an opportunity for people to apply their creativity towards the depiction of beauty, ugliness, and hope in the arts.

Nor, in a universe created and sustained by God, must creativity limited to fine arts. Creativity, properly directed, is part of discernment and understanding as well as practical action. Solomon's verdict in the case of two women who laid claim to one child was nothing short of brilliant. (1 Kings 3:16-28, ESV) There has never been nor ever will be such a decision. It was certainly no mechanical application of a legal formula.

In an age where personality often counts for more than character, In Character offers an attractive alternative vision of the good society and the good life. It is worth looking at, and the publication schedule gives the reader plenty of time to consider the claims therein and change accordingly.

Same-Sex Marriage in San Francisco: Anniversary and Debate

Last year San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom took it upon himself to interpret the state's Constitution and to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in violation of state law: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." (Cal. Family Code 308.5) This statute was enacted by the people of California as ballot initiative Proposition 22 in 2000. As enacted, it cannot be modified or repealed by the state legislature without approval of the people. (Cal. Const. Art. II. Sec. 10(c)) Newsom timed his decree to coincide with Valentine's Day, and plunged the city into a fair bit of chaos as scores of same-sex couples became "married," only to have their hopes dashed when the inevitable happened.

In a well-timed event, the San Francisco-based University of California Hastings College of the Law's Constitutional Law Quarterly sponsored a panel discussion on same-sex marriage last Friday. (San Francisco Chronicle, campus announcement (PDF))

The Chron summarizes the debate:

Legal scholars and advocates debated same-sex marriage before a law school audience Friday, arguing over the purpose of marriage, whether gay and lesbian couples are comparable to polygamists, and whether a federal constitutional amendment would respect or trample states' authority.

0. Levels of Scrutiny

While these are all worthy topics of conversation, it does not reach a central issue at the heart of the constitutional debate: what level of scrutiny to apply to a legal claim of a right to same-sex marriage? Legal doctrine as it has evolved (or rather, has been intelligently designed over time) sets forth three categories of judicial review, or tiers of scrutiny, of government actions. The first is strict scrutiny, requiring a compelling government interest and means that are narrowly tailored to accomplish this goal. A law discriminating on the basis of race, for example, triggers strict scrutiny, because race is regarded as a suspect classification that warrants this heightened level of review. The second is intermediate scrutiny, which requires an important government purpose and means that are substantially related to this objective. Gender classifications fall under this rubric. The third is rational basis analysis, requiring a rational basis and means that are rationally related to the purpose.

The effect is that a law that is subject is strict scrutiny will almost certainly be declared unconstitutional by the reviewing court. The opposite is true for a law that is examined under the rational basis standard. And the murky middle is, well, the murky middle.

The basic question, then, is what level of scrutiny to apply to a claim that a law that embodies the traditional definition of marriage of one man and one woman denies the equal protection of the law to same-sex couples? It all depends on the level of scrutiny applied.

Historically, no court has applied heightened scrutiny to homosexual persons seeking to alter marriage laws to support a definition of marriage as between two persons, regardless of gender. That is significant. Race is treated as a suspect classification because it is regarded as an immutable characteristic that is intrinsically irrelevant to making legal distinctions under the law. Likewise gender is also irrelevant to many, if not most legal distinctions; however, it is obvious that some differentiation on the basis of gender is appropriate. For example, the principle of "separate but equal" makes perfect sense when applied to separate bathroom facilities for men and women, but it does not make sense when applied to separate public elementary schools for black children and white children.

However, sexual orientation is a different matter. People debate the origins of differences in sexual orientation and the role of genetic determination, one's social environment and childhood, emotional desire, personal lifestyle choice, and one's convictions about the good life. There are cases of people who claim to have altered their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, though they are often rather unfairly dismissed. In this light it is far from certain that sexual orientation is unchosen and fixed, or strongly determined. Even if it were the case, that does not resolve the question of whether homosexuality is a normal alternative structuring of sexual practice, or whether it is a defect. Moreover, there are numerous sexual practices listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (current version DSM-IV). (Homosexuality was removed, relatively recently, from the list.) Whether they ought to be tolerated privately is one thing, and whether they warrant public endorsement and protection in the form of a state-issued license and a set of legal rights and duties is another.

1. The Purpose of Marriage

Nevertheless, the debate focused on the purpose of marriage, which is a more cogent way to understand that issue than to look at the nature of rights. The language of rights, as Harvard professor Mary Ann Glendon discusses in her 1991 book, Rights Talk, is a distorted way to speak about politics insofar as it draws the speakers into focusing exclusively on the individual, and not on community, on rights and entitlement, not on duty and service. Ultimately, politics is concerned with the common good of all at least as much as it is concerned with the protection of the individual person.

"What they're asking the courts to do is change the structure of marriage, '' said Jeffrey Ventrella, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents opponents of same-sex marriage in the court case.

Douglas Kmiec, a conservative Pepperdine University law professor, said the state has a legitimate interest in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples because "the essential aspect of marriage has always been related to procreation.'' With population declines reported in industrialized nations, he said, the state can justify a law "encouraging the relationships that result in children" and encouraging men, in particular, to take responsibility for their children.

Tobias Barrington Wolff, a liberal UC Davis law professor, retorted that marriage in the United States has changed substantially since the mid-19th century, when married women had no right to own property or refuse sex with their husbands.

While law in America disfavored women in marriage, and the states rightfully modified their laws accordingly, Wolff's response is inapposite and does not address the central issue: the purpose of marriage. His rejoinder, while it might suggest that historic understandings of different aspects of marriage were flawed, offers no positive comments about the meaning of marriage.

Kmiec emphasizes here the fundamental state interest in promoting marriage. Indeed, as Ventrella and certainly others have pointed out, the main reason why people would even countenance state intrusion into the most intimate of human associations is the fact that children are involved in marriage, and their protection and upbringing is of paramount interest to the state.

The deeper essence of marriage, of course, is not successful procreation but it is rather grounded in the complementary union of the male and the female. It is this institution that is basic to human nature, to what Hadley Arkes would call the natural teleology of the body. Marriage in and of itself, then exists prior to the modern state, which has an interest in upholding marriage, in terms of the definition of marriage as well as conduct pertaining to marriage. Much more could be said on the basic meaning of marriage, but it is probably safe to stop here for the moment.

2. Polygamy

The argument about polygamy is important, and instructive.

Ventrella also contended that legalization of same-sex marriage would eliminate the rationale for banning polygamy, because marriage would no longer be defined as a union of a man and a woman.

Wolff disagreed, saying anti-polygamy laws could be justified to protect women from exploitation, and because -- unlike gays and lesbians -- heterosexuals remain free to marry one partner of their choice at a time.

Insofar as advocates of same-sex marriage exclude from consideration the concepts of natural law, the complementary nature of the male-female union, the traditions of the nation and human civilization, the state interest in the most stable context for procreation and child-rearing, the sole basis for same-sex marriage is subjective individual preference and desire. Given that as a basis, it is difficult to see anything special about a two person relationship rather than one that involves more people.

Moreover, the argument against exploitation fails, for example, in cases of polyandry (multiple males with a single woman), or in cases where an equal number of men and women are involved in some sort of relationship. Moreover, the analysis fails because it is rooted in individual desire, not a grounding in nature. The polygamist can easily say to the objecting homosexual,"Who are you to say that my relationship is any less worthy than yours? I am a consenting adult who has chosen this lifestyle, and who are you to deny me the right to civil marriage?"

3. Federal Constitutional Amendment

"You shouldn't cut off a debate that's just beginning to take place nationally" by locking a definition of marriage into the Constitution, Amar argued. Stewart, the city's lawyer, said the amendment flies in the face of states' long-standing authority to regulate marriage.

But Kmiec said a constitutional amendment is "the ultimate act of federalism'' because it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states after approval by two-thirds of each house of Congress. With an amendment, he said, the debate "is not going to be in the courthouses, it's going to be in the (state) assembly houses."

Contra Amar, another way of looking at this debate is that is a variation of an earlier debate that occurred decades ago over the question of polygamy. The United States took the strongest position possible that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that territories wishing to join the union had to conform to this definition. The same logic that applies to polygamy may also be profitably applied to same-sex marriage; that is, an argument grounded on complementarity, not simply two spouses versus multiple spouses.

Moreover, on the question of enforcement, a single national definition of marriage as one man and one woman does not necessarily mean that the federal government will impose its will on the states. In light of the fact that a federal constitutional amendment will merely preserve the already-existing traditional understanding of marriage, that is unlikely to happen. Additionally, in some of its weaker forms, it seems that a proposed amendment would merely prevent judges from imposing same-sex marriage on the states, allowing state legislatures to create same-sex marriage if they desire.

As a more basic matter, the power of the people of the United States to create new constitutional amendments should not be disparaged. Much (perhaps all?) of the power of the legal and cultural elite over the people is a matter of coercion. It is a unique kind of coercion, not one that is based on force, but on convincing people of their intellectual and moral incapacity: their views are irrational and that they are bigots. See Thomas Sowell's Vision of the Anointed for a discussion of the contempt of the anointed for the benighted.

The amendment process, unlike the several strategies employed by judges to make policy without reference to the original meaning of the Constitution, is actually grounded in the plain text of the Constitution, and is the authorized means for changing the Constitution. Moreover, the Constitution does not limit the amendment process to merely procedural changes, such as changing the minimum voting age, but it also for substantive changes, such as the post-Civil War Reconstruction-era Amendments that secured the rights of blacks.

Kmiec accurately describes the amendment process as the ultimate act of federalism, as the Constitution puts in place procedural safeguards that prevent easy amendment of the national charter. However, when there is a challenge to the essential nature of the fundamental building block of all civilization, an amendment that secures that social institution against alteration sounds reasonable, at the very least.

For further reading:
A succinct article yet comprehensive in its scope, from Family Research Council
Questions and Answers: What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples "Marry?"

Ordering Liberty

(Updated February 5, 2005 2:33 p.m.)

Over two thousand years ago, the Teacher gave us this instruction:

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done:
and there is no new thing under the sun.

(Ecclesiastes 1:9 KJV)

This point holds true not only for that which has been done but also that which has been said:

In the course of On Liberty, Mill states not one but two principles of demarcation. The first declares that the only legitimate grounds for social coercion is to prevent someone from doing harm to others. (xv)
* * *
Mill's second principle, then, is that the harms that society ought to protect us against are those that violate our rights. (xvii)

On Liberty, Editor's Introduction by Elizabeth Rapaport.

It is evident that crucial all-purpose arguments in contemporary Western liberal politics may be traced back to the Enlightenment philosopher, John Stuart Mill. They are so useful because they reach into deeply internalized conceptions of the good, as understood by many people. Mill's writings, despite their sometimes arid philosophical style, have a familiar ring because his basic ideas and his examples have been appreciated, followed, and transmitted by several generations of good liberals.

Yet he has always had enemies, even at the beginning. Roger Kimball, writing in Armavirumque, the sometimes un-serious yet perceptive weblog of The New Criterion, a serious journal of arts and letters, invokes one of Mill's original critics, the British judge James Fitzjames Stephens, in his own critique of Mill:

Stephen's criticisms of Mill were published in his book Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, which appeared about a decade after On Liberty. Many of the criticisms are devastating. [...] But that has hardly mattered. Mill's doctrines have taken the world by storm, while Stephen has receded to become a footnote in intellectual history.

Why? One reason is that Mill said things that people wanted to hear. Mill seemed to be giving people a permanent vacation from the moral dictates of society. How often have you heard the argument "It's not hurting anyone else" put forward as a justification for self-indulgence? [...]

Kimball provides further warnings about Mill's project of moral transformation, which really amount to a reversal of the typical presumptions that have guided traditional society. The tried and true becomes the provincial and prejudiced -- indeed, Kimball says the word "prejudice" itself has been transmuted from gold to lead. Instead, there is a fascination, perhaps an obsession, with originality and innovation.

Consider, as an example of how much influence such Enlightenment ideas hold over public discourse today, the notion that a moral reason is an insufficient basis for legislation. "You can't legislate morality." Yet it may be said that even that notion is a moral judgment, though one that is, without a fair amount of qualification and nuance, rather naive and vacuous. Much energy then is expended, then, to attempt to distinguish private morals and public ethics. As one might imagine, much of the content of public ethics is siphoned off into the untouchable realm of private morals.

Indeed, some say that in the wake of the Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas (ruling anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional) it is questionable whether any law that was enacted solely for a moral purpose can pass constitutional muster. I suspect that position might have horrified the Founders, though it satisfies many people today and it would certainly have pleased Mill.

In a recent example, Family Research Council's monthly Culture Facts paper reports that

Judge Lancaster, a judicial activist appointed by President Bill Clinton, last week discovered a constitutional right to sell obscene films depicting women who are beaten, raped and killed. The ruling came in a case called U.S. v. Extreme Associates.
This previously unknown "right," Lancaster says, emanates from the U.S. Supreme Court's far-reaching 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas which struck down state sodomy laws. The Lawrence decision, Lancaster wrote, "can be reasonably interpreted as holding that public morality is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing on adult, private, consensual, sexual conduct even if that conduct is deemed offensive to the general public's sense of morality."
(Culture Facts February 4, 2005)

For further examination of the classic writings, the Liberty Fund, a "private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals," has the full text of Mill's On Liberty and Stephen's Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity as a featured debate on liberty and equality in its online library.

While it may not be essential to consult the classics with full exegetical rigor, the salient points must be understood and swiftly dealt with now. We still live in the shadow of the Enlightenment.

State of the Union 2005: Foreword to the Future

The President's State of the Union address was a remarkable success on several levels. (Full text in print version and in five pages from MSNBC)

The address was successful as an artfully delivered speech. Contrast Bush's performance in delivering this address with that of the Inaugural Address, with regard to such things as pacing, confidence, and other aspects of a strong presentation that resonates with the audiences in the hall, in homes in America, and viewers living abroad.

The address successfully brought to the table the key domestic issue of Social Security reform. The present system will eventually collapse under its own weight, and Bush described a bold agenda for change. This section garnered the only boos of the evening at the midpoint of his discussion of Social Security, but supporters in the audience rebounded with greater applause at the close of his discussion of this subject.

Bush also continued to champion positions on domestic issues that satisfy conservatives; indeed, many in the political right would view these as the core issues because they are cultural in nature. Specifically, he endorsed a constitutional amendment preserving the definition of marriage, the appointment of judges who are faithful to the text of the Constitution, and the protection of human life against destruction in the name of science.

The address succeeded as an event. The defining moment of the evening was the spontaneous embrace shared by a Safia Taleb al-Suhail, a female voter from Iraq and Janet Norwood, the mother of Sgt. Byron Norwood, a fallen American soldier. Everyone in the room turned and applauded at length, and Bush gazed up into the mezzazine respectfully. It was an incredible moment, so much so that Cokie Roberts' commented that Bush's words would be forgotten amidst this display of raw emotion.

Yet it was Bush's deeds that led to that moment, his decision to liberate Iraq that brought these people to their destinies, bringing a man to become a hero in death and a woman to become a heroine in life.

In the moment of embrace, al-Suhail's sleeve became tangled in Norwood's dog tag, even as the fates of the United States and Iraq have become intertwined. Providentially, this week, some of the firstfruits of this massive and costly project have become evident. The Iraqi people voted in free elections for the first time in decades. Even the mainstream media reported a cessation of violence earlier this week.

Bush's speech began with a discussion of domestic issues and ended with foreign issues, describing a vision of political freedom extending beyond America's borders. And throughout the night, the president exuded leadership. It was a drama well worth watching.

Now, back to analyzing the wisdom of these policies, back to assessing their feasibility in this difficult yet hopeful world.

-Covert Advisor.

The Doctrine of Justification Then and Now

Harvard law student Josh Davey (Locke v. Davey) in one of his recent Letters from Babylon recently began a series of posts on the doctrine of justification. Justification involves the means through which sinful man may obtain the righteousness of God. If that paltry attempt at definition is insufficient, see his first post, which reproduces the Canons on Justification of the Council of Trent (1547). At Trent, the Roman Catholic Church decisively responded to Protestant teaching on justification, declaring it anathema.

See for example,

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

Future Letters from Babylon are slated to present Arminian and Reformed views on justification. Consider, however, much earlier perspectives on the doctrine of justification in the writings of the Church Fathers, centuries before the divisions of the Christian church along Western/Eastern or Roman Catholic/Protestant lines (among many other divisions).

Thomas Oden, a Methodist theologian at Drew University, makes the case in The Justification Reader that:

There is indeed a textually defined consensual classic Christian teaching on salvation by grace through faith. This can be demonstrated textually by presenting the evidences of consensual interpretation in the classic exposition of those key biblical texts upon which all agree that a Christian doctrine of justification must be grounded. So what follows is a highly textual evidentiary presentation.

My intent is simple: I will show how the classic Christian exegetes, mostly of the first five centuries, dealt with Paul's justification teaching. In doing so I will ask whether there is already formed in the first millennium a reliable, clear, central core of the classic Christian teaching of salvation by grace through faith. (Oden, 16)

Oden is the series editor of the ambitious, in-progress Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (IVP) which seeks to recover the exegesis of the early church and publish it for today's readers.

Returning to the present day, one recent attempt to find (or found?) unity between evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics on cultural engagement and even core theological matters as justification is the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) project. Leaders from both sides have engaged in drafting joint documents over the last few years that are said to reflect shared commitments and beliefs.

See Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium (1994) and also The Gift of Salvation (1998). ECT produced much criticism for allegedly papering over genuine differences on crucial issues. For example, some would say that the documents seem to indicate that agreeing to belief in salvation by grace through faith in Christ is a new accomplishment, whereas the issue has always been whether salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. In any case, a few responses from some of the Protestant signers are excerpted at Leadership University's ECT page, but there is much more commentary online.

Recently, evangelicals drafted The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration (1999) as a distinctively evangelical statement concerning salvation, the gospel, and justification. It is a positive statement of evangelical belief rather than a critique, but its couplet style (affirmation/denial) makes the document particularly clear.

Why is it so important to understand salvation and justification in particular? If the Christian religion is true, then man is separated from God by an infinite gulf whose breadth is not so much defined as a difference between finitude and infinity, or creation and Creator, but between sinfulness and holiness. The church is unified in the belief that Jesus Christ bridges this gulf, but there is significant disagreement over how this bridge is laid. Who has rightly interpreted the teachings of Scripture? Explore the documents and resources described above and see.

-Covert Advisor

The Justification of War Reconsidered

Was/is the war in Iraq justified? What ethical analytical tools shall one apply to resolve this question?

The just war tradition is one of the dominant modes of reasoning concerning ethics in warfare today. There are strong competitors, such as pacifism and realism, but even those who inhabit such traditions consider the just war way of thinking. For example, some just war pacifists argue that the just war tradition, applied to the modern world of total war and strategic bombing, leads to the inexorable conclusion that warfare as conducted today is unjust. Realists know that in democratic societies, at least, leaders must articulate satisfactory reasons for war (casus belli) to their people. Such rationale typically includes some ethical component.

The basic elements of just war are as follows:

First, ius ad bellum (justice before war)

A just war may only be initiated by legitimate authority, acting under right intention, as a last resort.

1. Legitimate Authority: only the civil authority may initiate hostilities, not any private party.

2. Right Intention: e.g. self-defense, recovery of captured lands, punishment for wrongdoing. Often, self-defense is treated as the only sufficient right intention in contemporary warfare.
However, consider humanitarian intervention to stop purely intrastate genocide.

While preemption of imminent attack is not controversial, preventive action is contested. However, consider the modern aspect of weapons of mass destruction

3. Last Resort: Some say that other options must actually be tried and found ineffective. Others say that this is a prudential element, and that under circumstances, such as imminent attack, it would be unwise to choose diplomacy over preemptive strike.

There are other elements of ius ad bellum such as reasonable likelihood of success (that the war will not be futile), or comparative justice, but these are enough to think about right now.

Second, consider ius in bello (justice in war)

War must be conducted following the principles of proportionality and discrimination.

1. Proportionality: the use of force must be proportionate to the injury suffered. Total devastation of an enemy because of a small border incursion would not be proportionate.

2. Principle of Discrimination/Noncombatant Immunity: civilians, i.e. persons other than soldiers may not be harmed. Civilian property rather than war materiel may also be considered here. Civilians are inevitably harmed in war, but this collateral damage is permitted if harm to civilians is accidental rather than deliberate.

The Pew Forum has a good set of resources on just war tradition from scholars who are well-attuned to the philosophical tradition as well as the nature of contemporary warfare, e.g. the September 11th attack and the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq.

James Turner Johnson, a leading just war theorist, wrote a recent piece on just war in First Things, the monthly journal of religion and public life.

John Lewis Gaddis, a historian and noted writer on war though not, to my knowledge, just war theory, wrote an essay on US grand strategy for the next four years in Foreign Affairs. There he considers the shift from preemptive war to preventive war in the post 9/11 world.

Some Christians express interest in examining more closely the biblical strand of just war apart from the encrustation of philosophy, international law, and history. Here are a couple of discussions along such lines:

A Christian Perspective on Just War by William Einwechter in Vision Forum. This article tracks the classical formulation of just war.

What The Bible Says About War as a detailed study and a short article from Calvary Chapel. This article does not follow the formula, taking a different, though not necessarily inconsistent approach.

Also, see an intriguing fragment from Amherst scholar Hadley Arkes' book on moral reasoning, also titled First Things, excerpted by attorney Seth Cooper. In this view, a foreign state may rightfully bolster an embattled, though legitimate government, backed by the people, that is resisting a chiefly internal threat. May a state also topple an illegitimate government, opposed by its people, and install a new one in service to these people? Arkes wrote this book in 1986, before the Islamic terrorism of the new millennium, before the humanitarian interventions of the 1990s, and yet his words remain timely and intriguing.

Does just war theory exhaustively cover all possibilities for the ethical justification of warfare? Is it the theory too narrow, or too broad? Is it hidebound and inflexible, or too easily adapted to fit any circumstance? Ultimately, some might consider this medieval casuistry a doomed attempt to impose order on a shifting, living dune. Yet for others it is nothing less than discerning the moral order inherent in the universe, and living by it, even in the midst of slaughter.