Ontological Politics

Ought Christians to mourn if Muslims blew up the Vatican? In such case ought we to express solidarity with the Roman church? Would we rally for its reconstruction in a show of defiance toward Islam and their purposed attack on Christendom? I mean, as a Protestant and a Calvinist, I recognize such happenstance, were it to come about, would be a providential judgment of God of a lesser evil by a greater evil but that doesn’t mean that we should refrain from acknowledgement of the criminality of the act itself.

As Iconoclasts, we must in some sense be thankful for the deserved judgment of the Mecca (pardon the expression) of Idolatry but that doesn’t mean that we applaud the Mohammedans for it. Theirs’ would still have been a wicked act of wicked men in dedication to their dark god.

When spoken in a pejorative tense one might claim that I’m speaking of siding with “the lesser of two evils.” But that’s simply to say that we, as Christians, accept the responsibility of discerning the relative truth to falsehood ratio in any given worldview over and against another. “The lesser of two evils” can also be expressed as “the best of all available choices.” This, in my estimation, was demonstrated by Augustine in his many expressions of appreciation of the thinking of Plato. He wasn’t a Platonist but he was compelled to acknowledge the relative truth of Platonic thought over that of other philosophic schools.

When put in more distinguishable terms, though they both be lost in their sins, we would toil much more peacefully with a Mormon than with a head-hunting Animist. We find more commonality with one than the other.

But then the Vatican question is just a thumbnail sketch of the Islamic overthrow of Europe. The once shining bastion of Christianity has in its apostasy, collaborated in a Jones’ town styled suicide pact and Islam is happy to provide the refreshments. And though I have no small measure of sentimentality toward the old world, it is by contemporary appraisal that I still identify (as a Christian) with a Secular Humanist Europe over a thoroughly theistic Islam. The Christian heroes of old Europe (Don Rodrigo of Bivar, Charles Martel, et. al.) understood this. Again, we toil more peacefully alongside those who would seek to censure or jail us rather than those who would murder us.

Understand that I’m not advocating Utilitarianism. That in large measure is what put Europe in its present decline and is summed up in their old concession slogan: “Better Red than dead.” Such secular pragmatism was perceived by John Galt and led him to say of the Germans: “Mine are the most foolish people in the world. One would expect after having dealt with the Nazis that they would have learned to fight evil; instead they learned that it was evil to fight.”

No, Christians must stand firm on the principles of our faith as lain in scripture. But such resolve does not/ must not preclude interaction with the world as it is. We must remember that we live in an imperfect world amongst imperfect people. Judging between “the lesser of evils” is a constant in the Christian life without which we could not even countenance other believers as they too are sinful and therefore in their own measure, “evil.” After all, we are called to be “…in the world but not of the world.”

The Apostle Paul made ready use of Roman law, a “lesser evil” in itself, when apprehended and beaten by the Jews and their acolytes. He argued his case with all the resources at his disposal insofar as they were not contrary to the Christian worldview. He went on to employ his “right of appeal” before Caesar. He could not have done this had he understood the relative evil of Rome to preclude all Christian interaction with such institutions.

Point by point we see the early Church judging between the twin forces of Rome and Judea. In some matters they sided with Rome, employing Roman law to supersede Jewish adjudication. At other points they sided with the Jewish Zealots against illegitimate Roman jurisdictions—as Jesus Himself limited Caesar’s power of taxation: “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” Such appears historiographically to be a prime component of the Christian overthrow of both powers; bringing to light not only the incompatibilities of Helenism with apostate Judaism but also the internal incoherence of both.

As I’ve written elsewhere, Christian ethics aren’t situational but the applications thereof are because we often haven’t recourse to any “perfect” alternatives. What I mean is that when locked in a room with a more or less civil Atheist and a mad-dog Killer, the Christian will not regard the two as moral equivalents. One is of a greater threat to life and therefore, a greater evil. In such case, one’s alliance with the Atheist may be an uneasy one but the alternative is worse. Yes, he is the “lesser of two evils” but he is also the “best of all available choices” at that time. Call it Christian relativism if you like (though I wouldn’t) but the denial of this is a refusal to interact with or even acknowledge the world as it is and must be regarded in some measure as docetistic.

This brings me to the real purpose of this article: Politics. There’s a difference between taking the holy road and the holier than thou road. As it applies to American politics, there are many whom I greatly respect which have gone the latter: To whit—the entirety of the Constitution Party, which makes perpetual use of the above highlighted catch phrase “lesser of two evils” in their campaign against the two-party system. While a Christian is forced to concede to the tandem R & D parties being evils, the syllogism does not constrain us to the conclusion drawn by Doug Phillips and co.

Anselm’s dialogue with Gonillon [sic] is helpful here—consider it this way: Is it better to cast vote for a thoroughly Christian candidate (Const. Pty.) who, under current circumstances, will never win or for the pseudo-Christian moralist (Rep. Pty.) who could actually win, thus bringing about at least some of our goals?

The Ontological Argument applied to Politics then works thusly: A pseudo-Christian candidate who could win in the real world trumps a thoroughly Christian candidate who has no hope of winning. Therefore, a ballot cast for the latter is actually working against the Christian ambition of doing good in the real world. And casting a vote on “the principle of the thing” is simply a self-gratification and does nothing but assuage inappropriately guilt-ridden consciences. On the contrary, if a Believer foregoes the opportunity to do some small amount of real good in deference to a statement of mere conceptual good, he ought then to feel guilty.