Listening to Trumpkin

I’m wrestling with a serious moral issue right now, and I’m not at all sure how this is going to wind up.

Some time in the near future, I’m going to share more about that. For the moment, though, there’s a little something that strikes me. It has to do with how Christians make decisions and what resources we use to make those decisions. We rely on quite a lot of information, and often it is a kind that we can’t trust.

I’m speaking, of course, of secular information. Often, when we are called to make moral decisions, we look for facts and other people’s ideas. Sometimes, these ideas are entirely secular in origin. This is a mistake.

I’m reminded of C. S. Lewis’ Prince Caspian. Lucy (the youngest of the Pevensie children, in case you don’t know … and if you don’t know, you MUST read the Narnia Chronicles immediately!) sees Aslan while the Pevensies and the dwarf, Trumpkin, are trying to figure out how to reach the other Narnians. Since she alone sees him, there is a vote to see what they should do.

This scene, I think, speaks to a number of our current moral questions and how we address them. I think that most of us get it wrong quite a lot, actually.

First of all, the entire idea of a vote is ludicrous. The Pevensies are Kings and Queens of Narnia. Though it might have been a millenium since their rule in Cair Paravel, it was given to them to rule, and they were brought back for their role in Narnia’s history and future, not their ability to count.

Secondly, they are accepting input about how to respond to Aslan from an unbeliever. No one can deny that Trumpkin is brave and respectful, but even while he’s standing in front of the High King Peter and his brother and sisters, Trumpkin states plainly that he doesn’t believe in Aslan. When he casts his vote regarding how to respond to Aslan’s appearance, he explains perfectly why the Pevensies shouldn’t be listening to him:

“I know nothing about Aslan. But I do know that if we turn left and follow the gorge up, it might lead all day before we found a place where we could cross it … And if there are any real lions about, we want to go away from them, not toward them.”

Trumpkin doesn’t believe in Aslan. He certainly doesn’t believe that there is any sense in following the Lion. In fact, he says that the group should avoid lions. The Kings and Queens should have seen that as a red flag and dismissed his vote, deciding amongst themselves what to do (and, yes, their vote was tied 2-2).

So, how does one apply this to the real world? What the heck am I talking about?

Let’s take an example …

Looking for information about another post on which I’m working, I came across this article by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein from the Objective Standard, which makes a case for its own moral viewpoint regarding conduct in war.

I’m not going to argue those specifics right now, because that’s the matter for the other post on which I’m working. However, I want to deal with the moment at which the author states that he cannot be a useful part of my moral decision-making:

An even more significant motivation is the religiosity of many Americans (especially conservatives). While the militant methods of Islamic Totalitarianism are anathema to religious Americans, the ethical prescriptions of the movement—a life of faith, material renunciation, and sacrifice for a “higher” cause—are consistent with everything religious Americans hold as ideal.

Their derision of the idea that there exists any higher cause means that their view of the cosmos and mine have little overlap. They see a world in which there is nothing beyond the material, and I know better.

While Brook and Epstein will go on to make a case for the morality of torture and attacking civilians, I see a few things. First, their morality is repugnant to me. Yes, I suppose that I’m one of the altruists that they revile so much. Still, I happen to believe that my life is meant to be lived by certain outside rules, and it is not my own to use as I will.

Second, they utterly dismiss the idea that there is another side to the story. I could very easily turn their entire article around and use it to justify terrorism. That, of course, is the peril in trying to use materialist ethics.

The biggest problem I have, though, is that I have seen and heard these same arguments used by Christians and conservatives in discussing warfare. I have talked about the use of landmines, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium ammunition, and I tend to get back responses about how we need such weapons, dismissing moral concerns. They specifically attack, for example, the ideas of proportionality and discrimination of the Just War Theory. (These ideas, by the way, refer to making sure that the war is worth fighting in the first place, and making sure that we don’t kill civilians.)

Yet, I hear Christians saying the same kind of thing. I expect it from the “Objective Standard.” Based on Ayn Rand’s amoral and materialistic ideas of “rational self-interest,” I expect to see articles dismissing the lives of others. I don’t expect to hear it from Christians, whose King said very plainly (Matthew 5:43-45; from the New International Version, courtesy of BibleGateway.com):

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor^[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies^[b] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

We don’t have the option of casually hating even our enemies. We are called to a higher standard, whether Brook and Epstein recognize it or not. My fear is that Christians spend too much time listening to “rational” voices that tell us how we should fight wars, and not enough time studying what God said about the matter.

Those who dismiss civilian deaths are not in accordance with Christian thinking about war and the execution thereof. Certainly, the case that Brook and Epstein make seems reasonable. After all, they’re talking about American self-defense and how to defend the country.

However, it is very important to understand that they specifically and deliberately reject the principles of Christian morality. They hear us say that we’ve seen the Lion, and they say that if there are any lions about, we should go away from them.

Ultimately, that means that they’re going to lead in the wrong direction.