I'm officiating a wedding for a couple from my church this month. Tennessee provides a significant discount for the marriage license if the couple goes through pre-marital counseling. I both approve of this and find it fascinating as a moral question behind public policy.
Will a couple *not* get married because of the cost of a license? Of course not. But small actions like incentivizing healthy marriage formation by reducing the cost of a license is one tangible way that government can promote a healthy marriage culture.
As policy and government continue to asses the breakdown of civil society, policy needs to see what it can do to encourage couples to enter marriage prepared and informed about the commitment they are making. A marriage license discount is one small way.
I've thought a lot about incentives when it comes to marriage and public policy. Want to know my most provocative idea? A marriage preservation tax credit. Every year a couple stays married, there's a reduction on their tax liability.
The credit scales according to the number of years married. A newlywed couple receives a smaller credit than a married couple with children at home. Why? Government should incentivize intact marriage at the most critical time of a marriage's existence: Children at home.
The marriage preservation tax credit would sunset the longer the marriage persists. A couple married for 30+ years would see it reduce to an amount similar to the newlyweds.
It's good for law to symbolically recognize the value of marriage to our culture.
Will a tax credit prevent a marriage from collapsing? Doubtful, but it could provide an added layer of incentive for people to fight harder to preserve their marriage for the good of their personal flourishing, their children's well-being, and their community's moral ecology.
All that to say, a hyper-libertarian worldview that treats all relationships as equal contracts is insufficient to the lived realities of human beings. A contract with a plumber for certain services is not the same as the covenant with your spouse. Policy should recognize this.
We cannot be indifferent to the culture of family formation around us and not think it will not come back to bite us. Society is little more than the aggregate number of families bonded together within a community.
The system has a soul.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Let's talk about an irony I can't help but notice. Jimmy Carter’s Christian faith is being praised and celebrated.
By all accounts, Carter's Christianity was a particularly pietistic expression of Mainline Protestantism. Reading his beliefs about Scripture confirms he takes a neo-orthodox approach to Scripture's inspiration. That's the tell.
This is a Protestantism whose doctrinal core has been hollowed out for decades by theological liberalism. It is a form of modernized Christianity out of sync with biblical Christianity as it jettisons the most controversial and supposedly outmoded elements of Christianity to placate the spirit of the age. For example, Carter is on record celebrating same-sex marriage and defending abortion. He hectored Southern Baptist conservatives for the denomination's return to biblical Christianity and loudly departed.
Yet, when conservative Christianity acts on its faith, the public and media's tone shifts—suddenly, Christianity becomes a problem. It is a threat to democracy and illiberal.
Why the double standard?
2/ Carter’s faith resonated with liberal ideals—service, humility, and social justice. His Christianity is what one of my old professors would call "BOMFOG"—Brotherhood of Man and Fatherhood of God. Of course, service, humility, seeking justice, and loving your neighbor can be beautiful and vital parts of Christianity. But Christianity also speaks about sin, human nature, family structure, the exclusivity of Christ for salvation, sexual morality, repentance, and absolute truth—topics that, well, aren't very popular with cultural progressives.
3/ When conservative Christians act in line with their beliefs on issues like life, family, or religious liberty, they are met with criticism and labeled as intolerant or regressive. Just look at the past eight years on how evangelicals have been vilified in the media (even by fellow Christians at elite publications). Sure, there is some nutty stuff said and done by evangelicals, but on the whole, if you take your Christian faith seriously and it becomes a threat to the comfortable and feted precincts of cultural progressivism, you are now verboten. Consider the foreboding media analysis done against JD Vance's supposedly post-liberal Catholicism. You might as well play the Darth Vader theme when talking about Vance's faith.
As we prepare for Christmas, let's reflect on Jonathan Edwards' beautiful meditation on Christ's nature: "The Excellency of Christ." In Him, we see the perfect union of qualities that seem impossible to combine. He is both Lion and Lamb, majesty and meekness. 🧵
Christ is the Lion of Judah (Rev. 5:5)—mighty, royal, and victorious. He defeats sin and Satan with His power. Yet He is also the Lamb of God (John 1:29)—gentle, sacrificial, and full of compassion. This "admirable conjunction" shows His unique glory.
Consider His birth: The eternal Word who created the stars (John 1:3) was born in a humble manger (Luke 2:7). Christ’s glory is veiled in humility—true majesty wrapped in swaddling clothes. This is the paradox and wonder of Christmas.
An #IowaCaucus Day🧵on the relationship between politics and theology and why the two cannot be separated without one eventually impacting the other:
I have never seen someone embrace progressive politics or cozy up to it and end up with a more vibrant and orthodox faith. Just the opposite has been the case in my experience: Someone who was formerly progressive is converted and ends up holding to positions that our modern nomenclature calls “conservative.” Either that is purely coincidental or there is a causal relationship.
I think there’s a causal relationship. Blaze journalist @AuronMacintyre likes to say, “Progressivism will hollow out your religion and wear its skin like a trophy.”
Drawing a moral equivalence between Greg Abbot protecting kids from bodily mutilation and Gavin Newsom wanting to expand pharmaceutical access to kill unborn children is not the argument that a Christian or conservative should be making. nytimes.com/2023/03/12/opi…
The state can and should differentiate between genuine moral harms and genuine moral goods and then, in appropriate ways, restrict harms and encourage goods. To say otherwise is to question why government exists—“to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.”
Not all state action is a power-play based on vanquishing a political enemy for pure political gamesmanship. And when moral goods are threatened by certain politicians, politicians make themselves an enemy to just order—and to God’s creation order. They deserve disempowerment.
As Protestants debate political theology, it’s worth considering: I’m not convinced Christianity posits or is meant to posit an exquisite or exactingly detailed political theory on the scale of a grand strategy. Why? Because Christianity means negligent quietism ? No.
Because Christianity is chiefly about reconciling sinners to a holy God and life in God’s redemptive Kingdom; not principally about organizing social orders—even if Christian reflection bears significantly upon that task and urgently relevant to the truth and the common good.
As I survey debates happening, it seems a sector of Protestant political thought is ascribing omni-competence to the role of government in delivering the perfectly-just political order and in the process, flattening out a divine commission to mere earthly reclamation.
The Cuomoization of marriage is not a tenable safe harbor for Christians. "I personally believe in biblical marriage but allow for same-sex civil marriage" misunderstands what marriage is in Scripture. This is increasingly going to be an approach taken. It's wrong.
Scripture justifies no bifurcation between sacred and civil marriage. Yes, marriage is a metaphor for the gospel in Ephesians 5, but that in no way abrogates its relationship to the creation order. It only heightens it. Marriage is rooted in creation. It is "natural" so to speak.
Even C.S. Lewis, who believed in civil marriage before the state and religious marriage before the church, would not sanction the disjunction many now want to make. Because the question always is, fundamentally: "What is marriage?"