To review the birth control debate, under President Obama’s new health care plan, churches could be exempted from certain provisions of the law for religious reasons, most notably the requirement to provide insurance that covers contraception, but church-run hospitals, schools, and other institutions that employed people beyond the members of that church were not exempt.  Catholic bishops complained that forcing Catholic schools and hospitals to provide insurance that covered contraception was a violation of Catholic social teaching.  President Obama offered a compromise: insurance companies serving such hospitals and colleges would be required to provide contraception coverage, but church-related institutions would not be required to pay for it directly.  Catholic leaders still protested that they would still be paying for contraception indirectly through higher insurance premiums.

This debate has raised for me two questions: First, is paying for something you find objectionable a violation of conscience?  Furthermore, does it matter how directly you are paying for it?

Certainly Catholic bishops did regard it as a violation of conscience to be forced to pay for contraception, even for non-Catholic employees.  Let us be clear, Obama was never trying to force Catholics to use birth control, nor were Catholic bishops really trying to stop non-Catholics from using birth control.  The debate was over money, not behavior.  When we think about violations of conscience, we usually think about coercion of behavior, but this case is somewhat different.  Paying for something is different than doing something.  It’s providing resources that may enable others to behave a certain way, but it is different than behaving that way one’s self.

To draw an analogy from the opposite side of the political spectrum, part of our tax money goes to support the military.  For those from pacifist religious traditions, war is an immoral activity which violates their conscience.  There are legal exemptions from military service for religious pacifists.  Nevertheless, pacifists are still expected to pay their taxes, some of which support war.  By requiring pacifists to pay taxes that support the military, is the government violating their conscience?  It’s not coercing behavior, but it is requiring them to pay money that enables behavior to which they are opposed.

The issue becomes more interesting when the method of payment becomes less direct.  The higher insurance premiums which the Catholic bishops feared were not a direct means of paying for contraception.  They were indirect.  Yet the bishops still found these objectionable.  This same logic undergirds many politically-motivated boycotts of companies.  Whether it’s a call for boycotting the Beijing Olympics because of China’s human rights record or divesting one’s self of investments in companies that did business in apartheid South Africa back in the 1980s, the goal is to not lend indirect financial support to actions one finds morally reprehensible.

I recognize that the issue of indirect financial support of immoral behavior is up for debate, but I think there are dangers in assuming that any time we give money to an organization that is in any way connected to something we find objectionable, we are violating our conscience.  Ultimately, we’re connected to so many companies, individuals, and organizations in modern society that we can’t assume that everyone supports the moral (or immoral) actions of every other person and group with whom they interact.  To do so would both be ridiculous and lead to a form of moral absolutism that could only result in withdrawal from the rest of society.  If we want to maintain an inter-connected, inter-dependent society (and all of us who drive on public roads or buy things that we didn’t make ourselves do), we must be willing to do business with people who may do things we disagree with, even if they take some of the money we’ve paid them and use it to do those disagreeable things.  We may, of course, decide in some cases to not do business with them to influence their actions (as in boycotts as a political strategy rather than a moral statement).  Yet I don’t think we should assume all association with people with opposing morals represents moral compromise.  We may not be happy that some of our money is indirectly support things with which we disagree, but it seems to me to be a better alternative than the absolute breakdown of social, economic, and political interdependence that is the alternative.

Let me reiterate my three caveats: 1. All of my answers for “what comes next” are just guesses.  Since it comes next, it’s only partially here now and thus hard to discern.  2. I’m using the definition of postmodernity from last week that sees it as a transitional period between modernity and what comes next (though the answers also draw on postmodernity as critique).  In many cases, there will be a lot of overlap between the answers for postmodernity and one of those other two periods.  3. The answers below are brief and therefore simplistic.  If you’d like to see me elaborate on a question, indicate that in the comments.

Where is history going?

Christendom: The world is likely going to decay and fall apart.  People should work hard to prevent that from happening.

Modernity: The world is on a path toward ever greater progress.  People should get on board with the progress train.

Postmodernity: We can’t say where history is going because such an answer depends on metanarratives, and all metanarratives should be distrusted.

What comes next: The world is becoming an ever more globally connected and networked place.

How should government be organized and what is its role?

Christendom: Government should be in the hands of kings and nobility.  Government is for reinforcing social hierarchy and protecting all from violence.  The role of government is fairly limited (mostly taxes and war) and the amount of bureaucracy needed to carry out its functions is small.

Modernity: Government should be in the hands of nation-states, which increasingly (but not always!) became democratic.  Government is for the general good of those governed (at least rhetorically, if not in fact).  The role of government is much expanded, including not only taxes and war, but also the regulation of increasing areas of the economy and personal life.  As the role of government expands, an increasing amount of bureaucracy is needed to carry out the functions of government.

Postmodernity: The form and role of government are pretty much the same as in modernity.  However, rather than being seen as for the general good, governments are an arena in which competing interest groups can assert their claims and try to achieve power.

What comes next: I’m not sure yet.  Postmodernity’s move toward fragmentation and decentralization makes me wonder if government will increasingly be provided on a decentralized basis with many government functions subcontracted out.  If what comes next is as communal as I think it will be, government may also increasingly be in the form of communal norms agreed to by all who seek membership in the community and enforced by communal gatekeepers (think about how Wikipedia works).  It also seems like there will be a shifting of power away from the nation state toward either more global or more local authorities.

How should the church be organized?

Christendom: The church is universal.  It is also hierarchical, with bishops, monks, and increasingly scholars as competing sources of hierarchical power.

Modernity: The church is national or denominational.  Catholicism continues to centralize.  Among Protestants, more organizational models proliferate, from episcopal through congregational.  Many of these models vest authority in ministers or associations of ministers.  Denominations frequently embrace democracy, at least in principle.  Many denominations evolve bureaucratic structures to carry out various forms of Christian work.

Postmodernity: Organization is overrated.  Denominations aren’t relevant.  Instead, individual megachurches successfully market themselves to particular markets and provide a comprehensive set of services and ministries for members.

What comes next: I see no reason to believe that organizational diversity will decrease in the future.  I do think that parachurch organizations, church networks, and ad-hoc groups of churches will be increasingly important and take on some of the roles previously played by denominations.

What should the relationship be between churches and the state?

Christendom: There should be a close relationship, with church and state supporting each other and both working to create a stable society.

Modernity: While states support of churches still exists, increasingly the church and state are seen as separate realms, and this separation is seen as a good thing.

Postmodernity: Separation of church and state still exists, but religious forces have increasingly important political consequences.

What comes next: I’m not sure how this question will be answered yet, but I think it’s one with very important consequences for religion, government, and the prospects for peace.

How should civil society be organized?

Christendom: Non-church, non-state groups are organized by ascription, based on set characteristics of people.  For instance, guilds form around occupation and kin networks are formed through birth and marriage.

Modernity: Non-church, non-state groups are organized according to the voluntary principle.  Individuals can choose for themselves which groups to participate in.  Groups are then organized into formal and increasingly bureaucratic organizations.

Postmodernity: Formal organizations are just a way for some to assert power over others.  Do your own thing.  Or join groups based on shared identity: racial, ethnic, sexual, political, etc.  Competing interest groups ensure that no one group dominates society.

What comes next: My guess here is that non-church, non-state groups will increasingly be organized along social network models.  These models preserve the voluntary component from modernity, but are less likely to have the same sort of formal structure.  Groups may also become more ad-hoc or project-based.

What are the important forms of communication?

Christendom: Face-to-face communication; handwritten books and letters.

Modernity: Printing! Face-to-face communication and handwritten letters don’t go away though the variety of information communicated in these ways is less because there are other avenues available.

Postmodernity: TV!  Printing doesn’t go away.  Face-to-face communication doesn’t go away, but the type of information being communicated directly person-to-person is much more limited than in Christendom.

What comes next: The internet!  TV and printing don’t go away, nor does face-to-face communication.  Of course, there may arise new forms of communication I am not yet able to foresee, which would change everything.