Jaywalk for Machen!

Do it safely, but do it.

Because of its ever-growing size and felt need for convention-style amenities, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America must meet in mid-sized (or larger) cities, usually downtown. Since 2021 these downtowns are increasingly deserted. Roughly a third to a half of the eateries seem to be open. And the streets are almost deserted. There never seem to be enough rooms in the convention center's “main” hotel, so commissioners have to perambulate a good bit. And some find opportunity to jaywalk. Some even jaywalk for Machen.

That’s right—each year the cry “JAYWALK FOR MACHEN! can be heard echoing between parking garages and half-occupied office buildings as sport-coated presbyters daringly cross empty streets in random places. There are yet (even in the PCA) a few men who remember that liberty-loving, modernity-hating J. Gresham Machen opposed silly new nanny-state laws enough to write a letter to the editor of a Philadelphia newspaper in 1931.

These anti-pedestrian laws are intended either for the protection of the pedestrian, or for the convenience of the motorist.  In either case . . . they are wrong.
If they are intended to protect the pedestrian from himself, they are paternalistic.  I am opposed to paternalism.  Among other far more serious objections to it is the objection that it defeats its own purpose.  The children of some over-cautious parents never learn to take care of themselves, and so are far more apt to get hurt than children who lead a normal life.  So I do not believe that in the long run it will be in the interests of safety if people get used to doing nothing except what a policeman or a traffic light tells them to do, and thus never learn to exercise reasonable care.

I am sorry when I see people taking foolish chances on the street.  I believe in urging them not to do it.  If they do it in outrageous and unreasonable fashion I should not be particularly averse to fining them for obstructing traffic.  I rather think that might even be done under existing laws.

But I am dead opposed to subjecting a whole city because of the comparatively few incautious people to a treadmill regime like that which prevails in Western cities.  I resent such a regime for myself.  I have tried it, and I know that it prevent me from the best, and simplest pleasure that a man can have, which is walking.  But I resent it particularly because it is a discrimination against the poor and in favor of the rich.

That brings us to the real purpose of these laws, which is not that pedestrians should be spared injury but that motorists should be spared a little inconvenience.  I drive a car from the driver’s point of view.  I know how trifling is the inconvenience which is saved thus at the expense of the liberty of the poorer people in the community.  Indeed, I do not believe that in the long run it is for the benefit even of the motorist.  I think it is a dreadful thing to encourage in the motorist’s mind, as these laws unquestionably do, the notion that he is running on something like a railroad track cleared for his special benefit.

After all, the most serious objection to these doctrinaire, paternalistic laws is the bad effect which they have upon the mentality of people.  I do think we ought to call a halt to the excessive mechanization of human life.  When I am in one of those over-regulated Western cities, I always feel as though I were in some kind of penal institution.  I should certainly hate to see Philadelphia make like those places.

Machen loved his neighbors, but somehow believed they had enough sense to know when and where to cross the street. He was for the city before it was cool. He was also for the civil liberties of city dwellers. Convictions like Machen’s might have been helpful in 2020 (and since) when some city churches may have been “righteous overmuch” in abiding by government restrictions of liberty that ranged from silly to downright nefarious. Every age needs a Machen.

See the Heideblog for source information.