The Legislation of Morality
Blog — By Jordan Green on May 21, 2007 at 12:00 amAn email from my friend John to my friend Steve and I broke the news of Jerry Falwell’s death. My first response was “That’s strange…it seemed like that guy would live forever,” to which Steve replied wryly, “He will live forever. In my heart.”
The thing with Jerry Falwell is, he was probably a great guy if you knew him. Most accounts of the people who knew him back this up: he was kind and gracious to everyone he met. Unfortunately, that grace didn’t seem to extend to people whom he didn’t know. Very simply, it’s difficult to think of Jerry Falwell and not believe he did more harm than good.
On NPR the other day, Michele Norris interviewed Paul Weyrich. Weyrich was a close associate with Reverend Falwell. Weyrich mentions how the organization “Moral Majority” was formed as a way to unite denominational and political beliefs under one banner. The goal, the uniting of Christianity, seems noble, but the goal wasn’t theological. It was to build a political power base.
In some ways, Falwell accomplished what he set out to do. Republicans, on the back of their religious base, gained control of the House and Senate. Later, they elected a President, and it finally seemed that the US would become the Christian Nation Falwell dreamed of. Of course, things didn’t work out too well. Now that Democrats have regained control of Congress what really was gained for the Christian Right beyond two Supreme Court Justices?
The third season of HBO’s “The Wire” follows the story of a Baltimore police major named Bunny Colvin on the verge of retirement. One of the primary themes of “The Wire” is the death of a city. As the murder rate skyrockets and pressure to curb the violence grows, Bunny comes up with a unique plan.
Drug dealers are offered amnesty if they move their trade to three safe zones, minimizing their impact on the public as a whole.
The effect of this plan, since the show is fictional, must be taken with a grain of salt. The majority of Bunny’s West Baltimore district sees a steep decline in crime rate, and Bunny’s superiors, unaware that Bunny has effectively legalized drugs, are wary. While the corners and neighborhoods previously inhabited by drug dealers thrive, the safe zones are depicted, almost literally, as hell. After Bunny’s plan is discovered, he takes a city councilman on a tour of the zones, a scene almost directly lifted from Dante’s Inferno.
The ministers and charity workers in West Baltimore support the plan, however. By limiting drug use to certain areas, aid workers can easily provide clean needles, condoms and, in some cases, get users into treatment. An older former drug dealer named Cutty builds a boxing gym and recruits some of the younger dealers into joining, drawing their energy into a positive goal.
In the end, once the public catches wind that Baltimore has turned into Amsterdam, all hell breaks loose and the safe zones are raided, the tenuous pact between drug dealer and police destroyed, and everything returns to the way it was: a city one step closer to death.
From Prohibition to overturning Roe v Wade to banning gay marriage, Christians in this country, as a large and powerful voting bloc, have frequently confronted the question of legislating morality. The reasoning goes like this: if we make sin illegal, or if we, as a nation, support Judeo-Christian laws, the problem will be solved. Or, if not solved, at least a stand is made against sin.
The legislation of morality, the fight for which Jerry Falwell was so suited, was dealt a hefty blow in recent weeks by a study on abstinence-only education which found teaching abstinence does nothing to prevent teenagers having sex. The study found, in fact, that half of the children, by the time they were 17, already had sex and more than a third had sexual intercourse with multiple partners. On average, participants lost their virginity around the age of 15.
Sexual activity at such a young age is certainly disturbing. Beyond the dangers of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, the emotional impact of being sexually active so young is frightening enough. Teens receive mixed messages: a teacher may tell them abstaining is the only answer, but commercials of Axe and Tag Body Spray say the opposite.
There is no easy answer to the war on drugs or to keeping teens from engaging in sexual activity, but by advocating abstinence-only education, Christian Conservatives have fallen into the trap of using a cultural tool to handle the problems a culture creates. If young people are to avoid the temptations and perils of sex, drugs and violence, they need men and women who are willing to be involved in their lives at any cost. In essence, they need counter-culture: they need parents, mentors…anyone…to step outside of themselves and help.
The political realm isn’t the only arena where Christians are missing the point, trusting cultural tools to change the world. A debate between Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort and two members of the atheist Radical Response Squad aired on Nightline a few weeks ago with predictable results. Cameron and Comfort promised to prove the existence of God scientifically, as if the Enlightenment had all the sudden answered every question of faith. I’m going to spoil the ending and tell you it didn’t work out as planned. After all, if C.S. Lewis couldn’t prove God’s existence beyond a reasonable doubt, then what chance does Mike Seaver have? As the Radical Response Squad stammered their way through an equally lame response, I wondered why this was the best we had to offer.
These days, it seems that the true ways for dealing with a broken world can be found more on HBO than on TBN.
Cutty, the former dealer who opened the boxing gym in “The Wire”, is first faced with rebellion when he recruits some young dealers into his class. But he goes back time and time again, even when the kids insult him and head back to the corners to make an easy buck. He tells them, probably for the first time in their lives, that he’s not giving up on them. He does not tell them over and over they are sinning. He does not lobby Congress for stricter drug laws. He does not tell them drugs do not exist. Isn’t this how we understand God in our own lives? Patient and unwilling to let us go even when so many others are.
Tags:
72 Comments
Eric,
I thought about the whole common law marriage thing right about the time that I hit the post key and so it was too late to change it. However, just because we have made one mistake in bestowing rights on non married heterosexuals, doesn’t mean we should further the deline by making another mistake and bestowing those rights on homosexual couples.
Another thing is that the “movement” you are talking about came after a lot of those things happened in the ’70s and were more a wake up call to Christians in this country. I was in elementary school at that time so I obviously don’t remember a lot from that period in this regard. I would be very surprised if there were not Christians who whole heartedly spoke out against no-fault divorce and because they knew the devastation that this would cause in the family. However, there was no organized movement to fight that at the time. That’s why you saw a “movement” ,if you will, to engage in the political arena to fight that very type of thing. What we should be advocating (but will probably never happen) is a reversal of the no-fault divorce and a reversal of common law marriage rights. However, as we can see over time, it is much easier to prevent something from becoming law than it is to get a law reversed.
I do have a hard time understanding how you can say in one sentence that homosexuality is sin and harmful and then in the next advocate policies that would encourage and promote that very type of behavior. I have the same concern when I hear Christians agree that sex outside of marriage is sin and should be taught as such, and then turn around and advocate teaching kids how to use condoms and other birth control. We both know that the only sure way not to get an STD or pregnant is to not engage in sex. Beyond that, and in my mind more importantly, we should teach the truth that it is sin unless it’s within God’s parameters of a loving marriage.
I don’t think you misrepresented any of our points, and I appreciate your clarification. I think you and I probably have more points of agreement than disagreement based on the conversation.
Ryan said in an earlier post that “The question is does this nation want to give a privilege and honor [to a consenting homosexual relationship, specifically a gay marriage]. That answer for any Christian is no.”
The answer for this Christian is “yes.”
There is a difference between advocating “moral legislation” and legislating religious ideology. The first is driven by a keen understanding of God’s love for ALL of humanity (not just the rulemakers) and the special place in his heart for the poor and alienated; the second is shaped by an inherently narrow interpretation which picks and chooses which religious commands to impose on ALL of society through SECULAR government. The first is defined by its inclusionary nature; the second seeks to determine those who should be LEFT OUT of the privileges and responsibilities of society.
We should be careful not to impose our politics – conservative or liberal – on our faith. We need to be equally careful how and when we impose our faith on politics. I am concerned that the American church has ventured into politics too recklessly. I am also concerned that many Christians look to Washington, D.C. with a kind of Messianic zeal. Can Christians have a role in politics? I think they can. But I wonder if the American church should do more soul searching before it places so many eggs in the political basket.
John
John,
You have it backwards, my politics are influenced and shaped by faith. My faith is the foundation for how I live life, and what I believe, including my politics.
Patrick,
I believe you.
But don’t you think it’s inappropriate to impose religious doctrine on an entire society through the mechanism of secular law and government?
John
I don’t think it’s inappropriate at all. The main reason is that it’s not just a religious doctrine, it’s is the truth of God. Living by his principles is the only way for society to function as He intended. We’ll never achieve this fully because as humans, we sin and aren’t perfect, but that should be what we strive for. I think it’s absolutely appropriate that we advocate this through secular law as well as through winning the hearts of people. The reason I feel this way is that homosexuality is a choice people make. They have every right to make that choice, but should be prepared to live with those consequences. Should we next say that incest between 2 consenting adults should be ok and given the rights of marriage? It’s not so much that I’m for legislating against those people, but rather I’m for legislating to protect marriage as a sacred institution designed by God.
Ryan and Patrick,
Please answer Jordan’s theoretical question, as it is core to our converation here. If your answer is yes, please explain the ramifications. If the answer is no, what differentiates engaging in a homosexual union from other sins you wouldn’t have the police prosecute?
Patrick, please extend Jordan the same kind tone that marked your second response to me.
Patrick, should we make divorce illegal except under Biblical precedents (adultery…not even spousal abuse)?
as some of our debates before, I think we’re coming at this from different angles. My angle is, I believe the separation of church and state should cut almost completely both ways: government should have no involvement in the church, the church should have no (or very, very little) involvement in the government. I stand on these principles because i believe the kingdom should be lived out through individual people first.
it’s more important, to me, to be assist in bringing the light of Christ to another person than it is to vote “Yes” on a measure.
That being said, I’ve done more of the latter in my life, and I’m ashamed of that.
Patrick,
Can secular law protect a sacred institution?
And if we are using the Bible to determine which sins we should legislate against, are we also obligated to use it to determine the punishments for breaking those laws?
Should the blasphemer be stoned to death? (Leviticus 24)
Should the adulterer and his love be put to death? (Leviticus 20)
If a man is not sure that his wife has been cheating on him, should he take her to the priest so the priest can perform the test of unfaithfulness? (Numbers 5)
Should the tarot reader who has a shop up the street from me be put to death as well? (Leviticus 20)
Should we require Sabbath observance? (Exodus 20)
Should those who violate the Sabbath be stoned to death? (Numbers 15)
As you know, we live in a democracy, not a theocracy. How does that change which religious doctrines are or are not appropriate to legislate?
John
patrick,
in regards to your response, you’re right that many involved in today’s fight against homosexual marriage weren’t around in the 70′s and back then, there were some christians speaking out against it. I appreciate your consistant stance regarding heterosexual divorce.
Also, I would like again to clarify. I didn’t “say in one sentence that homosexuality is sin and harmful and then in the next advocate policies that would encourage and promote that very type of behavior”. In fact I advocated policies within the church that would discourage that very type of behavior. I simply didn’t advocate that such policies be invoked by the United States of America.
John,
You are finally showing your cards. You have bought the lie of what is called the sacred / secular split. There is no such thing as “neutral” belief. Believing that I came from a monkey is a religion. People derive values/morals from that belief. Just look at all the book from humanists who describe how and why we have the morals we do that somehow came from our animal instincts. A Christian has his belief in God and his morals/ideas on what is right and wrong come from the Bible. Government should be run by the best principles of what is most just in reality. The best beliefs/laws/principles to have are the ones that work best in reality. (As a Christian I get mine from the God of the Bible).
Everyone has their religious doctrine John. Everyone. You fail to answer me when I ask where you think the beliefs of the atheists come from. Like their beliefs are more right than mine simply because you think they aren’t religious. That’s just backwards thinking. Everyone imposes their beliefs on society.
And now you are loosing your case so you resort to words like “impose” and “entire”.
As I have said, the principles of government from the Bible say that we do not impose. Deuteronomy 1 shows that we judge based on the consensus of the people. This means that I obey my governments laws even if they aren’t good ones in my opinion because they are nevertheless laws that represent the people around me. It’s representative government. So now my job (and this is where you want Christians to just roll over) is to influence my representative government to make better laws. And yes, better laws are the ones that follow God’s Biblical principles for justice.
Is God just. Of course he is. Is he merciful. Of course he is. Government is the place for justice. The church, and this doesn’t mean all Christians, it means those who are in the service of the Church is meant to practice mercy. This is what I do in my missions work. I help and lead people to forgiveness. But Christians who are in other fields like business or government or art are to focus on other aspects of God. In government the Christian focuses on God’s justice for all people. In art, the Christian focuses on God’s beauty.
You need to understand how God has principles for different aspects of life. The Church (captial “C” not all individual Christians) is not designed to ADMINISTER justice. It’s design to administer mercy. So the Church should not control government. But it does have one other function. And this all Christians should be involved in. And this is to teach and INFLUENCE (not impose) what Biblical principles are. In all aspects of life from family to government. Truth comes from Bible teaching.
When Samuel God mad at Saul and terrible thins happened it was because Saul (as King representing government) tried to take Samuel’s place in sacrifice to God (the role of the priest). Things went all wrong because Saul tried to be King and Priest. Same thing with David trying to bring the ark to Jerusalem. The dude died because David was trying to carry the ark but he was King. He realized this and told the Levites to carry the ark because they were the priests. God doesn’t mix church and government. You need to understand context. Moses did more government leading because it was an extreme case in the desert with 400,000 men alone. But even there God told moses to have the people elect people to make judgements.
Jesus didn’t change these fantastic principles. Justice is administered based on what the people believe is just. Because it’s better that we all agree to something than anarchy. But God himself instructs how Government works in the Bible and this is the basis for all Christians to ask their government to represent them accordingly. We all vote, we all speak out, we influence our government. We all say what we think is right. Why do you ask Christians not to participate in influencing government? Why do you think there is some “secular” realm where good laws come from.
I don’t tell people to vote Christian if that is what you are worried about. I tell people to vote for (and then I explain a Biblical principle). i.e. vote for the guy who understands that the government is not supposed to be a welfare system (the family first, then the church is (look at the book of Ruth)). Do you see, I just influenced my government based on an understanding that comes from the Bible about what government is to do.
The church needs to teach what good government is. But it should explain this to all individuals and not run government itself.
But again, there is no such thing as “secular law or government” I don’t need the 10 commandments posted on the wall of the supreme court, but I desperately want those principles in the minds of anyone sitting on the supreme court. Is that fair for you? But how do we get those principles in the minds of government. We speak them and teach them to all people.
Jesus did not have the task of teaching God’s justice. He was supposed to show God’s incredible mercy. And he did.
Jesus never broke the law and he taught the spirit of the law. He upholds God’s laws always.
You seem to have a problem separating law from punishment. Jesus told the woman caught in adultry to sin no more. She was wrong. But he wasn’t executioner. But he wouldn’t say we don’t need policemen. God was clear about that in the OT.
What is right and wrong never changes, but the consequences or penalties do. The OT law was given in a context of extreme conditions in a dessert where people might die if someone stold food from someone else. Therefore, there needed to be a stiffer penalty for stealing. Stealing is always wrong, but today it’s not going to kill someone to steal some food from them. Our laws reflect this. Stealing is still wrong, but our penalties are not death for pocket crime. But grand theft auto has stiffer penalties.
God is flexible with penalties but stealing is always a sin whether a little or a lot. There is a law that you can’t collect sticks on the Sabbath. The heart of that law is that it would be like stealing to go out and collect much needed firewood when no one else was supposed to do so. No one would do this by accident when they could easily see the other 2 million people were not collecting sticks. It was an act of utter defiance against the community and it was willful sin punishable by death because God wanted all people in that desert to have a rest day.
And adultery had drastic consequences for a woman in that day. She would be “damaged goods” and her life would be severly altered if she was an adulterer. There wasn’t much of a support system in the desert for taking care of people that were down and out. Therefore there was a strict penalty for anyone doing harmful things. Today, adultery is still a sin before God, but it doesn’t need such a severe penalty because it doesn’t harm as much today. Muslim Sharia Law is right in calling it wrong, but they are wrong in administering the same old Biblical “application” of the punishment. We don’t need the punishment today, but we definitely need the principle. If I were in government I would not legislate a strict “penalty” for adultery because I think the natural consequences are usually enough. However, I would say it is wrong and I would uphold the many laws that are already on the books in regards to things like child custody and alimony, etc. that even at present represent against the spouse who committed adultery. The point is that sin is always sin, penalties are another thing and are based on judgement of and justice for the community. You have to look at context for penalties. God killed Ananias and Saphira on the spot for lying. Why? Because he wanted to make a point in his brand new NT church. But in normal contexts he doesn’t do that. You need to know the Bible well enough to distinguish these things. And you need to know that because in one verse Jesus didn’t “condemn” a woman, he did “judge” her act as wrong. Jesus knew her heart, and that she was repentant. But don’t think for one moment that Jesus was overlooking sin.
I hope that helps John. Please understand that God’s justice is vital in the world. Come with me through all the governments of the world with horrible government that causes so much problem and poverty for people. By the way, those are the same “secular” governments you seem to reverence. There is no such thing as “secular”. We should call secular “not derived from religion but derived from my personal religion which we can’t put a name on because there are too many us”
Ryan
Ryan, I think you’re misrepresenting John when you talk frequently about his “reverencing” secular governments. I think that if you read his posts again you would attack not his reverence for them, but his indifference toward them. But I could be reading wrongly his few posts.
I would ask you to be more willing to give John the benefit of the doubt on points of difference, avoiding statements like: “That’s just backwards thinking.” or “And now you are loosing your case so you resort to words like “impose” and “entire”.” I don’t ask you to assume that he’s right, but rather than correcting what you believe him to be saying, ask him for clarification. That does not mean that you can’t critique what you believe him to be saying, just recognize that the two of you are coming from a different framework. You can disagree with where he is, but please give him the courtesey of clarifying his own position.
Ryan,
For my sake, could you clarify your position on your democratic view of Deuteronomy 1? I agree that what is pictured there looks a lot like democracy, but I don’t see that as the prototypical OT text for governmental rule. It seems to me that many more texts demonstrate a theocracy and/or monarchy in the OT. Could you give me a further understanding of what makes you believe that God’s intention for government is based on consensus.
Feel free to rewrite my last sentence if I misrepresented you in any way.
Thanks.
Jordan, Eric, John,
I attempted to answer your questions in my lengthy post above.
I can take another shot at the theoretical one more directly. The questions is “should all sin be illegal in the U.S.”
The simple answer is of course not. Basically, sin that affects justice issues (hurts other people), should be dealt with by the government. The government is meant to represent justice (which is an attribute of God). So stealing should be illegal and punishable. And as I said (in my last post I elaborated on this John), the punishment should reasonably fit the crime. That’s why the Bible has a “guideline” of “an eye for an eye”. But one scripture should be taken in context of the rest of scriptures which don’t always show “an eye for an eye” is necessary. (Like I said the penalties for laws broken when the Israelites were in the dessert were more severe because hurting others in that environment has greater consequences) But generally, the punishment is more severe if the sin that affects someone else is more severe.
Now what about the sin that doesn’t directly affect someone else like two consenting adulterers? Or practicing homosexuality? Or just lying about your SAT scores to your friend? First of all, this is all sin before God if the people are going against their conscience when they do it. If they really don’t have a conscience about it, it is still sin on God’s book, but he doesn’t hold ignorant people accountable for it. Nevertheless all have sinned by breaking their conscience at some time. And finally, any of this sin, whether conscience or unconscience does in fact have natural negative consequences.
But you want to know what government should do about this seemingly non-directly harmful sin. My answer is that it depends on the will and the state of the people just like the Biblical example given in the desert. That’s again what the Bible says. But this is not relative at all. It’s in context. If we had a 99% practicing Christian society and everyone actually lived according to God’s morals and knew them in their hearts and new exactly what was wrong, then the couple that committ consentual adultery would know very accurately what they were willfully doing. They would not be ignorant but truly willful to disobey and violate. I think the community and it’s laws would reflect a stiffer punishment for this obvious in your face violation to what everyone else disagrees with. (I don’t think the punishment would be death if we were in a prosperous community, and I am just talking about laws. Of course people would still try to love this couple, but remember they are truly willfully rebellious) I think the community might have laws about this because it is simply common understanding and practice for all to live monogamously. Or take for example if people sinned in heaven. They probably would be fallen angels. You get my point. When Adam and Eve sinned they got kicked out of the garden. Government laws are based on the will of the people. But there is another contextual paradigm on top of this. If the community is prosperous. We may not need to have stiff laws, because we can deal with the bad effects of sin. It’s about volition. God himself is more upset about real willful sin than more accidental sin. To look God in the eye (or all of society) and say I am going to sin is something more than not turning away quick enough when you see a pornography in an email. But both are sin. Now imagine a society that is 1% Christian and totally bankrupt in every way morally. Everyone is ignorant, they basically don’t know they are sinning. “Everyone is doing it”. This again would be reflected in the laws. No one would even think to have a law about stealing because no one saw it as wrong. The will of the people makes the laws.
So today, for the sake of argument, we are 50% Christian and 50% not. As such we have many laws that come from good moral opinions that people want to uphold. And we don’t have a lot of laws on moral issues like practicing homosexuality, becase many people are ignorant of morality on this subject.
I won’t make a law that people don’t know they should even keep. So I will not make a law against practicing homosexuality today if I was a politician and had the power because people don’t even have the “internal government” to legislate themselves on this issue. They are ignorant, they need to know first. But when they know, we might have a law.
So, I would not propose laws against practicing homosexuality, or adultery in the present state and context of America. I couldn’t anyways. My fellow men would be in an uproar if I put adulterers in jail (if I was king). But at the same time I would not promote a benefit of privilege for homosexuals in terms of reduced taxes for civil marriage etc. There are still enough moral people around (flexing their will on society/government) who recognize that we want to promote man/wife families and not homosexual ones. That’s what the tax law was originally for, to promote healthy families. The will of the people today says this is good law making. (But it might change in a few years and I will go along with the will of the people as God tells me to obey the representation of my people in government.)
Now, that is all about how laws are made. But I absolutely clearly want to agree that God works inside out. We should love our neighbors and get them to understand and love moral choices as opposed to teaching them through government laws. God does change people, not laws!! If the people don’t have internal government they won’t obey the external government. God wants the internal government. However, laws protect people and guide them as to what is right. Government is primarily for making external government for those people that can’t practice internal government. It’s for the people that aren’t letting God change them. So we need external government. The wreckless driver needs the external government because he is not practicing internal government. Government will always be necessary in a fallen world. So we must have laws. God clearly saw this and wrote it into the Bible to help us in this fallen world. And what laws we have should be influenced by God’s laws and the Bible.
In the end, Christians should influence and influence and influence. Be salt and light to the earth. Not only to individuals (absolutely and primarily) but also in building governments and what rulings are fair in a courthouse. You can’t take Christian influence away from Christians when God asked us to do it. And God wants us to do it in all the world. We are not called to be monks but called to disciple “nations”. Yes it starts with people. But it affects everything. There are so many great Christian men who have shaped government to work well according to the Bible.
Like I said, I don’t care if the ten commandments are in the Supreme Court, but I do want them understood by those sitting on the supreme court (having them in the supreme court is an example of the will of the people. If we were 99% Christian they would be there. As it is we are waffling in our majority opinion.) My neighbor might be the next Supreme Court justice so I will hopefully teach him God’s principles today. But my vote is another way that I influence the nation. My vote is my place to say what represents my moral opinion. My vote is critical to shaping my nation. When I am in China I am desperate for the people to have the right to vote. They need it so bad because even their moral opinion is better than a truly dictating government.
It’s both. Influencing people and influencing my government. Government is a reflection of us. It represents me. It is the will of the people.
Now I’m rambling; sorry. I really appreciate this conversation though.
Ryan
Eric,
In Deut. 1 I don’t say I see necessarily democracy as we know it today. I see representative government, consensus of the people, a process of appeals, non-preferential treatment (all men’s voice is equal, bottom up government. Remember, the extreme situation of a wandering mass of people still required a strong leader in Moses but when governance was needed, Deut. 1 was God’s ideas on it.
What else do you see as OT government rule? God said he didn’t want the Israelites to take a King. 1 Sam. 8:6 “But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, ?Give us a king to judge us.? And Samuel prayed to the LORD. 8:7 The LORD said to Samuel, ?Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.”
So if you look at David or the Kings, please realize that this was not God’s idea. He let the people do it because even he was following the will of the peope in terms of Government.
God wanted a group of judges to rule over them justly and accordingly like Deut. 1. This was to be the plan when they settled after the desert.
God even had rules for the Kings of Israel but they didn’t follow them often and abused their power. The books of the law is the best place to see what God intended for government. I could go on but any theologian would readily point out this simple fact that most of what you see in the OT is clearly not of God in terms of government. David was a pretty good King, but this was God’s second best plan. Read on from 1 Sam. 8:7 or look here at Deut. 17:14-20, “14* ? ?When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, ?I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,?
15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.
16 ?Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, ?You shall never again return that way.?
17 ?He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.
18 ?Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests.
19 ?It shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes,
20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his countrymen and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or the left, so that he and his sons may continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel.
Ryan
Eric,
I do apologize for my behavior. I use these rebuttals and sarcasm for expediency to make my point, but it’s probably not done very well. “backwards thinking” says something quickly but it probably says something negatively as well. I do apologize, and I do appreciate the discussion.
Ryan
Jordan,
In regards to your question on outlawing adultery. I’m probably going to sound extremely radical on this, but here goes.
Yes, all divorce, except for the cause of adultery is wrong, including spousal abuse. Now, I’m not saying that a woman who is being abused should stay in that situation. What I am saying is that you can remove yourself from that situation without going through divorce. I believe in a very literal interpretation of the Bible and so that includes what is written about divorce.
Also, for coming across as condescending, I apologize. I am very passionate when it comes to knowing God’s word, and living my life based on the principles of the whole Bible, not just the 4 Gospels. You and I seem to be at odds over this. What I have seen through this and other debates with you is that you want to say that we should only look at what Jesus says. What I would encourage you to try to see is that Jesus wrote the whole Bible. All that stuff in Leviticus (as hard as it is to read sometimes) to what’s written in the Prophets, and what Paul and the other Apostles write in their epistles. Jesus is God and he said that He did not come to abolish the law. What he did come to do was to fulfill it and to pay the penalty once and for all. He didn’t give us cart blanche to live as we want to regardless of what the Old Testament says. And no, I don’t feel that the penalties that are listed in the Old Testament are the penalties that should be used today. I would point out how serious God took those sins by the penalties He imposed on them in the Old Testament.
Back to our conversation. I do think that we as Christians should actively encourage the government to enact laws that are based on the principles and precepts that God has given us. I would advocate a law that outlawed divorce in all cases except in cases of divorce. I would also advocate the protection of the rights of the husband and wife with regards to abuse by allowing legal separation. Neither party would be allowed to marry again, but a woman who is being abused would not have to continue to live with that abuse.
Please understand, I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion. It forces me to evaluate my beliefs and then be able to defend them.
Thanks.
John,
Actually, yes, in the case of marriage, if there is a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, then yes there would be protection of a sacred institution by a secular law. I will agree that it can’t stop there, we have to uphold our marriages as sacred institutions as well. We have to teach those around us God’s principles on marriage as well. One of the saddest commentaries on Christians today is that the divorce rate among Christian marriages is just as high as that of non-Christian marriages. The reason for this is we have allowed a secular thinking into our churches in regards to what is right and wrong with marriage.
I completely disagree you when you say “we should be equally careful how and when we impose our faith on our politics.” Our faith is something we live out in every aspect of our lives. To truly follow Christ and live out His precepts, there’s no way we can not have our politics influenced by our faith. A true walk with Christ is going to influence how we treat people at work, whether or not we are honest on our tax returns, whether or not we speed on the interstate, etc. That faith is influential in every idea and thought we have.
Eric,
I see where you were going with the Church being the one who teaches and advocates the policies that strengthen the family. I also agree that the Church is failing in this regard. Today alot of Pastors are either unwilling or scared to preach the truth of the principles. They spend more time telling people that they should just love everyone and be nice to people. That’s all fine and give a warm feeling and doesn’t ruffle any feathers, the problem is it doesn’t parallel with the Bible. People keep pointing to Jesus’ words on judging people, but they neglect His teaching and His example of how to deal with sin and lost people. The woman at the well is the best example. It’s true that He told the Pharisees that the one who hadn’t sinned should cast the first stone, but the story finishes with Him pointing out the woman’s sin and telling her to go and sin no more. For me to call sin a sin, is not sitting in judgement, it’s me quoting what the Bible says. It’s up to us to speak the truth of God’s word in love to those around us. Our churches should be teaching that sex outside of marriage and homosexuality and divorce are wrong. We should also never condemn someone who has been involved or affected by these sins. If we don’t love them and show them Christ in how we deal with them, and teach our fellow Christians to love them, then we are sinning as well.
I’ll give you my email address if you want to talk some more (doc@sextonanimalhealth.com).
Thanks,
Patrick
patrick,
I agree with your last post wholely
Ryan,
I agree with you that the Bible clearly states that the kingship is not God’s best plan for his people, but I do not believe that it’s his “second best” to democracy, but rather to theocracy. He says himself, “it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.”
I believe that in Jesus the messiah, God reinstituted the pure theocracy and honored the Davidic line at the same time, creating a new kingdom, the kingdom of God (or in matthew the kingdom of heaven).
I certainly believe that democracy has many benefits, but I don’t think that it’s a form of government particularly encouraged by God’s word. I think his primary concern is that we recognize and live as though he is truly on the throne.
See, the word “theocracy” just gives me the jibblies super bad. I think it’s because if an American theocracy were to be realized, it would be lots of Falwell clones who would lead the charge and take power. And I’m sorry, that’s just ookey. Orwellian, even. *shudders*
By way of clarification, when I use the terms “secular government” I am not advocating “atheist government” or even suggesting that government is unimportant. I am saying that, by definition, the system of laws which govern our country are “of the state” and not “of the church.” Our laws emanate from the Constitution, not the Bible.
On a personal note: I know a number of couples, most of them about my age, who are living together or have been dating for several years, and the institution of marriage is almost completely anathema to them. When I hear them talk about their future plans – building a life together, buying a house, having kids – marriage is never part of the picture. How can this bedrock of society be so…irrelevant…to such a broad segment of young people? (Now, please realize, I am talking about the legal – i.e., secular – recognition of marriage. Not a religious ceremony.)
And why is it that many of the states with the strictest anti-gay marriage laws, also have the highest divorce rates? In 2003, there were 10.8 divorces per 1,000 married couples in Kenturcky; 11.1 in Mississippi; and 12.7 in Arkansas. Compare that with 5.7 divorces per 1,000 married couples in Massachusetts, the only state to fully legalize same-sex marriages.
I can’t help but wonder if we’ve spent so much time and energy seeking to deny gay couples’ access to marriage that we’ve gone and done the very thing we were trying to protect against – undermine the institution of marriage. We’ve made marriage undesirable and irrelevant to many heterosexual couples.
By legislating our religious ideology (to try, perhaps in vain, to bring it back to Jordan’s article) we’ve actually made things worse, from a societal point of view.
Maybe the way to save marriage in general is to extend the rights and responsibilities of the marriage contract to all couples, including gay couples.
Something to think about.
John
Yes Jessica,
God save us from a theocracy.
John
I may be out of line for jumping in now, given the lengthy debate that’s been raging before I found this post, but I think the debate may be serving to distract from a deeper, more essential issue.
In my estimation, the problem with the “legislation of morality” is that it’s all about the problems “out there,” rather than the problems “in here.” That is, if I can focus on the sin of others, I can feel better about ignoring my own sin.
I’m not much of a theologian, but it seems that Jesus talks alot about the content of people’s hearts. Isn’t that why he takes the Pharisees to task so often? Even though they are keeping the moral laws strictly, he calls them “sons of hell” and the like.
I guess my point is that we have to own-up to our own sin, repent of it, and allow Jesus to change our hearts first and foremost. And when he really does change our hearts, I think we’ll probably be more interested in thanking him than in pointing out to others how much better we are than them now.
I know it may seem somewhat off-line from the discussion at hand, but something I felt compelled to add, nonetheless.
Joe
Joe,
You are totally right. I think all in this blog would agree. But you are referring to internal governmnet of each man. God asks this first. We are dealing (I hope) with the issue of what to do when people don’t follow God internally. When people do steal or murder. What do we do? We still need external forms of government in a fallen world. If everyone acted perfectly we wouldn’t be having this debate. But you are right, the place to start with changing people is God in them.
Ryan
Can I venture to clarify what makes John and Jessica cringe (theocracy) and what makes Eric reject democracy and Jordan speak of “secular government”?
It’s called the Sacred / Secular split. Francis Schaeffer writes about it quite a bit.
There are only ideas. God is the beginning of wisdom as the Bible says. Jesus is Truth. God is not a religion. Religion is a definition of a set of ideas. Hinduism is a set of ideas as is Christianity. Some ideas of Hinduism are right, but most are wrong. All of God’s ideas are right. Not believing in God is a set of ideas. So we could call it a religion too. After the French Revolution, Parisians dressed up young girls and marched them through town calling them “the Goddess of Reason” and even enthroned one in Notre Dame Cathedral.
God gives all people the freedom of belief. (while they are living that is). We too must give people the freedom of belief. But that doesn’t mean that all beliefs are right. Secular government comes from beliefs just as a theocracy would. Eric, it is right that the theocracy would be “right beliefs”, but we must live with freedom of belief. God does. God asks us to believe. He doesn’t force us. But to Jordan or Jessica. God’s ideas are right. We want His ideas in government. Jordan never answers me when I ask him where the secular humanist in government gets his ideas. (The answer is from his own internal religious system.) These ideas don’t work in reality as well as God’s ideas. God is reality. So we as Christians must influence all of society like God does. We must “ask” people to see the reasonability of God’s principles. Just like Jesus asks people to follow him and gives them good reason to do it.
Therefore, we can’t say there is a spiritual realm and a somehow seperate secular realm. All was created by God. Government too is something God cares about and knows we need it in a fallen world. Eric, in heaven, God will indeed be the government. Eric, if we were all Christians and understood the Bible no one would mind calling the U.S. Jesus’s Holy Theocracy Government. If we were all Christians Jessica, would you really have a problem with that? Maybe you don’t like calling it that because other non-Christians don’t like Christianity. Will you stand up for your faith? But I do understand, in the context of today and freedom of belief, many people don’t like God’s ideas.
That’s why I keep coming back to the simple battle of ideas. Everyone has their religion. That’s why we need to keep promoting the true ideas. That’s why we do need to keep influencing our government.
Ryan
Ryan,
Are you familiar with the writings of R.J. Rushdoony? (I believe Schaeffer was a student.) Rushdoony advocated a kind of modern theocracy commonly called dominionism. If you know Rushdoony’s writings, is this the kind of influence you are talking about?
Also, I want everyone to know that even if it appears we’ve strayed a bit from Jordan’s article, I think in many ways we are talking about the arguments for or against legislating morality, and its consequences (good and bad).
I also want to say that I appreciate the civil tone of the conversation. Often when these weighty issues are discussed in public, things get nasty in a hurry, with accusations and name calling. I’m glad we haven’t gone there.
John
“if we were all Christians and understood the Bible no one would mind calling the U.S. Jesus’s Holy Theocracy Government.”
Maybe that’s part of the disconnect in this debate, Ryan … I know many Christians, most of whom believe they understand the Bible (to one degree or another), and yet, in their understandings of the Bible, they disagree with one another on many issues. Then what?
I think Jessica is scared of people who claim to “understand the Bible” using their “understanding” to trump any dissenting views. I think I’m scared of that, too.
John and Jessica, I am as averse to a national theocracy as you are. However, I believe that when we pray “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” we are praying for God’s reign on earth in his people (notice I did not say “through his people”). I believe that in that sense the church should recognize the kingship of God (aka. theocracy)
Ryan, I do not reject democracy in any way, in fact I stated that it has many benefits. I simply do not believe that there is sufficient Biblical evidence that it is God’s preferred method of civil governance. I belive that The chur
Joe, you are not at all out of line for jumping in, thanks for the commentary on the “us vs. them” problem that is particularly plagueing the US right now.