The Legislation of Morality

Jordan,
You say in your piece that conservatives have tried to legislate morality.

In the past months Al Gore testified before congress that Global Warming is not political, but a moral issue. He is challenging the U.S. Congress to create laws that would decrease global warming. Is this legislating morality. Passing the Kyoto Protocol, would that be legislating morality?

First of all, I really liked your article. On both sides of the American political arena, Christians try to use sociopolitical methods for a "spiritual" cause or out of a "spiritual" motivation. I think this could fall under the "carnal weapons" Paul warns us not to use in 2 Cor. 10.

However, I think it's ill-conceived to extend this disavowal of "cultural tools" to rational debates. I didn't watch the Ray Comfort/Rational Response debate because I thought it would be fruitless, not because of the platform but because of the participants.

Can you prove God's existence scientifically? I'm not sure you can, but certainly it is possible to give a probable argument based on the complexity of the natural world. Yet this still does not constitute a proof, which does not allow for any uncertainty. The design argument for God's existence (sometimes called the teleological argument) seems to only show the probability of their being a designer. Furthermore, science studies repeatable empirical phenomenon; thus, God could not by His very nature be the object of such study. It seems then that God's existence cannot be scientifically proven or disproven based on the object of natural science.

Can you prove God's existence rationally? Recently, I have come to think this is possible. Although I had previously accepted a Kierkegaardian view (that our finite minds are unable to prove God's existence but rather must take a leap of faith), I have come to see that such a view is based on the markedly Modern bifurcation of faith and reason, i.e. that reason cannot deal with matters of faith. I had no reason to believe this other than it seemed reasonable, but in my studies of philosophy I realized I believed this because of our postmodern culture and not for any good reason. That's not exactly true, but it was based on an unjustified epistemological bias (viz. that we can't know anything beyond sensible experience), the very bias that Moderns like Hume and Kant used in establishing their atheism and agnosticism respectively. Essentially, my point is that it is possible to prove God's existence rationally (even if Ray Comfort or the incredible C.S. Lewis was unable) while conceding to the fact that there is always some reasonable doubt concerning the proof. But if the premises are demonstrated true and the conclusion follows from them, God's existence may be rationally proven beyond doubt (given one accepts the premises), a "tool" the Bible supports the use of (2 Cor. 10:4-5; Rom. 1:19-20). This is at least where I'm at now, and I of course understand any dissenters.

I also want to be clear that I'm not saying that one can force someone to believe in God through rational proof, only that one can give rational proof that God exists.

Jordan,

I'm afraid I agree with Chris on this point. I don't think anyone (Christians especially) should be afraid to inject their own morality into their politics--indeed, I don't see how we can avoid it! Even Barack Obama, who no one would say is part of the Religious Right, speaks on this:

"To say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. (Keynote address to Call to Renewal, June 2006)"

Indeed, where would the Civil Rights movement have gone if Dr. King had decided that morality did not play a part in politics? Let's not forget that there are other issues (i.e. poverty, environmental stewardship (thanks Chris), Darfur, etc.) that are facing us that could be considered "moral issues." I think where the process goes sour is when we turn our personal morality into polarizing hate speech against those who don't agree with us, which was always my problem with the Rev. Falwell.

I believe Jesus wants us to approach politics the way he wants us to approach all of life: in grace and truth. In truth, we speak out on issues that demand our voices and work towards social justice. But in grace, we allow room for those who may disagree with us, and remember that the world will never be made completely whole until Christ's return. I believe it is the 'grace' component that many Christian activists like Falwell seem to be lacking.

And for the record, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the tactical fallacies of some Christian conservatives (i.e. supporting abstinence-only sexual education and the Cameron/Comfort vs. Atheist celebrity death match). In fact, Becky Garrison wrote a great blog entry you should check out about the latter.

jordan, i enjoyed the article. as someone who has been involved in youth ministry at our local church for over 5 years, i tend to agree with your conclusion that relentless love and an unwillingness to let go are the best way to help teenagers understand who God is. Our programs, sermons, and rallies will eventually fall short of the similar things that they can find out there in the rest of the world. There's always a better party, a smarter speaker, or a cooler place to be.

But that divine love that we've been loved with? I don't think that can be replicated quite so easily. It's a good reminder for me to pour my time into the kids themselves, and not into a better set design or a cooler logo.

I think it comes down to something as simple as this: we cannot come to know Jesus except through faith. There is beauty in the unknown aspects of our spirituality ... "behold, I show you a mystery ..."

Can we reason critically come to educated conclusions about the nature of God? Of course. And I would submit that we bear a responsibility to do so.

But to attempt to frame the Gospel in terms of what I can prove scientifically about Jesus ... well, it just doesn't work, does it? And isn't it somehow beautiful that it doesn't work that way?

Read Philip Yancey's treatment of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness in his book, "The Jesus I Never Knew." The true temptation that Christ faced wasn't eating bread ... or purposely hurting himself ... or even worshiping Satan. The temptation was to prove His existence and deity beyond the shadow of a doubt with fantastic displays of power.

Yes, the world would have unequivocally believed had they seen His power. But their acts of belief would have been born out of fear and trembling, not out of love and faith.

I agree with you, Andrew. We can't come to know Jesus or God for that matter except by faith, but we can know things about Him through reason and argumentation (in the philosophical sense). It's not about downplaying the personal aspect of salvation or the gospel message (which is certainly more about supernatural regeneration than some doctrinal formulae that we have to intellectually accept) but providing the necessary ideological framework for Christianity to be a consistent and coherent philosophical system though it's certainly not just a philosophical system. But I feel just as those who emphasize the theological aspect of the faith minimize the experiential, those who emphasize the experiential minimize the theological. And it's not about a a balance of the two but the realization that the experiential has to have some foundation that is more than feeling, experience, and circular argumentation. And I appreciate your comment that we have a responsibility to reason about the nature of God given our revelation of Him in creation and the Bible.

Thanks for all the comments, folks!

Chris, no, I don't think the Kyoto Protocol could be listed under "legislating morality" because it doesn't seem like an issue of morals. i could be wrong.

I'm not completely opposed to the legislation of morality, it is always needed to some extent, but in recent years the Christian Church has come to rely on laws completely, and laws don't impact people the way people do.

Jordan, I really appreciate this article.

I had a similar experience when I heard of Jerry Falwell's passing, especially because the radio station re-capped the various things he had publicly stood for in a short segment on his life.

A lot of times I am struck with a certain feeling when I'm talking to someone who advocates legislation such as making alcohol or abortion illegal, that is almost fantasy-esque. I feel as though they're trying to believe that if they place a rule in a book, they will have victory over the vagaries of life. Everything will return to black and white. I remind them that people will often make major decisions for their lives outside of the law, and will get what they have decided they need however they have to. I believe that all that legislation of such things does is make the world less safe for people who are in trouble, and drive them underground so that they are harder to find and relentlessly love. In such a world, not only are they hurt or in need, but they're also breaking the law and therefore have to shut up about it (how healthy.)

I think the most clear point of legislating morality that Democrats rely on is welfare, and I think the debate cuts that way as well (my article was getting convoluted already, and I honestly didn't think of adding it).

After all, Jesus spends much more time talking about helping the poor than homosexuality, and I think the welfare system does, to some extent, allow us to step back and say, "the government is dealing with this so I don't have to."

I've been working at a charitable center the last few weeks, and I called one gentleman who'd given previously asking for a donation to the Portland Rescue Mission, a Christian-based homeless shelter downtown.

Immediately, he said, "I pay taxes to support that." And i replied, "Sir, this organization isn't supported by public funds, just donors like yourself." He didn't believe me, probably because he doesn't want to believe me.

Jordan,

I guess from the direction your article takes, then we should begin to change the laws that say that murder is wrong, rape is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. because by your definition, that is legislating morality.

I don't disagree with you that the church has missed the mark in loving the sinner while hating the sin. Too often in the last few years, it's been more focused on the hating the sin part, but I'm not sure how you can take the view that we shouldn't "legislate morality" when it comes to abortion, homosexuality, and some of the the more hot button issues, without carrying it out to the next extension of murder, euthanasia, rape, etc.

Patrick,

I don't agree with where you're going with that, because every crime you named is directly harmful to someone and these are morals held by the vast majority of humanity regardless of belief. There may be exceptions, of course (sociopaths, for instance). I thought this point through, believe me.

My point, though, was not to completely abolish all laws, but to be aware that laws do not ultimately change hearts. I believe, when we put our energy into the legal or political system, it is often a poor use of funds and time. That seems to me to be a very conservative way of seeing things (more libertarian, actually, but those are the real conservatives in my mind).

And, Patrick, to be honest, I resent the hyperbolic implication that this was my point and I hope that isn't where the discussion goes.

Also, I never mentioned homosexuality or abortion in the article. Maybe you read into that because you've labeled me a "liberal" and all liberals are the same in your mind. If you did, you're mistaken.

Jordan,

I have to disagree. You are confused if you think it's possible not to legislate morality. I firmly believe that God works from the internal to the external with all people, but that's just the point. There is an external. Christians or non-Christians they all legislate their ideas/morals. That's what laws are. Our goal is good laws. Biblical laws. God still holds us to the ten commandments even though he wants to do this via our hearts. The laws tell us which direction we need to go.

You go way to far in being insecure if you say that the "Christian Church relies on laws completely". This is not true at all. What do you think happens in most evangelical churches. You are abnormally afraid of the Pat Robertsons and you should relax. Stop labelling the Christians Church as something it is not.

Furthermore, you seem to suffer from Emprical thinking yourself. You are so caught up in not being able to prove God scientifically, that you say God can't be proven rationally. Science and ration are not bedfellows. Rationalism is a problem but not ration. Most of the world believes in God. He is clearly reasonable and the Bible says so. It is only those steeped in a postmodern worldview that have rejected what is reasonable for the "leap of faith". God is consistently reasonable to me and having been a missionary and visiting 35 countries, I see how God's laws work time and time again to transform society for the better. God works! How's that for a good reason to believe/know he is real.

Ryan

Jordan,

I believe that politics is downstream from culture. Meaning that laws usually reflect the views of the people. Morals, principles, values, whatever. But the Bible certainly contains a list of directions for us to move toward. You seem to think that we all innately know what love is. We are sinful people. We don't understand love all the time. God guides us. My mom told me not to play in the street. Guess what, as a kid I didn't know that was a problem. This law she made up for me (and enforced) taught me something because she backed it up with explanation. Good laws teach us. We also need the inner strength to obey the laws. But please don't assume that we all know the laws and people or government should not define what is good and bad. I should hope for all the nation to know that abortion or embezelment is wrong. If we don't, then we need to. If we do, our laws should reflect this. And isn't that what we as Christians do have a part in. Telling our government what laws are good. That is part of our job. We are to know the laws of God, uphold them ourselves, but then also influence our society with those laws.

I've wrestled with this question about legislating morality. It's true that laws regarding murder, rape, theft and most others have moral dimensions. However comparing the issue of Homosexuality to the aforementioned crimes seems to most people to be comparing apples to oranges. So what differentiates the latter issue from the former? Consent.

People don't consent to murder, rape, or theft. Rather they are victimized by others. Laws against these practices are passed to protect would be victims. In the same way Martin Luther King fought for laws that would protect those on the underside of power in his day. Today those who believe in human caused global warming (a position I am not yet convinced of) believe that we have a moral imperative to protect those who would be most drastically affected by the future they believe imminent, the poor of this world (half of which lives on less than $2 a day). Thus if correct, they do charge us to "legislate morality" in a way similar to current laws that stand.

On the other hand, homosexual acts are legal only when consent is given by the adult with which the act is performed. Thus, the Evangelical desire to use the state to withhold rights from homosexual couples that are granted to heterosexual couples is an entirely different brand of "legislating morality".

Argument can certainly be made that homosexual acts performed between consenting adults is harmful them and others. But to use the examples of rape, murder and theft is irresponsible as it does little more than inflame passion on both sides. It is true that we do have laws against consensual acts because we believe them to be bad for society, buying and selling drugs for instance. Yet, I have never heard an argument comparing the societal ills of homosexuality (which some believe to be fictional) with the societal ills of the drug trade (which are obvious). Though I would be interested to hear such an argument.

By the same standard I believe that abortion is an act that involves a victim and thus fits into the category in which Christians should pursue the formation of legislation to protect those on the underside of power.

all this said, using legislation in order to avoid loving individuals in a sacrificial way seems antithetical to Jesus' and the apostles' lives.

Thanks for the article Jordan

Those those interested in thinking further on this I'd recommend "Blinded by Might" by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson. It was written while Clinton was still president and does not foresee the return of strength to the Evangelical block, however it is quite insightful.

Ryan,

1. I didn't say "Christian Church relies on laws completely". it's especially strange because you put that sentence in quotes. I'm aware that the Church does a lot of great things and provides excellent ministries. The Church, for instance, has done much to change this nation's understanding of the AIDS crisis in Africa. I see the Church as I see myself: maybe I do good things sometimes, but I'm ultimately human, I'm prone to sin, and if I walked around patting myself on the back all the time, I would be lying to myself.

2. I didn't say the existence of God was unreasonable. I believe in God without a doubt, and His existence has been proven to me in my life. At the same time, we have free will to believe in God...He may make it obvious to everyone, but obviously not everyone believes. To me, faith means not knowing for sure, and I think this is a central aspect to Christian life.

3. I hear where you're coming from in terms of laws.

However, I would follow Christ if the laws of my country permitted it or not, in the same way that an addict may use heroin whether the laws of his country permit it or not. The point being (for the umpteenth time) that laws do not change human hearts. I do believe that the Church puts far too much energy into the political system and not enough into individuals. The basis of the Church, Christ, seemed to understand this more than anyone, which is why He didn't become King or overthrow the Roman oppressors. His presence on Earth was more than that.

Jordan et al.,

I'd like to add another thread to this passionate discussion:

Jordan is right that Jesus didn't come to overthrow the Roman oppressors - at least not by force. And he's right that Jesus' presence on Earth was more than that.

But I think we do sometimes miss the political dimension to Jesus' life, ministry, and death.

This discussion reminds me of a book I'll be reviewing in June entitled "The Politics of Jesus." The author, Obery M. Hendricks - building on the work of Walter Wink, John Howard Yoder, and others - claims that Jesus was every bit as interested in liberating us from the kingdom of earth as he was about getting us into the kingdom of heaven.

Hendricks writes that "Jesus of Nazareth was a political revolutionary." This doesn't mean he was engaged in the "bargaining and compromises and power plays and partisanship" that we've come to expect from Beltway politics. What it means is that Jesus, like the Old Testament prophets who heralded his coming, called not only for individual salvation; he also demanded "sweeping and comprehensive change in the political, social, and economic structures" of Roman-occupied Israel.

Hendricks: "[Jesus] not only sought to address the symptoms of the people's suffering, but also...sought to alleviate the systemic causes of their suffering...In other words, most Christians will tolerate imputing radical spiritual and relational intentions to Jesus, but whey you go past the realm of individual piety and say that he actively opposed the oppressive political structures of his time - and counseled others to do the same - you've gone too far."

It seems to me that all believers (no matter their occupation or station in life) have a responsibility to be ambassadors of Christ, to usher in a new kingdom that is both spiritual and physical. That means we spread the principles of the new kingdom (justice, love, and reconciliation) no matter where we are. A politician who is a follower of Jesus therefore has a divine commission to ensure that the federal budget reflects God's special love for the poor and outcast. In Jim Wallis's words: "A budget is a moral document." The same politician is commissioned to ensure that dope fiends aren't just locked away for decades or end up in the gutter. She would make sure that adequate money is given to drug treatment centers, rather than spending it all on prisons.

Is this legislating morality? Or is it moral legislation? Is there a difference? I think maybe.

I think this work has to go hand in hand with the work of the non-politicians - a minister, for example, or a teacher, a doctor, a student, or a housewife - who devote their time and energies to serving others in the name of Jesus. This reminds me of Cutty, the ex-boxer in "The Wire", working tirelessly with the Baltimore hoppers, and never giving up on them.

Truly moral legislation and unceasing, selfless service - it's all political. Because it all subverts the powers and principalities. The kingdom of God is like a nonviolent insurgency setting up outposts of love and justice in an enemy-occupied world. What could be more political than that?

John

Jordan,

But you did say it. Your post on this very page says it.

This is your post..., "but in recent years the Christian Church has come to rely on laws completely, and laws don't impact people the way people do."

Eric,

While comparing Homosexuality to rape and murder are apples and oranges to most "people", it's not apples and oranges to God.
It doesn't matter to God whether 2 homosexuals are consenting in their act. You need to reread the scriptures. Murder, lying, slander, gossip, sex outside of marriage is always wrong. The reason that we fight homosexual marriage so hard is because it is an assault on the family that God created and intended and we are seeing the societal ills daily of what happens when the family breaks down. It's not about preventing homosexuals from having the same "rights" as heterosexuals. It's about protecting the family unit. I think that every person has the free will to make choices, the problem is that homosexuals want me to say it's ok and to bestow on their relationships the rights that are reserved for marriage. We don't bestow special rights on non married heterosexuals, so why should we bestow it on non-married homosexuals. To say that "it's questionable whether or not homosexual acts are harmful to themselves or others" is a pretty ignorant comment. Any time we engage in sin, then there are negative consequences for us and a lot of times those consequences affect others as well.

Jordan

The reason I mentioned homosexuality and abortion was that they are the most often referred to when discussing legislating morality. It had nothing to do with hyperbole, but rather a logical extension of the idea that we should not legislate morality.
You stated that "the vast majority of people agree that murder, rape, etc are wrong", well in World War II Germany, most of the "people" believed it was ok to exterminate the Jews. Therefore, by taking the idea that we should not "legislate morality" to it's logical conclusion, the world had no right to try the Nazis for war crimes or beat Germany into submission because their people said it was ok.

We as humans, especially Christians, like to say "well I'm not doing what their doing". That notion doesn't work, because God is the one who is the basis for what is right and wrong. You and I don't have the right to try and change what God has already said is right and wrong.

John,

Excellent post! I totally agree. When people only focus on Jesus and his ministry they miss out on God and the whole Bible. Jesus had a specific mission and he relied on God for that direction as He says. He brought heart and light to the Old Testament. But he did not reject the Old Testament and neither should we say it is ONLY about copying Jesus. Heck then we should all be carpenters or we should all quit our jobs and be missionaries supported by three women. Heaven forbid I should ever diss Jesus, but there are more pages of the Bible to read. It's still God and how he acts.

The Bible says a lot about Business, Economics, Government, Art, etc. The problem is that most people don't look to see God's principles in these things. God says things like don't have unequal scales, don't giver preferential treatment to the rich man, and when you have to poo poo then do it outside the camp. This one is a principle of sanitation and I have to teach it so often in my missions work around the world and it is a real practical blessing to people. The Bible is not just a nice story!

God gives principles for governing nations too. Jesus represented the Church during his ministry and I agree absolutely that the Church should NOT control government. But Christians in government should follow God's principles for government of which the Bible has many. And on top of that, the Church is supposed to influence all of society including government. But notice I said, "influence", not control. And I do agree that it's best for the Church to teach it's own congregations what the Godly principles are first.

I think we could all agree that it's not just a political party that is right, it's about God's principles for government. Sadly, I don't think most people look at the Bible as a source for those answers. But it is. As Francis Schaeffer says, "He is there, and He is not silent". I'm afraid when the emerging church and people like Donald Miller lead people away from principles and God's precepts and say things like God doesn't make any more sense than I do to an ant. David loved God's precepts and they helped him. And they help me tremendously as I work to improve villages and nations in my missions work. Americans take their nicely functioning (it's the worst country in the world except for all the other ones) society for granted and don't think about how God's principles really do change nations.

Ryan

Eric,

I agree with Patrick. The homosexuals are consenting, you got that right. The question is does this nation want to give a privilege and honor that relationship. That answer for any Christian is no. Why would we want to give our blessing to that form of relationship which will harm our country. Having strong man and woman families will be a blessing to our nation so we want to promote that in our laws. We are promoting what is good and not promoting what is bad.

How is homosexuality bad you ask? Yes, because God says so and he sees more than I is the first answer but here's another. If I said that we didn't need women teachers in universities you would probably strongly disagree. If I said, what do they have to offer that men can't, you would probably give me a list of ways women are special and unique and see things men don't. Now apply that to a family. Why would we eliminate all the wonderful and unique gifts of a woman to child raising. Or conversely, men are also different with special attributes that compliment in a family. I want my kids to have the nurture and feeling that my wife has for our twins that I can't compete with. And I want my kids to have the strength and "pushing forward" in life that my wife doesn't focus on. Simply put, men and women are unique and we want all of that in a family. Even if I didn't have kids, I still appreciate all the differences that my wife brings to my life.

Ryan

Patrick,
Thank you for your response. I agree with the majority of what you said and would like to try to further specify where we differ as much for my own clarification as yours.

I agree with you that sin is sin, regardless of how socially acceptable it is in any given culture. I also agree with you that the Bible is clear that homosexual acts are sinful. I am passionately concerned about how the church responds to the lie that homosexuality is OK. I believe that the church needs to be faithful to God by refusing to be involved in ceremonies uniting two people of the same sex. However, while I do believe that the ?wages of (all) sin is death?, I also believe that sins reflect the state of a person's heart. While someone who tells a ?white lie? is guilty, to compare them with a serial rapist is unfair. One is misguidedly trying to help someone feel better, while the other shows a violent disregard for others by forcefully taking that which is not his to take. In the same way, comparing a practicing homosexual with a serial murderer (in my opinion) is unfair. I believe that the former reflects a misguided attempt to find love while the latter displays a willful desire to take life. That is why I urged against the inflammatory language regarding those who victimize others.

If, all sin is the same = we should legislate against both murder and homosexuality, then we should also consider legislating against lying, slander, and gossip, or at the very least, extramarital sex. However, I agree with Jordan that it is primarily the church's responsibility to deal with these issues in the lives of disciples of Christ.

You state that we ? don't bestow special rights on non married heterosexuals, so why should we bestow it on non-married homosexuals?? However, legally in most states, any heterosexual couple that lives together for 7 years is considered married by common law. They receive the same benefits that married couples do. In the vast majority of states homosexuals are not included in the process of ?common-law marriage?, thus do not share in the benefits of non-married heterosexuals.

I agree that one of the biggest problems in western civilization is the breakdown of the family unit. I believe that the church needs to fight against that breakdown. I also believe that the current state of homosexuality is at least as much a result of family breakdown as it is a cause of it. At the very least, the breakdown of the family has been caused by multiple factors, the foremost of which is rampant divorce among heterosexuals. I find it hard to trust the motives of a movement that said little when ?no fault? divorce went through in the 70's for heterosexuals but now warns us of the implosion of the culture that will result from homosexuals being allowed to commit to each other.

I did not state that ?it's questionable whether or not homosexual acts are harmful to themselves or others?, I completely agree with you that all sinful acts are destructive both to the sinner and those around him. I intended to state that a large percentage of the population (much of which does not share our faith) does not believe homosexual practice a producer of societal ill, while drug trafficking on the other hand is pretty universally recognized as such.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify what I intended to say, feel free to respond if you feel I misrepresented any of our points of agreement or if you would like to critique anything I said as I am sure that there is much to critique.

If you'd like my email adress so we can continue to dialogue, I'd be happy to post it, let me know.

Eric,

That was a good response to Patrick's post. Well-reasoned and polite. I may disagree with you (and Patrick) on the homosexuality issue, but intelligent and inclusive comments like yours will make for a vibrant, healthy discussion.

Keep it up.

John

Ryan,

Ah! You're right. I'm very sorry for my reaction, which was unfounded. I suppose I could delete both posts and pretend like it didn't happen, but harsh doses of humility are sometimes pretty sweet.

In my defense, I will say that I spend far less time on the comments I write than the articles. In retrospect, I was wrong.

I think the Christian Right spends too much time on political endeavors, but I also know that they spend a lot of time doing a lot of good in the world.

Thanks for pointing that out...seriously...I kept scanning over the article looking for that sentence. I am prone to hyperbole myself.

more later...
Jordan

Patrick,

"You stated that "the vast majority of people agree that murder, rape, etc are wrong", well in World War II Germany, most of the "people" believed it was ok to exterminate the Jews. Therefore, by taking the idea that we should not "legislate morality" to it's logical conclusion, the world had no right to try the Nazis for war crimes or beat Germany into submission because their people said it was ok."

Naziism would be included in my qualifier, which referred to sociopathic mindsets. You don't have to go back that far to find genocide...it's going on all around the world right now.

"We as humans, especially Christians, like to say "well I'm not doing what their doing". That notion doesn't work, because God is the one who is the basis for what is right and wrong. You and I don't have the right to try and change what God has already said is right and wrong."

I agree, but I don't think you have the right to say you understand fully what God said was right and wrong. If you do, I'd challenge you to make a full list.

Let me ask a theoretical question here:

Should all sin (defined by the strictest Biblical principles) be illegal and punishable by fines or prison time? Is this how the United States should govern?

Jordan,

Thanks for your honesty. I appreciate that you didn't delete. I believe you just missed seeing it.

You wrote, "I agree, but I don't think you have the right to say you understand fully what God said was right and wrong. If you do, I'd challenge you to make a full list."

Yes he does have the right. We may not actually "get it right" with regard to what God says is right and wrong. We may not accurately interpret the Bible correctly, this I concede of all Christians. But we most certainly have the right to believe and make statements about what the Bible says. And we have a right to speak our beliefs. That's all we do as people. I'd hope that Christians would try to be as honest as possible in interpreting the Bible, but as they do, it is their Biblical duty to communicate to others what the Bible says.

And again. Who makes the laws? What beliefs/morals are behind those laws? Are you saying that a non-Christian has more of a right to make laws because they don't come from the Bible which can be mis-interpreted? All laws come from a worldview/belief. Are you saying we can't have any laws then (because no one knows all)?

It just seems as if you are afraid of Christians being wrong, or overbearing, so your solution is to stop Christians from being of influence so they aren't embarrasing to you. Please tell me if that is wrong. I might not be reading you correctly of course. But the point remains in that everyone legislates their beliefs and everyone has a right to do so.

I'm not going to tell God how to interpret His Bible, but I am going to influence others with what I believe the Bible says. It's where I get my guidance to understand my world. Where does anyone else get their guidance?

Are you not just being postmodern and relativistic to think that no one has a right to say their beliefs because how can we know anything for certain. Is your solution that Christians should be the first to doubt themselves and silence themselves in the spirit of tolerance because really, who can know anything for sure.

Jordan,

I can take the time to write the list for you, but rather than recopying the Bible for you, or I can just recommend you read that. Everything that we need to know for life, including what God says is right and wrong is in those 66 books of the Bible. So yes, I can know what God says is right and wrong. You seem not to have a very high view of what's written in the Bible which is the source of Truth in this world.
You and I as Christians do have to have questions in life that are not directly answered in the Bible. Things such as "do I take this job?", and "should I marry this girl?, are not directly answered in the Bible. The principles for answering those questions are in the Bible. A job that requires us to compromise our principles that God laid out for us in His scripture would be wrong for us to take. Marrying a non-Christian would go against His word that tells us not to be unequally yoked. We have the Holy Spirit to guide us in those decisions that aren't directly addressed, however, He will never guide us to make a decision that goes against what God has written in the Bible. The Holy Spirit would never guide me to divorce my wife and marry someone else because that new person is my "soul mate". Those are some examples of what I'm talking about. Remember what 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS (emphasis mine.)"

Thanks, Patrick. I'll look into this "reading the Bible thing".

Sheesh. If you keep up with the condescending sarcasm, this debate is over.

And Ryan, I didn't ask you if God has the right to uphold His own laws (I know that He does), but that was a nice sidestep. What do you think Jesus meant when he said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" it seemed to me like that was a specific situation where the law was being upheld in a correct manner established by the Old Testament.

Also, neither of you answered my rhetorical question, so I'll ask again:

Should all sin be illegal in the United States?

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.