Whose Morality?
Having made my point about the general way in which the Kingdom influences society, I have been challenged about what happens when it comes to the ethcial values that determine social policy and legislation in a society. Particularly, Doug rightly points out that it is not a question of whether morality will be imposed, but whose morality will be imposed. If I argue that the Church will ultimately be the biggest influence in the world, won’t that mean that Christian laws will be adopted (if only because Christians in a democratic society will vote them in!)?
I will respond first of all with a few questions of my own. Although it will be obvious which way I am inclining in my thoughts, I put them in the form of questions firstly because I want to encourage reflection and discussion (and am genuinely interested in people’s responses) and secondly becasue I am still thinking these things through and have not come to a settled position.
-
Is there really a fixed body of Christian laws to adopt anyway? (this is if I rule out the use of the Mosaic Law for a civil code - which I am doing so for the sake of argument!)
-
Is there anywhere in the NT when you find Christians lobbying the state or the civil authorities to adopt ‘Christian laws?’
-
Is it not possible that God would simply want us to be good citizens, along with many people who are not Christians, and to encourage the adoption of general principles to do with justice, good order, compassion etc. which in fact we would share with many people?
-
In fact, because of common grace and natural law, should we not expect to find common ground with many people and has it possibly been the overly confrontational and hostile approaches, perhaps especially in the US, that have made people react against Christians and what they think are Christian values?
-
Where people do oppose us, and where distorted worldviews and ungodly values do influence law-making, is it possible that in some of the political responses to this that Christians engage in, actually crosses the boundaries into fighting with ‘the weapons of this world?’
-
Would a better response not be to wage war in the heavenlies to demolish strongholds, through prayer; to state clearly, though not confrontationally, a better way; to exemplify God’s better way in the community of the church so that people see what works; and to engage in honest, open and irenic debate with those who differ from us without assuming that they are our deadly enemies?
There are many other questions which spring to mind, but that’ll do for now.
April 28th, 2006 @ 8:28 am
Trevor - some excellent questions here. I too was intrigued by the implications to government in Doug’s comment. Rather than respond to one of the specifics here, I’ll mention two scenarios from UK history that highlight some of the challenges here:
(1) William Wilberforce was able to progress against slavery specifically because he was directly involved in shaping law/policy and was active and well connected in politics. Even some missional parachurch organisations such as the British and Foreign Bible Society were founded through his political influence.
(2) In cotnrast, Wesley and Whitfield changed society through their preaching and resulting revival. The grass-roots change in large numbers of the population caused through their converstion reduced lawlessness, crime as well as increasing industry and the economy. Some commentators say this broad shift away from general malaise and discontent to increasing prosperity also saved Britain from bloody revolution as was experienced in France.
For me these two scenarios point toward the need for perhaps not reducing this to a simplistic position where either ‘prayer’ or ‘politics’ becomes our choice of response.
April 28th, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
Thanks for this Trevor - I knew someone would use Wilberforce on this before I got chance to comment!
Anyway, for me when we talk about the Kingdom of God pervading and infiltrating society at large, it always has to be through hearts and minds won to the message of the Kingdom and ultimately to King Jesus.
Wilberforce stood and campaigned for years to see slavery abolished. Evantually, through his speeches, persistance and prayer - he won over the hearts and minds of a nation, and at that time, the empire which was nearly half of the world in the early 1800’s. The law was finally brought to the statute book after he died but the ultimate argument of justice and freedom for slaves was won.
Sometimes, a law in a nation, and the debate around that issue can provide the forum and framework for the message of the Kingom to come. e.g The present Lord Joffe Bill in the Lords and the debate surrounding that Bill in relation to life, care and compassion. I think this is an excellent opportunity for christians to prophetically proclaim the message of the Kingdom.
I agree though that the Kingdom of God was never destined to come simply through legislation but through infiltration of society by holy spirit filled men and women in every sector and part of society, including politics.
April 28th, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
Thanks guys,
I would want to make it clear that I am certainly not suggesting that prayer is the only way we influence politics and legislation. I just think that we need to keep in focus the essentially spiritual nature of the Kingdom, and be careful that we don’t get drawn into using the weapons of this world.
I am passionately concerned that Christians get involved in the political world in all kinds of ways.
And the interesting thing about Wilberforce is that he was campaigning on an issue on which he would have had much common ground with others (though most would have been at least nominally Christian in that age) and there were in fact ‘Christians,’ both in US and Britain, who were arguing for slavery on supposedly Christian grounds! I would happily align myself with an atheist or a Hindu campaigning on something I passionatley believed in, and not with a ‘Christian’ with whom I strongly disagreed.
Trevor
May 12th, 2006 @ 4:33 am
I did not forget about this post! I have just been busy, but I am sure you have must more responsibilities than myself at this point, and may have to put off reading my long post for awhile. But I feel this topic is very important and deserves my response. Moreover, I hope that my comments are productive and do not sound overly presumptuous.
In your first question, you set up what my argumentation teacher calls a “straw man” argument. Why? Because it is easy to show there is no “fixed” body of laws if you exclude the 10 commandments and the specific application examples (case law). Secondly, question one also “begs the question” by presupposing that God’s law is no longer binding. You cannot choose to set aside Mosaic Law for the sake of argument because that is the exact the point of disagreement. (at least in my mind…)
On that point, I still am not convinced that anyone can separate “God’s law” from “Christ’s law.” You give example of Paul referring to the Law of Moses as God’s law when he says he is not under law (1 Cor. 9:20-21), which makes a distinction between ceremonial Mosaic law and Christ’s law. I completely agree! Paul is referring to the Old Testament ceremonial regulations, which as a Pharisee he touted as the key to salvation. Yes, Paul is not under ceremonial law, as that part of the law has been fulfilled by Christ’s death. On the other hand, the 10 commandments are affirmed by Jesus in the New Testament; thus God’s law given through Moses is Christ’s law (Mt. 5:17-20). Paul says “the law is good, if one uses it lawfully.” (1 Tim. 1:8-11). How do we know the lawless from the lawful? Use of God’s law as a measuring stick.
Please see Matthew chapter 5 where Jesus repeatly corrects the Pharisees’ distortion of God’s law. The Pharisees thought of their law as God’s law, but they twisted it and misapplied it. Jesus does not say the law doesn’t apply, he says “whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:19) and corrects the legalistic additions to His Father’s law. Jesus also never makes a distinction between His Father’s law and His law. Jesus lived to do his father’s will (Jn. 5:19).
May 12th, 2006 @ 4:55 am
For your third question, what is a good citizen? I would say that a good citizen is one agrees with God’s standard of morality. God defines justice, good order, and compassion. Depraved man does not share these general principles, for if he agrees with God, he is not depraved. (That is not to say that the unbeliever is not aware of God’s standard, but only that he or she wants to rebel against it. For example in Rom. 1:32, Paul says that the homosexual knows the “ordinances of God.”).
In response, one may then say that if my assertion were true, then non-believers would never elect a Christian or select to live under God’s standard of right and wrong.
I would respond by recognizing that non-believers will reject God’s law until they have an incentive to accept it. For example, the Bible states that if a nation follows God’s law, that nation will prosper (Deut. 29:9). Therefore, it is not because unbelievers necessary agree with Christians on issues of morality, it is because they want the same prosperity (laws against sexual immorality to prevent AIDS). Or they want unwavering guidance in time of utter moral confusion. William Wilberforce’s arguments against slavery appealed to unbelievers because almost no one wants to be a slave! But slavery is allowed in society not because lawmakers or society ever believe slavery is moral, but because they love money more than morality. My point is this: believers must have a morality before they can sway unbelievers to accept that morality. If not the 10 commandments, then what?
May 12th, 2006 @ 5:06 am
Question 4 enters common grace and nature law into the conversation. Natural law is nebulous set of principles that mean something different to different groups. One cannot argue that it will bring unity between the believer and unbeliever if unbelievers do not agree upon what is a natural law and what isn’t. Common grace would take an entry to discuss—possible a topic for a future post.
Further, in my experience (which probably does not carry must authority), there isn’t ever real common ground. I am NOT advocating salvation through outward obedience to the law or that God’s law should be forced upon society to “bring the Kingdom.” Secondly, it is only through prayer and the moving of God’s Spirit that anyone obeys God. I myself, or any group of people, cannot make people want to glorify God by adopting His holy sense of justice in all aspect of their lives. I am only arguing that where the God’s Kingdom goes, His holy standard of justice goes as well.
May 12th, 2006 @ 5:34 am
For your fifth question, fighting with the weapons of this world in my mind would be using the civil laws to grant salvation. We both agree that the law is guide but not a savior. If Christians do not advocate for laws to protect unborn babies, then who will stand up for the innocent? The unbeliever?
A law against abortion will not save the unbeliever, but it pleases God by prohibiting government-sanctioned destruction of His image.
I know the abortion example is over used. I also agree that most people know what Christians are against but not what Christians support. But I think there are always extremes, and completely removing a Christian presents from civil government is, in my opinion, an extreme. Such an action would leave a whole sphere void of God’s representatives.
May 12th, 2006 @ 6:06 am
Lastly, (and I know I’m long winded!), I’ve broken down your 6th question for my own understanding. (Hopefully I’m not being too biased…) The Church should:
1. pray
2. give solutions in words
3. give solutions through example
4. offer clear opinions in public forums
I agree. I pray that God would pierce the hearts of men that they would bow to God’s standard and repent of their sin (Eph 6:18). My position is that the Church (all believers) needs articulate moral absolutes to bring society out of the fog of moral relativism (Eph. 6:19). I also hold that the Church (all believers) must lead by example through consistent obedience to God’s Word —both OT and NT (Eph. 5:1). I agree that the Church should offer clear solutions from the Bible (Ps. 19:8). It is important to present reasonable sounding arguments, but with the understanding that unbelievers are “darkened in their understanding” and walk in “futility” (Is. 28:10-13; Eph. 4:17-18).
God abhors compromising His standard of holiness to reach peace with those who are God haters (the unrepentant) (Is. 30:1).
May 12th, 2006 @ 6:10 am
In your second question, you make an argument from silence. If the Bible confirms the law is binding, then one must present more than just “silence” to show that a God’s binding standard does not apply to the civil sphere. Why? Because there is more evidence (the words of Jesus) that law still applies, than there is evidence that the law does not apply (silence).
Chapter 30 of Greg Bahnsen’s book “By This Standard” supplied this arguement.
May 12th, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
Well, Ruth, you definitely qualify as the the only person to make five consecutive comments on my blog in the same day! Thank you for taking such an interest and thank you for giving me such food for thought. I obviously can’t repsond to all of it now but I do hope that some of these issues are going to come up from time to time on my blog as we consider how we are involved in changing the world. What I would say is that I am certainly not in favour of Christians abandoning the public square; nor am I unconcerned about the moral standards that prevail in society. I am just don’t think that we have to be as absolutist and antagonistic as some Christians have been in the past. I also believe that, because the wheat and the weeds will grow together, attempting to totally Christianise society through legislation is a futile pursuit. I believe that we can influence society like leaven though the dough, and that the Kingdom has already come. I am committed to the truth of Kingdom Now, but even that truth can be exaggerated and distorted. I also believe that there is plenty of evidence from the Bible that the Law no longer applies to civil society, or at all. I recommend the writing of Douglas Moo, Professor of New Testament Studies at Wheaton College.