Moral Legislation

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Spainhour on July 24, 2008 at 1:28am

Here is a thought from John Stott's Commentary on the sermon on the mount. Christians are to be the salt of the earth right? So what did that mean to the people who actually heard him speak it, or were reading those words? Remember that salt was used back then a lot for the preservation of meat. You could just rub it all up in to the meat as a preservative. So Jesus said that we are to be the salt of the earth. It seems that possibly Jesus could have been saying that, if left to its own accord the earth will just decay on its own. So the job of the Christian is to rub all up in the earth, and that absolutely includes its social structures, so as to help prevent the decay.

The Bible says that God has put authority structures in place for this purpose. However, if you will look at some of the Kings in the OT it is not to hard to find some that used their power for evil and from that the people were lead into evil. So with out the recognition of the absolute Law Giver in the legislative structure, there is an easily accessed evil by a people.

The thing is that it isn't just about this idea that we should be involved, but what does our involvement. Part of our role as Christians is to be Holy right. That just means that not only are we to not look like the world, but also we are not to have the same goals as the world. We need to be "other" than the world. So when we, as Christians, try to get into a branch of society like the legislative branch, we must walk an incredibly fine line. One that is able to actually put us in the place of making a change, while not compromising our integrity, as well as not becoming corrupted or distracted from the goal.

I guess I am just absolutely sold on the idea that we fully need to be involved, but how does it look is very interesting to me. I don't think that I will be able to answer that part but am looking forward to reading what others say. I would recommend a book that could also give some insight into the subject. "Christian Manifesto" by Francis Schaeffer is one of my top five favorite books. But it addresses this issue quite well.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by jeremy spainhour on July 24, 2008 at 3:09am

All good thoughts, but you're beating around the proverbial bush. The question is not necessarily about the Christian's role in the legislative branch as much as it is about what the Christian thinks the bible's role should or should not be in the legislative branch...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by jeremy spainhour on July 25, 2008 at 1:35pm

Wow, this party really died. Actually, it never got started... I guess I'll resort to randomness.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brad & Melissa Davies on July 25, 2008 at 2:10pm

Don't be discouraged, give it time....

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Justin and Amanda Claypool on July 25, 2008 at 4:42pm

yeah, randomness. we're better at that. sorry jeremy, i think my answer to the question is . . . if we don't push for a system based on our "biblical" morality then we are given over to the laws that the system of the world would create. although i believe that government has a certain role in taking care of it's people, i also believe that God has an ideal and a standard as what that should look like if Christians were to fully fulfill that role. that being said, if our government is run by immoral, or ungodly people, then we can't expect the, to govern biblically. but if there are laws and what not that corellate to biblical standards then we should by all means support them. however, Jesus was also not elected or positioned as king, so we should not expect the government, (and a worldly government at that) to fix all of the social ills of today. the body of Christ still has to be the body of Christ and lead the way.

i don't know if that makes sense. if we want to stick to random then random we shall get. my answer is bacon cheeseburger, hold the onions extra fries.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by jeremy spainhour on July 26, 2008 at 12:42am

Both points made sense: 1) that we should push for a biblical morality, lest we fall into a system of laws that the world would create; and 2) Jesus was not elected or positioned as king, per se, so we should not expect government to do the Church's job.

I think these two points are precisely why this question is difficult to answer. Essentially, they are both true, but together incompatible. So maybe the discussion should continue by trying to synthesize these points.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Aaron M on July 27, 2008 at 12:54pm

Eh, this question... blah! It always comes up. I think that we as Christians ought to be involved in politics and promote Bible-based morality within the legal system... not necessarily using Scripture as a reason for injecting those laws into the system, but definitely using Scripture as the basis upon which we create our laws. Really, it would look just like that... people standing up, promoting what they believe and fighting for it. Will we always succeed? Of course not... but that doesn't mean we'll always lose, either.

I would also hope that the Church would have a strong exogenous influence on the government through the populace though not directly involved through politicians...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brad & Melissa Davies on July 27, 2008 at 9:46pm

To Answer your original first question Jeremy...I think the majority of legal systems (at least in the western world) already are based off of our "biblical" morality. This is what the forefathers of these nations chose to do. Unfortunately over time these systems have morphed and changed under the influence of the shifting society and culture. (This is unavoidable, given enough time and outside influence you will never end up at the same place you started) So the systems of today do not necessarily resemble what they started out to be. We as Christians do not really need to introduce some radical new way of thinking, we just need to point the people back to our foundations. God and the prophets were constantly pointing Israel back to the word, back to their history, back to their foundations, as a means of guiding them back on track. We should do the same.

So to answer the second part of your original question...you just have to look around at today's present legal systems to see what one based on "biblical" morality looks like. What we really need is a system based on, and functioning in, "biblical" morality.

I think that the real difficulty for us lies in defining our terms. If you asked 100 different Christians/churches the definition of "biblical" morality, you would get a lot of different answers. Not all would agree. So while we all fight modern society in an effort to restore and maintain it, we also fight each other and we ourselves end up promoting the very same moral shifts that we are so opposed too.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Justin and Amanda Claypool on July 28, 2008 at 9:44am

i like the cut of your jib brad!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brad & Melissa Davies on July 28, 2008 at 9:51am

Thanks! I'm glad somebody noticed, I just got it cut yesterday.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sara Jane V on July 28, 2008 at 10:57am

I have nothing new to say on this subject as of yet, but I shall return after finishing Madeline Albright's book "The Mighty and The Almighty" on this exact subject (ok, it's more about foreign policy), but it looks into our history as Americans who can never seem to separate church and state, hard as we try and as many laws as we make against it.
Personally, i think it's because we weren't designed to - could that be why we have so many moral flaws in our government? It's like Christianity and science - every scientist and their lab partner have tried to separate the two since Einstein when Einstein himself declared that the two (meaning God and science) were meant to be together.
I agree with Brad, looking constantly back at the old testament and understanding the 'government' that the Lord set in place for the israelites. But alas, we are flawed and some how always stray from our source and lose our power to overcome.

Ok, it's too early for me to think, but i will say more when i finish my book. hopefully add something new.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by jeremy spainhour on July 28, 2008 at 12:36pm

I do not think that Christians should push for a biblical legislation in the name of the bible or Jesus or God.
Beginning with a question: Would a biblically based law actually produce behavior that is driven by the desire to fulfill the law or behavior that is driven by a healthy fear of consequences? Does it change the heart or simply or simply change behavior? I would argue, and I believe Jesus would argue, the latter. Consider the Pharisees (whose behavior was commendable according to the Law), surprised to hear the bad news Jesus brought them. “If you’ve been angry, you’ve already murdered. If you’ve lusted, you’ve already committed adultery.” Jesus revealed that the purpose of the law was not simply to create an ethical code for overt conduct. The law fails unless it has the power to change a person’s heart. More than any people in history, the Pharisees had a moral legislation that was based on Scripture. In fact, it WAS Scripture! But the law, ‘weak as it was through the flesh,’ was unable to change the heart, and apparently that’s what Jesus wanted to do.
Consider the history of God’s law, God’s people, and the advent of Jesus Christ.
God decisively separates the Jews from the nations by giving them a law. Thus a theocracy was established in which God was in direct rule over his people who were under His divine legislation. But the people wanted a human king like the other nations (see Judges), so finally God gave them what they wanted. He essentially removed himself from direct rule of the people and established a king in his place. Saul’s kingship was the first example of why this was a bad idea. Then David, one of the better kings, but still far from a personification of God, was established, and to him God promised an heir, who would establish his throne forever. After a half century of chaos, owing to the ungodly kings who were doing God’s job foolishly, and henceforth another half century of exile, God came in the flesh to take his throne back, which he had given over to Saul many years prior. Essentially, with Christ as king, God reestablished his theocracy. However, what he did NOT reestablish was a law. What’s more, He did not reestablish his kingship in the Roman government or the Sanhedrin, but he did in the lives of individuals who were to live as subversive devotees of King Jesus in the face of Roman paganism under the rule of Caesar and 1st century Judaism under the rule of a hyper-biblical law.
You would think that that the first thing the King of Heaven and Earth would have done in establishing his kingdom is have Caesar crucified and have the Roman government overthrown. On the contrary, King Jesus practically avoided dialogue with politicians. Even his confrontation with Pilate contains few words, and those which were spoken were somewhat awkward and ambiguous, though wise and true. He didn’t engage in political conflict to rule over his people, rather he sought the transformation of individuals over against a political giant. And the same is found with Paul. His agenda was always far less political, though it was inadvertently political, and much more social and interpersonal. He went around establishing little sects of communities who would give their loyalty to the King of heaven rather than the ‘king’ of Rome. He didn’t try to produce a Christian Rome, but was always trying to produce Christians in Rome.
Should legislation be moral? I believe it is moral by definition. Should it be biblically based and instituted in the name of the bible? I say no. Why? 1) Because we can’t make a law that people have to change their hearts and even if we could it wouldn’t work. 2) The law can’t make a person righteous or perfect, i.e. it cannot do what it sets out to do (which was the mistake of not only the Jews, but also early Greek philosophers, e.g. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and, furthermore, modern philosophers whose Enlightenment project failed miserably because of the optimistic view of human n

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page