Legislating Morality?

[Josh]

11/28/06:

Perhaps you've heard Christians argue that "you can't legislate morality".

But is that really true?

From my standpoint, I'd say yes and no.

If, by that statement, it is meant that we can't change the hearts of anyone through legislation, then in general I'd agree.

But still, it is true that legislation can change outward behavior. And, frankly, in some cases that means a lot. Even the disastrous legislation known as Prohibition (which made alcohol illegal for more than 10 years in this country) did change outward behavior. Demonstrably, less people actually drank during Prohibition. That was the goal of the Temperance movement, and it worked*.

Likewise, less people murder because we have laws against murder. Such legislation probably does little to change the hearts of those who want to murder, but nonetheless, I think such legislation does in it's own way "legislate morality".


* Of course Prohibition only created other worse evils... not to mention took away a major human liberty

[Josh]

11/28/06:

You know, thinking about is some more, I actually think that laws CAN possibly change hearts.

Here's my thinking: in the short run, I don't think laws change inward morality, but it seems like you could make a good case that over the long run laws could affect the worldview of the next generation in a positive way, so that they are internally less inclined (or more inclined) to do this or that (whatever the moral issue is).

A good example would be that, arguably, laws that came out of the Civil Rights Era may not have changed the hearts of die-hard racists, but in the long term have helped to posivitely change the worldview and basic moral instincts of thousands (or millions to some degree).

[hume]

11/28/06:

Nice point. I've always been annoyed by that cliche about legislating morality (does anyone really think our system of laws has no moral basis at all?) The civil rights movement is a terrific counterexample.

I guess what's often meant by the cliche is something like "you can't outlaw actions that are not generally agreed to be immoral" -- as distinct from actions like murder that people do agree about. In other words, you can only legislate "majority morality." But the civil rights movement -- especially in the early court cases -- used the legal system to make changes that were strongly opposed by majorities in certain areas.

[Josh]

11/28/06:

Dare we bring up a few modern day suggestions to tinker with here?

[nathaniel]

12/10/06:

man. i'm such a devils advocate. no wonder i have such a hard time making decisions about things, i'm always arguing the other side.

i thought i was totally down with the laws don't change peoples hearts idea. but then i read the legslating morality bit, and thought, actually on second thought laws just might be able to change peoples hearts. and if not hearts at least minds.

then come to find out one post later you was thinkin the same thang. and stated it quite well i might add.

respek'.

[Josh]

elsewhere Chris wrote:

But where I part company with the majority of my Christian brothers is when they try to impose Kingdom values on those outside the Kingdom. Appealing to Caesar to enforce God's will is not only an insult to God (IMO), it's also counterproductive to the growth of the God's kingdom. I think it has the exact opposite effect that Christians intend it to have.

Chris, I thought this comment was relevant for this thread.

So, to play devil's advocate on your statement:

Do you/ would you support legislation against say, murder, regardless of whether it became acceptable in the larger culture? If yes, then I think you need to revise your statement to a more modest claim.

Also, doesn't God in fact establish governments in order to restrain evil, which is a way of enforcing his will?

Romans13

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Note the phrase "they [governing authorities] are God's ministers". Couldn't get a better descriptor of someone who is in some way commissioned to fulfill God's will.

I don't think Paul thought that everything governments do is counter productive to the gospel. In some instances he even appealed to the government for help! I don't think he was insulting God when he did so. I think, rather, he would have been thankful to God that the governing authorities were doing what God had actually ordained and commissioned them to do.

[christopher]

Oh good. Someone else gets to advocate for the devil for a change.

For starters, my statement obviously must be contextualized to the discussion and not taken as a blanket statement. I believe your example about murder is a false analogy because there is an inherent universality in certain categories of transgressions that cannot be compared to the topic at hand. Things like murder, rape, and stealing belong to the category of violating the inalienable rights of another, where things like fornication, pornography, and acts of a homosexuality belong to a more subjective realm of morality.

It’s the latter category that I think:

1) Cannot fairly or effectively be legislated in a secular democracy.
2) Christians should not appeal to Caesar for.
3) Are counterproductive to the gospel.

You wrote:

Also, doesn't God in fact establish governments in order to restrain evil, which is a way of enforcing his will?

and

Note the phrase "they [governing authorities] are God's ministers". Couldn't get a better descriptor of someone who is in some way commissioned to fulfill God's will.

What part of that do you think rebuts my statement about Christians not appealing to Caesar to enforce God’s will? I can’t find any instruction in the bible that says we ought to do that. I do find places where God Himself uses kings to execute His judgments, and that we ought to submit to the governing authorities (like the verse you quoted). But that’s a completely different thing than Christians trying to legislate kingdom values don’t you think? Jesus clearly indicated that His kingdom is not of this world or anything like it.

I believe that governments are “ordained ministers” (servants) of God to do His will, in the same way I believe Satan is ordained by God to do His will. It’s spiritual Aikido (God using the malicious energy of an opponent to His own advantage).

Which of the Caesars do you think were Godly men being obedient to God? Or how about the Babylonians and Assyrians?. Which of them do you think God gave explicit instructions to on how He wants “evil doers” punished? How do you think He “ordains” them? I’m very interested in hearing your answer to that.

When Paul appealed to Caesar, it was in his own defense of injustices being done to him. Where did he ever appeal to Caesar to change laws?

[Josh]

For starters, my statement obviously must be contextualized to the discussion and not taken as a blanket statement. I believe your example about murder is a false analogy because there is an inherent universality in certain categories of transgressions that cannot be compared to the topic at hand. Things like murder, rape, and stealing belong to the category of violating the inalienable rights of another, where things like fornication, pornography, and acts of a homosexuality belong to a more subjective realm of morality.It’s the latter category that I think:

1) Cannot fairly or effectively be legislated in a secular democracy.
2) Christians should not appeal to Caesar for.
3) Are counterproductive to the gospel.

Your statement sounded pretty universal. Just helping you refine.
So basically what you meant was something like: " But where I part company with the majority of my Christian brothers is when they try to impose [more subjective] Kingdom values [that the world doesn't normally accept] on those outside the Kingdom."

Right?

[Josh]

When Paul appealed to Caesar, it was in his own defense of injustices being done to him.

Which was an appeal to the authorities to do God's will for them. He could have just suffered without an appeal (as he often had to do), but in cases where God's "ordained power to punish evil" was available to actually do it's job, Paul appealed to it to help further God's will.

[Josh]

What part of that do you think rebuts my statement about Christians not appealing to Caesar to enforce God’s will? I can’t find any instruction in the bible that says we ought to do that.

When Paul appealed to Caesar, it was in his own defense of injustices being done to him. Where did he ever appeal to Caesar to change laws?

In addition to Paul actively seeking audience with the authorities in order for them to enact God's will in declaring him innocent, Paul also tells us to pray [aka appeal] that the Caesar's will do God's will:

2 Tim 2

1 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Yes, the appeal is directly to God, but the early Christians were not bashful to admit that they prayed regularly that the emperor would do God's will. In fact, they argued that they were actually the best citizens Rome had to offer in their many apologetic works aimed at ending the persecutions.

So, the early church did in fact often appeal to Caesar to change laws. Before you write that off as the post-new testament church already messing things up, I'd point out that in the new testament period it simply wasn't an option due to the small size of the Christian movement and, until Nero's persecution, their relative peace with the Roman authorities.

But on another note, living in a democracy is a whole other ball game than living in an empire (especially as non-citizens). We now have to apply biblical thought on the role of government to our own unique form of government.

[Josh]

I believe that governments are “ordained ministers” (servants) of God to do His will, in the same way I believe Satan is ordained by God to do His will. It’s spiritual Aikido (God using the malicious energy of an opponent to His own advantage).

Somewhat in agreement here, except that for all their evils, human rulers are not as thoroughly evil as satan, and therefor have more of a chance at enacting positive good (rather than just being God's foil). Case in point, Cyrus, "God's anointed."

Which of the Caesars do you think were Godly men being obedient to God? Or how about the Babylonians and Assyrians?.

Who ever said anything about "godly men"? I'm just saying that God sets up rulers with the intent that they would be restrainers against evil.

Which of them do you think God gave explicit instructions to on how He wants “evil doers” punished? How do you think He “ordains” them? I’m very interested in hearing your answer to that.

I don't think he usually gives explicit instructions (though he may have). I think he just more subtly influences them to do justice. They may ignore his influence to their own peril.

How does he ordain them? Well, I think usually it's just a general ordaining of the "office", but perhaps sometimes he does pick a person for a specific role (perhaps, say, a Cyrus, or a Constantine )

[christopher]

This is starting to smell like a big fishy red herring

Can you please point out where your statements rebut my original statement?

How does God ordaining governments, praying for governments, defending your own legal rights (none of which were even in my original statement) equate to a imperative or even an encouragement for Christians to lobby, elect, or protest the government to have laws in line with Christian ethics?

Are you going post-millennial on me? ;D

[Josh]

I'm simply responding to your statement that it is an "insult" to God to appeal to "Caesar" (government) to enforce God's will.

I think I've made the case that, actually, to some degree and in relation to some of God's will, we are indeed to "appeal to Caesar" to be in line with God's will.

I'm not saying that we should insist on this in every case (marriage laws, for instance), but I'm just trying to pull you back from what seemed to be an overstatement.

For instance, I don't think it was an "insult" to God that Wilberforce appealed to his government to comply with God's will that the slave trade be outlawed. I don't think it was counter-productive to the Kingdom for him to involve the government in a positive way in his fight, just like it wasn't for Paul* or the early church trying to end persecution.

where's the red herring? I'm not trying to say how much or what kind of government involvement we ought to have, just that it's not always an insult to God and/or counterproductive to kingdom work.


* btw, I don't think you can separate Paul's personal life from God's kingdom work in his life. If Paul utilized government help for himself in ministry, he used it to help advance the Kingdom.

[christopher]

Jesus said to “Go make disciples of all nations” not “Go legislate nations into submission”. You don’t think that it’s an insult to take what God has intended be done out of love and reduce it to a cheap substitute like a law? Isn’t that what Jesus railed against the scribes and Pharisees about (Matt 23)? Isn’t that what Paul was so offended about with respect to the Judaizers?

I don’t believe that is the kingdom God intended to establish, this is:

"But this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people...(Jer 31:33)

In God’s kingdom, the only law is love. There’s no need to legislate against immorality because obeying God’s will is what kingdom people want to do already.

you wrote:

I think I've made the case that, actually, to some degree and in relation to some of God's will, we are indeed to "appeal to Caesar" to be in line with God's will.

I have no doubt you’re convinced by the case you’ve made, but I am still not convinced because I don’t think we’re even debating about the same thing.

Where’s the red herring you ask? You keep putting forth verses and anecdotes that have little to no relevance to the statement I made. That God ordains governments as instruments of justice, that His people are encouraged to pray for them, even that Christians are entitled to seek justice is not the same thing as Christians trying to gain empty obedience through legislation. There’s nothing God honoring about bullying people into submission when God intends to win their faithfulness by His love. I don’t think you’ve made a convincing case for it at all.

While I don’t disagree that the efforts and perseverance of Wilburforce did some good, how do we know that God wouldn’t have brought it about some other way through some other agent? Was it a distinctly Christian thing to see the injustice of the slave trade?

Where in the bible does it even mention abolishing slavery? I know Paul gave instructions on how Christian masters and slaves should behave toward each other, but I don’t ever remember him saying “you know, there ought to be a law against that…why don’t you guys work on that”. How do you know it was God's will that Wilburforce push the issue to his government? Don't misunderstand me, I’m glad the slave trade was abolished, it was a terrible injustice. But it does not follow that God is therefore calling Christians to go and do likewise. I just don’t think that is the means he intends to use to bring the kingdom about. I think Jesus was pretty clear that taking up one’s cross (not the sword) and following Him was the way the kingdom would come.

[Josh]

Now you're putting words in my mouth Where did I ever say that legislation was a means of bringing about the kingdom?

No, but it can be a means of putting the brakes on the worst excesses of civilizations and governments.

Somehow we are talking past each other here.

I think I agree with your statement that governments should not be in the "marriage business", for instance. But, I do think that governments should outlaw the murder of unborn babies. I don't think governments should ban divorce, but I do think they should ban crack, and murder, and rape.

Gotta go for now. I'll have to leave this thought unfinished.

[Josh]

well, this was a classic case of "let's work this out verbally on a backpacking trip" so unless one of us feels like recapitulating the discussion (and possibly re-igniting it ) I guess the rest of you will just have to wonder how it turned out.

Needless to say, "It's a insult to God" and "appeal to Caesar" are now definitely going to be catchphrases among some at Aletheia.

;D

[shirley]

I was very interested in finding out how this thread was going to conclude. Then when I realized you two were going camping together I just knew that was going to happen! So not fair......oh well. I'll get over it.