The “Theocracy” Argument, Part II
Posted on June 8, 2008
Filed Under Worldview |
When dealing with any accusation, the very first rule is to get clarity on the terms. This is true whether the accusation involves the problem of evil or relativism or “theocracy” as is the case before us.
Now, our problem is that we don’t have Rick on the line, so we can’t really interact with him. So, let me simulate what the first part of that conversation might look like, based upon my dialogues with other like-minded Ricks. And, to avoid the appearance of putting words in Rick’s mouth, since he is a real person, we will use a fictitious name to represent those who often raise this accusation.
Here we go…
“Quigley, your statement is interesting. Could you please define what you mean by theocracy?”
Quigley: “Of course, it means ‘rule by God’ and that is exactly what these religious right fanatics are trying to impose upon this country.”
“So, when you say ‘rule by God’ does that mean you think that Christians want to actually elect Jesus as President…maybe through a write-in campaign? Is that what you mean by ‘theocracy’…Jesus or God physically sitting in the Oval Office”?
Quigley: “Well, believe me, they would want that. But, since God doesn’t really exist and Jesus is dead, they have to settle for a more practical theocracy where Christians are running the government.”
“So, are you saying that when a Christian is in public office, that constitutes some form of ‘theocracy’?”
Quigley: “No, not entirely…that’s just the first half. What they want is for Christians to run the government and then impose the Bible on everyone.”
“When you say ‘impose the Bible on everyone’, what do you mean by that…force everyone to read a chapter a night or memorize twelve verses each day?”
Quigley: “No, although they would want that as well. No, I mean that they want to impose their Bible morality on everyone. That’s exactly what is happening when they try to force everyone to abide by their view of abortion and marriage. They trash the rights of women and homosexuals by trying to impose their religious laws on the nation.”
…
Okay, let’s talk about this, because I think we have gotten to the heart of the “theocracy” accusation. It is essentially used as a pejorative term to paint Christians with a broad brush and in a negative light to make one’s argument stronger. It’s a faulty approach to argumentation that we should not be found guilty of using either.
“Theocracy” does mean “rule by God”. But it isn’t easy to define what that means in practice. Does it mean that God rules directly? Does it mean He rules, but indirectly through a religious leader who confers with him for every decision…or most decisions…or some decisions? Do we have a theocracy when a leader expresses belief in God and attempts to craft laws that reflect God’s ethical standards? This latter case is exactly what we had in the beginning of the American Experiment, when the definition of what made a “good” law was based upon hundreds of years of Christian teaching, from Sir Edward Coke to John Lock to William Blackstone. A “good” law was that which was in conformance to God’s general revelation (nature) and special revelation (Scripture). This wasn’t establishing a “theocracy”. The founders of America were careful to affirm the jurisdictional separation of church and state. Now, this is not the “separation of church and state” as it is pressed upon us today, but a recognition that God had established a church sphere of authority and a civil sphere of authority and it was appropriate to keep those authorities jurisdictionally separate. One was not to take authority over the other. However, they clearly understood that the civil laws they crafted, if they were to be “good” laws rather than “bad” laws, needed to conform to God’s revelation. Few would label the American Experiment as an experiment in “theocracy”, yet any attempt by Christians to participate in the process of crafting good laws in accordance with that old definition is often labeled as a theocratic conspiracy.
The biblical view of the state understands that God has not only established this sphere but He has granted authority to man to act as the human agent to punish evil and condone what is good (Romans 13). This “granting of authority” means that we believe God has delegated the responsibility for state leadership to human leaders who are held accountable for how they wield that power. They have also been given the ethical standards by which they can know what is evil and what is good.
Now, the important thing to understand in the midst of the “theocracy” accusation and the ensuing dialogue is to help the “accuser” recognize that BOTH sides have an ethical notion that they believe should be the basis for law. Rick, for example, would have us believe that it is only the Christian fundamentalists who are trying to impose their moral standards on others. That is just not the case. He has his moral standard that he wants to impose as well. He wants to impose the ethical standard that it is right for a mother to end the life of her baby if she wants. That is a moral position. He wants to impose the ethical standard that marriage should be open to people of the same sex. That too, is a moral position. So, the argument is not that one side (Christian fundamentalists) wants to force their moral standard on everyone else…the argument is that both sides have different views about what the imposing ethical standard should be. Rick would like to frame the argument in such a way as to invalidate the Christian’s voice in this process so that he can impose his moral standards unopposed. We should at least clarify this reality so that we can discuss the real issues, not a red herring or “boogey-man” argumentation that is meant to keep Christian thought out of the debate.
Well…I’ve maxed the “blog reading word limit”. More thoughts on this to come, as well as responses to some of your excellent posts…
Comments
31 Responses to “The “Theocracy” Argument, Part II”
Leave a Reply
Comments are moderated and will not appear on deltackett.com until they've been approved. While we are eager to facilitate conversation by publishing most comments, we may withhold one from time to time if we deem it offensive, vulgar, overly personal, cynical, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant or unnecessarily contentious. While we encourage you not to make others' misspellings and grammatical mistakes an issue of debate, please do your best to double-check your spelling, use correct capitalization, and use proper grammar.
Dr. Del Tackett is president of the Focus on the Family Institute and Senior Vice President to Focus on the Family. He is also the architect and chief spokesperson for Focus on the Family's The Truth Project--a nationwide initiative designed to bring the Christian worldview to the body of Christ.
Subscribe in a reader
© 2008 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.
“Rick would like to frame the argument in such a way as to invalidate the Christian’s voice in this process so that he can impose his moral standards unopposed.”
The only issue I have with this blog entry is that it seems to be ignoring all of the multitudes of times that right-wing leaders or Christians in power have also taken to the red herring/boogeyman argument. Both sides use this tacticc.
Every time I hear about the “homosexual agenda” I want to call in and ask, “Who came up with this agenda? Do they have it in a list? Is it thusly distributed to every gay person in the country?” And the same goes for every time “the liberal media” tries to apparently “cover-up” some aspect of Christianity or its stances.
Del-
Although your commentary is unfinished due to the Blog word limit, I get the drift. Based on your discussion with Quigley we ARE under a theocracy, in that God is on the thrown, sovereign.
What Quigley’s beef seems to be is he wants to impose his moral interpretations on others but does not want anyone to try & impose God’s moral values on Him. Unfortunately (for Quigley) God IS on the throne and not Quigley.
Sorry for the interruption.
Well said, Dr. Tackett!
If I’m not mistaken, you are speaking from the jurisdictional authority of the body of Christ are you not? So if a believer in the sphere of the state were to implement your teachings, would that not be a form of theocracy?
I believe deeply in the truths you have laid out in The Truth Project and try hard to live them out in my marriage, family, church and business.
The Truth Project takes the high ground of discipling believers, not merely getting “converts”. My view is that either we can submit to biblical theocracy or we can resist it. Certainly history is full of unbiblical attempts at imposing theocracy but that shouldn’t keep us from pursuing the real thing! In whatever social sphere the gospel flourishes, so does theocracy. So in the spheres where man most loves his own authority, there it will be most severly resisted.
May God hasten the day when the “knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as the water covers the sea!”
For such a time as this, God has given us The Truth Project. By God’s grace, it is capable tearing down the strongholds that exist in our churches and our culture.
Mike W.
My mother once said (and perhaps it’s quoting someone else) that you don’t bother with the things that aren’t real. So - you don’t, for example, take Buddha’s name in vain when you mean to swear. Rick must know this as well - he doesn’t bother with the other moral arguments, he attacks the real.
I believe that it should be the desire of all Christians to have a government composed of leaders who are Christ-centered, consulting the trinity in prayer no less than daily on the business before them. I had the opportunity to visit Boston and tour all of the famous places along the Freedom Trail. Many are churches! I long for a time to be able to sit with other learned believers in the church and discuss the course of the country, the course of the laws, what God would have us do - and to have that be a majority of my local neighborhood. It is my continual prayer (amongst others) that the nation would return to it’s roots and turn once again to the “I am”. “If my people, who are called by my name…”
Thank you for pointing out what I have long felt was a double-standard. As a believer when I choose to vote for a candidate based on his “platform” aligning with how I would like to see the city/state/country run, how is that different from someone else voting for the other candidate because his “platform” closely aligns with their views? How does that make me trying to force “an agenda” and the other person not? I suppose if we all had the same views about governing there would be no need for different parties. If I were trying to “legislate morality” it would be the motive of the mother trying to end her unborn child’s life I would be seeking to change not the law that says she can do it!
Thanks again for your dedication to The Truth and your time fleshing it out on this site!
Greetings,
As always (I feel like a “Rick” here), I have to disagree with Del’s characterization of the United States. We were not founded as a land whose laws were based on the Christian God’s principles. That’s why people like Rick (Quigley? Rigley?) have a say in the formation of those laws (and why it isn’t a travesty, speaking from an American political perspective, that Rigley wants to “impose his moral standards” on everyone).
I think we must resist the typical evangelical urge to make our opponents into straw men and ask why it would appear to the Quigleys of this world that Christians promote theocracy. The first reason is that the Liberal (big “L”) form of justice is the maximization of freedom, not the implementation of what they might call personal moral law. That’s John Locke: toleration. Jefferson’s vision for America (the man who penned the Declaration of Independence) was one of a land whose gods were kept in the faithful’s pockets, and whose governance was left to self-evident natural rights; God-ordained or not, they were supposedly clear to everyone, which rendered their justification moot. By this standard, Quigley is right - taking your god out of your pocket and trying to force him on your neighbor is against the laws of freedom. It’s “theocracy.”
Calling Quigley hypocritical for foisting his morality upon us just avoids the crux of the liberal argument: morality is private, justice (via personal liberty) is public. Pro-choice arguments, pro-homosexuality arguments, etc. are alway made from the expansion of individual freedoms, which, far from being anti-American, is the central tenet of American justice. To equate them with Christian arguments on the same issues, we must ask what god has mandated their morality (and the answer, I’m afraid, is liberty - not “themselves,” which is a cop out - and this has more dire consequences for Del’s America than if we’d just left Liberalism to its own devices).
I believe abortion is as wrong as it could possibly be. I believe homosexual sex is a warped and misguided practice with complicated causes - as with all sinful behavior. I don’t think America has given me grounds to fight for these things in the legislature unless I demonstrate their necessity on the grounds of personal freedom. Dr. Tackett must either defend America’s justice system or God’s laws, but he can’t claim that both are ordained if he takes each on its on merits. Perhaps there’s a third way, but we must invent it.
Interesting quote from James Dobson:
“When you have a Democracy that is intended to be of the people, by the people, and for the people is a good thing. That is God’s plan for a nation. I believe He inspired the founding fathers to develop this system where we’re all allowed to influence the decisions of government. What a great idea!”
This is the sort of syncretism between Christian theology and western democracy that I’m talking about. Great idea? Why not. God-breathed? That’s a different matter. This is how many people get mixed up as to what American democracy is - they’re fed misinformation that blends our faith with a particular form of politics. It’s no wonder at all that we’re accused of advocating theocracy with this sort of nonsense in circulation.
“I don’t think America has given me grounds to fight for these things in the legislature unless I demonstrate their necessity on the grounds of personal freedom.”
Jacob, might I ask you what about the personal freedom (and pursuit of life, liberty and happines) of the aborted child? Does not the law that allows his mother to end his life completely deprive him of personal freedom?
The USA a theocracy? Quigley needs to read the constitution. It was designed to impede the dominance of the government by ANY worldview, and to protect the rights of minorities, no matter what their worldview.
Because the framers guaranteed freedom of speech, Quigley has a right to say what he wants, even if he has no clue as to what he’s talking about. And Christians have a right to promote the gospel and the kingdom of God, even if powerful and influential people oppose it.
The kingdom of God is here, no matter how many people or governments refuse to recognize it. Christ’s kingdom stands for true liberty, true justice, and true community, and it’s authority will not be subverted by any self-important judges.
All that we can hope for and demand from our American government is its intended protections for our freedom to serve God, the security of our community, and our freedom from organized persecution, corruption, and indoctrination of our youth.
Mr. Thielman,
Interesting comments, but how can you separate one’s religious worldviews from the person? I agree that, as you say, “your god out of your pocket and trying to force him on your neighbor is against the laws of freedom.” But I don’t think that endorsing or trying to influence policy to reflect your convictions, whether they are religious, economic or social, amounts to forcing them on anyone. Granted, there are plenty Christians who do so and believe they can legislate morality. You can do it from the top down, but from the bottom up…one individual at a time.
But I get the sense that if anyone with religious convictions or views speaks out on something that is obviously rooted in their beliefs that you immediately dismiss their view. Why not then, should I discount Senator McCain’s economic views simply because they are rooted in his economic beliefs? Why not discount Senator Obama’s views on Foreign Policy because they betray some diplomatic beliefs he was taught? You can’t just cherry-pick religious views. The privatization of faith unfairly isolates part of the individual’s makeup.
As far as this nation not being based on Christian principles, I think I understand where you’re coming from. While the Constitution is a secular document in that it does not explicitly state that the Judeo-Christian God is sovereign, the nation could NOT have been built by any other worldview than the Christian worldview. It is here that I lean on Dr. Ravi Zacharias’ assertion that no other worldview could have been responsible for the birth of our nation. Islam? Certainly not…the idea of individuality would be an affront to them. Pantheistic Hinduism? No, the idea of equality is foreign to their caste system. Buddhism? No. The desire for the pursuit of happiness is counter to their precept of desire being the source of suffering. Atheism? Not likely. We’ve seen what happens when you evict any sense of the transcendent in the likes of Stalin, Mao, etc., …there was no freedom.
You cannot discount the foundation upon which this nation was built upon. Now, Christians must understand that this freedom cuts both ways. When you have an elected official who opts to take his oath on the Koran, you cannot then cry foul and restrict his religious freedoms…no matter how wrong he is. What happens when the next big monotheistic faith, Mormonism, becomes more influential as it continues to grow? We will be faced with many more challenges. We live in a pluralistic society. And pluralism is not a bad thing as long as it’s not taken to mean that all things are equally good. Again, I draw from Dr. Zacharias when he states that he enjoys a healthy pluralistic diet. But we cannot fall prey to relativism and the claims of intolerance. Dr. William Lane Craig makes a great point when he states that tolerance IMPLIES disagreement. If you agreed with someone’s views, you wouldn’t be tolerating them…it would be much more. Unfortunately, too many Christians cry persecution but then do the same to those lost to the world, whether they be homosexuals, atheists, or even liberal Christians.
Very Respectfully,
kj
With a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a single man and woman due to appear on the ballot in California in 5 months, this is a critical time for Christians to wrestle with the question of the moral role of government.
It is one thing for me to personally not approve of my associates’ gay lifestyle, but it is another thing for me to vote to overturn the recent state court ruling that allows gays to marry. Is there a legitimate basis in this age for Christians to legislate morality? If the Bible is no longer the nation’s moral compass, and each man does what is right in his own eyes, how can we argue for the continuance of ANY moral law?
I have more questions than answers at the moment and am curious what you all think.
Dr. Tackett is correct on all points. The founding fathers, regardless of how history is being rewritten, had the Judeo-Christian (Biblical) principles uppermost in their minds as they crafted one of the top ten most important writings ever penned.
There are only two moral standards. One is man-centered and one is God-centered. Christians of faith believe that our moral foundation should be God-centered. They reject a man-centered moral foundation. No one that I know believes that there should be a state sponsored religion or church. Once that is done, the church becomes man-centered and not God-centered.
The argument as always is which morality can be “forced” on everyone. Is it really ok to be able to be “free” to choose my sexual orientation? Or to marry whichever sex the person I want happens to be? Or to abort a baby just because I have some supposed reason to do so?
That’s not freedom. When you mess with nature (I’m taking Christian morality out of the argument for a moment), you are setting in motion all sorts of unintended consequences. Just look at the STD statistics and if you can stomach that kind of life filled with pain, sorrow and death from HIV, AIDS, etc and still call that freedom, you can have it.
The biblical moral truths are for man’s benefit and freedom from disease and the shame of wrongful behavior. If looked at from a logical standpoint, they make the most sense of all.
But still the two points are:
1. We do not want a state imposed church or religion.
2. We want the debate to be open to both sides. No one should say that the moral foundation of your argument is invalid.
By the way, we do legislate morality. Example is laws concerning murder, theft, etc.
I pray to the Holy Spirit that some day I will be able to communicate as well as Del Tackett. I thank the Lord for the Truth Project but it might be too late for an America that does not want to hear the truth. Jesus Christ is the Truth.
I believe that Christians should be more involved in the government. What a much better place the country, and world, would be.
With that said, no matter who is placed in a position of authority they are placed there through God’s will. Unfortunately, God will allow ungodly people to rule in order to bring about his will. This is well documented in scripture concerning Nebuchadnezzar, Pontius Pilate and Pharaoh as well as others.
The nuclear deterrent and mighty military no longer provides any type of protection for the United States at all. It is quite obvious to anyone that the United States’ thirst for materialism has created wide open commerce and borders which provides any nation or terrorist an opportunity to destroy us. Khrushchev once said that he will sell us the rope for which we will then hang ourselves.
“And the merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her, for no one buys their merchandise anymore”.
“Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you share of her plaques.”
It is quite obvious from Revelations, and to most Christians, that God has placed many ungodly people in authority in America because he is going to bring an ungodly America to her knees. At first glance this would seem terrible, but Christians must understand that it is all part of God’s plan. Repent and pray that God finds you worthy.
The Constitution is about more than personal freedom. It states the government should also “promote the general welfare”, and I think that is where many of the moral/ethical argument occurs. As noted above, my personal freedom always ends when it impinges on somebody else’s personal freedom. In addition, certain activities, such as corruption and driving while intoxicated, are always wrong even if the impingement on other people’s personal freedom is not immediate or clear. In this democracy, all people have the right to voice their opinions as to what promotes the general welfare. The Constitution provides for means to enact both majority rule and super-majority rule, depending on the extent to which a law which is intended to promote the general welfare impinges on personal freedom. Christians voting in favor of laws they believe please God is not Theocracy. It’s democracy. People who find the laws of this country to be onerous are welcome to attempt to change them and/or to find a better country somewhere else. The number of people desiring to come to our country, regardless of their religion, I think is proof that our system is better than anybody else’s, and that Christian influence is not detrimental to the US.
By God’s grace you have hit the nail on the head with this blog post Dr. Tackett. Thank you for standing up for Truth and clearly exposing the issue - getting to the heart of the matter. I feel too many Christians are missing the point with our role in government and are taking a back seat believing the lies of the anti-morality anti-God crowd. We have to remember that government is not a distant evil entity; our government is a representation of me and you because of our political process in this nation. Scary thought! That means we need to honor Christ with our involvement as the Lord leads in each Christian’s life. We can vote, call, write, speak, and run for office for that matter. This is not someone elses’ government, this is our government put in partly by Christians and partly run by Christians. That being said, God does not ask us to remove our Christ like standards simply because we are part of governemnt or getting involved with government.
- Shawn
As I move through the TRUTH PROJECT, I can see that the citizens of my area and myself are looking and attempting to move in the right direction. We have discovered that the “good old boy” system of local government only exposes the attempt to make people reliant (servants} on it for every thing. We are not to promote a christian controlling government but one that recognizes the christian value of promoting a good and moral community.
Wow, this topic has certainly fanned a fire in my heart.
I am really concerned when I hear so many references regarding theocracy that imply “control”, “imposing”, “forcing”, “dominating”. These are attributes of the devil! I get the feeling that alot of Christians don’t know their Father! Did He impose His will on the prodigal son? Jesus said, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father”. Did Jesus impose His will on His disciples?
My wife and I own a restaurant, perhaps over half of our employees are unbelievers. We provide housing for our head chef whose fiancee is living with him. While I was yet a sinner Christ died for me. He “hung out” with sinners. And some of our empoyees are taking steps towards faith in Christ.
We need to stop defining God and biblical theocracy with the attributes of the devil!
In my Father’s love,
Mike W.
All,
One of the singular attributes of Orthodox Christianity, that no other religion can claim, is that we know our salvation is based solely and completely on faith in Christ and His accomplishments (works) on the Cross at Calvary. Because of Christianity’s “faith based” nature; it would be completely antithetical for Christians to try to force others “into the fold” so to speak. In stark contrast, the same cannot be said for radical Islam. It is well known that they have a highly intolerant and long history of “convert or die”, or (at best) “be enslaved”. What can be genuine about conversion by coercion? What is real about a faith that is compelled? I would have to say that a “forced faith” is really “no faith” at all! This is why I answered “no” earlier to Del’s question that started this thread! Today’s Orthodox Christians have no desire to force anything on anyone. We are however commanded to share the “good news” of the gospel and to love one another as Christ loved us. When we sinful Christians find ourselves in moral conflict with society, we are duty-bound by our beliefs and our conscience to act and to intervene in a Christ-like and lawful manner. Abortion and same-sex marriage are extreme examples of actions or behaviors that cannot biblically be disregarded or ignored. As uncomfortable as it might be for some; to not oppose these sinful things would not be a reflection of Christ’s love; nor would a lack of action be truly sharing the good news of the gospel!
Getting back to the question of whether Christians desire a theocracy? What we believers should remember and what non-believer’s will never understand; is that regardless of what we do or what happens on this earth; we have always been and always will be under the Sovereign (theocratic) rule of our Creator! Absolutely nothing in this universe happens (good or bad) without our Lord’s sanction, and ultimately, and most assuredly for His glory! Perhaps this is a subject for a future thread?
In Christ,
Dan…
Dan,
True enough. The question, though, is one of justice. How ought a believer to govern a non-believer, given the chance? It’s just not clear - the Bible speaks into the context of exile, not political rule. The history of Christian theology can be stated in terms of the answer to this question - from the church fathers, through the reign of Nero, until Constantine, Justinian and Christendom, through the inquisition, the reformation, and now pluralistic modernity - soon to be post-modernity. Christian theology sans politics is a fairly contagious concept - love and freedom from sin for all who believe in Christ - and as such, once Christians gain some sort of majority in a given nation, it will always come to this same question: How then shall we rule? Facile answers will not do.
-Jacob
Wow, what a call to prayer! There are tallents on both sides of this discussion but God doesn’t choose those who have the best arguement; He Chooses and I pray He chooses some of you who don’t know Him yet.
Once there was a kite that could see talk and feel and when he first began to fly he was thrilled, awed and appreciative. But as time past he relized there were lots of things he wasn’t able to see and places he couldn’t go and when he looked around he realized it was the string in his chest that held him back. He began to pull violently at the string thinking if I can get free of this string I’ll be able to go every where, do everything. The string broke but instead of finding freedom, he began to fall to fly no more. God didn’t give His law to hold us back but to show us we need Him and in Him through His Son; we fly!
Del,
Your thoughts on this are exactly what I was trying to say in my comments on Theocracy Part 1 (posted June 11, 10:45 am) only you did a better job of presenting it. Every law is based on someone’s ethical views at the expense of all others. It’s just a matter of which view will determine the law.
To Jacob Thielman:
You bring up an interesting point stating that Liberalism works for maximum freedom. I agree. But then you say that the expansion of freedoms is the heart of American justice. Let’s look at that a moment.
I’ll contend that EVERY law limits freedom. For example: traffic laws and tax laws limit what I can do with my car and my money. But then what about the recent law to allow homosexual marriages? Is that a “law” that does NOT limit freedom?
In reality the homosexual marriage law is not a new law but rather it is a replacement law that removes existing laws that limit marriage to only a man and a woman. So it is still restrictive, but it is a lot less restrictive than the one it removed. So laws will always limit freedoms. Expansion of freedom is ONLY gained by removing (invalidating) other more restrictive laws.
So while it may appear that liberals want to gain freedom by passing new laws, they are really only trying to cancel existing laws.
This is human nature. We always try to find ways to remove laws (God’s laws and civil laws) because we like to be our own boss. We are a rebellious people.
So if the expansion of freedom is the American ideal, then we should get rid of ALL laws and just let everybody do whatever they want. But is that what the founders intended?
Truth Project Lesson 10 does an excellent job of showing that this was not the intent. Rather the founders planned a balance between freedom and law. Some laws are needed, but they did not want the government to go too far.
Del’s point is that all societies need a moral foundation for law. Our founders chose Christianity and excluded all other belief systems. But when they used the term “religion” in the first amendment they meant what we would call today “denomination”. In other words, Christianity was to be the dominate belief system and the basis for our laws, but the government was not to take it too far and start having one denomination become the national religion dictating to the others how to worship, pray, etc.
So the expansion of freedom in general was NOT the goal of the founders. Denominational (local church) freedom was the goal, but not total freedom from Christianity nor from God.
Mr Thielman wrote:
“We were not founded as a land whose laws were based on the Christian God’s principles. That’s why people like Rick (Quigley? Rigley?) have a say in the formation of those laws (and why it isn’t a travesty, speaking from an American political perspective, that Rigley wants to “impose his moral standards” on everyone).”
Some interesting facts to ponder:
So exactly where did the Founders come up with the philosophy for the new American government? From what sources did they select the ideas for this most successful political philosophy? In his book Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion, David Barton quotes from Donald S. Lutz’s book, The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge, LA; LSU Press) which researched 15,000 writings from the Founding Era. (1760-1805). Lutz cites that a group of contemporary political scientists embarked on an ambitious ten-year project to analyze those 15,000 writings. The goal? To isolate and identify the specific political sources cited amidst the debates in the establishment of the American government. Barton states, “The identification of those sources which the Founders invoked would permit the origin of their political ideas to be determined.”
He goes on to state, “From the 15,000 representative writings selected, the researchers first isolated 3,154 quotations and then documented the original sources of those quotations.” Barton has a “table” which represents the results of that study and identifies the specific political authorities used most during the Founding Era. Unfortunatley, I can’t “code” it to format in this forum, but the top political theorists of the day cited in the Constitutional Convention are
Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke.
Barton states,
“Despite the Founders’ heavy reliance upon political theorists, the researchers…discovered that one direct source of inspiration for their [Founding Fathers] ideas was cited far and away more than any other. In fact, the Founders cited this source four times more often than either Montesquieu or Blackstone and twelve times more often than Locke. What was that source? It was the Bible—accounting for 34% of the direct quotes in the political writings of the Founding Era.
“Facts are stubborn things.” –John Adams
Steve
First, THANK YOU DEL for TTP! You have given me much to chew on and I don’t think I’ll ever be finished with it.
Next, Jacob writes: “The question, though, is one of justice. How ought a believer to govern a non-believer, given the chance?” Too many things come to mind, so I offer the following for further discussion.
Justice: getting what is deserved.
Mercy: Not getting what is deserved (foregoing justice; forgiving).
Grace: Getting what is not deserved (building up/edifying when justice is demanded).
Can any system of governing in this world deliver precisely what is deserved (perfect justice)? I would answer “No” because man has incomplete knowledge at a minimum. Does this then mean we are not to attempt to deliver justice in governing? Again, “No”, because it’s clear from Romans that God has delegated authority to the civil governments to punish evil. On what basis, then, is justice executed?
I think a Christian should govern a non-Christian in such a way that pleases God, from the adherence to God’s standards (and the justice than ensues) to the grace shown by Him to us in providing His Son that we might be adopted as sons and daughters, and joint heirs with Jesus. God is not willing that any perish, but that all should have eternal life. A way this might work out in practice is prior to executing a death sentence, all so judged should have the opportunity to understand the forgiveness available from God and decide freely for or against Him. Likewise for any incarcerated for violating God’s horizontal (person to person) relational standards (rape, theft, etc) not rising to the death penalty.
What about laws governing the vertical (individual to God) relationship? I’d argue/conclude that laws in this area should encourage the investigation into what is True (really real?
and ensure an environment that is not hostile to the investigation and discussion of various truth claims.
I’d further argue that it be the Church that provides the opportunity to find God and that it be the civil authorities to try, sentence, and carry out judgement.
Governing, then, is cooperation with God’s will, general and specific, justly, mercifully, and gracefully, while preventing the excesses caused by grafting Church and State together.
Hi Dr. Del
Love what your doing It was once said that what lacks in our world today is not wealthier, smarter or more intelegient humans, but deeper thinkers, we do live to much on the surface and we were not created that way hence the speed at which we create more amazing things in the world today to better our lives everyday… we are made that way if we only use 1/4 of our brain capacity wait till we kick in the rest we might more understand these issues we discuss today.
Back on topic what I don’t understand is why was the bible and the laws God set forth good enough for our forefathers to establish form of laws that guide us today and why is it that all things we own buy or have come with a owners manual is it not to better educate us in the use of it so it operates correctly??? all great designers offer them with any creation built so we can maximize its effeicient use.
They say there isn’t a manual for life yet we chase after all the self help books we can imagine written by those who are influenced by the bible, koran or what have you which all promote goodness and especially peace, it is the serenity that man needs to survive.
I’m a recovering alcholic who was completely agnostic and when I joined this great organization that literally saved my life and never forced God on me but thru the years I found that it was because of God and this program I was saved.
I say we must have some owners manual in life to set standards of morality, the first thing is to go forth and multiply and in nature two animals of the same gender never make that happen and why do we wish to live below the standards of the animal kingdom when we are deemed so intelligient??
Then once that happens and all is in play why do these individuals who can’t have these children want to adopt and live as a family to only drag innocent lives into there own abyss without them ever having a chance to make a calculated decision on how they want to live in the natural world order started many years before any of us even reading this were around that is truly selfish and not how we should force our beliefs upon others.
I have raised my children to respect others as it is said that God is in control whether we think so or not and he wants our heart as any loving parent would so I say lets give hime that chance today in my life I would rather live believing God exist and be at peace with my self and all those around me, then not believing and fighting it all the way to one day only find out I was wrong!
Life has been given to us to truly find out the truth we need in our lives let us at least try!!
Alexander Solzhenitsyn would like to speak:
Merely freedom does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and it even adds a number of new ones. However, in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God’s creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims. Subsequently, however, all such limitations were discarded everywhere in the West; a total liberation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of
mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming increasingly and totally materialistic. The West ended up by truly enforcing human rights, sometimes even excessively, but man’s sense of responsibility to God and society grew dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistically selfish aspect of Western approach and thinking has reached its final dimension and the world wound up in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the glorified technological achievements of Progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the Twentieth century’s moral poverty which no one could imagine even as late as in the Nineteenth Century.
Excerpt from Text of Address by
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
at Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises,
Thursday, June 8, 1978
This is directed towards Jacob Thielman’s responses in two parts:
1) Jacob, you said, “We were not founded as a land whose laws were based on the Christian God’s principles.” Have you watched Lesson 6 on History and Lesson 10 on the American Experiment in the Truth Project series? I would ask you to ponder the evidence therein and see if you would still support this statement. In fact, in Lesson 6, Del references the Mayflower Compact. The document states that the reason they came was for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith. Seems like the reason they even bothered was based on the Christian God’s principles.
2) You said: “Jefferson’s vision for America (the man who penned the Declaration of Independence) was one of a land whose gods were kept in the faithful’s pockets, and whose governance was left to self-evident natural rights; God-ordained or not, they were supposedly clear to everyone, which rendered their justification moot.” My main issue is with “God-ordained or not.” The direct writing in the Declaration is not unclear on this point. Thomas Jefferson penned (under the watchful eye of all of the signers) that the rights are “endowed by their Creator”. Notice the capital “C” - Jefferson did not say the rights are “endowed by their belief system” or “endowed by their right to believe that there is no Creator” or that the rights were “endowed by their government”. And - it was reviewed first by Franklin and Adams and then by the Continental Congress. This isn’t just one guy out on his own agenda.
3) Finally, I don’t believe that most people discussing this topic on this site would call “Quigley” hypocritical for putting his view point out there as a truth claim that we should ponder. I know personally I’m fine with that. Rather - it is “Quigley’s” attitude and resistence to then hearing any other truth claim that makes him hypocritical. And it isn’t because of what he believes. I would be just as hypocritical if I told someone I wanted to have a conversation with them about a topic but only allowed “God-centered” remarks.
I think the fundamental problem is that few people in our culture ever want anyone or anything to say “you’re wrong” even if it’s true. And - even if it’s said in love. If my daughter tells me that 2 + 2 = 3 or 5, I’m going to let her know she’s wrong. I’m not compelled by anything to do it hurtfully or boastfully but I cannot let her believe it because the reality is that someday when she buys 2 things that are $2 each and offers the cashier $3, it won’t go well.
The same is true for our nation. Pick up the Bible and count how many times God gave a nation over to drought, famine, their enemies, etc. because the nation forgot Him as their foundation. We (as Christians) warn because we know what happens when a nation turns from God and, because of that knowledge, we have a responsibility.
How far does this go? If I knew a tornado was coming and I take shelter but I don’t tell my friend because that friend has said they don’t want to hear my point of view - didn’t I still have a responsibility? If we can see the “writing on the wall” and see our society has all the earmarkings of the downfall of ancient Greece and Rome but we say nothing because it may not be “popular” or “politically correct” - don’t we breach our responsibility?
I love other people too much to see them destroyed.
Dear Del,
I fear that the “Christian movement” is incapable of re-establishing a theocracy. The evil surrounding and dominating us is still unexposed by the Church. Who is teaching us of our responsibility to fight evil? Who teaches us how to effectively motivate and inspire our fellow man to this collective responsibility? Who teaches us how to free ourselves from the evil that imposes its will on us? Who teaches that we should strengthen our families instead of allowing them to deteriorate thru public indoctrinations?
Who in the church recognizes these evils and exposes them in a sincere manner? Not since M.L. King has America had a leader who knew that a non-participatory or non-compliant citizenry would win the day.
If the issue of theocracy is at hand, 1776 was the model. Each man, according to his own conscience, lived as he saw fit (without asking government for permission to exercise the rights given by Almighty God). Such a society depends on a collective morality that the Church has failed to maintain.
Godspeed to you Del. I hope that eventually, the foundation you strive for will be established and you’ll see fit to strike at the darkness destroying God’s people.
Great thoughts Dr. Del. By the way, I met you at Summit last Summer, session 3.
I’m looking forward to finishing pt. III, but you have some good thoughts. I remember the controversy over Huckabee’s comments about God and the Constitution. People went wild. I pointed out to them that maybe his ideology is faulty, but his sin is not in trying to enforce laws in accordance with the scriptures. Everyone wants moral laws enforced and immoral laws abolished. But if one person is doing it because his morality is in accordance with his or her religion, then one cannot say that is wrong while saying it is alright for a person to try enforcing laws of their own personal, unique moral views that don’t match any religion.
God has called us to be both salt and light in this dark world; To be doers of the Word and the work, in love. Salt seasons and preserves and light illuminates, exposing those things that were in the darkness.
For those who love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil, shining that light causes them to retreat into whatever darkness they can find, where ever the light is not, and to lash out at the source of the light.
Satan has tried to extinguish that light from the beginning, unsuccessfully. He is not about to stop now. Those who are blinded by his lies will continue to be used by him to seek to put out the light that should be shining in the hearts of all those that believe.
We are charged, commanded by God to let our lights so shine that men would see our good works and glorify God in heaven. We really can’t expect that those who love the darkness rather than light to not attack those of us who let our light so shine.
The more we point to God the more they are reminded that they are in the darkness and at war with God.
We actually cannot legislate morality.
The laws that we have which could be construed as legislated morality are actually based upon the laws of God. Not some man’s moral code or individual morality. God’s Word is not simply some people’s morals. It is in fact the Word of God. Which HE HIMSELF has made even higher than HIS own name, and has established it forever in the heavens.
Just because we have enacted laws that rightly reflect God’s Word, please don’t reduce God’s Word to being simply man’s morality.
We are called to expose the deeds of darkness, to agree with God as to those things that HE calls sin, and to hate those things that HE hates. Regardless of those who don’t agree with us, the calling remains, it doesn’t change or diminish because those we share this world with disagree with us or are offended by the truth of God’s Word.
The truth of God’s Word is immutable.
As Christians, we should look to God’s Word as the guideline for how we should act. Throughout scripture, men of God, including Christ HIMSELF, expressed the unchanging truth of God and spoke out against those things that were in opposition to God’s Word. For example, when Jesus beat out the money changers in the synagogue because they had made God’s house a den of thieves instead of a house of prayer. John, the Baptist, rightly spoke against the adultery and incest that Herod committed against his brother Philip, by taking Philip’s wife, his sister-in-law, as his own. When the king, David, committed adultery and murder, the man of God, Nathan, spoke out against the adultery and murder, speaking to David for God. When the government sought to kill and or imprison all of the followers of ‘the way’ Christians defied the government and the apostles, and continued to preach the Gospel, even though it offended the local people and governments, even to their own hurt or demise.
Read through the prophets, many of them spoke out against sin, the sin of the people and the sin of the nation.
So, yes, I believe we should call wrong, wrong, and seek to enact laws that rightly reflect the truth of God’s Word, I believe it is part of being salt and light, and stewards of this world, as God has placed us in that position of responsibility. We are not just imposing our morality on others, we are actually declaring the truth of God’s Word, which applies to all mankind, whether they choose to believe it and obey, or not.
When the nation of Israel had foreigners or aliens in their midst, it was necessary to “impose” their laws (God’s laws) on them, if they were to dwell among them, in order not to subvert and corrupt their own people.
We could learn something from them, and what happens when you don’t do that, and allow those who are aliens to your country to conduct themselves in a manner that is contradictory to the manner which the nation should be conducting themselves.
In HIM,
audrey
Hi Del,
I would be iffy to say that Locke viewed things from a Christian perspective. I’ve always read that we was a bit of a skeptic. Also, did not Locke secularize the more Christian ideas in Samuel Rutherford’s “Lex Rex”? At least that is what I read.
You are partially right, though. Without the Christian base and worldview, there is no Rutherford, then no Locke, and then no United States as it was founded.
Daniel