The Debate Rages On
April 14th, 2008
As a spin-off to our little bioethics debate our good friend Byron at The No Kool Aid Zone has written some Thoughts on a “Christian Worldview”, Part I. (Presumably there are more to come. Byron Simpsonization courtesy of Webbiedude Paul.)
A Christian worldveiw is something Byron considers “vitally important to living the Christian life.” He defines it as “the outworking of Romans 12:2, the ‘transformation’ that Paul tells us takes place as our minds are ‘renewed’ to think according, not to our natural inclinations, but the Bible’s teaching, which often runs very counter to our natural predilections.” No argument here. “But here’s what’s come up in a couple of posts recently,” he writes. “How does that Christian worldview demand that we interact with others, and how does it demand we interact with law?”
With that thought in mind Byron suggests this principle:
Submitted: When a given course of action impinges upon the legitimate human rights of another, no individual ought to be free to perform that action. However, when a given course of action does not harm the well-being (defined narrowly, by the way, meaning “real harm”, and not this touchy-feely nonsense promoted by the PC crowd) or infringe upon the rights of another, a person should be, before the law, free to engage in that action, even if it doesn’t morally pass muster for the Christian.
Translation: Should Christians seek to impose their moral values on civil laws? Here are some biblical principles to consider.
We know that man is spiritually depraved. “There is none righteous.” “There is none who does good.” This suggests two things. Apart from divine wisdom man is incapable of discerning right from wrong. Apart from divine intervention man is incapable of inhibiting his inevitable demise.
We also know that as followers of Jesus Christ “in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation” we are urged to “shine as lights in the world”, be “the salt of the earth”, and “love your neighbor”. This suggests some things as well. First, if we truly love someone we will not stand idly by and allow them to destroy themselves. We will take measures to try and inhibit or avert their destruction. Second, as the keepers of the secrets of God, believers have the necessary wisdom to enable society to craft just laws that will protect its citizens and to some degree inhibit moral degradation. The bottom line is this. Without the influence of Christian morality society has no basis for righteousness and justice and will ultimately crumble. History has proven this to be true.
So then from a Christian worldview to what degree should a just government interfere in the private lives of its citizen, to not only provide protection from one another, but to also provide protection from themselves? Is it wrong for example for motorcycle riders to be required to wear a helmet? Should seatbelts and child safety seats be required by law? These are instances in which the law intervenes to protect citizens from themselves resulting in thousands of saved lives. The libertarian would say that these laws are unjust, but how does that square with the wisdom of God?
Something else to consider. A given course of action may not directly harm the well-being or infringe upon the rights of another, but it may still be indirectly harmful in the moral decay that it brings to society. I would argue that this is the biblical basis for at least some of the specific restrictions conservatives would back, but that libertarians would not (i.e. prostitution, marijuana, drugs, etc.). I’m not saying it’s consistent, so please don’t use the alcohol and tobacco argument. I’m simply saying that I believe there is a biblical basis for implementing restrictions on actions that cause personal harm and contribute to moral decay.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Simulblogging again, huh? You know, we really ought to just merge our blogs, call it, “Two Best Friends Arguing a Whole Lot”, or something like that. : )
OK, here’s my response over at the Zone; sorry it got a little long:
Don,
First, I agree with your Scriptural analysis on all points, of course. Let me take up the points of contention I see:
“if we truly love someone we will not stand idly by and allow them to destroy themselves. We will take measures to try and inhibit or avert their destruction.” Actually, I have no problem with the contention, but the question is, “what means do we employ to accomplish this?”
Further, you say, “from a Christian worldview to what degree should a just government interfere in the private lives of its citizen, to not only provide protection from one another, but to also provide protection from themselves? Is it wrong for example for motorcycle riders to be required to wear a helmet? Should seatbelts and child safety seats be required by law? These are instances in which the law intervenes to protect citizens from themselves resulting in thousands of saved lives. The libertarian would say that these laws are unjust, but how does that square with the wisdom of God?”
I would not agree totally with what you just suggested. I believe that the principle I articulated earlier, where a person’s liberty should stop only when it infringes upon another person’s liberty/safety, would argue in favor of protections for children; i.e., safety seats or what have you. It may be that I differ from standard libertarian thinking on this point; fine. I think that the government has a role to play in ensuring certain reasonable standards of safety with regard to minors, those incapable of making rational decisions for themselves. But I do believe that it’s none of the government’s business whether I wear a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet (though it’s stupid, IMHO, not to!). My rationale is that this thinking, the government taking on the role of “nanny”, is a difficult thing to stuff back into the bag once the principle has been established that it’s the government’s role to insist that we do what we ought to have the good sense to do. I’m not sure “unjust” would be the word I’d use, but certainly “government overreach”. Conservatives (rightly) blanch at the idea of the PC thought police, the “fat police”, and the like, but the fair question is, what’s different, once we assign to the government the role that we ought, as responsible adults, to take for our own lives?
Further yet, I appreciate your admitting that your viewpoints aren’t consistent, but I must protest that consistency is at least one important facet of this discussion. Could we go to the Bible, to our Christian worldview, and therein find an argument that says we ought to allow alcohol and tobacco, but not marijuana? It seems to me rather that your argument is consistent with the status quo in American society, but not, per se, with Scriptural revelation (unless you have a further argument to make). Your challenge to me was to ask what Biblical basis I had for suggesting certain things that I’d advocate to expand freedoms; I throw the challenge back to you to explain how, Biblically, we pick and choose which things to make illegal, and which to allow people the freedom to choose. Pornography? Strip clubs? Predatory (“payday”) lenders? “Rent-to-own” ripoff joints (that do a lot more harm than people not wearing motorcycle helmets)? The lottery? Wait, I’m against the lottery (because it involves the state sponsoring a poverty-inducing, lie-ridden vice). Prostitution? Free sex? All of these and many more represent examples of things that lead to moral decay, increased poverty, and societal problems, but which actions ought to be illegal and which ought to be legal?
But really, the deepest question here is this: what are the means by which a Christ-follower seeks to bring Scriptural principles to bear upon society? Is it through legislation that would place an external conformity upon adults, or is it through persuasion of others to submit themselves to Christ? See, here’s the big problem I have: liberals use the exact same line of reasoning all the time, mistaking the government’s role (IMHO). You hear it with regularity: “the Christian thing to do is to support the poor, and that’s why I vote Democrat, because the Democrats believe that we should help the poor”, or some such poppycock like that. No…that confuses the roles that individuals and churches ought to play with the role government ought to play. Jesus nowhere suggested that the government ought to drag out of people money to give to the poor; He rather advocated that His followers voluntarily care for others. Liberals smuggle government into the role that Jesus meant to be occupied by individuals acting freely. Does your reasoning at points make the same error?
Back atcha…
April 14th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Byron,
First, let me be clear. I wasn’t trying to say that my viewpoints aren’t consistent, only their application in law. How biblically do we pick and choose which things to make illegal and which to allow people the freedom to choose? I don’t have a hard and fast answer for you. But I do know there are certain behaviors that are more destructive to a society then others and a just society should at least begin there.
What are the means by which a Christ-follower seeks to bring scriptural principles to bear upon society? As I’ve already mentioned, without the influence of Christian morality society has no basis for righteousness and justice. Obviously some degree of legislative influence is, therefore, necessary, but the power of the gospel is without question a far superior influence.
Your example of the liberal redistribution of wealth seems a bit off topic though. I’m not suggesting at all that we “smuggle government into the role that Jesus meant to be occupied by individuals acting freely.” I’m just saying that as Christ followers we are called to be a positive influence on society.