The June 29th 2007 LA Times carried an article heralding “Embryonic stem cells created using unfertilized eggs.” The article had multiple paragraphs on the theoretical benefits of stem cells from embryos grown from a woman’s eggs. In the middle of the short article the scientists apologized for their experiments, one saying: “It’s a new type of embryonic stem cell line from a different kind of embryo.” Another said “People will see that these are activated eggs . . . They do not of themselves ever develop into human a being . . . This is not biologically or morally like a human embryo.” Really?
According to the news article each of the embryos destroyed for stem cells in these experiments is created by “stimulating an unfertilized egg to begin development.” I must admit that I have not seen the technical explanation, but from what appears in the news article this sounds like the same old shell game to trick us into ignoring moral concerns and allowing humans to be created and killed for the purposes of scientific experimentation.
Though I am no scientist, it is my understanding that one of the oldest ways of attempting to create a clone was to take an egg and stimulate it with electricity to cause it to begin the developmental process without introducing the DNA of a seed into the egg. Frogs and rabbits have been cloned this way, but they die quickly because any defects present in the DNA are replicate rather than “covered” by the presence of a second set of DNA as in normal sexual reproduction. The “new” technique sounds, on the surface, like the very old and primitive way of cloning – now applied to create sick and defective tiny humans instead of sick and defective rabbits or frogs. If so it is not more moral than other means of creating humans so they can be killed in research while at an early stage of development. And, if the stimulation is new and different from the old electrical shock, the results are not new and different. The whole purpose of the process is to create a human being that is an identical twin of the donor so that the embryonic stem cells in the tiny new human, with DNA very similar to the adult donor, can be harvested from the new tiny human and injected into ailing parts of the donor.
It does not matter what artificial process results in the creation of a human being. What makes a human human is being the kind of thing it is – not correspondence to a laundry list of characteristics or being made the old fashioned way. If the tiny new creatures were not human, their DNA would not match the donor and they would be useless for matching stem cells. If they were not living humans they would not grow and develop. The fact that they will die soon on their own because they are defective as bred does not make creating them or killing them less immoral. The fact that they are bred in an unusual way also does not alter their humanity. If science learns to make humans from rocks it will not make those humans less human.
There is always a temptation for the sake of profit, pleasure and health to say that some humans are not really human and so can be used and disposed of as we wish. For centuries people with black skin were treated as though they were less than human for just such reasons. We now treat the unborn as less than human by giving mothers a license to kill their offspring provided they do it before they emerge completely from the womb. Cloning for stem cells is just one more scheme for profit at the expense of human souls and bodies whose humanity we have rationalized away.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Dealing with Religious Differences
It is always difficult dealing with religious differences. So difficult, in fact, that many people either demonize those with different religious views or to ignore the differences of religious opinion, claiming that differences are irrelevant. The proper way of dealing with religious differences should be both loving and willing to recognize that differences exist and can be significant.
I recently wrote an article in which I discussed whether or not voters should take a presidential candidate’s religion into account when casting their votes. I was surprised at the emails I received. Some indicated that I simply did not like people of a particular religion. Others claimed that that religion did not hold to the tenets that it has proclaimed in many of its writings and even in the displays that it uses to attract converts at its historical sites. I am also surprised at how many people want to say that significant religious differences are irrelevant in life. And I am horrified by people who are willing to respond to religious differences with violent hatred and bitterness.
All human beings are created in the image of God. They all have an inherent dignity and are entitled to be treated with respect. But for God’s grace, everyone would be mired in religious falsehoods. We need to deal kindly and graciously with those who we believe to be in error. Besides, if we really want to convert others to Christianity, we really need to remember that people are much more likely to respond to the love we show than to bigotry or hostility.
But it is not inherently bigoted or wrong to admit that religious differences exist or that they have significant impacts. Many speak as if religion was akin to sex, race, or height - something that is somehow passed down from our parents or created in us by our environment – something beyond our control. Even though as a reformed Christian I believe in the doctrine of election, it is nevertheless the case, that from a human point of view, religion is based on what we choose to believe, not upon our genetic makeup or our birth. One of the great shortcomings of some of the world’s “great” religions is that they maintain adherents not through persuasion, but through coercion that extends from birth to death. When Christians have used coercion to make or maintain adherents, they have been wrong in doing so. One cannot be coerced into believing the truth or having a genuine relationship with God.
An example of how modern man has treated religion is in John Rawls’ foundational myth of the “Original Position.” In order to design an ideal polity, Rawls uses the argumentative device of mythical people placed in a situation in which they do not know things about themselves which would lead them to design the system to favor people with their genetic or circumstantial attributes. Rawls called this lack of self knowledge the “veil of ignorance.” So Rawls “founders” do not know if they will be healthy or sick, rich or poor, wise or foolish—but according to Rawls they also don’t know what religious beliefs they will have. As a result, they do not take anything religious or metaphysical into account in designing the ideal polity. They would not do so because they do not know anything about what they believe religiously.
Of course Rawls’ myth does not ring true. Ultimate beliefs about reality are “religious” beliefs, including beliefs about justice, fairness, equality, etc. Rawls regime is based on belief in the appropriateness of reciprocity – but that is a belief that is ultimately “religious” in the sense that it does not come by measurement or randomness – but by faith in the idea and faith that it will produce desirable outcomes and corresponds to what we feel is “right.” (From a Christian world view a regime based entirely upon reciprocity has a certain degree of fairness, but is not necessarily based on the highest or most pure truth.) Rawls shows his colors—his belief that religion is something that we sort of end up with rather than something that is based upon an evaluation of objectively available truth.
I would agree with Rawls that an ideal society would be a society in which we respect religious differences and have religious freedom. But I also believe that an ideal society is one that takes available truth into consideration, and that some truths that are foundational to the existence of freedom and to the achievement of social good are truths that can only be honestly described as religious. In some instances, they are truths that all the orthodox versions of the world’s major religions generally agree upon. But they are nevertheless truths that are not established through the measuring regimes of science or through universal selfishness or self-interest. Many of the most important truths are based upon the universal moral revelation that God has provided to us in the natural law.
By contrast to the attitude evidenced by Rawls, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not imply that religion is simply something we are born with and stuck with, but rather that religion really is a matter of thought and freedom. In article 1 and 2, it states that even people with whom we have major religious differences are entitled to dignity and to human rights:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in the spirit of brotherhood. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
“Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of political, jurisdictional, or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also acknowledges the freedom of debate in Articles 18 and 19:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes the freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and deceit, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
As I have said before in this blog and still maintain, if the United States and the West are going to win the war on terror, the only long-term solution is going to be to persuade radical Islamists to believe something else. We can succeed in so defeating the radical Islamists militarily that they no longer see a short-term chance of success and decide to recede into the woodwork until at some point in future generations they feel they have a greater opportunity at success. But the problem is only going to really go away permanently when we succeed in changing the minds of those who hold Islamo-Fascist views. It would at least be somewhat better for the West if they came to believe a traditional, more moderate and less violent version of Islam that is more affected by mysticism and less affected by Heidegger. But what would really be best not only for the West but for the Islamists is if they came to lose their beliefs both in a radical version of Islam and in a fascist outlook on philosophy and life and instead became true believers in Jesus Christ. I know that this will shock many and particularly dismay those atheists among us who blame religion for all the world’s violence. But it must be remembered that it was essentially anti-Christian and anti-religious regimes in the form of Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Kim Jong Il’s Korea, Castro’s Cuba and Pol Pot’s Cambodia that have been responsible for massacring more people in the last century than all of the religious wars in history combined.
Religious differences may also be relevant in politics. In the political realm we need to be honest about beliefs and characterizations of other religions. But when a religions’ views affect how that religion’s adherents see the world around them, that may be relevant in political debate. A candidate can always say “the official position of my religion is X, but I personally do not hold to X” when an examination of the presuppositions of their faith does not accurately reflect what they personally believe. If a candidate separates their personal understanding of man and reality from the political process, that is also relevant – although then the hunt is on to understand what faith they do apply to politics- materialism? A composite civil religion? It really does matter.
Religious differences are significant. What people believe really does affect how they act and how they treat others. But change in religious opinion cannot be had through coercion; it must be had through gentle persuasion. We should not seek to coerce others, but we should seek to persuade them. But persuasion requires the ability to actually discuss our disagreements in a civil way – not ignorance of real differences, name calling toward those who identify differences, nor the violence offered by the Islamo-fascists.
I recently wrote an article in which I discussed whether or not voters should take a presidential candidate’s religion into account when casting their votes. I was surprised at the emails I received. Some indicated that I simply did not like people of a particular religion. Others claimed that that religion did not hold to the tenets that it has proclaimed in many of its writings and even in the displays that it uses to attract converts at its historical sites. I am also surprised at how many people want to say that significant religious differences are irrelevant in life. And I am horrified by people who are willing to respond to religious differences with violent hatred and bitterness.
All human beings are created in the image of God. They all have an inherent dignity and are entitled to be treated with respect. But for God’s grace, everyone would be mired in religious falsehoods. We need to deal kindly and graciously with those who we believe to be in error. Besides, if we really want to convert others to Christianity, we really need to remember that people are much more likely to respond to the love we show than to bigotry or hostility.
But it is not inherently bigoted or wrong to admit that religious differences exist or that they have significant impacts. Many speak as if religion was akin to sex, race, or height - something that is somehow passed down from our parents or created in us by our environment – something beyond our control. Even though as a reformed Christian I believe in the doctrine of election, it is nevertheless the case, that from a human point of view, religion is based on what we choose to believe, not upon our genetic makeup or our birth. One of the great shortcomings of some of the world’s “great” religions is that they maintain adherents not through persuasion, but through coercion that extends from birth to death. When Christians have used coercion to make or maintain adherents, they have been wrong in doing so. One cannot be coerced into believing the truth or having a genuine relationship with God.
An example of how modern man has treated religion is in John Rawls’ foundational myth of the “Original Position.” In order to design an ideal polity, Rawls uses the argumentative device of mythical people placed in a situation in which they do not know things about themselves which would lead them to design the system to favor people with their genetic or circumstantial attributes. Rawls called this lack of self knowledge the “veil of ignorance.” So Rawls “founders” do not know if they will be healthy or sick, rich or poor, wise or foolish—but according to Rawls they also don’t know what religious beliefs they will have. As a result, they do not take anything religious or metaphysical into account in designing the ideal polity. They would not do so because they do not know anything about what they believe religiously.
Of course Rawls’ myth does not ring true. Ultimate beliefs about reality are “religious” beliefs, including beliefs about justice, fairness, equality, etc. Rawls regime is based on belief in the appropriateness of reciprocity – but that is a belief that is ultimately “religious” in the sense that it does not come by measurement or randomness – but by faith in the idea and faith that it will produce desirable outcomes and corresponds to what we feel is “right.” (From a Christian world view a regime based entirely upon reciprocity has a certain degree of fairness, but is not necessarily based on the highest or most pure truth.) Rawls shows his colors—his belief that religion is something that we sort of end up with rather than something that is based upon an evaluation of objectively available truth.
I would agree with Rawls that an ideal society would be a society in which we respect religious differences and have religious freedom. But I also believe that an ideal society is one that takes available truth into consideration, and that some truths that are foundational to the existence of freedom and to the achievement of social good are truths that can only be honestly described as religious. In some instances, they are truths that all the orthodox versions of the world’s major religions generally agree upon. But they are nevertheless truths that are not established through the measuring regimes of science or through universal selfishness or self-interest. Many of the most important truths are based upon the universal moral revelation that God has provided to us in the natural law.
By contrast to the attitude evidenced by Rawls, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not imply that religion is simply something we are born with and stuck with, but rather that religion really is a matter of thought and freedom. In article 1 and 2, it states that even people with whom we have major religious differences are entitled to dignity and to human rights:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in the spirit of brotherhood. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
“Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of political, jurisdictional, or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also acknowledges the freedom of debate in Articles 18 and 19:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes the freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and deceit, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
As I have said before in this blog and still maintain, if the United States and the West are going to win the war on terror, the only long-term solution is going to be to persuade radical Islamists to believe something else. We can succeed in so defeating the radical Islamists militarily that they no longer see a short-term chance of success and decide to recede into the woodwork until at some point in future generations they feel they have a greater opportunity at success. But the problem is only going to really go away permanently when we succeed in changing the minds of those who hold Islamo-Fascist views. It would at least be somewhat better for the West if they came to believe a traditional, more moderate and less violent version of Islam that is more affected by mysticism and less affected by Heidegger. But what would really be best not only for the West but for the Islamists is if they came to lose their beliefs both in a radical version of Islam and in a fascist outlook on philosophy and life and instead became true believers in Jesus Christ. I know that this will shock many and particularly dismay those atheists among us who blame religion for all the world’s violence. But it must be remembered that it was essentially anti-Christian and anti-religious regimes in the form of Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Kim Jong Il’s Korea, Castro’s Cuba and Pol Pot’s Cambodia that have been responsible for massacring more people in the last century than all of the religious wars in history combined.
Religious differences may also be relevant in politics. In the political realm we need to be honest about beliefs and characterizations of other religions. But when a religions’ views affect how that religion’s adherents see the world around them, that may be relevant in political debate. A candidate can always say “the official position of my religion is X, but I personally do not hold to X” when an examination of the presuppositions of their faith does not accurately reflect what they personally believe. If a candidate separates their personal understanding of man and reality from the political process, that is also relevant – although then the hunt is on to understand what faith they do apply to politics- materialism? A composite civil religion? It really does matter.
Religious differences are significant. What people believe really does affect how they act and how they treat others. But change in religious opinion cannot be had through coercion; it must be had through gentle persuasion. We should not seek to coerce others, but we should seek to persuade them. But persuasion requires the ability to actually discuss our disagreements in a civil way – not ignorance of real differences, name calling toward those who identify differences, nor the violence offered by the Islamo-fascists.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Review: Mars Hill Monograph - Is there a Natural Law?
Mars Hill has a new Monograph pamphlet out. It contains a ten page excerpt from the writings of third generation reformer Francis Turretin with the title Is There A Natural Law?, a short essay by Kenneth A. Myers entitled On Not Being Ashamed of Natural Law, and an annotated bibliography on Protestant Advocacy of Natural Law by Rev. David F. Coffin, Jr.
This new monograph is the best single source I have seen on a Biblical understanding of Natural Law. Everyone interested in Christianity and human law should read it and share it with friends.
Turretin was the second successor to Calvin in Geneva. Like John Calvin he believed in general revelation and Natural Law as important elements of legal and political theory and practice while remaining orthodox on human sin, rebellion etc. Turretin understood God’s own nature as the source of objective standards of good. Turretin knew the value of understanding the difference between the positive laws of God and man, and God’s objective standard of what is unchangeably good. Myers does an excellent job of highlighting the importance of the Biblical Natural Law position outlined by Turretin.
For too long Protestants have been under the false impression that Natural Law is a “Roman Catholic thing” when it is really a belief of continuous Christian faith throughout the centuries, including the reformers. As I have said before, Natural Law and general revelation are more in accord with protestant teaching than Roman Catholic teaching because they explain how humans are accountable to God for the truths revealed in scripture without needing a Pope to give an authoritative interpretation of the scripture.
This new monograph is the best single source I have seen on a Biblical understanding of Natural Law. Everyone interested in Christianity and human law should read it and share it with friends.
Turretin was the second successor to Calvin in Geneva. Like John Calvin he believed in general revelation and Natural Law as important elements of legal and political theory and practice while remaining orthodox on human sin, rebellion etc. Turretin understood God’s own nature as the source of objective standards of good. Turretin knew the value of understanding the difference between the positive laws of God and man, and God’s objective standard of what is unchangeably good. Myers does an excellent job of highlighting the importance of the Biblical Natural Law position outlined by Turretin.
For too long Protestants have been under the false impression that Natural Law is a “Roman Catholic thing” when it is really a belief of continuous Christian faith throughout the centuries, including the reformers. As I have said before, Natural Law and general revelation are more in accord with protestant teaching than Roman Catholic teaching because they explain how humans are accountable to God for the truths revealed in scripture without needing a Pope to give an authoritative interpretation of the scripture.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Museums
I am back from vacation.
During the trip my wife and I especially enjoyed the new exhibit surrounding and including the captured WWII German submarine at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. It was very well done, and worth the extra charge for that part of the museum. The exhibit did an excellent job of making the drama and significance of the capture come alive.
We were also very impressed with the new Lincoln Library Museum in Springfield Illinois. The multimedia presentations and dioramas were spectacular. I was also happy that the museum was fair in its presentation of Lincoln and did not fall into the historical revisionist schools of thought about Lincoln or the civil war while being honest about some of the real controversies surrounding Lincoln.
During the trip my wife and I especially enjoyed the new exhibit surrounding and including the captured WWII German submarine at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. It was very well done, and worth the extra charge for that part of the museum. The exhibit did an excellent job of making the drama and significance of the capture come alive.
We were also very impressed with the new Lincoln Library Museum in Springfield Illinois. The multimedia presentations and dioramas were spectacular. I was also happy that the museum was fair in its presentation of Lincoln and did not fall into the historical revisionist schools of thought about Lincoln or the civil war while being honest about some of the real controversies surrounding Lincoln.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Are Christian Ethics Suicidal for Civilization?
In a discussion on the blog Conservative Swede, participants discussed the problem of pacifist ethics in the era of Islamist terror. I have posted my (rather long) comment here bellow as well as at the other site:
"I have read this post and the comments with great interest. I am an evangelical Christian in the United States. One of those people who still has God and Christ in the equation of Christian ethics. I think you are right that the ethics of many of those here in the United States called “liberal Christians” have ethical ideas that are nothing short of suicidal. I question whether or not those ideas are really particularly Christian. There are Christians in history who have held such ideas, but I don’t think they represent the dominant belief of the core of committed Christianity over the history of the church. I also have to disagree with James C. Russell’s book, The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity. While Mr. Russell is correct that the Middle Ages brought about some changes in some of the leadership of Christianity, most of these changes were unraveled, at least for Protestants, at the time of the Reformation. While it is true that during the Middle Ages Christians were probably more willing to tolerate bad behavior on the part of others (such as looting, pillaging, torture, etc.), this was never actually part of the core of Christian doctrine. The writings of John of Salisbury are far more representative. Salisbury is no pacifist. He believes in what we would call the just war theory. And he doesn’t believe in the modern wimpy just war theory that never allows a first strike or the initiation of a war for a just cause, he actually believes in fighting for causes that are just. But Salisbury also disagrees with the destruction of church property or the taking of innocent lives without military necessity. Certainly this is also represented in the many writings concerning Christian chivalry. The actions of the Crusaders who massacred the citizens of Jerusalem were not within the core of medieval Christian teaching, but were the sort of aberration present in all ages because of the sinfulness of human beings—even Christian human beings.
As for early Christianity, the pacifism of early Christianity is highly overstated by modern pacifists. Most evangelical Protestant Christians and most Christians throughout history have believed that Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified not because He believed in pacifism, but because He was a willing sacrifice to save those who would believe in Him from their sins. He is the Lamb of God described in Isaiah as bearing our iniquities and being wounded for our transgressions. Christ’s death satisfied God’s demand for justice and His righteous life is attributed to Christians so that they are righteous before God. This sort of legal transaction seems alien to many literalists and sometimes to those of the Roman persuasion but has not only been accepted historically by Christians from the time of Christ’s resurrection to the present, but is also evidenced in Scripture (particularly the book of Romans) and has been quite in line with the thinking of canon law and common law lawyers throughout much of the history of western Europe.
There were some early Christian writers who were opposed to Christian participation in the Roman legions because legionnaires had to offer incense to Caesar and had to effectively worship idols in the form of the standards of the legions. Despite this concern, archeology and other sources show that there were many Christians in the early Roman legion. Roman writings actually give praise for the victory to Christians who, in one battle, prayed and obtained a change in the tactical situation (and this long before the Christianization of the empire). It is also likely that Christianity spread to Great Britain and the other far corners of the Roman Empire through Christian soldiers. It must be remembered that Paul undoubtedly evangelized the Praetorian Guard while he was imprisoned waiting his appeal to Caesar. When the empire became Christian, at least in name if not in practice, there was no longer any reason why Christians could not serve in the military since the problems relating to idolatry were no longer present. From that time forward, there were many Christians who served in the military.
It is worth noting that despite people’s feeling that the New Testament is a pacifist book, the New Testament does depict the return of Christ as involving violence against His enemies at the battle of Armageddon. A sorcerer is struck blind in the book of Acts and a couple who lies to the early church are struck dead. The notion that early Christianity was all warm fuzzies is a misunderstanding of Christianity and what the Bible actually says. Those Christians too have believed in the organic unity of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. The Old Testament is obviously no pacifist book. But even in the New Testament, Paul says that the government does not bear the sword in vain. The government is there to punish evil and reward good. It must utilize coercion to do so. But when it does so, it is not acting in a way that is inherently evil. Instead, it is “God’s servant.”
The real moral distinction between correct and incorrect violence in the Bible is different from secular views of violence however. In the secular world, justified violence tends to be based primarily upon self-defense. In the biblical worldview, justified violence is primarily about defense of others. One may sometimes be justified in defending oneself because of one’s value to others and the role in which you are reacting to others. If it was purely about saving one’s individual self when there was no appropriate role for you to play toward another, then martyrdom could actually be the appropriate thing. But when innocent lives such as those of women and children or those in the community are at stake, martyrdom in the face of aggression is not appropriate, but rather the defense of the community from aggression, injustice and oppression is appropriate. This was the basic belief of the Christian reformers such as Luther and Calvin. But this view began to be distorted during the 1600s when there was an increased emphasis on trying to make the theory of law and international relations appeal to an audience without direct reference to the Bible or to faith as the sole argument. Writers like Locke and Hobbs made self-defense more important and neglected the primacy of the defense of others. This had two negative effects. First, it emphasized selfishness in foreign policy and second, when combined with a misunderstanding of the Christian belief in willing martyrdom of the self, it made entire civilizations more suicidal. But this was not the direct result of Christianity, but rather the combination of Christianity with the skeptical secular theories of writers like Thomas Hobbs.
As skepticism grew in Europe through the writings of people like Hobbs, Hume, Kant and ultimately Nietzche and the existentialists, and as Europe slipped from immorality being primarily the prerogative of the upper classes to being the ambition of every class, Europe rejected the role of God and an honest view of God’s commands and teachings in favor of a system that included a greater and greater distortion and disingenuity about good and evil, honorable and dishonorable behavior. The problem of slavery added greatly to this distortion.
Slavery was on its way to extinction during the Christian Middle Ages. But upon the discovery of the New World and the economic benefits of making slaves of Native Americans, Africans and others, Europe delved once again into the depths of slave owning and slave trading. To be sure, the Arab world was involved in providing these slaves and the wars within Africa and South America contributed to their availability. But Europeans compromised Christian beliefs in order to justify the holding of slaves. The same thing happened in the early United States. The United States compromised and gave up its original natural law/common law perspective in order to adopt a positivist jurisprudence that enabled the legal justification of slavery despite its obvious immorality. In the end, what people regard as a “Christian” system today is far different from what Christianity actually suggested or required. As G.K. Chesterton said, Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, but tried and found difficult.
If genuine Christianity were to return in Europe and to remain ascendant in the United States, and to finally seize back the American ruling class from those in America who hold the European view of man, the world, and things, there is no question but that western civilization could triumph over the current threat from radical Islamo-Fascism. But as long as the West continues to idolize the beliefs of Hobbs, Hume, Nietzche and Heidegger, we will fall prey to those who combine the teachings of Heidegger and Mohammad.
In one other important detail, I think that in asking what system one should adopt, consideration ought to be which system is true? I know that it has become fashionable to believe in objective truth these days, but to adopt a system like Greek or Roman paganism simply because you think it is effective is quite foolish unless there is some reason to believe it is also true. Contrary to the beliefs of the skeptics, I and many like me in America and the rest of the world find no intellectual and logical reason to believe that Christianity is false. Quite the reverse. Christianity as it is truly to be understood is systematically consistent and meets the facts of reality. Christianity also has solutions to our greatest needs such as dealing with death, alienation, loneliness, addiction and sin. The modern world has not liked Christianity because the Bible objects to sexual immorality (but not sex in marriage) and other popular modern addictions. The modern world has been looking for data to justify the rejection of God for hundreds of years. The oldest anti-Christian writings are easily seen as absurd today. In time the current waive will be seen to be foolish distortions as well. I hope and pray the men and women of the West come back to God on His terms as soon as possible – before it is too late.
"I have read this post and the comments with great interest. I am an evangelical Christian in the United States. One of those people who still has God and Christ in the equation of Christian ethics. I think you are right that the ethics of many of those here in the United States called “liberal Christians” have ethical ideas that are nothing short of suicidal. I question whether or not those ideas are really particularly Christian. There are Christians in history who have held such ideas, but I don’t think they represent the dominant belief of the core of committed Christianity over the history of the church. I also have to disagree with James C. Russell’s book, The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity. While Mr. Russell is correct that the Middle Ages brought about some changes in some of the leadership of Christianity, most of these changes were unraveled, at least for Protestants, at the time of the Reformation. While it is true that during the Middle Ages Christians were probably more willing to tolerate bad behavior on the part of others (such as looting, pillaging, torture, etc.), this was never actually part of the core of Christian doctrine. The writings of John of Salisbury are far more representative. Salisbury is no pacifist. He believes in what we would call the just war theory. And he doesn’t believe in the modern wimpy just war theory that never allows a first strike or the initiation of a war for a just cause, he actually believes in fighting for causes that are just. But Salisbury also disagrees with the destruction of church property or the taking of innocent lives without military necessity. Certainly this is also represented in the many writings concerning Christian chivalry. The actions of the Crusaders who massacred the citizens of Jerusalem were not within the core of medieval Christian teaching, but were the sort of aberration present in all ages because of the sinfulness of human beings—even Christian human beings.
As for early Christianity, the pacifism of early Christianity is highly overstated by modern pacifists. Most evangelical Protestant Christians and most Christians throughout history have believed that Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified not because He believed in pacifism, but because He was a willing sacrifice to save those who would believe in Him from their sins. He is the Lamb of God described in Isaiah as bearing our iniquities and being wounded for our transgressions. Christ’s death satisfied God’s demand for justice and His righteous life is attributed to Christians so that they are righteous before God. This sort of legal transaction seems alien to many literalists and sometimes to those of the Roman persuasion but has not only been accepted historically by Christians from the time of Christ’s resurrection to the present, but is also evidenced in Scripture (particularly the book of Romans) and has been quite in line with the thinking of canon law and common law lawyers throughout much of the history of western Europe.
There were some early Christian writers who were opposed to Christian participation in the Roman legions because legionnaires had to offer incense to Caesar and had to effectively worship idols in the form of the standards of the legions. Despite this concern, archeology and other sources show that there were many Christians in the early Roman legion. Roman writings actually give praise for the victory to Christians who, in one battle, prayed and obtained a change in the tactical situation (and this long before the Christianization of the empire). It is also likely that Christianity spread to Great Britain and the other far corners of the Roman Empire through Christian soldiers. It must be remembered that Paul undoubtedly evangelized the Praetorian Guard while he was imprisoned waiting his appeal to Caesar. When the empire became Christian, at least in name if not in practice, there was no longer any reason why Christians could not serve in the military since the problems relating to idolatry were no longer present. From that time forward, there were many Christians who served in the military.
It is worth noting that despite people’s feeling that the New Testament is a pacifist book, the New Testament does depict the return of Christ as involving violence against His enemies at the battle of Armageddon. A sorcerer is struck blind in the book of Acts and a couple who lies to the early church are struck dead. The notion that early Christianity was all warm fuzzies is a misunderstanding of Christianity and what the Bible actually says. Those Christians too have believed in the organic unity of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. The Old Testament is obviously no pacifist book. But even in the New Testament, Paul says that the government does not bear the sword in vain. The government is there to punish evil and reward good. It must utilize coercion to do so. But when it does so, it is not acting in a way that is inherently evil. Instead, it is “God’s servant.”
The real moral distinction between correct and incorrect violence in the Bible is different from secular views of violence however. In the secular world, justified violence tends to be based primarily upon self-defense. In the biblical worldview, justified violence is primarily about defense of others. One may sometimes be justified in defending oneself because of one’s value to others and the role in which you are reacting to others. If it was purely about saving one’s individual self when there was no appropriate role for you to play toward another, then martyrdom could actually be the appropriate thing. But when innocent lives such as those of women and children or those in the community are at stake, martyrdom in the face of aggression is not appropriate, but rather the defense of the community from aggression, injustice and oppression is appropriate. This was the basic belief of the Christian reformers such as Luther and Calvin. But this view began to be distorted during the 1600s when there was an increased emphasis on trying to make the theory of law and international relations appeal to an audience without direct reference to the Bible or to faith as the sole argument. Writers like Locke and Hobbs made self-defense more important and neglected the primacy of the defense of others. This had two negative effects. First, it emphasized selfishness in foreign policy and second, when combined with a misunderstanding of the Christian belief in willing martyrdom of the self, it made entire civilizations more suicidal. But this was not the direct result of Christianity, but rather the combination of Christianity with the skeptical secular theories of writers like Thomas Hobbs.
As skepticism grew in Europe through the writings of people like Hobbs, Hume, Kant and ultimately Nietzche and the existentialists, and as Europe slipped from immorality being primarily the prerogative of the upper classes to being the ambition of every class, Europe rejected the role of God and an honest view of God’s commands and teachings in favor of a system that included a greater and greater distortion and disingenuity about good and evil, honorable and dishonorable behavior. The problem of slavery added greatly to this distortion.
Slavery was on its way to extinction during the Christian Middle Ages. But upon the discovery of the New World and the economic benefits of making slaves of Native Americans, Africans and others, Europe delved once again into the depths of slave owning and slave trading. To be sure, the Arab world was involved in providing these slaves and the wars within Africa and South America contributed to their availability. But Europeans compromised Christian beliefs in order to justify the holding of slaves. The same thing happened in the early United States. The United States compromised and gave up its original natural law/common law perspective in order to adopt a positivist jurisprudence that enabled the legal justification of slavery despite its obvious immorality. In the end, what people regard as a “Christian” system today is far different from what Christianity actually suggested or required. As G.K. Chesterton said, Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, but tried and found difficult.
If genuine Christianity were to return in Europe and to remain ascendant in the United States, and to finally seize back the American ruling class from those in America who hold the European view of man, the world, and things, there is no question but that western civilization could triumph over the current threat from radical Islamo-Fascism. But as long as the West continues to idolize the beliefs of Hobbs, Hume, Nietzche and Heidegger, we will fall prey to those who combine the teachings of Heidegger and Mohammad.
In one other important detail, I think that in asking what system one should adopt, consideration ought to be which system is true? I know that it has become fashionable to believe in objective truth these days, but to adopt a system like Greek or Roman paganism simply because you think it is effective is quite foolish unless there is some reason to believe it is also true. Contrary to the beliefs of the skeptics, I and many like me in America and the rest of the world find no intellectual and logical reason to believe that Christianity is false. Quite the reverse. Christianity as it is truly to be understood is systematically consistent and meets the facts of reality. Christianity also has solutions to our greatest needs such as dealing with death, alienation, loneliness, addiction and sin. The modern world has not liked Christianity because the Bible objects to sexual immorality (but not sex in marriage) and other popular modern addictions. The modern world has been looking for data to justify the rejection of God for hundreds of years. The oldest anti-Christian writings are easily seen as absurd today. In time the current waive will be seen to be foolish distortions as well. I hope and pray the men and women of the West come back to God on His terms as soon as possible – before it is too late.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
God's Lavish Grace
Weeks ago, for the last chapel of the semester, I spoke from the first few chapters of the book of Ephesians. This past Sunday, the pastor at my home church, Dr. Don Shoemaker of Grace Community Church Seal Beach, started what promises to be an excellent series on the book of Ephesians. What both I and Pastor Shoemaker emphasized was God’s grace and election. Many people wrestle with the doctrine of election. They don’t like the idea that God chooses to save some but does not choose to save everyone. Pastor Shoemaker pointed out that we believe parents are doing something good and moral when they adopt an orphan. But we do not claim that the same adopting parents are being immoral by refusing to adopt all orphans. Human beings are all in rebellion against God. Our state from birth is one of hatred and antipathy toward God. God chooses to rescue some of us from this by changing our hearts and minds through the work of His Holy Spirit to bring us to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and His work on the cross. When we are drawn to Christ, we put faith in His saving work believing in who He is and what He did—that is, that He is both fully God and fully man and that He made a complete sacrifice for our sins once and for all on the cross, paying for all of our sins and also attributing to us His perfectly lived righteous life. It is in this way that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. But it is God’s work of election to bring us to this salvation and there is no room for us to boast or brag. We have not done anything praiseworthy or laudable in order to be saved. Instead, everything has been done by God in and through Jesus Christ: “In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of His glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of His glory.” Ephesians 1:11-14. As this passage indicates, God provides evidence of His work in us by sealing us with the Holy Spirit. It is the deposit guaranteeing our inheritance of salvation. The presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives should and does work a slow transformation in us through which we become better people than we used to be. But it is not this process of sanctification (“setting ourselves aside from sin for God”) that is the cause of our salvation. We are saved because Christ’s righteousness is attributed to us and because Christ’s sacrifice paid for our sins, not because we do good things to merit or earn our salvation.
These doctrines are very difficult for some people. Many people are quite disturbed by the idea that God makes choices for reasons apparently having nothing to do with our own merit or worthiness or will. By contrast, I find this quite comforting. If my salvation depended on me, I would be in a most definite and permanent anxious state, terrified of my inability to please God. But, thankfully, my salvation doesn’t depend upon me. I am thankful for God’s lavish and generous grace that salvation has come to me based on Christ’s merit rather than my own. I am thankful that my salvation depends on the sovereign and unstoppable divine being who created and sustains the universe rather than upon my corrupt and finite abilities. How generous and kind God is to the elect in choosing us when we have done nothing to merit His selection. Truly, He is the generous and kind God.
Some people are still worried about those who they believe are not elected. Of course only God can know whether someone is actually of the elect or not. We can see evidences of their earthly statements and professions, but we cannot know what is in their hearts or in the mind of God. If we are concerned about the salvation of another person, it makes sense for us to do two things; to communicate the gospel to them and to pray that they will be among the elect. Neither of these things is unreasonable. If God does not decide who to elect based upon merit, there is no reason to believe that He does not decide based at least in part upon the prayers of those who are among the elect. And certainly no one who is not among the elect will truly seek God and seek to be saved through prayer. So if you are worried about whether or not you are elect, asking God to elect you and save you is obviously a prayer to which God would say yes. Much more, we should pray for others who concern us. In addition, we should preach the gospel to people so that from an earthly perspective, they have the opportunity to believe and put faith in Christ. While the Bible clearly teaches election in Ephesians and elsewhere, it also clearly teaches that we have an obligation to preach the gospel. From an earthly perspective people do indeed need to choose to put their faith in Christ and His work on the cross. From an earthly perspective, the more they know about it, the more likely it is that they will believe it. The choice to save is God’s. He clearly uses us in the process through which He works.
Is this difficult and mysterious? Of course. This is one of the reasons why Christianity is so incredibly sensible. Christianity is unlike the many religions invented by human beings and designed to please human needs and desires. Christianity (as Carnel wrote) is internally consistent, fits the facts and is reasonable. Christianity is also something so complicated yet simple, ingenious yet unfathomable, seemingly paradoxical yet utterly sensible. Christianity is the sort of system that no human being could have designed or would have designed. No sensible human would have designed a religion that included the doctrine of the trinity or the tension between the preaching of the gospel and divine election. No human being would have at the same time made salvation totally dependent upon God and not upon our good works, and yet also asked that human beings abide by the moral law even though their salvation was not dependent upon the moral law because they were saved by grace through faith in Christ. No human being would have God become man and yet remain fully divine for fear of either elevating the human or compromising the divine in the minds of confused followers. And no human being would have made their designed religion completely contingent upon the resurrection of Christ from the dead since no human being could pull off a genuine resurrection and since so few people believe even in the real one that was witnessed by many people who gave their lives in confirmation of their testimony. But the real God is a lavish, gracious and kind God. The God of the Bible has expressed to us His amazing ways which are both fully rational and enigmatic, completely sensible and inexplicable, completely systematic and fully surprising, just and yet lavishly gracious. The more we say yes to God and enter into a deeper and deeper relationship with Him and knowledge of His ways, the more amazed we are by all that we learn.
These doctrines are very difficult for some people. Many people are quite disturbed by the idea that God makes choices for reasons apparently having nothing to do with our own merit or worthiness or will. By contrast, I find this quite comforting. If my salvation depended on me, I would be in a most definite and permanent anxious state, terrified of my inability to please God. But, thankfully, my salvation doesn’t depend upon me. I am thankful for God’s lavish and generous grace that salvation has come to me based on Christ’s merit rather than my own. I am thankful that my salvation depends on the sovereign and unstoppable divine being who created and sustains the universe rather than upon my corrupt and finite abilities. How generous and kind God is to the elect in choosing us when we have done nothing to merit His selection. Truly, He is the generous and kind God.
Some people are still worried about those who they believe are not elected. Of course only God can know whether someone is actually of the elect or not. We can see evidences of their earthly statements and professions, but we cannot know what is in their hearts or in the mind of God. If we are concerned about the salvation of another person, it makes sense for us to do two things; to communicate the gospel to them and to pray that they will be among the elect. Neither of these things is unreasonable. If God does not decide who to elect based upon merit, there is no reason to believe that He does not decide based at least in part upon the prayers of those who are among the elect. And certainly no one who is not among the elect will truly seek God and seek to be saved through prayer. So if you are worried about whether or not you are elect, asking God to elect you and save you is obviously a prayer to which God would say yes. Much more, we should pray for others who concern us. In addition, we should preach the gospel to people so that from an earthly perspective, they have the opportunity to believe and put faith in Christ. While the Bible clearly teaches election in Ephesians and elsewhere, it also clearly teaches that we have an obligation to preach the gospel. From an earthly perspective people do indeed need to choose to put their faith in Christ and His work on the cross. From an earthly perspective, the more they know about it, the more likely it is that they will believe it. The choice to save is God’s. He clearly uses us in the process through which He works.
Is this difficult and mysterious? Of course. This is one of the reasons why Christianity is so incredibly sensible. Christianity is unlike the many religions invented by human beings and designed to please human needs and desires. Christianity (as Carnel wrote) is internally consistent, fits the facts and is reasonable. Christianity is also something so complicated yet simple, ingenious yet unfathomable, seemingly paradoxical yet utterly sensible. Christianity is the sort of system that no human being could have designed or would have designed. No sensible human would have designed a religion that included the doctrine of the trinity or the tension between the preaching of the gospel and divine election. No human being would have at the same time made salvation totally dependent upon God and not upon our good works, and yet also asked that human beings abide by the moral law even though their salvation was not dependent upon the moral law because they were saved by grace through faith in Christ. No human being would have God become man and yet remain fully divine for fear of either elevating the human or compromising the divine in the minds of confused followers. And no human being would have made their designed religion completely contingent upon the resurrection of Christ from the dead since no human being could pull off a genuine resurrection and since so few people believe even in the real one that was witnessed by many people who gave their lives in confirmation of their testimony. But the real God is a lavish, gracious and kind God. The God of the Bible has expressed to us His amazing ways which are both fully rational and enigmatic, completely sensible and inexplicable, completely systematic and fully surprising, just and yet lavishly gracious. The more we say yes to God and enter into a deeper and deeper relationship with Him and knowledge of His ways, the more amazed we are by all that we learn.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Rev. Falwell
Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder of Liberty University and Baptist pastor died yesterday. While, like all of us human beings, Falwell was not always tactful and did make mistakes, he was a major religious leader of our times and succeeded in convincing many separatist leaning fundamentalists to engage the world and become involved in the issues facing their communities. For this, he deserves thanks, even if the process was less than perfect.
But in part, Falwell was the victim of the media as well as a major public figure. Secularists, radical political liberals, and even less evangelical Christians have trouble understanding or accepting that a Christian can be honest about sin while loving sinners. For them love requires acceptance of behavior and culture, rather than (as ethicist Louis Smeeds would have said) “wishing the other well and acting consistently and logically upon that wish.” But I do not doubt that for all his apparent bombast, Falwell was a loving man. Mathew Reynolds, producer for the Northern Radio Alliance, and a Liberty student who had met Falwell, said this on the blog “Captains Quarters:”
“But thing that most stood out was his great conviction and belief in his Lord Jesus Christ and his love for everyone, especially those he disagreed with. Dr Falwell spoke weekly with Larry Flynt for years as a result of the lawsuit. He had Sen Ted Kennedy come speak at Liberty University in what has been called one of the top 10 speeches of the 1990s. And while many find this hard to believe, it was this love that allowed him to bring back Mel White to speak at his church and work on reconciliation with the homosexual community and the evangelical church.
Many people have confused his Christian beliefs with hate-speech. This was not the case. While Dr Falwell may have disagreed with their lifestyle, he really cared about each person he met on an individual level.”
As someone who shares belief in the Christian “fundamentals,” but does not accept all of fundamentalist culture, I occasionally disagreed with Falwell about aspects of the law, history, aesthetics, style, the fine points of the unessentials of theology, and more. But I recognize that he accomplished a lot in the context in which God placed him. In many ways our country would have been worse off without him. He reached and discipled for Christ a large number of people who would not have been easily reached by others and who could have been much worse served. And as I said above, he opened many separatist fundamentalists to political and cultural involvement after decades of retreat into cultural insignificance. What is tragic is that the political parties have mostly ignored and squandered the political consensus on moral issues that Falwell helped achieve.
But in part, Falwell was the victim of the media as well as a major public figure. Secularists, radical political liberals, and even less evangelical Christians have trouble understanding or accepting that a Christian can be honest about sin while loving sinners. For them love requires acceptance of behavior and culture, rather than (as ethicist Louis Smeeds would have said) “wishing the other well and acting consistently and logically upon that wish.” But I do not doubt that for all his apparent bombast, Falwell was a loving man. Mathew Reynolds, producer for the Northern Radio Alliance, and a Liberty student who had met Falwell, said this on the blog “Captains Quarters:”
“But thing that most stood out was his great conviction and belief in his Lord Jesus Christ and his love for everyone, especially those he disagreed with. Dr Falwell spoke weekly with Larry Flynt for years as a result of the lawsuit. He had Sen Ted Kennedy come speak at Liberty University in what has been called one of the top 10 speeches of the 1990s. And while many find this hard to believe, it was this love that allowed him to bring back Mel White to speak at his church and work on reconciliation with the homosexual community and the evangelical church.
Many people have confused his Christian beliefs with hate-speech. This was not the case. While Dr Falwell may have disagreed with their lifestyle, he really cared about each person he met on an individual level.”
As someone who shares belief in the Christian “fundamentals,” but does not accept all of fundamentalist culture, I occasionally disagreed with Falwell about aspects of the law, history, aesthetics, style, the fine points of the unessentials of theology, and more. But I recognize that he accomplished a lot in the context in which God placed him. In many ways our country would have been worse off without him. He reached and discipled for Christ a large number of people who would not have been easily reached by others and who could have been much worse served. And as I said above, he opened many separatist fundamentalists to political and cultural involvement after decades of retreat into cultural insignificance. What is tragic is that the political parties have mostly ignored and squandered the political consensus on moral issues that Falwell helped achieve.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Is Socialism Christian?
A web site from England has a quotation that equates Christianity with Socialism. Thursdays LA times had an article giving sympathetic treatment to the liberation theologians in Brazil and elsewhere who are being pressured by the Pope. Is socialism Christian?
Biblical Christianity does place a strong emphasis on caring for the poor, working for justice, and helping the powerless and oppressed. Early Christians gave their worldly goods to help the poor and share with their brothers and sisters in Christ. In the Old Testament there were laws designed to provide for the poor. But Israel was very unique among ancient nations in not having a centrally planned economy with wage and price controls or a feudal land-for-military-service system.
The Bible does not prescribe a particular governmental or economic system for modern nations. In that sense, neither capitalism nor socialism can claim the label “Christian.” There are different costs and benefits for all economic/government systems or approaches. In many ways the real question is which system is wisest, works best, and achieves what a particular society wants within acceptable costs.
Capitalism, with the rule of law and a relatively moral government, results in a better overall material quantity of goods and services, and greater freedom of choices among immaterial goods than socialism. It has the cost of greater apparent inequalities between individual financial outcomes and the cost of consuming fads that are in bad taste, morally suspect, or ill conceived (I do not think the market is always right even though it is right more often than the government). Capitalism hurts the foolish, the lazy, the poor, the sick, and the ungifted. Capitalism rewards hard work, creativity, service, and (not so good) cunning.
Socialist centrally planned governments tend to be inefficient, dependent on continued population growth, and restrictive of legitimate freedoms. They also make bad planning decisions that affect everyone because the whole scheme is run by the government. The advantage of socialism is that people feel outcomes are more equal even though they may all be worse off. Socialism rewards the lazy, protects the sick and ungifted, and cheats the productive producers. It also gives greater power to individuals who seek power over others. Some people like socialism because they do not think the public makes good choices and they want to choose for everyone else. But all humans are fallen, and so on the whole, the choices of the few are as bad, or worse, than the choices of the many. Perhaps choosing a system with these values and results is not so moral as it seems to those who value equality of outcomes above all else?
There are also usually other moral problems with socialism in practice. First, in theory socialism can be put into effect voluntarily. Perhaps in places like Sweden it is mostly voluntary. But in practice, socialism is usually put in place by force and steals property in order to redistribute property “more equally.” Theft backed by violence is not really moral. It is sometimes supported by arguing that the rich acquired their wealth immorally. This is sometimes true, but certainly not always or universally. Often the immorality involved, if any, may have occurred generations ago. Second, socialism decreases the individual’s opportunity to make virtuous moral choices. It takes moral responsibility from individuals and places it on the government. In the end, people become less moral because they expect the state to help those in need. Aristotle pointed out this second problem over two thousand years ago.
A Christian solution to human need and suffering is for individuals, families, and associations to give to help those in need. A socialist solution is to take property from individuals, families and associations to help those in need. It is sad that Christians have been so ineffective at giving and helping others that socialism seems attractive to people. But I think it is also the case that because human desires and needs expand to fit the supply, people in a fallen world will never be completely happy with any distribution, system, or circumstance. Though we should give, no amount of giving will ever be enough. But there are real and serious needs that cry out for more giving, and we should give more than we do even though Americans are already the most giving people (as individual) in the world. I hope though that we never give away our freedom in order to try to satisfy the hunger for equal economic outcomes.
Biblical Christianity does place a strong emphasis on caring for the poor, working for justice, and helping the powerless and oppressed. Early Christians gave their worldly goods to help the poor and share with their brothers and sisters in Christ. In the Old Testament there were laws designed to provide for the poor. But Israel was very unique among ancient nations in not having a centrally planned economy with wage and price controls or a feudal land-for-military-service system.
The Bible does not prescribe a particular governmental or economic system for modern nations. In that sense, neither capitalism nor socialism can claim the label “Christian.” There are different costs and benefits for all economic/government systems or approaches. In many ways the real question is which system is wisest, works best, and achieves what a particular society wants within acceptable costs.
Capitalism, with the rule of law and a relatively moral government, results in a better overall material quantity of goods and services, and greater freedom of choices among immaterial goods than socialism. It has the cost of greater apparent inequalities between individual financial outcomes and the cost of consuming fads that are in bad taste, morally suspect, or ill conceived (I do not think the market is always right even though it is right more often than the government). Capitalism hurts the foolish, the lazy, the poor, the sick, and the ungifted. Capitalism rewards hard work, creativity, service, and (not so good) cunning.
Socialist centrally planned governments tend to be inefficient, dependent on continued population growth, and restrictive of legitimate freedoms. They also make bad planning decisions that affect everyone because the whole scheme is run by the government. The advantage of socialism is that people feel outcomes are more equal even though they may all be worse off. Socialism rewards the lazy, protects the sick and ungifted, and cheats the productive producers. It also gives greater power to individuals who seek power over others. Some people like socialism because they do not think the public makes good choices and they want to choose for everyone else. But all humans are fallen, and so on the whole, the choices of the few are as bad, or worse, than the choices of the many. Perhaps choosing a system with these values and results is not so moral as it seems to those who value equality of outcomes above all else?
There are also usually other moral problems with socialism in practice. First, in theory socialism can be put into effect voluntarily. Perhaps in places like Sweden it is mostly voluntary. But in practice, socialism is usually put in place by force and steals property in order to redistribute property “more equally.” Theft backed by violence is not really moral. It is sometimes supported by arguing that the rich acquired their wealth immorally. This is sometimes true, but certainly not always or universally. Often the immorality involved, if any, may have occurred generations ago. Second, socialism decreases the individual’s opportunity to make virtuous moral choices. It takes moral responsibility from individuals and places it on the government. In the end, people become less moral because they expect the state to help those in need. Aristotle pointed out this second problem over two thousand years ago.
A Christian solution to human need and suffering is for individuals, families, and associations to give to help those in need. A socialist solution is to take property from individuals, families and associations to help those in need. It is sad that Christians have been so ineffective at giving and helping others that socialism seems attractive to people. But I think it is also the case that because human desires and needs expand to fit the supply, people in a fallen world will never be completely happy with any distribution, system, or circumstance. Though we should give, no amount of giving will ever be enough. But there are real and serious needs that cry out for more giving, and we should give more than we do even though Americans are already the most giving people (as individual) in the world. I hope though that we never give away our freedom in order to try to satisfy the hunger for equal economic outcomes.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Archbishop of Canterbury on Morality and the State
I must admit I have not often found myself in agreement with Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop has an interesting article in The Times Online entitled “Down with Godless Government.” I still do not endorse the Archbishop’s prescription of an established church, church peers in government, or church authority as solutions to the problem of morality and government, but the Archbishop does say a few interesting things:
“Wilberforce and his circle believed that if a sinful system existed and its sinfulness implicated them as well as others, they were under an obligation to end it. There is no simple gulf between personal and public morality; and Christian morality is not about “keeping yourself unspotted from the world” in any sense that implies withdrawing or ignoring public wrongs.”
“But if the state enacts or perpetuates in the corporate life of the nation what is directly contrary to the Christian understanding of God’s purpose, then Christian activism in respect of changing the law is justified, primarily when the state is responsible for — so to speak — compromising the morality of all its citizens.”
. . .
“Without a notional standard of human excellence and human flourishing, the definition of what is good for people is always going to be vulnerable to what happens to suit a dominant interest group.”
. . .
“I believe that it is possible for a state to have a moral basis without thereby becoming confessional or theocratic. It involves a state being ready to recognize its own history; to say that its horizons and assumptions are indeed grounded in a set of particular beliefs, and to embody in its political practice ways of allowing those foundational commitments to be heard in public debate.”
Hat tip to Cranmer
“Wilberforce and his circle believed that if a sinful system existed and its sinfulness implicated them as well as others, they were under an obligation to end it. There is no simple gulf between personal and public morality; and Christian morality is not about “keeping yourself unspotted from the world” in any sense that implies withdrawing or ignoring public wrongs.”
“But if the state enacts or perpetuates in the corporate life of the nation what is directly contrary to the Christian understanding of God’s purpose, then Christian activism in respect of changing the law is justified, primarily when the state is responsible for — so to speak — compromising the morality of all its citizens.”
. . .
“Without a notional standard of human excellence and human flourishing, the definition of what is good for people is always going to be vulnerable to what happens to suit a dominant interest group.”
. . .
“I believe that it is possible for a state to have a moral basis without thereby becoming confessional or theocratic. It involves a state being ready to recognize its own history; to say that its horizons and assumptions are indeed grounded in a set of particular beliefs, and to embody in its political practice ways of allowing those foundational commitments to be heard in public debate.”
Hat tip to Cranmer
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Justice and Morality
(Re-posted here in the main blog after a response to a comment)
You cannot separate justice and morality. The two are inseparable. Justice involves giving to and requiring from everyone that which is appropriate. Rights are uniform predispositions of justice. Being unjust is a sort of immorality. Moral principles, rules, and rights statements explain and define specific relationships - often stating what is owed or appropriate, either in positive or negative form.
You should not steal because that is taking what belongs to another. Stealing is violating your neighbor's right to property. Stealing is an act of injustice. Justice requires the thief to restore what has been taken, plus an appropriate penalty as retribution, example, and deterrent for the harm done to the order and harmony of relationships between humans and between God and humans.
Humans are obligated to be moral and just and respect the rights of others because they were created by God in His image, belong to God, and flourish in the order designed by God. Without God and His order humans are just bundles of chemicals. Why would they be entitled to dignity or privilege if that were all they were?
You cannot separate justice and morality. The two are inseparable. Justice involves giving to and requiring from everyone that which is appropriate. Rights are uniform predispositions of justice. Being unjust is a sort of immorality. Moral principles, rules, and rights statements explain and define specific relationships - often stating what is owed or appropriate, either in positive or negative form.
You should not steal because that is taking what belongs to another. Stealing is violating your neighbor's right to property. Stealing is an act of injustice. Justice requires the thief to restore what has been taken, plus an appropriate penalty as retribution, example, and deterrent for the harm done to the order and harmony of relationships between humans and between God and humans.
Humans are obligated to be moral and just and respect the rights of others because they were created by God in His image, belong to God, and flourish in the order designed by God. Without God and His order humans are just bundles of chemicals. Why would they be entitled to dignity or privilege if that were all they were?
Monday, April 30, 2007
Politics and Christianity: the Clear, the indifferent and the Difficult
I am always eager to integrate Christianity with life because doing so is integrating truth with life. There are some areas in which the application of moral truth is clear, even though unpopular or painful. But this is not always the case.
One difficulty with the integration of Christianity and life is that some people expect God to give us all the specific right answers about everything in black and white terms. But life as God created it is not always like that. There are indifferent things and things where, while there are right answers, it is not easy for humans to know or agree on those answers. And it is not always easy to separate the indifferent from the difficult.
Despite the impression I create on issues where the moral law is clear or my opinion is strong, law and politics full of indifferent areas where we are not faced with a choice between moral good and moral evil, but merely a choice. Politics and law are also filled with areas in which there is a right or at least best answer, but it is not easy to know and agree about that answer.
This is why, as C.S. Lewis said in his essay “Is Progress Possible?” that it may not be appropriate to have a Christian political party. Political parties have to take positions on all sorts of difficult and indifferent issues – issues on which Christians can and do disagree. But naming a political party as “Christian” has the unhappy result of implying our positions on indifferent or difficult issues are the only Christian positions when they are not necessarily so at all. I agree this is a real problem. It is also difficult to avoid all mention of faith in politics because it is necessary to rally those who agree on the moral issues and who share a common world view for the others.
In running a law school we have similar difficulties. I can express my own personal views on my blog. But where there is a spectrum of plausibly legitimate opinion among orthodox Bible believing Christians we have to teach the spectrum and the arguments for the different positions, not just the ones we personally think best. We may emphasize the arguments we believe best, but we want students to know that there are different opinions. But then we do not stop there. To learn the law one must understand the opinions of judges who are secular humanists or American Realists just as much as the opinions of Christian jurists. And most issues in law are indifferent matters or arguable matters where we may even agree with some of the faithless against the opinion of some of the faithful, about that matter.
So do not think that sharp opinions questions where the moral law is clear mean that everything is black and white. And do not think that because much of the law is murky, there can be no clarity on issues at all, because so issues are clear under the moral law.
One difficulty with the integration of Christianity and life is that some people expect God to give us all the specific right answers about everything in black and white terms. But life as God created it is not always like that. There are indifferent things and things where, while there are right answers, it is not easy for humans to know or agree on those answers. And it is not always easy to separate the indifferent from the difficult.
Despite the impression I create on issues where the moral law is clear or my opinion is strong, law and politics full of indifferent areas where we are not faced with a choice between moral good and moral evil, but merely a choice. Politics and law are also filled with areas in which there is a right or at least best answer, but it is not easy to know and agree about that answer.
This is why, as C.S. Lewis said in his essay “Is Progress Possible?” that it may not be appropriate to have a Christian political party. Political parties have to take positions on all sorts of difficult and indifferent issues – issues on which Christians can and do disagree. But naming a political party as “Christian” has the unhappy result of implying our positions on indifferent or difficult issues are the only Christian positions when they are not necessarily so at all. I agree this is a real problem. It is also difficult to avoid all mention of faith in politics because it is necessary to rally those who agree on the moral issues and who share a common world view for the others.
In running a law school we have similar difficulties. I can express my own personal views on my blog. But where there is a spectrum of plausibly legitimate opinion among orthodox Bible believing Christians we have to teach the spectrum and the arguments for the different positions, not just the ones we personally think best. We may emphasize the arguments we believe best, but we want students to know that there are different opinions. But then we do not stop there. To learn the law one must understand the opinions of judges who are secular humanists or American Realists just as much as the opinions of Christian jurists. And most issues in law are indifferent matters or arguable matters where we may even agree with some of the faithless against the opinion of some of the faithful, about that matter.
So do not think that sharp opinions questions where the moral law is clear mean that everything is black and white. And do not think that because much of the law is murky, there can be no clarity on issues at all, because so issues are clear under the moral law.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The No-religious Test Cause and the Candidates for President
In the upcoming Republican primary, one of the candidates running is controversial because he is a Mormon. A prominent Christian talk show host, whom I admire and celebrate, has been making an argument that because the Constitution contains a clause against religious tests, no one should vote against Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. While I greatly respect this talk show host and agree with him most of the time, I cannot agree with this argument. Whether or not you think you can vote for Mitt Romney in good conscience, the anti-religious test clause of the Constitution should not really have anything to do with it.
The anti-religious test clause, Article 6, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States, provides: “The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
The no religious test clause or anti-religious test clause was included in the Constitution as a reaction against one of the forms of religious persecution common in Europe between the time of the Reformation and the American founding. This problem was a form of religious discrimination in which people were required to specify that they were members of a particular Christian denomination or group or creed in order to hold public office or undertake actions on behalf of their government. For example, in Catholic countries people were required to be Catholic. In Lutheran countries they were required to be Lutheran. In England they were required to give allegiance to Henry VIII as head of the church. These kinds of clauses were odious to the framers since many of their recent ancestors had left England and other countries in Europe in order to escape exactly such forms of religious persecution or discrimination.
Now let’s compare the question of not voting for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. If anyone suggested that Mormons could not hold offices in the federal government or carry out the public trust, they would be arguing contrary to the no religious test clause. The core meaning of the clause is clearly that no one can be prevented from doing public work or holding public office because they believe or do not believe any particular religious tenets. So, for example, the government of the United States cannot ban Quakers from holding public office. They cannot require all persons enlisting in the military to be Lutherans. The government cannot say that they will only allow public contracts with members of the Church of Religious Science. Senators should not refuse to confirm judges to the court of appeals because they are fundamentalists. This is the obvious meaning of the clause. But this all has to do with the action of the government or the nation as a whole in banning some particular class of people. It has nothing to do with who we vote for or why we vote for them as individuals.
What I think the talk show host would argue in response to my interpretation of the clause is that if we make religion an important matter in political choices like who we vote for for president, we’re violating the spirit of the American system since America is built on the idea that your individual religion is not relevant to your public life. But that argument clearly misunderstands the nature of the American republic and the nature of public office, public trust and campaigns for the positions involved with them. When we vote for someone for office, we are voting for the entire person. We should consider what they believe, what they know, what their skills, gifts, abilities, talents and virtues are. We should also consider the evidence of their particular addictions, vices and shortcomings. I would not vote for anyone for public office who holds beliefs about reality that are absurd or who does not know information necessary to be an effective office holder. For example, I would never vote for anyone who thought that the moon landing had been faked or that the Federal Reserve is really a shadow government that manipulates and controls world events. I would not vote for such people for several reasons. First, their willingness to believe things that are patently absurd means that one cannot trust their judgment about facts. Judgment about facts is constantly necessary in carrying out any government office. What we know about moral principles is of great importance. But what we believe about facts or know about facts is equally important. Everyone agrees that theft is wrong. But is taking someone’s property in order to build a shopping mall that will earn money for the community theft? What people believe about facts and their ability to figure out what the real facts are and how the facts are significant or how moral principles apply to them are all critical. It is also the case that peoples’ attitudes toward their beliefs and knowledge also are indicative about how they will behave in office and under stress. What people believe or don’t believe is also in some way indicative of their intelligence and wisdom. Are they gifted in their ability to learn, understand, communicate and discern? Do they understand the way things really work and see things as they really are? What a person believes shows me a lot about the answers to these questions.
Within the core of what someone believes are their religious beliefs. What someone believes about God, human nature, the origin of the universe, the order of the universe, the source of moral law, the source of rights, why human beings can learn language or learn anything at all, whether there are spiritual forces at work in the world, what factors affect human behavior and decision making, and what factors affect group behavior and decision making, are all of great importance and are all tied to one’s religious faith and belief. If one claims they are not tied to one’s religious faith and belief, that says something very clearly about what that person actually thinks and actually believes. What some Mormons believe about foundational ideas, as individuals, may be laudable. But what the Mormon Church historically has believed is not always Biblical, praiseworthy, or sensible.
It’s entirely possible that Mitt Romney could be the lesser evil of the presidential candidates—that he could be the best person to vote for out of the bunch. But to think that his belief in Mormonism should not be a factor when individuals decide whether or not they as individuals want Romney to be their president is to disregard the important factors. The Mormon religion has definite beliefs about human nature, etc. It has teachings about all of these things. If Mitt Romney believes Mormon teaching and doctrine, then his decision making as president will be affected by those beliefs. Or if he does not really believe Mormon teaching and doctrine, but rather believes in political liberalism and simply chooses to associate himself with Mormonism, or if he believes in materialism and chooses to associate himself with Mormonism, this is no less problematic because it means that Mr. Romney disregards the teachings of religious faith (especially with regard to these issues) and believes instead what materialists or political liberals believe about them.
It is not so much that Romney is a Mormon; rather it is that he is not a Christian. Of course there are many people who call themselves Christians who don’t hold to what Christians ought to believe about human nature, etc. But that says something about them as well, doesn’t it? Ideally, a candidate for president sees the universe as it really is. He understands what people are really like and where moral law comes from and where rights come from. Unless someone has the proper beliefs about these things, they are going to be a worse president than someone who does. If you cannot find anyone who believes the right things about the world (a very sorry situation indeed), then I suppose you have to pick the best or the least bad from among those who remain. But it should not ever be thought that you are doing well or not compromising or not settling for a lesser evil if you have to pick a candidate for political office who doesn’t even have a proper understanding of what it means to be a human being.
Sure, a person who doesn’t have the right beliefs about reality or who isn’t wise or knowledgeable can still agree with you on a checklist of issues. They may still tell you that they are opposed to abortion and favor low taxes and would allow home schooling. But what happens when the situation changes? What happens when the person’s views on the issues come into question? What happens when a new issue comes up that requires a de novo application of fundamental principles to an unconsidered reality? I can tell you exactly what happens. The person who doesn’t believe the right things about reality is very likely to come to the wrong answer about the new issue. A good example is cloning. There are a number of people in political power who have been happy to side with pro-lifers on abortion. But when cloning has come up, because their cosmology and their understanding of human nature and reality is weak, they suddenly do not realize that unborn human beings or human beings conceived in petrie dishes are still human. Instead, they try to rationalize that a human being is determined by its location or its likelihood of survival. To someone who sees the world as it really is, this is not only absurd but frightening. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people who ask ridiculous questions like whether or not clones can have souls. (Of course they do. They wouldn’t be alive if they didn’t have a soul.) In fact, we already had trouble with Mormons and cutting-edge issues. One of the prominent Republican senators, who is a Mormon, on the Judiciary Committee has been helpful on abortion, but extremely unhelpful on embryonic stem cell research because he does not understand these simple fundamental questions.
Mormons don’t agree with orthodox historical Christianity about the fundamental truths about God, morality and reality. In addition, believing in Mormonism is clearly ridiculous. A detailed study of what Mormons believe shows it to be quite incredible in many ways. I understand that many people are Mormons because their ancestors were. I also understand that many people are attracted to Mormonism for cultural reasons because Mormons emphasize family and clean living. There are also some Mormons who don’t really believe in any of the teachings of Mormonism, just as there are some people who call themselves Christians who do not really believe in any of the teachings of the Bible. But regardless of whether or not Mitt Romney is a liberal Mormon or a hereditary Mormon or a cultural Mormon, he has still chosen to continue to associate himself with a religion whose tenets are patently absurd and whose history is highly suspect. I consider that a mark against him in terms of my evaluation of his qualifications to be president of the United States.
I also consider a Mormon’s candidacy for the presidency problematic because if a Mormon becomes president, it will make Mormonism even more mainstream and acceptable than it already is. If Mormonism becomes more culturally acceptable, more people will become Mormons. If more people become Mormons, more people will not be saved. Now while I am a Calvinist and believe that God is ultimately the one responsible for whether people are elect or not elect, I also understand that from a practical human point of view, our choices appear to matter in terms of people being saved or not saved. If we fail to share the Gospel with people, they may not be the elect. If we share the Gospel with people, it is very likely that we will discover that God has elected some of them. If a Mormon becomes president, it will probably turn out to be fewer people elected to the true church in America than would otherwise be the case. So this is another reason why I would be reluctant to vote for Mr. Romney, unless he is clearly the lesser of evils.
All of this is not to say that I like most of the other presidential candidates. Candidates who are atheists, materialists, or who call themselves Christians but who are non-believers can be as problematic. Some of the candidates are not too bright. Some of them have real ego problems. Some are all image and no substance. But isn’t there someone in America who would be a qualified, reasonable, competent president who has good character and who believes in the teachings of orthodox Christianity? If not we will have to vote for the nest candidate we have. That might be Romney or Thompson or someone else. But we really ought to have better choices. But whoever we choose, for individual voters to consider the candidates religious views is not a violation of the no religious clause test.
The anti-religious test clause, Article 6, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States, provides: “The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
The no religious test clause or anti-religious test clause was included in the Constitution as a reaction against one of the forms of religious persecution common in Europe between the time of the Reformation and the American founding. This problem was a form of religious discrimination in which people were required to specify that they were members of a particular Christian denomination or group or creed in order to hold public office or undertake actions on behalf of their government. For example, in Catholic countries people were required to be Catholic. In Lutheran countries they were required to be Lutheran. In England they were required to give allegiance to Henry VIII as head of the church. These kinds of clauses were odious to the framers since many of their recent ancestors had left England and other countries in Europe in order to escape exactly such forms of religious persecution or discrimination.
Now let’s compare the question of not voting for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. If anyone suggested that Mormons could not hold offices in the federal government or carry out the public trust, they would be arguing contrary to the no religious test clause. The core meaning of the clause is clearly that no one can be prevented from doing public work or holding public office because they believe or do not believe any particular religious tenets. So, for example, the government of the United States cannot ban Quakers from holding public office. They cannot require all persons enlisting in the military to be Lutherans. The government cannot say that they will only allow public contracts with members of the Church of Religious Science. Senators should not refuse to confirm judges to the court of appeals because they are fundamentalists. This is the obvious meaning of the clause. But this all has to do with the action of the government or the nation as a whole in banning some particular class of people. It has nothing to do with who we vote for or why we vote for them as individuals.
What I think the talk show host would argue in response to my interpretation of the clause is that if we make religion an important matter in political choices like who we vote for for president, we’re violating the spirit of the American system since America is built on the idea that your individual religion is not relevant to your public life. But that argument clearly misunderstands the nature of the American republic and the nature of public office, public trust and campaigns for the positions involved with them. When we vote for someone for office, we are voting for the entire person. We should consider what they believe, what they know, what their skills, gifts, abilities, talents and virtues are. We should also consider the evidence of their particular addictions, vices and shortcomings. I would not vote for anyone for public office who holds beliefs about reality that are absurd or who does not know information necessary to be an effective office holder. For example, I would never vote for anyone who thought that the moon landing had been faked or that the Federal Reserve is really a shadow government that manipulates and controls world events. I would not vote for such people for several reasons. First, their willingness to believe things that are patently absurd means that one cannot trust their judgment about facts. Judgment about facts is constantly necessary in carrying out any government office. What we know about moral principles is of great importance. But what we believe about facts or know about facts is equally important. Everyone agrees that theft is wrong. But is taking someone’s property in order to build a shopping mall that will earn money for the community theft? What people believe about facts and their ability to figure out what the real facts are and how the facts are significant or how moral principles apply to them are all critical. It is also the case that peoples’ attitudes toward their beliefs and knowledge also are indicative about how they will behave in office and under stress. What people believe or don’t believe is also in some way indicative of their intelligence and wisdom. Are they gifted in their ability to learn, understand, communicate and discern? Do they understand the way things really work and see things as they really are? What a person believes shows me a lot about the answers to these questions.
Within the core of what someone believes are their religious beliefs. What someone believes about God, human nature, the origin of the universe, the order of the universe, the source of moral law, the source of rights, why human beings can learn language or learn anything at all, whether there are spiritual forces at work in the world, what factors affect human behavior and decision making, and what factors affect group behavior and decision making, are all of great importance and are all tied to one’s religious faith and belief. If one claims they are not tied to one’s religious faith and belief, that says something very clearly about what that person actually thinks and actually believes. What some Mormons believe about foundational ideas, as individuals, may be laudable. But what the Mormon Church historically has believed is not always Biblical, praiseworthy, or sensible.
It’s entirely possible that Mitt Romney could be the lesser evil of the presidential candidates—that he could be the best person to vote for out of the bunch. But to think that his belief in Mormonism should not be a factor when individuals decide whether or not they as individuals want Romney to be their president is to disregard the important factors. The Mormon religion has definite beliefs about human nature, etc. It has teachings about all of these things. If Mitt Romney believes Mormon teaching and doctrine, then his decision making as president will be affected by those beliefs. Or if he does not really believe Mormon teaching and doctrine, but rather believes in political liberalism and simply chooses to associate himself with Mormonism, or if he believes in materialism and chooses to associate himself with Mormonism, this is no less problematic because it means that Mr. Romney disregards the teachings of religious faith (especially with regard to these issues) and believes instead what materialists or political liberals believe about them.
It is not so much that Romney is a Mormon; rather it is that he is not a Christian. Of course there are many people who call themselves Christians who don’t hold to what Christians ought to believe about human nature, etc. But that says something about them as well, doesn’t it? Ideally, a candidate for president sees the universe as it really is. He understands what people are really like and where moral law comes from and where rights come from. Unless someone has the proper beliefs about these things, they are going to be a worse president than someone who does. If you cannot find anyone who believes the right things about the world (a very sorry situation indeed), then I suppose you have to pick the best or the least bad from among those who remain. But it should not ever be thought that you are doing well or not compromising or not settling for a lesser evil if you have to pick a candidate for political office who doesn’t even have a proper understanding of what it means to be a human being.
Sure, a person who doesn’t have the right beliefs about reality or who isn’t wise or knowledgeable can still agree with you on a checklist of issues. They may still tell you that they are opposed to abortion and favor low taxes and would allow home schooling. But what happens when the situation changes? What happens when the person’s views on the issues come into question? What happens when a new issue comes up that requires a de novo application of fundamental principles to an unconsidered reality? I can tell you exactly what happens. The person who doesn’t believe the right things about reality is very likely to come to the wrong answer about the new issue. A good example is cloning. There are a number of people in political power who have been happy to side with pro-lifers on abortion. But when cloning has come up, because their cosmology and their understanding of human nature and reality is weak, they suddenly do not realize that unborn human beings or human beings conceived in petrie dishes are still human. Instead, they try to rationalize that a human being is determined by its location or its likelihood of survival. To someone who sees the world as it really is, this is not only absurd but frightening. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people who ask ridiculous questions like whether or not clones can have souls. (Of course they do. They wouldn’t be alive if they didn’t have a soul.) In fact, we already had trouble with Mormons and cutting-edge issues. One of the prominent Republican senators, who is a Mormon, on the Judiciary Committee has been helpful on abortion, but extremely unhelpful on embryonic stem cell research because he does not understand these simple fundamental questions.
Mormons don’t agree with orthodox historical Christianity about the fundamental truths about God, morality and reality. In addition, believing in Mormonism is clearly ridiculous. A detailed study of what Mormons believe shows it to be quite incredible in many ways. I understand that many people are Mormons because their ancestors were. I also understand that many people are attracted to Mormonism for cultural reasons because Mormons emphasize family and clean living. There are also some Mormons who don’t really believe in any of the teachings of Mormonism, just as there are some people who call themselves Christians who do not really believe in any of the teachings of the Bible. But regardless of whether or not Mitt Romney is a liberal Mormon or a hereditary Mormon or a cultural Mormon, he has still chosen to continue to associate himself with a religion whose tenets are patently absurd and whose history is highly suspect. I consider that a mark against him in terms of my evaluation of his qualifications to be president of the United States.
I also consider a Mormon’s candidacy for the presidency problematic because if a Mormon becomes president, it will make Mormonism even more mainstream and acceptable than it already is. If Mormonism becomes more culturally acceptable, more people will become Mormons. If more people become Mormons, more people will not be saved. Now while I am a Calvinist and believe that God is ultimately the one responsible for whether people are elect or not elect, I also understand that from a practical human point of view, our choices appear to matter in terms of people being saved or not saved. If we fail to share the Gospel with people, they may not be the elect. If we share the Gospel with people, it is very likely that we will discover that God has elected some of them. If a Mormon becomes president, it will probably turn out to be fewer people elected to the true church in America than would otherwise be the case. So this is another reason why I would be reluctant to vote for Mr. Romney, unless he is clearly the lesser of evils.
All of this is not to say that I like most of the other presidential candidates. Candidates who are atheists, materialists, or who call themselves Christians but who are non-believers can be as problematic. Some of the candidates are not too bright. Some of them have real ego problems. Some are all image and no substance. But isn’t there someone in America who would be a qualified, reasonable, competent president who has good character and who believes in the teachings of orthodox Christianity? If not we will have to vote for the nest candidate we have. That might be Romney or Thompson or someone else. But we really ought to have better choices. But whoever we choose, for individual voters to consider the candidates religious views is not a violation of the no religious clause test.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Abortion: UK Gives Some Hope
Did you know that in much of “liberal” Europe there are greater restrictions on abortion than in the USA?
For example, in the UK, according to the Evening Standard:
“Abortion is legal in Britain up to nine months if doctors believe the baby has a severe disability or the mother's life is at risk.
But termination for 'social' reasons - the effect of the pregnancy on the mental health and well-being of the mother - is legal up to 24 weeks.”
By contrast, though out nearly all the US abortion is legal for any reason for all nine months. Why can’t we limit the killing of unborn human beings at least as much as the UK when over 70% of Americans are willing to accept such limits?
In another improvement in the UK, the Evening Standard reports many public health service doctors are refusing to perform abortions on ethical grounds. The government has been forced to hire increasing numbers of private doctors to meet the tragic demand for abortion. But the trend among doctors shows that conscience is still alive, even in the UK.
For example, in the UK, according to the Evening Standard:
“Abortion is legal in Britain up to nine months if doctors believe the baby has a severe disability or the mother's life is at risk.
But termination for 'social' reasons - the effect of the pregnancy on the mental health and well-being of the mother - is legal up to 24 weeks.”
By contrast, though out nearly all the US abortion is legal for any reason for all nine months. Why can’t we limit the killing of unborn human beings at least as much as the UK when over 70% of Americans are willing to accept such limits?
In another improvement in the UK, the Evening Standard reports many public health service doctors are refusing to perform abortions on ethical grounds. The government has been forced to hire increasing numbers of private doctors to meet the tragic demand for abortion. But the trend among doctors shows that conscience is still alive, even in the UK.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
California Mischief
The California legislature seems to do little but get into mischief. Current bills under consideration include AB 374, titled the “California Compassionate Choices Act,” which authorizes physician-assisted suicide. There is also legislation to legalize homosexual marriage (AB 43), create additional rights for homosexuals (AB 14 and SB 777), restrict parents’ right to discipline children (AB 755) and allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses (SB 60). Hat tip to Pacific Justice Institute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
