As I get started on this series about foundational beliefs and their importance to our lives as individuals in the United States and in society, I would like you to consider a very important word from George Washington:
"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
In light of atheists telling me for years that you don’t need God to be good or that people can be good without God, it looks like even George Washington would disagree with those ideas. I would encourage you to ask yourself the following questions. If there is no Creator God who set natural law into order, who makes up the rules for living? If it is a person, how do they know what “good” really is without a set foundation already instituted?
Unfortunately, too many people today seem to be trying to come up with new, good, and right morals based on what they think is good and right. Many times, these people think they are “flying” with this new idea, when in reality they are doing nothing more than “standing on the shoulders” and ideals of God Almighty in order to come up with something that sounds good, right, and true. For instance, a person can say that stealing is wrong and in the same breath say there is no god and try to link those two ideas together, when in reality one was instituted by Almighty God and the other is just an idea of man.
I find it incredible that we see the evidence of design and intelligence all around us in nature, yet people deny the existence of a Creator, especially if it is in regard to Almighty God of the Bible as the Creator. We see this happening all over social media today where people who claim to be atheists will stand up for false teachings in other religions besides Christianity, but when it come to the God of the Bible or Christianity, in their minds this just cannot be accepted. It is just one of the reasons why, in some people’s minds, the foundational beliefs of our nation need to be replaced with something else, when all the while what really needs to happen is a return back to what we were founded upon.
As I conclude this week’s writing, please once again consider Ecclesiastes 1:9: “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
“God is not nature, and nature is not God.” -Gregory Koukl
In Christianity, you do not respect nature, for nature is not a person; you respect the Creator and therefore you do not trash His creation. This is Koukl’s great summary of the relationship of human beings to the earth.
With creation care, we come full circle in our hierarchy of ethical concerns, because care for creation is woven by God into the very fabric of our nature. It is part of our identity as persons made in the image of God, which a careful reader will recognize as the first item in our hierarchy.
In the very first chapter of the Bible, God gives man a job to care for the creation. “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:26-27).
Nevertheless, the chapter does not end with us as workers, but as worshippers. God institutes the Sabbath day of rest for us to worship God. Worshiping God is primary. God is not creation; therefore, we do not worship it. We do not worship Gaia, mother Earth. God is not the sum of His creation. He is over it, outside of it, and yet enters into it by choice. He does not need it, but it depends upon Him every nanosecond for its continuation. Human beings have a job to do, but that is not our highest pursuit. We are worshipers, primarily. Always above our work and our duties is our relationship with God—that is the main thing (Psalm 27:4).
To be sure, our relationships toward God, fellow humans, and the creation itself have been fatefully marred by the Fall. The Fall made our work much more difficult, for example it caused pain in childbirth for women and sweat and weeds for men (Genesis 3:16-19). Therefore, our descent into rebellion has placed incredible strain also on the created order. Romans 8:20 states, “For the creation was subjected to frustration…”
Human beings have been scrambling for power, dominance, and control ever since that rebellion. The Bible contains a tragic and bloody history—though the truthful one. Creation itself has been co-opted in humanity’s gory gambit for power. Everything that fallen man has dominance over suffers as a result of the fall. Look around, don’t you see the evidence of that?
John Stott reminded Christians of care for the creation in his last book before departing from this life, The Radical Disciple. He shares these twin insights: 1, that the Bible firmly declares that the “earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it” (Psalm 24:1-2), while at the same time that 2, “The highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind” (Psalm 115:16).
Stott says that “the earth belongs to God by creation and to us by delegation.” This is another way of saying that the earth belongs under the stewardship of mankind. Human beings do not own the earth; we are merely entrusted with its stewardship. This is not unlike the way a parent owns the home, but gives a room to the child. It is considered his or her room, but obviously he or she does not own it.
Christians believe that Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God and began a recreation of the world and all who live in it, which will be consummated at the final judgment and subsequent making of a new heaven and new earth.
This means that in Christ’s salvation of humankind, He will also remake the earth and its beings too. But it also means that part of our work in the spread of the Gospel and the Kingdom of Jesus is to cooperate with God in his remaking of all the aspects of creation as far as possible. If we can cure a disease, by all means, let’s cure it. If we can change societal structures to make them secure life, liberty, and property, then let’s enact those changes.
Constant reader, we have entered into a partnership with God in creation care; it is our job, but it is not our purpose. Our purpose is to worship God. But part of the way we worship God is to do our job well.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
Christian solidarity seeks racial harmony, justice for individuals, equality of opportunity, and respect for all persons because they are made in the image of God.
Racial harmony occurs when we recognize our essential sameness. The human race is the only race. The differences in hair, eye, and skin color are only genetic traits and have nothing to do with humanity. From a Biblical perspective, humanity is universally fallen because of the failures of our common ancestor Adam (see Romans 5:12-14). This has affected every aspect of all human beings.
Harmony is further found in those who believe in Christ because of our adoption into a new family—the family of God. “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs — heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:16-17). We are saved from the death that Adam brought into this world through rebirth into God’s family: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). Therefore, Christians have a higher identity than our worldly nationality. Truly, we are dual citizens of heaven and earth at the same time, but our ultimate loyalty is to the Kingdom of God.
That is why the emperors of Rome killed our ancestors. We would not recognize Caesar as the highest authority. The worshipful phrase “Jesus Christ is Lord” became an act of sedition. People of every nation, tribe, and tongue were thrown to lions, lit on fire, or murdered in other equally creative ways because of their confession of Christ.
We are a multi-cultural, multi-lingual family; but, we are a real family. The more I personally identify with the reality that God has transformed me to the very core, the more solidarity I will experience with those who have also been transformed by the saving power of God, regardless of differences in surface traits (see Ephesians 2:1-10).
Contrast all this with Marxist ideology. Marxism seeks to divide people in as many ways as possible so that there will be revolution. Men versus women, rich versus poor, black versus white, or whatever other distinction can be made to divide people. Then these distinctions of race, class, and gender are transformed into one’s identity. Those who follow this theory of identity typically believe that these distinctions create an almost impenetrable barrier of misunderstanding.
This means that identity is a function of which group you belong to, not a function of who you are as an individual. In current Marxist philosophy, I cannot escape the point of view that comes from being in whatever race, class, gender groups I find myself. As a white male, I am inseparably part of the patriarchy and if I am damaged as an individual as other groups who have been historically treated unjustly, that is just too bad for me. Social justice for groups is more important in Marxist ideology that whether one individual gets trampled now and then.
Social justice is an attempt to secure justice for groups of people rather than for individuals, which stands in utter contrast to both historical Western thought and Christianity, its forbear. It seeks to create an absolute equality for everyone, even if that means everyone is equally poor and miserable. European reform movements sought to bring the aristocracy down to the common level so that they could all be the same. The English, but especially American, tradition sought to do the opposite. It sought to elevate even the most common to the same status as the aristocracy by recognizing individual rights. In a Christian worldview, rights are not observed because one belongs to a certain social group, but because of the inherent value of the human being who is made in the image of God. Justice is universally applicable to all persons, regardless of class, gender, or race.
That is not to say that injustice cannot be institutionalized, because it obviously has been with slavery being the most notable example, but it occurs wherever one group of people dehumanize (or deindividualize) another group.
The solution is still to guarantee life, liberty, and property to individuals, because to do otherwise means that the rights of groups must trump the rights of individuals, which is how the original injustice was created in the first place. Take one look at the history of the Soviet Socialist Republic and you will see that the subordination of the individual to the all-important needs of the State created the most twisted human rights abuses ever known. The same could be said for Maoist China and Nazi Germany—the common denominator is their ideology can be traced to Marx.
Marxist ideology does not protect individuals. It creates injustice by vengeance. If there is an undervalued group in society, Marxism exploits that rift by enflaming the underdog with revolution. It says we must destroy the oppressor. No individual belonging to the oppressor group can possibly be innocent because they were born into a different race, class, or gender.
Ernest Hemingway was a socialist himself, perhaps not red, but certainly pink. His novel For Whom the Bell Tolls is sympathetic to the Spanish Communist movement. But even he notes that injustice was done when the communists began killing off those in society they determined were the “haves.” Some of the good townspeople and shopkeepers were slaughtered because they were members of a higher class. Hemingway seemed to be torn by this injustice, but the characters in the book felt is was necessary to make their revolution pure.
The reality is that wherever Marxism is believed, injustice certainly follows. This is an intolerable evil. As the venerable Thomas Sowell once remarked, “The grand fallacy of the political left is that evil is localized in some set of ‘oppressors’ from whom we can be ‘liberated.’ That is also its great attraction, for it allows people to attribute their dissatisfactions to other people.” Unfortunately, an ideology built on theft and revenge will always produce murder and injustice.
Are we doomed then? Is there any alternative? Yes! The Bible teaches personal responsibility, value, and equal protection of individuals. Justice is secured for every individual regardless of whatever group he or she may be perceived to belong to. This is the great idea behind Harper Lee’s book To Kill a Mockingbird. Even though Tom Robinson was a poor, black field hand, he deserved justice because he was a human being, made in the image of God. Atticus Finch was honor bound to protect him because injustice to Tom was injustice to us all.
To be sure, injustice can be institutionalized and the world has never been without ready examples at hand. Nevertheless, we combat institutionalized injustice by guaranteeing justice for individuals, not groups. Furthermore, we cannot provide equality of results, only equality of opportunity. Imagine how powerful the State must become to guarantee equality of results? This is exactly the legacy of the USSR and all of the civil rights abuses—millions dead, enormous human tragedy, and people enslaved for nearly a century. Open your eyes, America; this horror-show is knocking at our door.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
“Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need.” -Ephesians 4:28
I have written extensively concerning care for the poor (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and of course, here). The reason that care for the poor must follow after a robust theology of work is that it is from private earnings that voluntary donations are made to care for the poor. To put it another way, one must work and then have something to share. Relief for the poor must be voluntary, not coerced, or it is not truly generosity. Capitalism has improved the lives of almost everyone on the planet.
In the early church, Christians were selling their lands and goods in order to share with other Christians in need (see Acts 2:45). All of this was voluntary, motivated by love and compassion. The early church continued in this way, holding their own possessions loosely and with an eye on the needs of the Christian community as a whole. Christians would “from time to time” sell a piece of land and give the proceeds to the church to distribute unto the needs of the church at large (see Acts 4:32-37).
Nothing in the text suggests that anyone was forced to do this, but that it was the overflow of generous hearts grateful to be saved by Christ. Then we read of Ananias and Sapphira who also sold a piece of land and brought some of the money to the Apostles. They lied about how much the sale was because they wanted to appear to be generous while still retaining some of the money. No problem would have arisen from this situation if they had not lied. Peter said to them, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?” (Acts 5:3-4).
I write all this to illustrate the point that care for the poor arises out of the fruits of productive labor; furthermore, it must remain voluntary for it to be an act of charity. If I threaten to clobber you over the head with a caveman’s club if you do not give me your money, it makes little difference what I do with the money afterward even if I give it to my poor friend so he can buy noodles. One can never call coerced transactions charitable. They are extractions or extortions, but never an act of generosity.
That being said, Christ has saved my life and therefore, I owe Him my life as a debt. He has become my Lord and Master because I have submitted to His lordship over me. He is my king. Jesus is an absolute monarch, but He is so very benevolent that His “yoke is light,” especially in comparison to the slavery to sin from which He set me free. Therefore, whatever demands Jesus might make on me, I am honor-bound to comply.
Jesus once told a rich young man to sell everything and follow Him (see Mark 10:17-31). This young man was too possessed of his possessions; they held mastery over him. “No one can serve two masters,” Jesus said (Luke 16:13, Matthew 6:24). For this young man to follow Jesus and thereby receive eternal life, he had to lose a master to gain a master. He chose to serve the master of money and damned his eternal soul. Jesus can make any demand on me that He chooses, and I must comply. But only Jesus has this power over me. I have other obligations, to love my wife, to obey civil authority, to worship with the church every Sunday and more, to tithe, to read my Bible, etc., but all of these duties and obligations arise from my acceptance of the Lordship of Christ.
It is from the Lordship of Christ that I take seriously the command to care for the poor. Unless I become convinced that some specific action is required of me, I am able to decide how best to go about making provision for the poor. To put it another way, I might feel in my heart certain compassion for someone and take that as communication from the Holy Spirit to do something specific. I am then responsible to do so.
I recall on one occasion, I felt that God wanted me to give a missionary $50, but I only had $30 at the time (I was still a broke teenager). I shrugged off the suggestion since I obviously didn’t have the money, I plucked a book from my shelf and a $20 dollar bill fell to the floor. I do not believe it was supernaturally minted, but rather that I had long forgotten that it was there. The timing of the circumstances made a lasting impression on me to always respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
Even if I do not sense supernatural guidance, however, I still have an obligation to care for the needs of the poor—especially those who are in the household of believers (see Galatians 6:10). I am able to use my reason to make solid lasting plans to not only meet the short-term needs of the poor, but also their long-term needs. We must teach the poor how to care for themselves. In so doing, we transform a negative situation into a positive one. I have always found joy from seeing someone on welfare subsidies come to Christ and be discipled in the proper use of money. To watch them no longer need welfare and to become a productive person who is then a giver to others and a supporter of the church is a tremendous blessing.
In our care for the poor, we must constantly guard ourselves from two conditions: apathy and creating dependency. Apathy is not caring enough about the condition of the poor to make a difference in their lives. Creating a condition of dependency is scandalous. Giving someone cash is almost always a way to create a dependent. Meeting a specific need is better: paying their heating bill, buying a bag of groceries, etc. The potential to misuse cash is too high. I am not talking only about someone using it for booze, gambling, or drugs, although that is a possibility, and in our society these are the main causes of poverty.
Sometimes poverty comes from just not knowing how to manage money or the proper value of things. Once, I helped a man get out of jail on the condition that he would get a job and remain in a counseling relationship with me. He did get a job, and the first paycheck he ever had was entirely blown on the stupidest things. I recall that he bought three ball point writing pens for $45. I explained that he had higher needs than expensive writing pens and that he should return them to the store. “I need some good pens,” was his stubborn reply. Of course, it was his money. But giving him more of it was not his greatest need, obviously.
Constant reader, avoid apathy and create no conditions for scandal. Be smart in your giving and always give as unto the Lord. Tithe, support the mission of the church, and get advice. And, if you see that your helping is actually hurting, please change your strategy.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
“My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” -John 5:17
Socialism kills. Socialism equals starvation. Europeans have forgotten that painful lesson which they seem destined to relearn. South America has been suffering from the socialism disease and Marxist theology for decades—it is a sickness unto death unless they wake up to Biblical theology. America has been flirting with socialism since FDR, but her immune system has been compromised by crony capitalism for so long she has almost no resistance to the socialist plague.
It seems appropriate to directly confront socialism in this introduction to the element of work in social ethics, because private property is directly essential to any theology of work. The Marxist revolution in Europe preaches that the fruit of all labor belongs to everyone (and usually superintended by the state). However, when people cannot keep the fruit of their own labor, they tend not to work as hard. Lack of productivity is a perennial pestilence. The United Soviet Socialist Republic attempted to solve this problem through forced labor. It was a disgraceful way to treat their fellow human beings.
This is not the American legacy. Socialism was first tried in America in 1607 in the Jamestown colony. The bulk of the persons who settled the area were considered indentured servants and their labors were considered public property. People seem to always want to live on the labor of other men. However, the settlers did not work very hard since they were not allowed to eat the fruit of their own labor. The colonists forgot the Biblical admonition, “Do not muzzle the ox while he treads out the grain, and the worker deserves his wages” (1 Timothy 5:18).
The result was starvation. Even though the land was incredibly fertile and fruit and game abounded, they were starving. David Boaz chronicles the “starving time” and the fact that the institution of private property changed all of that in his blog for the Cato Institute here.
The point is that the reward of labor belongs to the laborer. This countermands slavery, obviously, but it also countermands socialism. Also, if a person chooses to sell his labor for whatever price he can get, that is between himself and whomever agrees to buy the labor. If the buyer of labor (employer) profits exceedingly from the labor he purchased, that is perfectly acceptable. Perhaps the one selling his own labor will realize the true value of his labor and only agree to sell more of it at a higher price. That is also perfectly acceptable. Underneath either of these voluntary agreements is the foundational notion that I own my own labor.
The fruit of work consists in three states: past, present, and future. Past labor has achieved my current position, whether good or bad. Past laziness results in present lack; past diligence in present abundance. To swoop in and lay claim to my property (money, land, goods) is to steal my past. To enslave me and force me to work or lay claim to my current labor in any way is to steal my present, that is to steal my liberty. To steal my life is obviously to steal my future. Life, liberty, and property are inseparable. For a further development of this idea please read this.
Work and reward are inseparable. That is why I have so often said that socialism cannot be Christian, because it assumes that society has the ultimate rights of property, not the individual who actually does the work. I would hasten to add that if you sell your labor, you agree to work for a wage. If you provide labor to build, say, a dam, you don’t own the dam—you own the money that was traded for your labor. Makes sense, right?
“If you don’t work, you don’t eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). The results of your work or lack thereof are your own. If you fail to sow, you shall also fail to reap. The nobility of Europe developed the idea that work was an aspect of the Fall. But work was not a part of the Fall, nor was it the result of the curse. Toil was part of the curse, but not work. Adam worked before the fall (Genesis 2:15). He named all the animals if you recall (Genesis 2:19).
Work is an essential part of what it means to be fully human. God gave us the mandate to tend the earth. Profitable, rewarding work is part of our DNA as human beings. When God remakes the heavens and the earth, He will remove the toil from our work, but he will not remove work from our lives—thank goodness. Can you imagine an eternity of sitting on clouds playing a harp? I want to explore the universe and terraform planets. How about you? What will you want to do for all eternity? What will be your work?
This is a brief introduction to the category of work in a comprehensive social ethic. If you are familiar with Catholic Social Teaching, you will realize that I inverted the order of work and care for the poor because our ability to care for the poor arises out of our work ethic and we feed others from the fruit of our own labor. We don’t steal the productivity of others to give to the poor. We give to them from our own productivity as we feel led. We don’t feed the lazy—but we care for the unfortunate. Till next week—fair well. Do good work. Eat, drink, and be merry.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
The world in its infancy knew only one God. He created and ordered the world and all was very good. He walked the earth and everything hummed with worship. But the sky darkened with the devil’s lie, and Adam believed that he too could be a god (Genesis 3:5). Man reached for the forbidden fruit, sunk in his teeth, heard the snap of its flesh giving way, and he swallowed it—hook, line, and sinker. Since that very moment there have been two authorities at odds: God and man, theism versus humanism, God’s rightful authority versus humanity’s usurpatious designs.
No matter how many layers of complexity and nuance one adds to this simple description, it remains basically accurate. The discrepancies in the public arena are exacerbated by the differences in these two foundations. If one believes in God, they will look to Him for objective truth and revelation about the human condition. If one believes that there is no God or that he is completely uninvolved in human affairs, they will conclude that we are on our own and any solutions to the human condition are going to have to come from us. Plainly, these competing religious postures have political implications.
Politics and religion will always intertwine. Humanism is a religion (no matter how much atheists claim it isn’t) in that it is a system of belief that requires a philosophical posture. Religious or irreligious categories inescapably bleed into the public square. Certainly, religious believers can assert that politicians must be honest because the Bible says so. Do believers have to concoct some secular reason to justify truth-telling? What if such secular reasoning is not strong enough to compel individuals (or politicians) to tell the truth?
As Neuhaus has argued, public life must be informed by some set of ethics. Humanistic ethics are always only a social convention. They are ultimately grounded in the opinion of human beings. Nazis believed Jew-hating to be a virtue, and they were voted into power—legally. They legislated their version of morality. Were they wrong? Of course, they were! But they are only shown to be wrong when judged by objective Christian standards.
The concept of “contemporary morality,” is in vogue. The idea that all morality is a social convention erases any idea of objective moral standards. Social ethics grounded in secular humanism will always be subjective. Better hope your personally preferred party stays in power by whatever means necessary or you could be in serious trouble.
By removing religion from the public square, there is no longer anything transcendent to prevent politics from becoming a god unto itself. Not only does this destroy religious expression, but it also destroys politics because nothing higher than political power is believed to exist. What should be a marketplace of ideas becomes a mob war of various parties vying for a monopoly share of government. All that remains is an oligarchy of nihilists – politics descends to rats in a cage, devouring and being devoured.
The political elite grasp for power and then jealously retain it. George Orwell wrote constantly about the temptations the State has toward totalitarianism. In his novel 1984, Orwell explains State power grabbing with the admissions of its main statist representative, O’Brian. O’Brian says, “Always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever."
Christianity, in contrast, is grounded on the objective revelation of God’s character as revealed in the Bible. Nefarious men have used the institutions of Christianity to further personal power, but these goals are illegitimate and not properly Christian. Jesus did not grab for power; He did not allow Satan to gain the world for Him in trade (Matthew 4:8-10). Rather, Jesus surrendered His life as a ransom. God saves those who believe Him and judges those who reject His rightful place of authority.
The terms of God’s covenant remain unchanged yesterday, today, and forever: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). This is as unalterable as the foundations of the universe, as immutable as 5+2=7. Man, for his part, continues to deify himself. He rises, shakes his fist toward heaven and utters in Milton’s famous words (Paradise Lost, lines 105-111):
All is not lost; the unconquerable Will,
And study of revenge, immortal hate,
And courage never to submit or yield:
And what is else not to be overcome?
That Glory never shall his wrath or might Extort from me.”
Man exults in his own rebellious power. He does not have authority to contradict the creator, yet he has the ability, for now, to do much as he pleases. What pleases human beings is to play at being God. Psalm 2:1-6 says:
The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together
against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
‘Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles.’
The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.
He rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
‘I have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain.’”
The foundation of a virtuous public square then must be based on God’s unchanging character. When good behavior and action becomes habitual, it becomes character. Habituated good character is virtue. In the social confusion beginning in the wake of WWI, Western society began to reject character as the most important possession of an individual and especially politicians. Performance ousted character as primary. Today, it seems easily accepted that the personal character of politicians (Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, for example) can be deeply flawed, and yet they are elected because Americans care mostly about results.
In a results-oriented schema, the divide between the humanist and the theist becomes even more grossly conspicuous. Since Jesus Christ orders the universe (even though creation is at odds with him at this moment) and the basis of virtue is God’s character, let us hold ourselves and those who supposedly represent us to that high standard. There can be no greatness without character.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
A proper hierarchy of social ethics must rank the institution of family second, immediately after the Imago Dei (Image of God). The family is the first institution created by God. Moreover, it is the institution closest to the individual. God seems to have ordered society with three different spheres of authority: family, church, and state. The Bible says, “The authorities that exist have been established by God” (Romans 13:1). He gives each sphere a different responsibility and authority to execute that responsibility.
For example, He gives the state the responsibility to “punish the wrongdoer” and “commend those who do right” (Romans 13:4, 1 Peter 2:14). The idea is that God is sovereign over even pagan rulers, and He uses them for His ultimate purposes even when they abuse their power. This does not mean that God endorses whatever civil authorities do, but that He uses them. Growth of state power tends to outstrip its actual authority, and that is when it is appropriate to resist tyranny and to civilly disobey. But even in our civil disobedience, we should also recognize the transcendent authority of God behind even bad leaders, which will ultimately all be brought down when Christ sets up His kingdom and authority over all the earth (Daniel 2:34-35). To execute these responsibilities, God gives the state a sword (Romans 13:4).
The church is another sovereign authority established by God. The Apostle Paul charged the elders of the church of Ephesus to “keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). Hence, elders are to keep watch over the people in the church. The Bible also tells Christians to “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you” (Hebrews 13:17). To execute this responsibility, the elders of the church have the authority to expel someone from the church if they refuse to repent.
The family is structured similarly. God has instituted it as a sovereign sphere of authority. The fifth commandment is “Honor your father and mother” (Exodus 20:12). God has instituted the family as an authority directly, as neither an arm of the state nor as an arm of the church. The family constitutes its own sphere: “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:3).
God has placed within most people a deep love and concern for their children’s well-being. They are literally an extension of husband and wife into the future. The tools that God gives to parents to execute their responsibilities are love and discipline. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right” (Ephesians 6:1).
Bind them always on your heart; fasten them around your neck.
When you walk, they will guide you; when you sleep, they will watch over you;
when you awake, they will speak to you.
For this command is a lamp, this teaching is a light,
and correction and instruction
are the way to life.”
(Proverbs 6:20-23)
Some overlap exists between these spheres, but each must retain their God-given boundaries and responsibilities. The family is the most vulnerable of the three and therefore needs special protection. The state will always protect itself and expand its power as it has in every society since the beginning.
We see the Leviathan of State assuming authority and control over every area of our lives today. It does not submit to God and therefore acknowledges no boundaries. It is destroying the law in every area, but especially attacking the family. Progressive economic policies have destroyed the middle class all through the 20th century even until the very moment I write this. Marriage law, divorce law, homosexual “marriage,” child protective services, adoption law, government schools, etc. are vastly stripping away the ability of the family to function as God intended.
In this short introductory blog post, I can only point out the parameters without filling in much detail. However, the main area where the family has sole authority is in the education of the children. The church is the main ally of the family, and can help with instruction; however, the parents are responsible before God for the education and discipline of child-raising.
In Deuteronomy 6:4-7, God makes a covenant with the family. He gives to parents the responsibility to teach that covenant to the next generation. God owns the children! He has established the family for their care and education. Read more about that here, here, and here.
Sphere sovereignty is the basic form of American government and life. It is the basic view of Christians. But because we have drifted so far from God and His Bible, the state has assumed for itself the role of god in our lives. But that is next week’s blog post. Blessings, constant reader.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
Human beings are made in the image of God, the Bible teaches. This means that the essential identity of humanity is wrapped up with the identity of God. Human beings are not identical to God, but they are made in his likeness or image.
To begin to unravel the mystery of who human beings are, we must begin with God our creator. Those who spelunk the depths of God’s nature are theologians. We should not be surprised that they emerge with the first nuggets of who human beings ought to be based on their discovery of the nature of God’s being.
God is a creative God and we have the same trait. He has a free will and ours, too, is mostly free. He is loving, kind, holy, and just. We have the capacity for all those things, though they are marred by the rebellion which led to the Fall. Yet, the residue of the image of God remains. Everyone wants justice, beauty, love, truth, and goodness, though many different conceptions of these elements are debated. Christians accept the Bible as the authoritative revelation of God and allow it to determine transcendent value.
The Bible asserts that God is a person. In fact, God exists in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Personhood is inseparable to the nature of God and is essential to the nature of human beings as well. Each human being, from the moment of conception, has personhood and therefore value. Christianity provides a philosophical basis for universal human value.
This underscores the necessity of a comprehensive social ethic based on the truth of the Bible. When a nation mutes the church and strips society of its religious identity, the result is what Richard John Neuhaus described as the naked public square. Secularism cannot provide the necessary philosophical basis, because without God to ground values everything becomes arbitrary. Society is doomed to define humanity from an subjective framework. History is littered with failed attempts to build a universal system on a subjective frame.
Many view this liberation from a prescribed identity as a unique freedom. Nietzsche did. This was the idea behind his famous “God is dead” statement. He meant that when society realizes that there is no God, it has a terrible freedom to create its own identity. Read more about that here. But the result is that ordered society or civilization devolves into a “king of the hill” competition, since everyone must win power in order to ensure her own value against the claims of her neighbor. Obviously, this creates exploitation and a mercenary spirit in society. Have we seen this today?
The Imago Dei means that every human being is absolutely identical in terms of value and rights. The unborn have rights as well as the elderly. Persons living in remote jungles have just as much value as the denizens of Manhattan high rises. As the signers of the Declaration of Independence believed, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The founders were wise in that they recognized that the Creator was the necessary foundation of civilization. They did not universally apply this truth, but they did recognize it as the only legitimate foundation of civil society.
Personhood is the measure of value, not utility to the government, not whether the individual is an enemy of the state, not patriotism. Value is measurable not in material wealth or physical or mental ability, but in the intrinsic value of personhood. This truth precludes slavery, abortion, or second-class citizenry. It precludes lying, cheating, stealing, murder, and other dirty doings.
At the founding of the United States, an exemption to the universal and unalienable rights of individuals was sought by slave holding states. They denied that certain persons were actually persons. Some thought slaves were 3/5 of a person, or an animal with no soul at all. These unbiblical ideologies were used as an ad hoc justification of slavery. The civil government was then pressed to codify the non-personhood of slaves, which they did.
But Christians trying to apply the Bible to society held that slavery was intolerable both to the Bible and to the foundation of constitutional personhood. The 3/5ths view was untenable by any standard. Slavery denied the essential humanity and personhood of the individual. Persons unable to be owned by other persons seems a self-evident truth as the founders declared. As we should all be aware, dehumanization leads to exploitation.
Today, we have a similar crisis. Abortion advocates deny the personhood of the unborn and they collude with government to reinforce this notion through law. Roe v. Wade swept aside hundreds of years of common law as it attempted to create a right where no right previously existed. It is ironic that today Supreme Court justices are asked to enshrine Roe as settled law and to not sweep away 45 years of legal thought when they discounted hundreds of years of legal precedent. Hypocrites!
When will Christians stop allowing the notion that the government can decide who is protected as a person and who is not? The public square cannot long remain naked. It will be clothed with meaning and values—if not Christian meaning and values, then those of whomever has the power to enforce their values on the rest of us. Either we adopt the arbitrary values of human construction or we adopt the universal revelation of a good God. Of course, this hinges on whether a person recognizes that God is truly there.
Depose God and society scrambles for an identity and basis of value and meaning. All other elements of a social ethic disintegrate. Therefore, the Imago Dei must hold the first position in an hierarchy of social ethics. Christian values transcend those of human government. There is a higher and nobler court of appeal than fallen humans can create.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
Recently a friend of mine who is influential in Christian higher education told me that he did not want to talk anymore about homosexuality because it only distracted from the conversation about racism. He said it as a way to stifle further inquiry into his opinions, but I was left wondering why we couldn’t consider more than one social stance at the same time. Is there a hierarchy of ethical concerns?
Christians have been thinking about social ethics for a long time, and many of the conclusions are compelling. Evangelicals have been sleeping a dispensational slumber, and consequently we are weak in social ethics. Leftist “Christians” have been dominating the conversation while we slept and are now reluctant to allow Evangelicals a voice.
For the better half of the 20th century, with notable exceptions, Evangelicals were not very involved in politics and seemed to be largely uninvolved in worldly affairs. They expected Jesus to return any moment but certainly by 1988, one generation after the nation of Israel was reinstituted.
Dispensationalism was holding its drunken sway over Evangelical theology and it would take time and tears to disimbibe. When Evangelicals finally did wake up to the fact that we have to be involved in the affairs of the world because Jesus commanded us to “let our shine before humankind” (Matthew 5:15-16), they didn’t know where to start. Truly, Evangelicals are still a bit groggy and the leftists are not happy that so many conservatives have entered politics.
It is naive to believe that we can pick one social project at a time. Social thought bounces everywhere all the time and Christians must have a comprehensive answer to all these questions. We simply don’t have the luxury of asking cultural problems to form a tidy, single-file line. Current cultural thought is a mob situation and we have to shout louder than everyone else to be heard.
With that in mind, constant reader, I have compiled a hierarchical list of Christian social ethics drawn from several sources which I submit for your consideration. Over the next several weeks I will write on each with more detail.
1. Imago Dei, the Image of God. “Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness… So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:26-27). Also consider Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.” The image of God is the essential identity of human beings. We are persons with souls, embodied souls. The Imago Dei has profound implications for social issues. Slavery is wrong, for instance, because all humans are made in the image of God equally and therefore have inalienable value and rights. Abortion is wrong because a human being, no matter in what stage of development, is a person and therefore no one, including the mother, father, or government, has the right to kill that person.
2. Family. The next main institution is the family and it must be protected above all the other institutions. It is not the only institution needing protection, but it is one of the most vulnerable. The social implications are that the Bible teaches us how to live our lives; fatherhood, motherhood, gender, marriage, child-raising, sexuality, etc. all spring from Biblical teaching and a commitment to family.
3. Virtue in the Public Square. Public life must be informed by Christianity. By removing religion from the public square, there is no longer anything transcendent to prevent politics from becoming a god unto itself. Not only does it destroy religious expression, but it also destroys politics because nothing higher than political power is allowed to exist. All that remains is an oligarchy of nihilists.
4. Theology of Work. The Bible gives us the essential elements of economics. Also, God gives Himself as our example of productive work. He is working productively, therefore, so must human beings.
5. Care for the Poor. Care for the poor comes after the theology of work because our ability and responsibility comes from sharing the results our productive labor. Everyone has a responsibility to work, but where that is impossible the Bible gives instructions on how to care for the poor.
6. Solidarity. In Christ there are no racial distinctions and God has called us to racial solidarity. We must identify with our brothers and sisters in Christ no matter their genetic traits. We stand with Christians everywhere. “If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together” (1 Corinthians 12:26). Christian love is to be an example to the entire world on how race relations should work.
7. Creation Care. Christians do not worship the earth, but we don’t own it either. Part of our essential obligation to God is to tend the earth and use it responsibly. The earth is not more important than human beings, but it is our essential environment. At the base of God’s commands to all humans is to act responsibly toward creation. Our bodies are from the earth and rely on the earth.
Here then is a short introduction toward a comprehensive Christian social ethic. Most of us won’t have a problem with the list, perhaps the order, but it is how we approach each item that causes much of the fighting. Let us attempt a rational and loving discussion of each item.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
