I must admit that my heart has been heavy the last few days. I spent the two days before the House vote on the health care bill reading the reconcilliation and amendments package. I spent the two days after the vote continuing to read and gaining as much clarity as I could to what has now been voted into law. Yesterday and today I have been reading through my favorite blogs and listening to a variety of talk shows and reading the local paper for how people are reacting to the legislation and I find myself torn on how to respond. I see that both sides of the argument have some legitimate concerns (where the people expressing their views on the legislation are legitimate in their arguments).
On the one side, people are concerned about how difficult it is for individuals to purchase health insurance for themselves or their families; how it is difficult for small businesses to offer company-wide health plans for their employees because they cannot buy into the larger market plans; how pre-existing conditions and the current state of rising health care costs are a major area of concern for the general public.
On the other side, people are concerned about how liberty is being usurped by the legal requirement that individuals must purchase a product from a private entity; how small businesses are being required to provide company health plans under threat of fine or penalty; how the experience of history shows wide ranging social plans administered by the government have all ended up bankrupt and the economic factors suggest the plan is doomed to failure before it begins.
As one who has done his best to read and understand the bill as it currently stands, I believe in many areas there is not enough information to adequately argue one way or the other. A few examples:
1) The contention has been made that if individuals like their current coverage they can keep it. Opponents say the bill will make it impossible for individuals to afford to keep their current coverage whether they like it or not. In the text of the bill, all health care coverage carried by individuals and offered by employers must be Qualified Health Benefit Plans (QHBP)s. Specific coverage offered by a QHBP is to be stipulated by the Secretary who is appointed by the President upon passage. So, really at this moment no one knows what even constitutes a QHBP. Until that is determined, making any kind of determination about current plans must be held in abeyance.
2) The contention has been made that health care costs will decrease as a result of the enactment of the legislation, while opponents charge the bill will drive health care costs up and bankrupt the nation. In the text of the bill, the rates and methods of determining the rates for health care plans, like the make-up of a QHBP is to be determined by the Secretary upon passage of the legislation. So, again at this moment no one really knows whether nationwide health care costs will go up or down.
I realize that everyone can make an assumption as to what these unknowns might be and then project outcomes, but at this point it is simply unknown. More important to me is the emotion that is present on both sides and what the Christian response should be (where responses will be honoring and glorifying to God).
I'm going to throw out some questions that have crossed my mind in the last few days and maybe some of you others who have read the legislation or are also seeking to give some really good answers can help me out. I already know how i've answered these questions, but i'd like some additional input.
1) Is this whole health care and insurance topic a bi-product of the affluence of our society?
2) Is there a point at which a man can tell another man he must help his neighbor? Does loving one's neighbor as oneself apply just to the follower of Christ or to everyone? Does the United States' embrace of a secularized mindset have any bearing on this question, i.e. is the Church the only group who ought to love their neighbor as themselves?
3) Where do personal responsibility and accountability to God cross with the ideas of "general welfare"? What I mean by this, is the founders of the nation continually used the phrase "by the dictates of his own conscience" for the governance of an individual's behavior, does that concept still stand today?
4) When we speak of insurance, at what point are we beginning to point people to the government or an agent instead of to Almighty God? Put another way, when do we as a nation begin to see our days here on earth and those can provide temporally for our needs as those in whom we put our faith?
5) Is there a way for believers in Christ to be set apart as unique in this environment so that we will be seen as different and be curious as to how they can change to be more like us (which is to say more like Christ)? In other words, what opportunities for witness and evangelism are available in this tumultuous time?
I appreciate any thoughts as I believe the issues are deeper than just the 90 seconds they are typically given on news and talk shows. Thanks in advance for Godly wisdom and input.
If I'm hearing you correctly, I'm with you insofar as I don't see any clear answers, any obvious good solutions or any ONE "Christian" idea of how to deal with health care in today's setting.
ReplyDeleteThat being the case, I was neither supportive nor opposed to this current bill. I HAVE been troubled by the behavior of many who oppose this bill, acting as if Liberty and our Republic were disappearing if this passed and that we'd be entering into a totalitarian, fascist and/or socialist nation run by folk intent on stealing our liberties.
Such demonizing is uncalled for, it seems to me, and - at least in my case (and I suspect many others, as well) - only hurts their cause. I would never align with some of these folk who are acting so nutty about this legislation.
I AM concerned about the provision that requires participation. I get that it's SORT of like how we require car insurance, because your driving may well result in harm to others. But in the case of health care, it's less obvious.
If someone lives without health care and then, comes a time when they need it, then they will be getting "free" health care paid for by the rest of us who DO pay into a system and that doesn't seem right. At the same time, I'm part of the anabaptist tradition and we often don't believe in "laying aside for yourselves treasure," storing up supplies like the rich man who built more and more barns and this health insurance would sort of be like that.
Perhaps if they had some provision where you could opt out, but only if you sign an agreement that you won't be taking part in health care paid for by others?? But then, that doesn't seem likely to happen.
It's a tough issue, seems to me.
I reckon I remain on the fence, thinking that this new approach WILL have many problems, but that it's not the end of civilization as we know it, as some seem to think.
As to this line of questioning...
ReplyDeleteIs there a point at which a man can tell another man he must help his neighbor?
That thinking doesn't bother me so much. We do this already. We already require everyone to pay into taxes that build roads to help motorists, even if you're not a motorist. We require people to pay to support education, even if you have no children. The thinking is that we all benefit in one way or the other, regardless. It gets to the notion of being a commonwealth, where we have an obligation as a Republic to share some costs amongst everyone (or at least those who can afford it).
I don't see that as really very dissimilar to the Sabbath and Jubilee laws of the OT, laws that required, for instance, that ALL landowners set aside some portion of their field so that the poor, foreigners, the widows and orphans... ie, ALL in need, could glean from their fields. It was a way of instituting in the nation of Israel a means of tending to the commonwealth.
I don't find this notion controversial at all. I suppose we'd want to avoid taking it to extremes, of course, but the concept seems entirely sound.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteGood to see you back again. I don't have much time right now but i'll respond to your first comment and hopefully be able to get to the second a bit later on.
You said: "I AM concerned about the provision that requires participation. I get that it's SORT of like how we require car insurance, because your driving may well result in harm to others. But in the case of health care, it's less obvious."
I've heard this illustration before but I don't think it applies because of a significant difference: no one is forcing you to purchase a car. What they are saying is that IF you choose to purchase a motor vehicle you must at least carry liability on that vehicle in the event that you may even unintentionally hurt someone else. I think the illustration would hold water if the state or federal government made it law that everyone age 16 must purchase a motor vehicle obtain a license and insurance for that vehicle. Again, this is just an illustration and not the main point, I just don't see it being a good one in this case.
You said: "If someone lives without health care and then, comes a time when they need it, then they will be getting "free" health care paid for by the rest of us who DO pay into a system and that doesn't seem right."
I understand this point and do feel that an individual intentionally working the system is wrong. There are also other cases where people are genuinely hurting and through circumstances and possibly major health problems cannot obtain medical insurance, and their medical care then is paid for by the rest of "us" who are paying taxes, etc. However, as difficult and emotionally heart-rending these cases may be, they are not justification for usurping individual liberty. This is the difficult position for the disciple of Christ, in my estimation. Promote charity without trampling on liberty. The knowledge that we are created in God's image, and that part of that image-bearing status is life and an ability to make a choice means that preserving the image of God demands that man not pursue the elimination of another man's liberty. More on that point in the response to the your second comment. One more quick response here.
You said: "I reckon I remain on the fence, thinking that this new approach WILL have many problems, but that it's not the end of civilization as we know it, as some seem to think."
The end of civilization as we know it may seem like over-stating the case, and you may well be right that name-calling and threats is not warranted by Christians, but for the reason concerning liberty I described above and you seem to at least tacitly agree to with your reservations to the mandatory insurance requirement, it may well be the end of the fundamental American notion of inalienable rights. I see this as a very serious threat to at least the civilized society we enjoy in the United States. 95% of the founders of this nation were Christians and used Biblical principles to establish life, liberty and property to be the right of every human being. If they were right, and that notion is true for everyone for all time, then to attack liberty would seem to be a most egregious act indeed.
Again, more on this in my response to your second set of comments.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteAgain, only short time at present so a quick response here and maybe we can have a more detailed discussion later if you'd like.
In your second comment you said: "We already require everyone to pay into taxes that build roads to help motorists, even if you're not a motorist. We require people to pay to support education, even if you have no children. The thinking is that we all benefit in one way or the other, regardless. It gets to the notion of being a commonwealth, where we have an obligation as a Republic to share some costs amongst everyone (or at least those who can afford it)."
There is no question that we all contribute by way of taxation to common interest projects (infrastructure, education, etc.). However, taxation by way of income taxes is how this is accomplished and it is argued that that particular type of taxation is also an assault on liberty, added by amendment to the original language of the Constitution. I'm not going to argue the tax code, just make the more general point that just because we've done things a certain way for years doesn't necessarily mean it is right or that we should adopt similar policies out of deference for existing policy.
Again, the fundamental issue and the crux of my question is whether as a Christian, a disciple of Christ, if we can legitimately tell someone he MUST help his neighbor. We can certainly say he ought to be charitable, that he ought to love others because they are God's creation, that he ought to be a good steward of that which he has been given. However, is it right to say on the one hand that we cannot put our foot to a man's throat and say "believe in Jesus or else", but feel OK by forcing that same man by threat of the rule of law to be nice or else, to be charitable or else, to care for the environment or else?
As Christians, and followers of Christ we do without question have an obligation to preach as the apostles did the gospel message of Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection as the way to truth and life; we have an obligation to help those in need even to the point of personal sacrifice; we have an obligation to be good stewards of all that to which we have been entrusted. But others who do not accept the Christian message will not feel compelled to do those things or to do any of those things, at least not for the right motivation.
So, again the question comes down to liberty. Jesus offered the way and bade all who would to follow, He did not force or threaten by rule of law any man to become a disciple. We are all created with the freedom to choose, is there a case where it is "the Christian thing to do" to impinge upon that liberty?
I want to be quick to point out that we can make judgements on behavior and there is much in the Word to condone punishment if wrong choices are made, so I am not advocating a freedom to do whatever one wants cart blanche. It is the Son that sets us free, so living as Christ is the way to freedom so that is our stance, not autonomy.
That's all for now, i'll try to answer better with more time later if you make a response to any of these.
Hi, Sorry, I've been away, but I'd like to add a few thoughts. You said...
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to argue the tax code, just make the more general point that just because we've done things a certain way for years doesn't necessarily mean it is right or that we should adopt similar policies out of deference for existing policy.
Absolutely, I agree 100%. Just because we've done something the same way for a while does not make it right. Further, I have my problems with the income taxation approach to taxation. I'm open to other, better ideas. My problem is that I have not heard any better ideas. ALL tax schemes have their problems.
On one hand, I sort of like a sales tax approach - you only pay a tax if you buy an item. You don't want to pay taxes? Don't buy stuff that is taxed! Problem solved.
The problem with this approach is creating a just way of doing this. If there is a sales tax on everything - food included - then you will be disproportionately taxing the poor, who HAVE to have all (or most) of the things they purchase. Especially food.
Thomas Jefferson appeared to favor what might be called a luxury tax - only taxing those things which the more wealthy would purchase.
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
~Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785
"The collection of taxes... has been as yet only by duties on consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want, if possible. And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and domestic."
~Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings."
~Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811
I could probably go along with this idea, but I don't think some of the wealthy in our nation would approve of it. What do you think?
My main concern in whatever tax system we have is that it not unduly punish/burden the poor. I agree with Jefferson that it should, in general, be a progressive tax system, with those who have the most paying the most. What do you think?
You said...
ReplyDeleteHowever, taxation by way of income taxes is how this is accomplished and it is argued that that particular type of taxation is also an assault on liberty
I don't see how it is an assault on liberty. In what sense? I mean, ANY tax could be construed that way - "I'm HAVING to pay these taxes against my will! It's an assault on my liberty!" - IF one is intent on construing it that way.
But, I don't see why income tax is any more of an "assault" on liberty than a tax on goods.
Getting then, to your fundamental question...
Again, the fundamental issue and the crux of my question is whether as a Christian, a disciple of Christ, if we can legitimately tell someone he MUST help his neighbor.
I think No, we can't tell someone they MUST help their neighbor. But I don't think that's what taxation is. Taxation is part of the social contract we have when we live in a place. IF I wish to enjoy the freedom to live here in Kentucky (in my case) in the US, THEN part of that agreement is that I will do my part to contribute to our common needs.
And HOW are those common needs decided? In the US, by representational gov't. We are a Republic that elects people to make these decisions on whether to build roads and where and how many and whether to hire police and where and how many and whether to dispose of garbage responsibly and how to do that and on and on.
I'm not being told "I MUST help my fireman neighbor," by paying taxes that go towards his salary, I'm not being told "I MUST help my neighbor" by building roads for him or "I MUST help my neighbor" by paying for schools. Rather, I must pay taxes to enjoy the benefits of living in this great nation. And in this nation, we'll continue to elect people to make these policy decisions.
In cases that come closer to charity (like social services, for instance), I'm not being told I MUST help my neighbor. Rather, we have decided as a nation that we don't want our children to be homeless, or our veterans to be out on the streets with mental illness.
I just don't see social service type arrangements to be any different than road building. They are all part of what we, the people, have decided is in our best interests in this commonwealth.
I guess in a sense you could say that paying for fire dept or paying for welfare assistance is being told we MUST help our neighbors, but I don't see it that way. I see it as, "I live in this commonwealth and we have some common expenses. I don't always agree with each line item that is being spent upon, but it's part of the deal..."
One more. You said...
ReplyDeleteBut others who do not accept the Christian message will not feel compelled to do those things or to do any of those things, at least not for the right motivation.
And we're not asking anyone (or at least I'm not) to pay taxes for various programs out of Christian obligation. I'm saying they ought to do it if they wish to live here. If they don't want to be part of THIS particular social contract, they are free to try to convince their fellow citizens that a particular budget item ought not be something we pay for. OR, they are also free to find another nation where there are no taxes/expenses with which they disagree (but good luck with that!)
Obviously, not everyone will agree with everything that "we, the people" decide to make policy. Still, that's the price we pay for living in an organized society. It's not a perfect solution, but nothing is, right? Not in this world.
I DO think that Christians ought to be wary about trying to create laws/rules for which there are ONLY religious reasons for their implementation. An example of this, I think, is the notion of banning gay marriage. Some Christian folk want to do this because they think gay marriage is a sin. But that is a religious reason. What CIVIC reason is there for that policy?
For any policy, if there are no reasons other than, "I think this policy/expense would be pleasing to God," I'd be very wary of supporting such a faith-based law/rule/expense. For an absurd example, I think we could all agree that it's not a good idea to try to legislate that people can ONLY worship at Christian churches. You and I might believe that Christian churches are right and people would do well to get to know God via a Christian church, but we don't want to legislate that, right?
On the other hand, if I know that prisoners will have a much greater chance of reducing their recidivism rate (their rate of return to jail) if they receive some education while in prison, then I might reasonably argue that it makes civic sense to create policy to that end. Now, I may also happen to think that reaching out to prisoners is a Christian Good, but I still have civic-based, rational, self-interest sort of reasoning to support such policy.
You think?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI've been busy with the new baby girl so my blogging time has been much restricted lately. In that light I only have a short time now to respond, but will touch on all three of your comments.
First regarding taxation, I believe the sales tax based plan would work because the social services portion would not suffer. I'm quite sure food stamps and other such programs would still be funded as they currently operate.
Second as regards the issue of an assault on liberty. In the income tax system, by definition, the government takes a portion of your income before you are paid, and will enforce your non-compliance by rule of law. I'd say that pretty well forces you to pay and necessarily restricts you from choosing whether you will contribute. Whether or not the services taxed for are good, right, fair, for the common good, or otherwise is beside the point. The point is you have no choice. In the sales tax only system you would have the choice to suspend temporarily or stop completely your consumption and thereby your support of current policies.
Finally, my question regarding Christians vs. society at large is that followers of Christ are obliged to do certain things (a slave to Christ not a slave of the world) whereas society at large is under no such obligation. This puts the Christian in a unique position relative to government, namely that he/she is first obligated to the Governer of the Universe and then the government of the United States. For a non-believer they could live just by obeying the law of the land whatever those laws might be, for the believer we must align with the Word of God and be submitted to the government as they agree. In all Civic matters the Christian is to be obedient personally to the One to whom they will give an account. The mistake some make, I believe, is that they try to propogate conversion through governmental means instead of going the hard way of touching one heart at a time.
You brought up gay marriage and as you know I disagree with your stand on the matter. I believe Christians should be vocal about what is considered sinful in the sight of God. I believe the homosexual lifestyle is sinful and I see no reason why (because we love all mankind and do not want to see a nation endorsing sinful behavior) Christians should not be vocal about the notion of marriage being between anything other than one man and one woman. Should the Christian depend on the government and bans of behavior? Obviously not, again each one is accountable to God personally. I don't see believers being adament about sin as a bad thing. If you saw someone about to walk in front of a car you would do all in your power to stop them from certain death. I believe the believer who approaches the homosexual in a loving way about the sinful activity they have chosen, not wanting to see them destroyed by that lifestyle as a necessary part of loving all those created in God's image. Again, because each is accountable to God personally I would not be for putting a foot on someone's throat and say repent or else, but if Christians don't express what is right and admonish those for doing wrong, who will? After all, is the Christian who has the truth becuase they know the Son, and the Son will set us free.
I've been busy with the new baby girl so my blogging time has been much restricted lately...
ReplyDeleteNothing more important in the world than spending time with that baby child. No problems...
Jeremy said...
I believe the sales tax based plan would work because the social services portion would not suffer. I'm quite sure food stamps and other such programs would still be funded as they currently operate.
So, do you think (along with Jefferson and myself) that sales taxes aimed at those more well off would be the right way to go? I would suppose that would have to be a pretty high sales tax in order to maintain the amount we're currently using, right? And you're okay with that? I am, I suppose, although I'd have to see the details on how it would work out.
Jeremy...
In the income tax system, by definition, the government takes a portion of your income before you are paid, and will enforce your non-compliance by rule of law.
I guess I just look at it differently. We are in this nation by our choice and we are free to leave at any time we wish. Part of the deal of staying here is paying taxes. It would be taking advantage of others to not pay taxes and yet to enjoy all the goods that come with living in this commonwealth.
So, if I have a problem with the arrangement, then I am free to leave. But I DON'T have a problem with the arrangement and I'm glad to pay my share of taxes to pay for our common needs. I certainly disagree with some portions of what gets spent and I'll continue to work to convince my fellow citizens to change policies/expenditures that I think misguided.
But regardless, I don't see it as an infringement of my/our liberties at all.
Consider this: What if you joined a club and the club told you that it cost $x amount a year to be part of the club - to pay for the club's common needs. I understand that this is part of the club's arrangement and I join. Wouldn't it be ridiculous of me to later complain, "But the dues charged are an infringement of my liberty!"? Of course it's not an infringement of my liberty. It's just part of the deal. If I don't like it, I can work to change it or I can leave the club, but I can't really in good conscience say it's an infringement of my liberty, right?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteQuickly I have the following:
I have no problem with a sales tax to whatever levels for whatever population the government decides because the choice is still left to the individual. You can pass a sales tax of 90% on all luxury automobiles if you like, but the rich people who purchase those vehicles may just say that the level of tax paid does not justify the purchase of the product and choose not to pay. The effect then is that the dealer wouldn't sell the vehicles, the manufacturer would loose the account and workers may end up losing their jobs as a result. In other words, the market would determine what tax can be borne on a particular product. If the rich are willing to pay a 30%, 50% even 100% sales tax, then that is up to them. Also, I don't think your illustration really works in the case of any person born in this country. I didn't decide to join a club, I was born. In that sense it seems a bit unreasonable to say I should just leave if I don't like it. However, that is precisely what our founders did when it came such a time in human history when liberties were usurped to such an extent that it was better to leave and try to start something better elsewhere. But that is no defense for the ideas and actions the English monarchy were pressing.
Second, my point relative to government is that Christians hold in first regard the authority of God as their Soveriegn Ruler. I'm not opposed to any group advocating for governmental bans for what they feel is immoral. So I think it is OK for Christians to advocate for a ban on murder, abortion, recognition of homosexual relationships as right, stealing, cheating, etc. For those who believe the Bible is true it is a matter of morality and purity and the desire for a nation not to accept as right what God has declared as wrong. Ultimately the government will decide laws to pass from a civil and governmental standpoint and the Christian will either agree and continue living and loving others in the same way, or disagree and continue living and loving others in the same way. I will always advocate for adherance to purity and to the Word of God as it relates to human behavior; my government may not always agree. In those cases where they don't agree I face the reality of possible persecution in many different forms for the sake of the truth. Ultimately I will advocate for moral purity as it is revealed in the Word because I stand in awe of the One who decides my eternital condition, not of those who decide my temporal condition. That is my more general belief that then is applied to particular situations.
You have mentioned homosexual marriage already, so in that case it works out for me as follows: I believe homosexuality as an immoral lifestyle. Therefore, i'll advocate for it being wrong behavior for anyone and for it not being recognized as equally legitimate alongside marriage between a man and a woman. If the government chooses to pass a law officially recognizing gay marriage as being on equal footing with marriage between a man and woman then I will proclaim that as an immoral position and continue to live in the same way and witness to the truth in love to the best of my ability.
Thanks for the thoughts. I have a couple of follow up questions.
ReplyDelete1. Do you agree with Jefferson and me that taxes (in some form) ought to come more from those with most resources and much less (or not at all) from those with the least? That is, do you agree that some sort of progressive system is the more just system?
2. You say...
my point relative to government is that Christians hold in first regard the authority of God as their Soveriegn Ruler. I'm not opposed to any group advocating for governmental bans for what they feel is immoral.
Then, do you agree that those who think a flat/non-progressive tax scheme is immoral and contrary to Godly principles, that those folk ought to work against such schemes? Even if you disagree with their conclusions, if someone thinks that a flat/non-progressive tax system is wrong, you agree that they ought to work against such schemes?
A couple of other questions. You say...
ReplyDeleteI believe homosexuality as an immoral lifestyle. Therefore, i'll advocate for it being wrong behavior for anyone and for it not being recognized as equally legitimate alongside marriage between a man and a woman.
Do you think that Christians ought to argue for ANY and ALL of their beliefs? Should Christians argue for stores being closed on the Sabbath? Should Christians argue for stoning adulterers or for otherwise penalizing those who engage in adultery, prison, maybe? Should Christians criminalize divorce? Should Christians strive to create laws against worshiping other gods? Sending Muslims to prison, for instance? Do you think Christians ought to legislate that people believe in the Triune nature of God and that anyone rejecting that belief is a criminal?
In short, WHICH of your Christian beliefs do you think Christians ought to institute into national/local laws? Which of our beliefs do you think we ought to hold ourselves, but not necessarily ought to make into law?
Catholics (among others) believe that SOME of our beliefs fall into a category (I forget their term for it) that would be universal, civic rules and that it is okay for citizens to argue in support of laws for these sorts of beliefs - laws against murder and theft, for instance.
On the other hand, they also believe that some of our beliefs are more "religious" in nature - not civic - and that it would be wrong to try to legislate these beliefs. Beliefs in the Virgin Birth or the Triune God, for instance.
The difference for Catholics, I believe, comes down to: Are there any non-religious reasons for supporting such legislation, are there also civic reasons for such legislation.
Do you agree with this approach to religion and gov't? If so, what are your non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage (ie, do you have any reasons other than, "I just think it's displeasing to God?")
Also, given your earlier comments, I guess you would agree that those who think that gay marriage BANS are immoral and ungodly, those folk ought to oppose such laws, even if you disagree with them?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteAgain, I have a short time to respond but hope my comments will adequately address your questions.
As for you and Jefferson I must say that I don't really have any druthers other than the feeling that a sales tax based system seems best based on my previous points. You used the words "just" and "immoral" with regard to taxation and I have a thought on this point. I believe that the possession of, or the lack of possession of money, is not a moral issue. People's attitude toward, and actions with, money are where morality comes in. This is exactly where the issue becomes contentious I believe. Is it morally good to give to those in need? Definitively yes, and not just money (also food, clothing, shelter, emotional support etc.). Is it morally good to take by rule of law from someone who has money (or food, clothing, shelter, etc.) and distribute that to those in need? That is the real tough question because it presses one to define stealing. If taking something without consent is stealing, then the question becomes is it morally good to steal from one person to give to another? I'll let you weigh in on this point. I'll just end by saying that i'm going to continue to give all I can (money, clothing, time, shelter) as the Spirit leads regardless of what my government tells me I have to do by law. Where it becomes problematic for me is when my government takes money i've earned through labor to fund behavior I believe the Bible is clear is immoral. I'll expound a little as part of your second series of questions.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYour second set of questions are an interesting set. Specifically you said: "In short, WHICH of your Christian beliefs do you think Christians ought to institute into national/local laws? Which of our beliefs do you think we ought to hold ourselves, but not necessarily ought to make into law?" I'm afraid my answer to them would depend on how you would answer the following questions of mine:
Is it possible to have a moral society without adherance to Godly principles?
How important is it to have a moral society?
I hate to ask more questions without answering but I have thought quite a bit about your question and I could frame an answer in a couple of different ways and your answer to these two questions will help me in my response. I'll look to hear your answers.
To answer your questions...
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to have a moral society without adherance to Godly principles?
I would say that all things Good, True, Just, Moral and Right are from/of God.
If an atheist society outlaws murder, they have done a Good and, by extension, Godly thing. If a pagan culture takes care of their children, treating them with love and respect, teaching them to do the same, they have done a Good and, by extension, Godly thing. If a Wiccan society shared of their goods to practically end homelessness, they would have done a Good, and by extension, Godly thing.
So, yes, I believe to have a moral society, we would adhere to Godly principles. But this may come out in many ways, seems to me.
You asked...
How important is it to have a moral society?
Very. Depending, perhaps, on how you define "moral." Some might say it's "moral" to abort a fetus that might be homosexual (if such testing could be done...). Some would say it's "moral" to jail the homeless or foreigners simply because they're homeless or foreign.
But, generally, I'd say it is a good and quite important thing to have a moral society.
I'm still unclear if you think that a progressive tax system is the more just/moral system (as opposed to a flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage, whatever their income level may be) - do you not have an opinion on a progressive tax system?
ReplyDeleteYou said...
Is it morally good to take by rule of law from someone who has money (or food, clothing, shelter, etc.) and distribute that to those in need? That is the real tough question because it presses one to define stealing. If taking something without consent is stealing, then the question becomes is it morally good to steal from one person to give to another? I'll let you weigh in on this point.
And I think this gets to one of our problems: I don't think taxation - whether it's to raise money to pay for your fire protection or to raise money to pay for your roads or your schools or your bombs - is "stealing" in any sense at all, except symbolically. In a Republic, we elect representatives to tend to our interests in our commonwealth.
We may collectively decide to pay for roads for motorists, even though not everyone is a motorist. That's not "stealing," even if I, as a pedestrian object to paying for your roads. We may collectively decide to pay for prisoner education programs, even though not everyone is in favor of doing that. That is NOT stealing. It's collective taxation that is part and parcel of ANY republic with which I'm familiar.
It is a huge mistake to start calling taxation stealing just because we disagree with how some of the money is being spent. Words mean things and it is wrong and unwise to use a wrong word to express something.
Even though you or I may not have had a choice in being born in this country, we are STILL free to leave or work to change things. IF I don't like a system where my money is TAKEN! to pay for roads that I won't use, well, it's still not stealing. I freely stay here in this nation and enjoy all of its benefits and pay into all of its programs, even the ones with which I disagree. If I don't like it, I can work to change or I can leave and start my own nation where the representatives NEVER tax me for programs I disagree with.
Of course, such a nation does not exist, but I'm free to try to start the first if I wish to.
Taxation is simply not stealing, no matter how much we dislike a given expenditure.
OK, thanks for the response. If we feel that it is very important to have a moral society, and if we agree that the way to a moral society is through the adherence to Godly principles then we have a difficult task. Namely, how do we interact politically in a demonstrably secular society (where religious ideas, institutions and interpretations have lost their social significance) when Godly principles are necessary but Christian ideas are not deemed relavent? I feel like this goes back 250 years and the dilemma facing the founders of this nation. They knew that the framework for this nations government would collapse without a religious people. But history has recorded a disastrous record for theocratic governments. So what is one to do?
ReplyDeleteIn an amoral or non-theistic society a good might be done but it would not be because of a concious effort to be moral (adhere to Godly principles) but quite literally by accident. To use your example, a society might see that murder would reduce the population and lead to uncivility and potentially harm the well-being of the nation as a whole and therefore decide to make it unlawful to murder (a strictly utilitarian approach). No consideration was given to being Godly or adhering to Godly principles, they just backed into something good by some other self-serving decision. The concern with that kind of society is not that they would never do anything good, or that it is impossible for them to be good, but that there is no restraint on being evil. I know this is a bit off topic, but an important idea before going forward, which i'll continue in the next comment line.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteNow to the question string you presented. You are right in saying I don't have an opinion on the "progressive tax system". I feel a sales tax allows for civil disobedience and so i'm more in favor of some sales tax system as opposed to an income tax system, but i'm paying my taxes either way.
I also didn't say taxation is stealing. I said that it presses on the issue of stealing, which I believe is true because there are lots of people who do feel their "stuff" is being stolen. I do not. Government is necessary, and government can only function through the collection of funds from "the people". I believe the founders intended this collection to be limited and for a restricted set of priorities, but that is another conversation.
I believe that Christians should be vocal about moral issues, and for the voice of Godly principles to be seriously considered in the political arena. Where else will morality come from if not from Godly people? So Christians should be outspoken about abortion being wrong; about marriage being between man and woman only; about adultery, greed, lust, pride, gossip, slander and the like to be wrong. The nation will listen or not.
As for punishment, I think that if there is to be a civil society laws are needed and enforcement is required when laws are broken. Even atheists would agree on that point. I'm not sure why you bring up stoning or your other examples of imprisonment for beliefs in different doctrinal issues. I believe it is appointed once for everyone to die and then comes the judgement. Each individual must give an account to God for his/her actions and response to the Gospel. Certainly no one should be thrown in jail for being a Muslim, or a Buddist, or a Hindu, etc. just as no one should be thrown in jail for being a Methodist, or a Baptist or Non-Denominational. It seems pretty clear from scripture that Christians should live a life of purity so that no one can bring a legitimate charge against them, should be vocal about a life filled with the Holy Spirit as being the way to right living, should share the truth of Jesus with love, and should go about making disciples while loving God and loving others.
Punishment is also an important topic that goes to necessity of laws and for the purpose of incarceration. I would say that laws are necessary because of the scriptural truth that men are sinners and wrong behavior is exposed through the law. I feel punishment is required to show that behavior has consequences (good or bad depending on the decisions you make). I feel that the point of punishment is to lead a lawbreaker to an acceptance of the root of a sinful heart, a knowledge of the truth that forgiveness is available, and that only through repentance can a change of heart and subsequently a lifelong change in behavior be possible. Your thoughts?
First, let me thank you for the kind, respectful conversation. That is always a moral good, yes?
ReplyDeleteYou said...
In an amoral or non-theistic society a good might be done but it would not be because of a concious effort to be moral (adhere to Godly principles) but quite literally by accident.
Are you suggesting that non-theists have no desire to be moral? That can't really be the case, can it, since we can see obviously that many non-theists and non-Christians wish fervently to be moral.
So, I'm unclear of your point. If a non-theistic society existed and consciously strove to be moral, how can it be by accident? More specifically, if a non-theistic society reasoned that theft, murder and rape were wrong (because, for instance, some rights are "self-evident," including life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) and outlawed them, they would have purposely created moral laws, right?
You try to explain this by saying...
...a society might see that murder would reduce the population and lead to uncivility and potentially harm the well-being of the nation as a whole and therefore decide to make it unlawful to murder (a strictly utilitarian approach). No consideration was given to being Godly or adhering to Godly principles, they just backed into something good by some other self-serving decision. The concern with that kind of society is not that they would never do anything good, or that it is impossible for them to be good, but that there is no restraint on being evil.
Why do you think there'd be no constraint on being evil? A people who recognized the inate value of "doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you," and its inverse "Do NOT do unto others as you'd NOT want done to you," ARE desiring to avoid evil. Partially out of selfishness, to be sure ("I don't want to be killed."), but also out of recognition of such a law's Goodness ("I don't want to see my innocent child or even a neighbor's innocent child, or even a complete stranger's innocent child killed! That would be wrong!")
Do you not think that a non-theistic group has no concerns for morality? I'm just not sure what you're suggesting with these comments. Some explanation, please?
Dan,
ReplyDelete"First, let me thank you for the kind, respectful conversation. That is always a moral good, yes?" I find it is very difficult to press a differing point while operating a baseball bat.
With regard to my comments on atheists, non-theists, etc. it goes directly to my question about morality from before.
I asked: "Is it possible to have a moral society without adherance to Godly principles?"
You responded, in your final summary sentences: "So, yes, I believe to have a moral society, we would adhere to Godly principles. But this may come out in many ways, seems to me."
What I meant by doing good by accident is precisely that atheists, non-theists, etc. do not have as their intention adhering to Godly principles. Intent is prior to content. For the Christian, there is a purposeful desire to be moral because there is an objective moral law given by God that is recognized and so adherence to that moral law is part and parcel with living as part of their worship to the Almighty. For the non-theist or atheist the intention might be not to harm someone else (based on a purely subjective definition of harm) and so murder and the like might be rejected as a right behavior, but it most certainly would not be out of a desire to adhere to an absolute moral law defined by God.
I'll provide an illustration to try to make the point, but as we've discussed before if the illustration isn't helpful then drop it. I take the illustration from CS Lewis, by the way. If a you were riding a bus and saw a young man purposefully try to trip an old woman but he failed in the attempt you would still think he had done wrong. If another young man further down actually did trip the same old woman totally by accident you would not attribute a wrong behavior to him. The point is that intent is prior to content. In the illustration the assignment of wrongdoing lies not with whether or not the old woman falls, but rather with the intentions of the young men on the bus.
In the same way, morality is not dependent on the law passed or an individual's action, but whether the individual or group intends to adhere to Godly principles. Perhaps an additional question would help, if a Christian goes on TV to denounce murder because he is desperate for publicity so he can sell more copies of a recently published book is he being moral?
As to restraining evil, I think its pretty simple that morality (adherence to an absolute moral law established by God) is the only restraint against evil. If laws are subjective (just based on the leanings of contemporary culture or majority rule) then the laws could change at any time to make all kinds of atrocities legal. History shows this very fact to be the case. Please keep in mind that we are discussing specifically restraining evil, not a wholly pure society, because as we both know even if the church rules over a people history reveals an equally disastrous record. The point is that for Christians evils are contrary to Godly principles, for atheists, non-theists all kinds of evils can be justified because the only gauge are subjective contemporary cultural laws.
Again, i'll stress that all atheists are not bloodthirsty evildoers. The point is if someone does not believe God exists, how can that person have as an intention in their heart the adherence to Godly principles?
Correction in the sixth paragraph it should read:
ReplyDelete"...actually did trip the same old woman totally by accident you would attribute a wrong behavior to him."
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant by doing good by accident is precisely that atheists, non-theists, etc. do not have as their intention adhering to Godly principles.
Perhaps not, not intentionally. But IF they desire lives with good morals (and they do, at least at times) AND if good moral values are ultimately from God, then their desire to do good and live aright IS a Godly thing, even if they don't seek to live Godly lives, right?
I'm just saying that some non-theists DO desire to live moral lives, if not adhere specifically to Godly principles (not believing in God) and yet, the end result is, or can be, good morals.
Is this still prelude to answering these questions...
"In short, WHICH of your Christian beliefs do you think Christians ought to institute into national/local laws? Which of our beliefs do you think we ought to hold ourselves, but not necessarily ought to make into law?"
Or, put another way, do you think that some of our religious beliefs are best NOT legislated? And, if so, which ones and on which grounds?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou said: "Perhaps not, not intentionally. But IF they desire lives with good morals (and they do, at least at times) AND if good moral values are ultimately from God, then their desire to do good and live aright IS a Godly thing, even if they don't seek to live Godly lives, right?"
No, I would say that isn't right. You seem to be equating doing a good deed with being a Godly person. These are not the same thing. Also I think you are drawing an incorrect inference in your thinking that an atheist thinks murder is wrong, God has said murder is wrong, therefore the atheist is a Godly person. You said in your first sentence, "Perhaps not, not intentionally." But this is the most important point, Dan, the intention.
We know from scripture that all our good deeds are like filthy rags before God. God is concerned with the thoughts and attitudes of our heart. This is what makes the Christian different, what makes a Christian's life really fulfilled, and gives us hope; not in doing good deeds, but having as first priority being obedient to God and faithful to Him. The good deeds will be manifested as an outworking of that priority toward God, not in spite of it.
If you don't agree with that basic proposition, then we probably have a significant doctrinal difference. I'll wait to see how you respond to the above and then maybe probe a bit more. I'm out of time for now, so i'll get to your other question a bit later.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be equating doing a good deed with being a Godly person. These are not the same thing.
Then please re-read what I wrote...
"But IF they desire lives with good morals (and they do, at least at times) AND if good moral values are ultimately from God, then their desire to do good and live aright IS a Godly thing, even if they don't seek to live Godly lives, right?"
If they're doing good, then that good IS a Godly thing. I'm not saying that the people are Godly, but that the action is and I'm saying that because ALL things that are good, kind, just, loving... ALL these things are of God because they are attributes of God. You certainly couldn't say that these loving, good behaviors are of the devil, could you?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI think I understand your position rightly. I did re-read your comment and stand by my response. A Godly thing in done by a Godly person because intent is prior to content. All things good, kind, loving, just do come from God, but all those things can be perverted by greed, lust, pride, etc. which is the nature into which all men are born. The devil is not the author of good behavior but he is the deceiver and the accuser of the brethren. The enemy would have us believe we can be good without God, that we can do Godly things without being Godly people (again that is desiring to adhere to Godly principles).
I would like to give one illustration and then ask a question. My youngest boy is 2 years old, he can count to 5. If I asked him what is 2 + 2 and one time out of 10 he responds "four" would you then conclude that he knows addition? Certainly not, he just happened to give the correct answer because he knew the word four and happened to say it at the right time. Humankind is fundamentally apostate and is capable of no good thing. In our very nature we a prideful, greedy, slanderous and wretched. There are none good, not even one. None seek after God. We are created in the image of God and so we do know what good things look like. Even without being Godly, people can do a good thing. But what good are all those good things without being Godly people? A pile of filty rags. Humans are not good or Godly by association (because they happen to do the same things Godly people do) any more than my 2 year old knows addition because he happens to say the word four at the right time.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI'm very short on time again tonight, so just a quick response to your question on Christians and politics.
You said: "Or, put another way, do you think that some of our religious beliefs are best NOT legislated? And, if so, which ones and on which grounds?"
I thought I had answered this before, but I must have done a poor job of articulating my position so i'll try again. Because of our side-by-side discussion about godliness I think it would be fair to say that my position is morality cannot be legislated. If morality is a desire to adhere to Godly principles, and we live in a secular society where religious ideas, institutions and interpretations have lost their social significance, then it is pretty clear that most of contemporary American society is not interested in being Godly people. All legislation, therefore, is an attempt to try to live civilly with one another without being Godly people. This is what the founders meant, I believe, when they said the government they established would only work in a religious society.
So, I could ask a follow-up question to you, do you believe that if we pass enough laws people will become Godly, moral, good people?
Sorry, I've been busy.
ReplyDeleteBriefly...
I think it would be fair to say that my position is morality cannot be legislated.
We agree, sort of. Let me try to state my position.
Regardless of whether morality can be legislated, we have a responsibility, I'd say, as citizens to legislate some behaviors. For reasons of rational expectations of interactions and adherence to "self evident" truths.
I would expect that we agree on this.
So, I guess in a sense we do need to legislate certain behaviors and one might call that legislating morality.
What I don't think is wise is to overstep the notion of legislating morality. That is, we really need to legislate against behaviors that cause direct physical or economic harm to others - we have an obligation to legislate against murder, theft, rape, assault, etc.
However, we don't and oughtn't try to legislate morality in the sense of identifying each little (or big) sin as a crime against the state. Legislate against murder? Yes. Legislate against telling a lie? Probably not, depending on the circumstances. Legislate against greed? No. Legislate against bribery? Yes. Legislate against rape? Yes. Legislate against gay marriage? No. Legislate against bearing false witness in court? Yes. Legislate against bearing false witness in a casual conversation? No.
Why would we legislate against bribery but not against greed? Because greed is an attitude, not an action.
Why legislate against rape but not against gay marriage? Because someone is harmed in rape, but not in gay marriage.
Why legislate against lying in court but not in a casual conversation? Again, the harm factor.
You said...
If morality is a desire to adhere to Godly principles...
Morality IS that, but it's not JUST that. People will and do adhere to morality for reasons other than intentional desire to adhere to Godly principles.
I think (my humble opinion, for what it's worth) that some have taken passages like "all our righteousness are as filthy rags" too literally, when I think it is one of the instances in the Bible where the author is engaging in hyperbole.
You say...
Humankind is fundamentally apostate and is capable of no good thing.
I would say that the Bible teaches that humanity is separated from God, that we are all sinners. I don't think the Bible rightly understood teaches that humanity is wholly incapable of doing any good. Clearly, when a baby hugs her Mommy or Daddy in love and joy, or when a little one finger paints a big heart to give to their friend to show how much they love them, or when even an atheist lays down his life to save a friend (or even a stranger) and does so just out of a sense of morality (a morality that is innate and obvious, which we are all born with - "self evident," as Jefferson and others put it) or love of humanity, then this is a good thing.
I think one problem that some of us Christians have in communicating is that some more calvinistic types mean something other than standard English definition of "good" when they say things like this. How are you defining good here? I mean, surely you would agree with me that an act of selfless love is a good thing, regardless of whether the person is a Christian or not, wouldn't you? Just in the standard English understanding of the word?
You asked me...
ReplyDeleteSo, I could ask a follow-up question to you, do you believe that if we pass enough laws people will become Godly, moral, good people?
No. Such changes come from the heart, not from the law. Nonetheless, I think we have an obligation to legislate against causing unjust harm towards others. You agree, I presume?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI am short on time as well and blogger has been on the fritz and sent an error of my previous typed response, so I must be brief. As such, i'm going to address one point only, and that is the idea of man being good.
You said: "I would say that the Bible teaches that humanity is separated from God, that we are all sinners. I don't think the Bible rightly understood teaches that humanity is wholly incapable of doing any good."
We have a fundamental disagreement at this point, Dan. I believe it is quite clear from scripture (i'll provide some scripture to back up my position later when I have some time) that man is incapable of good precisely because he/she is a sinner. This does not mean man cannot perform good deeds. This means that man does not do good deeds for the right reason (for the sole purpose of glorifying God). The scripture relative to good deeds being filthy rags before God is certainly illustrative as no one would suggest that there a dirty rag physically appears before God in light of a good deed done by man. It is illustrative of a general truth, namely that good deeds enough don't cut it with God. He is interested in the thoughts and the attitudes of the heart, not the good deeds in and of themselves.
I appreciate your love for people and wanting to recognize good deeds in all people, and we agree that all people regardless of race, gender, creed, etc. do good deeds. The disagreement comes in because our concern is not with good deeds but with the heart of man. Without accepting Christ and Lord, being fully submitted to God and dedicating one's life to glorifying God in all that is done, said and thought, all the good deeds in the world will not satisfy an infinitely Holy God. It is the position of the heart that is ultimately important, not the accumulation of good deeds. I welcome more discussion on this issue because this position on the doctrine of man is central to several other doctrinal issues.
I'm familiar with the scriptures on "man=bad," so no real reasons to post them. Thanks just the same. You said...
ReplyDeleteThis means that man does not do good deeds for the right reason (for the sole purpose of glorifying God). The scripture relative to good deeds being filthy rags before God is certainly illustrative as no one would suggest that there a dirty rag physically appears before God in light of a good deed done by man. It is illustrative of a general truth, namely that good deeds enough don't cut it with God.
And this is what I was referring to earlier when I said that some Christians/Calvinists have a different definition of "good" than standard English.
We agree, I think, that "good" or "good acts" as normally understood in the English language means just what we think - doing acts of kindness, acts of charity, acts of love. Right? We agree this is the standard English understanding of the concept?
Some more Calvinisty types have a theological definition of "good," meaning something more like what you're saying: That humanity does not do acts of goodness for the purpose of glorifying God, and that is how "good" is properly understood, in a theological sense.
Is that close to a fair representation of what you're saying?
Jeremy said...
ReplyDeleteThe disagreement comes in because our concern is not with good deeds but with the heart of man.
Perhaps this "Good" question is a distraction? At least from the topic at hand? We might discuss issues of salvation and how we are all sinners in need of God's grace (a point which I believe), but your post - and the reason "good" came up - was about laws and civil society?
In short, can we and ought we pass laws that expect "good" behavior out of people. I am fine with that, has been my contention. You seem fine with that, as well, as you concede that we "agree that all people regardless of race, gender, creed, etc. do good deeds."
So, if we agree that any and all of us CAN do "good" deeds, can behave with decency, then getting to your question...
I could ask a follow-up question to you, do you believe that if we pass enough laws people will become Godly, moral, good people?
People may not/will not become Godly simply by passing some laws that expect certain behaviors. But we can pass laws that effect behaviors to the positive. By passing drunk driving laws/penalties, we're not "saving" the person, but we can and have slowed down the incidence of drunk driving and that is a reasonable expectation to have for passing a law.
My only question is WHERE do we draw the line in "legislating morality?" We outlaw drunk driving, but ought we outlaw drinking? We outlaw rape, but ought we outlaw sexual misconduct?
I say, in a civil society, we ought to tend to draw that line at the issue of harm. IF a behavior can be reasonably expected to cause harm to someone, then we, as a civil society - and Christians within that civil society - can reasonably strive to outlaw that behavior.
If it is "merely" sinful behavior - harmful to the individual and their soul, but not others - then we don't really have much reason to outlaw that behavior.
What do you think?
I posted two replies yesterday, but blogger seems to be acting oddly and I wasn't sure that they posted, so here's the last one again, just in case...
ReplyDeleteJeremy said...
The disagreement comes in because our concern is not with good deeds but with the heart of man.
Perhaps this "Good" question is a distraction? At least from the topic at hand? We might discuss issues of salvation and how we are all sinners in need of God's grace (a point which I believe), but your post - and the reason "good" came up - was about laws and civil society?
In short, can we and ought we pass laws that expect "good" behavior out of people. I am fine with that, has been my contention. You seem fine with that, as well, as you concede that we "agree that all people regardless of race, gender, creed, etc. do good deeds."
So, if we agree that any and all of us CAN do "good" deeds, can behave with decency, then getting to your question...
I could ask a follow-up question to you, do you believe that if we pass enough laws people will become Godly, moral, good people?
People may not/will not become Godly simply by passing some laws that expect certain behaviors. But we can pass laws that effect behaviors to the positive. By passing drunk driving laws/penalties, we're not "saving" the person, but we can and have slowed down the incidence of drunk driving and that is a reasonable expectation to have for passing a law.
My only question is WHERE do we draw the line in "legislating morality?" We outlaw drunk driving, but ought we outlaw drinking? We outlaw rape, but ought we outlaw sexual misconduct?
I say, in a civil society, we ought to tend to draw that line at the issue of harm. IF a behavior can be reasonably expected to cause harm to someone, then we, as a civil society - and Christians within that civil society - can reasonably strive to outlaw that behavior.
If it is "merely" sinful behavior - harmful to the individual and their soul, but not others - then we don't really have much reason to outlaw that behavior.
What do you think?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou said: "I'm familiar with the scriptures on "man=bad," so no real reasons to post them. Thanks just the same...And this is what I was referring to earlier when I said that some Christians/Calvinists have a different definition of "good" than standard English.
We agree, I think, that "good" or "good acts" as normally understood in the English language means just what we think - doing acts of kindness, acts of charity, acts of love. Right? We agree this is the standard English understanding of the concept?"
I have several problems with those comments, Dan. First, I don't see what difference it makes as to the truth or falsehood of the concept of man's goodness it makes whether Calvanists adopt the belief or not? That would be like saying some denominations believe that baptism saves a person's soul so baptism isn't Biblical. Being Calvanist isn't the issue, the ability of man to be good without God is the issue. Second, as for the idea concerning the term good and "standard English" the simple fact is that the Bible wasn't written in standard English. We have to go to the text and find out which words were originally used, look at the context and determine what the writer (inspired by the Holy Spirit) meant to convey. That seems to just be a responsible way to treat the text, not to force contemporary vernacular and common ideas onto a document written several thousand years ago. The fact is there are many different words used in the Greek in the New Testament alone which speak of goodness in a variety of ways depending on the passage of scripture and the context. We can't just take the Bible and say "everywhere I see the word good I take it to mean 'doing acts of kindness, acts of charity, acts of love' (yours from above) it may not have been intended to be used that way and may not mean that at all.
As such, I am speaking of goodness of man (moral goodness, the nature of mankind, being Godly) as in Titus 2:11-14 "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope - the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good." In this case we have a very clear passage from scripture that presents goodness as something that is attainable only through redemption from Christ and the word good that is used here means "literally 'the good', as being morally honorable, pleasing to God, and therefore beneficial". So it is not enough to restrict Biblical meaning to standard English, we have to do the hard work of looking at original words and meanings. This is not a Calvanisty thing to do, this is a responible thing to do for anyone who wants to be able to rightly divide the Word of God, I would say.
Regarding your second post, I think the issue of man being good is foundational to being able to answer the question you posed and is not in any way off topic. You asked about passing laws and how one feels about passing laws depends on how he/she sees mankind by nature. This I think has been borne out by our differing approaches to the issue at hand. You seem to believe that it is possible to legislate morality to some extent because you believe man can be morally good without God. I believe it is impossible to legislate morality because mankind is incapable of being Godly because his very nature seperates him from Godliness, until he is made right by accepting the forgiveness provided by Jesus Christ. This is not a distraction but foundational to the point and I think we need to discuss the foundational point (now that it is shown we disagree foundationally) before we move too quickly into the following issue that is dependent on the foundational. I will however, as an aside, address your specific concept of passing laws where ...
ReplyDeleteyou said "I say, in a civil society, we ought to tend to draw that line at the issue of harm. IF a behavior can be reasonably expected to cause harm to someone, then we, as a civil society - and Christians within that civil society - can reasonably strive to outlaw that behavior.
If it is "merely" sinful behavior - harmful to the individual and their soul, but not others - then we don't really have much reason to outlaw that behavior.
What do you think?"
I would say that this idea of passing laws based on the issue of harm is a necessary condition for civil society but not a sufficient condition. The problem in sufficiency is in the very concept of harm. What kind of harm do you mean? Physical harm? Emotional harm? Psychological harm? This is an abosolutely critical point today with the idea of the so-called "hate speech" legislation that is being considered. These laws would imply that speech does harm and should in some cases be outlawed. Secondarily, who gets to determine what constitutes a harmful activity. Again, a very dangerous concept because of the many possible understandings of what constitutes a harm done to another.
So, I would say your concept of passing laws based on the issue of harm is a necessary condition but not sufficient for passing laws. To present my concept for passing laws I would again have to begin with the Biblical concept of the apostate nature of man and work from there, which you didn't want me to do on this point, so i'll leave my comment hanging there and just say for now that because of the inevitable misuse of laws based on a much too arbitrary system of defining what constitutes harm done to another by a select group of lawmakers the idea of passing laws based on the concept of harm is necessary but not sufficient and therefore doesn't seem to be a good way to approach passing laws.
Jeremy, I'll have to admit to almost getting overwhelmed with all this discourse, unsure of where we agree and disagree. Let me start where I think I've got some legitimate questions. You said...
ReplyDeleteThis I think has been borne out by our differing approaches to the issue at hand. You seem to believe that it is possible to legislate morality to some extent because you believe man can be morally good without God. I believe it is impossible to legislate morality because mankind is incapable of being Godly because his very nature seperates him from Godliness, until he is made right by accepting the forgiveness provided by Jesus Christ.
1. I'm unclear on your position. Are you opposed to legislating any rules concerning human behavior?
2. You and I agree that humanity has, by nature, a sinful nature - we're in agreement on that, right?
3. You say, I "believe that humanity can be morally good without God." Let me clarify: What I have said is that people CAN control their behavior within some limits. We can't help but be sinful at some point, but most of us are entirely capable of living without killing someone, for instance. Do we agree that humans - even the unsaved amongst us - CAN be generally be taught not to engage in certain behaviors?
4. Civil society creates laws NOT to make people perfect, but just to define some unacceptable behaviors and attach penalties for engaging in these unacceptable behaviors. I am supportive of this - of creating laws defining unacceptable behavior and attaching penalties to breaking those laws. Are you opposed to doing this?
5. I further believe that humanity - even thouse who have been separated from Godliness and who are not saved - CAN comply with laws. Perhaps not perfectly, but generally. We CAN create laws and expect that even children and pagans and politicians (ha!) will abide by them. Do you disagree with this?
I am unclear where you think we disagree.
To address some questions you had...
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of harm do you mean? Physical harm? Emotional harm? Psychological harm?
I believe most laws are rightly concerned with physical harm, environmental harm and economic harm. Perhaps sometimes with psychological harm, but this tends to be in more extreme situations.
If you shoot me, that causes physical harm to another person, thus, it is outlawed.
If you steal from me, that causes economic harm to another person, thus, it is outlawed.
If you dump toxins into the stream, that causes environmental harm which causes potential harm to society at large, thus it is outlawed.
If you hurt my feelings by yelling at me, that causes no serious harm other than slight emotional harm, and thus, it is not outlawed.
If you blow up cars in a parking lot in an attempt to terrorize people not to drive, that causes emotional harm (terrorism) on a more extreme level and, thus, it is outlawed. It also causes economic harm to someone and is outlawed for that reason, too. Some crimes have more than one type of harm that is being outlawed.
Do you agree that each of these type of harms ought to be outlawed?
You said...
This is an abosolutely critical point today with the idea of the so-called "hate speech" legislation that is being considered. These laws would imply that speech does harm and should in some cases be outlawed.
We already acknowledge that speech can cause harm. The most famous example is that you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. We also can't slander people, as it may cause economic or perhaps emotional harm. We don't have unlimited free speech.
Are we on the same page on that point?
You said...
Secondarily, who gets to determine what constitutes a harmful activity.
In our society, it is our courts, right? Sometimes taking into consideration expert testimony.
Do you think this is wrong?
Finally, where you say this...
ReplyDeleteSo, I would say your concept of passing laws based on the issue of harm is a necessary condition but not sufficient for passing laws.
I just don't know what you mean. Sorry. I'm sure it's my own stupidity, but I'm not sure where you're going with that. Are you saying that we ought to consider harm when passing laws, but not only harm? I probably wouldn't disagree with that, but I'm not sure that's what you're saying.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the difficulty between us in on my end. I have not had a lot of time and have been trying to condense a ton of thought into a small parcel of space and time. It's part of my love/hate relationship with the form of media. You and I may not have ever had the opportunity to discuss this issue or any other without internet, blogs, technology; but there also is a lot lost because it's not a face-to-face dialouge. So, what i'm going to try to do is post two comments. This one is going to be nothing but areas in which we agree. I probably don't do this often enough and it will eliminate some things and probably parse the dialouge down to a more manageable level. In the next comment i'll share the single idea that I believe we differ on which will include some further development of my necessary/sufficient condition comment that you had trouble with (again because of a lack of time to properly lay it out completely). So, first the areas of agreement in a simple bullet list format:
1) Government is necessary for civil society.
2) Laws are necessary for civil society.
3) Anyone, not just believers or Americans, anyone can obey the law and have their behavior changed by rules of law and associated punishments.
4) Anyone, not just believers or Americans, anyone can control their behavior within limits.
I hope the previous list was clear so we won't have to go back to those points of agreement again.
ReplyDeleteMy intention in the post was to address the Christian response. All the points on which we agree are pretty basic for all people but do not address a Biblical or Christian ideal. There a terrific book I would recommend if you haven't read it entitled "The Christian and American Law". It is generally edited by H. Wayne House and contains numerous articles by twelve different authors on a variety of topics. As the title suggests it is concerned primarily with Christian interpretation and interaction with the law. I was looking over some of my highlighted areas and would like to list just a few here that might help in the discussion:
"The original family in the Bible was established by the Creator, who brought the first woman to the first man (Gen. 2:22). The first civil society, the first city, by contrast was founded by the first murderer, Cain (Gen. 4:8, 17). Once the principle of violence has entered human society, an organized social structure, the city, becomes necessary to make human life possible. The law, as Paul points out, exists to restrain the lawless and disobedient (1 Tim. 1:9, Paul is speaking here of the law of God, but the same principle applies to human laws.) Where there is no civil authority, no "king in Israel," every man does what is right in his own eyes (Judg. 21:25)."
"Paul makes the legitimacy of government plain in Romans 13:1: "The powers that be are ordained of God...At other times and under other circumstances when it seems that civil government is on the point of claiming itself to be the source of all moral and legal authority, it is necessary for Christians to reaffirm the limits of human civil authority. The first of these limits is...We may not do that which God's law prohibits, even when the secular authority commands it (Dan. 3:4-6), and we must do what God's law requires, even when secular (or religious) authorities prohibit it (Dan. 6:7-12; Acts 4:18, 5:28)."
"When well-meaning Christians, cognizant of the increasingly secular, increasingly multicultural nature of our American society, agree to the removal of all vestiges of reverence from secular institutions, they make a dangerous mistake. Neglect of nominal reverence and thankfulness to God will be punished by nation-wide folly that will penalize those Christians who still worship privately as well as the secularists who dishonor God publicly."
"The third biblical limitation on government is derived from the biblical mandate that legitimizes the powers that be, found in Romans 13:3-4...There is one important potential qualification: Paul describes civil government as God's servant. It is to administer justice, to reward the good, to punish evildoers, and thus to establish domestic peace and harmony within the society that it governs."
There are many more, but I think that sampling from just one article gives a flavor for the book and gives a good explanation of how I can further describe where I think we disagree. I'll put those comments in a third section in case you want to spend some time thinking about the quotes and to provide a bit of a natural break.
Thirdly and lastly a further explanation. I think as Christians our understanding of laws and government has to go beyond just getting people to do good deeds, to behave like a civil society. Those things are necessary as the quote suggested because the principle of violence has entered human society, but not sufficient as a sole and exhaustive explanation of the role of government because governments are established by God and limited by God. That is what I meant by saying that passage of laws based on issues of harm are necessary but not sufficient conditions. If we look only to harm being done as defined by elected officials, that may work as a means to pass laws but neglects the necessity of those elected officials and the definitions of harm to adhere to the laws of God.
ReplyDeletePerhaps an example. The best and I hope least controversial is euthenasia. What if the elected officials in this country one day passed a law that euthenization of everyone over the age of 65 was to be carried out. They determined that the most important factor in society was productivity so no one over the age of 65 was sufficiently productive and was in fact harming society by being a drain on the health care system and the economy. They further resolved that no harm had been done to the individuals because society as a whole was of greater concern and would benefit from eliminating this segment of the population. Based on the definition you gave for passing laws this new law would be perfectly just. The elderly were harming society by their unproductive nature and eliminating them would benefit society. The notion of harm as a vehicle for passing laws must be undergirded by an understanding of limitation by the law of God. Furthermore, elected officials must also be bound by the understanding that their appointment is legitimized and limited by God (otherwise they might just come up with something like the above).
OK, I hope that is more clear and detailed. Beyond the ideas relative to law and government, as believers we also have to be concerned with people's souls. It cannot be enough for us to be satisfied with the legal system correcting behavior while leaving the soul desperately wicked and far from God. The commission given to us as followers of Christ, in part, is to make people aware of their seperation from a Holy God, that obeying the law of the land does nothing to set them right with God and will not contribute one iota to their salvation and ultimate eternal condition.
So, I think we are pretty well agreed on all the points that could be called "secular", and I hope a bit clearer on my reservations for using harm as a single test for passage of laws. If we're not I can try again. My question at this point I guess is what are your thoughts on those things particularly Christian, namely the following:
1) The legitimacy and limitation of government under God.
2) The necessity of Christians to look differently on all topics, i.e. through the lens of scripture.
3) For the additional (super-legal if you will) conditions for mankind about which believers should be concerned.
4) General idea of the nature of man in light of the above and my previous single example from Titus 2.
I am very much enjoying the discussion and going back over the issue in my mind. I'm also going to be publishing a new post, hopefully early this afternoon relative to immigration which is generally related that I hope you'll find interesting. Until next time...