Since civil government primarily involves the punishment of “bad” behaviour and (in withholding punishment) the rewarding of “good” behaviour, it stands to reason that the code of ethics government applies should be “meaningful” and “exist within a coherent moral framework.” Such a framework is the one provided by God.

Ben said: “What I do not believe is that the Bible is capable of providing detailed guidance like some sort of manual about what our actions should be in every single instance.”

Should I wear a red tie or a blue tie today? You’re right, the Bible does not provide any guidance, let alone detailed guidance, on what course of action I should take in deciding such a matter. But should civil government punish rape because it constitutes “bad” behaviour? Of course! And the only “meaningful” way of determining this is by appealing to the “coherent moral framework” provided by God, found in Scripture.

Ben said: “Nor does divine grace release us from our personal responsibilities to contribute to the best possible community.”

My understanding of divine grace is that of the enabling power of the Holy Spirit to abide by God’s standard of morality, revealed in Scripture, by virtue of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the recipients of God’s favour. The “best possible community” is the one in right standing with God to the degree that the Spirit, by God’s grace, enables.

Ben said: “Therefore, I believe its vital that God’s name be invoked and not usurped.”

We seem to be in agreement, after all. But rather than using “invoke” and “usurp”, I think it would be easier to employ “legitimate” and “illegitimate”.

Francis Gamba, Melbourne

How would it be possible to “assess which policy platforms adhere more closely to Christian beliefs” without appealing to God’s authority? Because to carry out such an assessment, we would of course have to appeal to Scripture, which derives it’s authority from the fact that it is “God-breathed”. And whether such an appeal is to be deemed legitimate or not can be determined by seeing whether it squares with Scripture.

Ben said: “My further point was in reference to the danger that God’s authority may be illegimately used in support of a party political, philosophical or idealogical points of view.”

Whether such is legitimate or not will be determined by whether it squares with Scripture. Without appealing to Scripture in supporting philosophical, ideological or political parties’ point of views we would be appealing to what? Arbitrary, subjective value-judgements plucked out of thin air, that’s what: the Law of God or the Law of the Jungle – take your pick.

Ben said: “This has occurred on numerous occasions in the past when Christian apologists for totlitarian regimes of the right and left have usurped God’s name to justify these regimes’ monstrous beliefs and actions.”

And how do you know that these regimes and their actions were “monstrous”? By appealing to the objective standard of the Bible to make this value-judgement, of course, the revealed word of God. Whether such an appeal to God’s authority is legitimate or not can be easily determined by checking Scripture. I know of no biblical justification for Stalin, Pol Pot or Hitler’s regimes. If you can reveal otherwise, then I would be happy to change my denunciatory view of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Ben said: “It also happens when Christians express approval for capital punishment when there is no rational basis for suggesting that God approves of the taking of human life.”

Is it rational to appeal to Scripture in determining what God approves and disapproves of? Or do we just … sense it?

Ben said: “Forgiveness and compassion are central to Jesus’ teachings – not vengence.”

Makes you wonder what all that talk of Hell was about if Jesus has done away with vengeance? But then I recall reading somewhere in the Bible something along the line of, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” And if I remember correctly, the next verse implies that our motivation for being nice to our enemies is for the very purposes of heaping coals of fire on their heads! Maybe I’m thinking of a different Bible.

Francis Gamba, Melbourne

Whether you use “usurp” or “invoke” to describe a particular appeal to biblical authority will depend on whether you view such an appeal to be legitimate. I explained in the previous post why I thought my appeal to biblical authority was legitimate in issuing a verdict on the performance of civil government. And since Parliament is the legislative arm of government, wherein political parties exist and operate, I also implied that it is always legitimate to appeal to biblical authority with regard to society’s rewarding of “good” behaviour and punishment of “bad” behaviour; because to do otherwise is to apply an arbitrary, subjective standard of morality, which in the end translates to Might Makes Right. (Sieg Heil!)

Ben said: “When I referred to ‘God’s name’ I was referring to God’s authority. So my point is that people should not illegimately use God as an authority in support of a point of view. I assume you agree.”

Of course I agree. If people, in support of their worldview/point of view, cannot justify their appeal to God’s authority from Scripture, then that appeal is ipso facto illegitimate.

Ben said: “My remark about the illegimate use of God’s authority to ’snuff out individual freedoms’ was made in the context of a discussion about Christianity and partisan politics.”

If it is possible for a political party to more closely align its platform with a biblical worldview than another party, then I believe it follows from this that is possible for a Christian to be “partisan” about his politics. For example, if one political party supports, oh say, the killing of innocent life in opposition to another, then a person who believes it wrong to kill innocent life, we should think, is morally obliged to support the political party whose platform aligns, or more closely aligns, with his ethics or worldview; that is, it is legitimate for him to be “partisan” in his politics. I for one would be “partisan” if presented with the choice of voting for the Nazi Party in Germany over, say, the Christian Democratic Party.

Francis Gamba, Melbourne

I have only just read your comment, hence my delayed response.

I am not usually a pedant when it comes to semantics, but I think that your comments do necessiate some semantic analysis.

There is a fundamental difference between ‘usurp’, which refers to illegimate acts, and ‘invoke’ which means to ‘declare’ or to ‘call upon’.

When I referred to ‘God’s name’ I was referring to God’s authority. So my point is that people should not illegimately use God as an authority in support of a point of view. I assume you agree.

My remark about the illegimate use of God’s authority to ‘snuff out individual freedoms’ was made in the context of a discussion about Christianity and partisan politics. I was agreeing with Bill’s point that the Christian Faith cannot be realised in one political party but that it is nevertheless possible to assess which policy platforms adhere more closely to Christian beliefs. My further point was in reference to the danger that God’s authority may be illegimately used in support of a party political, philosophical or idealogical points of view.

This has occurred on numerous occasions in the past when Christian apologists for totlitarian regimes of the right and left have usurped God’s name to justify these regimes’ monstrous beliefs and actions.

It also happens when Christians express approval for capital punishment when there is no rational basis for suggesting that God approves of the taking of human life. Forgiveness and compassion are central to Jesus’ teachings – not vengence.

I do agree that for a code of ethics to be meaningful it should exist within a coherent moral framework. I believe that transendant moral framework is the one provided by God.

What I do not believe is that the Bible is capable of providing detailed guidance like some sort of manual about what our actions should be in every single instance. Nor does divine grace release us from our personal responsibilities to contribute to the best possible community.

Therefore, I believe its vital that God’s name be invoked and not usurped.
Cheers
Ben Carter

I’m actually quite happy to invoke God’s name and authority in order to “snuff” out some individuals’ freedoms.

You see, I believe that for morality to make sense, it has to come from an objective standard. This objective standard has to, by definition, be transcendent in its provenance. Otherwise, if temporal, it is merely arbitrary, subjective opinion. In a roomful of arbitrary, subjective opinions, which one’s the right one? Such a temporally derived morality reduces ethics to the law of the jungle, which is that might makes right. The Nazis were excellent and brutally consistent practitioners of this philosophy of ethics.

My morality, or system of ethics, is based on the objective standard of God, revealed to us in the Bible. This system of ethics is objective because it is transcendent in its provenance. Its source being Almighty God, it is therefore absolutely authoritative and so universally binding. My morality is therefore not based on my own arbitrary, subjective opinions, otherwise how right my morality was would depend on how much might I would be able to muster a la the Nazis.

I believe that such things as murder, rape and stealing are morally wrong. I believe this based not on an arbitrary, subjective opinion but rather the objective standard of morality revealed to us by God in the Bible. I believe, based on revelation from the very same source from which I derive my system of ethics, that the primary role of civil government is to deter and punish such evildoing as murder, rape and stealing. I therefore think it legitimate for the civil government to punish those found guilty of committing such evildoing, which may involve “snuffing” out or denying the individual freedom of criminals by placing them in jail or by “snuffing” out all freedoms altogether by employing capital punishment.

The civil government under whose authourity I currently live agrees with and reflects my system of ethics by “snuffing out” or denying the freedoms of those who commit such evils as murder, rape or stealing. It does this by placing those convicted of such immorality in gaol.

This civil government, however, does not fully reflect my morality with regard to murder, for example, because it does not punish the offender if the victim is prenatal. But I recognise that the best system of government under which to live is one in which public law is made by the majority under a system of representative government. The majority of people currently do not believe that prenatal killing ought to be treated as murder and so punished by the state, and this fact is currently reflected in public law. Christians like me work to try to pursuade the majority of the error of their ways, such that they may change the laws under which they live in the future to reflect their (God-willing) changed morality.

So like everyone in our society, I believe that the freedoms of some people — like murderers, rapists and thieves — ought to be “snuffed out” by the civil government for committed evil acts. But we are not all agreed on what system of ethics we should appeal to in fashioning public law, which seeks to reward “good” behaviour and punish “wrong” behaviour. Should we appeal to system of ethics that is temporal in its provenance and so merely arbitrary and subjective? Or should we appeal to a system of ethics that is transcendent in it provenance and so objective and universally binding in its authority? What we are (I hope) all agreed on is that we should conduct this process of public-policy formulation within the framework of representative democracy.

Francis Gamba, Melbourne

Properly understood, Christianity surpasses political philosophy because the Kingdom of God is the perfect solution for the world. Which, incidentally is why we even have a secular separation of Church and State.

While I agree with Bill that we can, nevertheless, analyse the political philosphies that are more informed by Christianity, we must do so very carefully because, as history has shown any rashness in this regard tends to have very nasty consequences.

Regarding Frank’s comments and those of others on this site, can I respectfully recommend they examine the lessons of the English Reformation to compliment those of the North American Great Awakenings.

One of Christianity’s great lessons is that freedom and authority are not mutually exclusive and that only through benign order can individuals truly be free. On the other hand Christians should not usurp God’s name and authority to snuff out individual freedoms.
Cheers
Ben Carter

Up until quite recently Australian tax policy has been far from family-friendly. We have had a highly individualistic taxation regime in place for quite a while, with scant recognition of the family unit. Thus any fiscal policy adjustment which takes more seriously the contributions that families make to society is welcome. Governments are right to recognize and benefit families, given the tremendous benefits they bestow upon societies. And yes, I do not like to see governments treat families as merely welfare cases, but as deserving of genuine financial recognition and support (as in family unit taxation, income splitting, raising the tax-free threshold according to the number of dependents, or other measures).

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Let me reiterate this following verse from the Bible regarding all this: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov 14:12).

Francis Gamba, Melbourne

Very interesting stuff! Certainly the question of how to help people and encourage their self-sufficiency within society is an urgent and ongoing question and worthy of constant debate and fresh ideas, so I much appreciate your input.

May I ask a question though? How do both of you feel about the current government’s policy to redirect much of our taxes to middle class families? Is there not a risk here of welfare largesse as you (frank) call it?

Andrew Lake