"Law #1" Response

One could never even hope to live in a stable society, if that society does not have a stable set of just laws. The next most important question to forming a safe society, then, deals with the ultimate authority for creating laws.

In her article, “What are the Different Sources of Law?” Sandi Johnson establishes four ultimate sources of law that successful governments follow:  cultural customs, common law, precedent, and legislation. Cultural custom, also known as customary law, is “…based on cultural customs and beliefs regarding acceptable behaviors and practices held by tribal society and its elders. Such laws…seldom appear in written form, yet citizens adhere to such rules to the same extent as to written law” (Johnson). In other words, customary law is an implicitly understood set of unspoken laws, rooted in some overarching sense of a society’s moral convictions. Next, Johnson defines common law as:

“…a legal system that is largely formed by the decisions previously made by courts and not imposed by legislatures or other government officials. The reasoning used to interpret this type of law is known as casuistry, or case-based reasoning. It is a strict, principle-based reasoning that uses the circumstances of a case to evaluate the laws that are applicable.” (Venus)

The next source of law, precedent, is defined as “When a court of law or other official entity rules on a particular question of law not previously addressed...Such case law histories provide a documented record whereby common and legislative laws are applied to real situations” (Johnson). Johnson’s fourth law source, legislation, is “written law enacted by the official governing body of a particular people. Such laws are codified in specific language for use and interpretation by each country’s judicial system” (Johnson). After establishing the four sources of law, Johnson provides a scenario in which:

“…each of the four sources of law can be seen as a stage of development…a society may establish proper marrying age through cultural customs. As the society grows and advances, cultural beliefs and practices establish a more formal understanding of proper marrying age, forming the basis of common law. Precedent, meaning leaders make public decisions and thus a public record of such laws, backs up common law and establishes its validity through documentation. Eventually, such laws are written and codified, resulting in legislative law.” (Johnson)

The unifying factor behind all four of Johnson’s law sources is their employment by the government. However, no matter how well-organized these four sources may work together through the government, there is still a major problem with this kind of lawmaking. Mankind is not omniscient; therefore, it is not possible to foresee all the kinds of moral dilemmas that will influence future law. Therefore, people who argue for the government’s ultimate lawmaking authority fail to understand that an earthly-government-oriented approach to creating laws can never perfect the goal of government (maintaining peace in all of society). Yet, atheism’s adherents are forced to follow the futile system of creating Heaven on Earth through the government, since there is no God from whose nature we can borrow righteous lawmaking concepts. Also, people who find the foundation of law in cultural customs must ultimately recognize that their version of lawmaking does not come from an objective/divine moral order. On the contrary, the government and its laws only become subject to the transient beliefs that define a specific time period or culture. The danger of this dilemma is that Man will always maintain a bias towards his own gratification when making laws, even if it means that the law will ultimately justify his sinful tendencies.

            For Christians, the ultimate authority for creating laws is found in God’s morally holy nature. Unlike Johnson’s praise of governmental law creation, the Christian view of law states that “governments exist not so much to create laws as to secure laws—to apply divine law to general and specific situations and to act as an impartial enforcer of such laws” (Noebel, 286). The “divine law” mentioned in this passage is defined by David A. Noebel as “[a]ny law that comes directly from the character of God via special revelation [the Bible and Jesus Christ]” (286). In addition, “According to God’s plan, the responsibility of governments is to encourage people to obey divine law by punishing wrongdoers and protecting those who live in accordance with God’s laws” (286). This concept is supported in Romans 13:3-4:

“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

The Christian view of law also accounts for Man’s fallen nature and blindness to legislative future—something that the government-centric law sources of Sandi Johnson fail to do. To understand this aspect of Christian law, it is necessary to first understand that Christianity affirms that Mankind does have a fundamental sense of right and wrong (the conscience). While earthly lawmaking establishes this rudimentary sense of moral discretion as the only necessary guideline for making acceptable laws, Christians expand the role of the conscience. In fact, they believe that “we can know God’s will or natural law [physical and moral laws revealed in general revelation and built into the structure of the universe, as opposed to the laws imposed by human beings] through our conscience” (Noebel, 285). Despite the moral knowledge of the conscience, however, the Christian view of law acknowledges Man’s sinful nature, and therefore his inability to create a perfect law system through earthly governments. Noebel explains this point best: “…each of us is accountable to God for our actions: we know a transcendent law exists, yet we consciously flaunt it. This truth must be incorporated into any successful legal system” (285). By establishing Man’s moral accountability to God, rather than to governments and the laws they pass, the Christian view of law provides Man with an incentive to avoid twisting earthly law and government to accommodate his bias and sinful nature. Rather, scriptures such as 1 Peter 2:13-17 convey this message:  “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men…who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right…Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.” In other words, God has given people free will in choosing to follow the conscience He has created within them. Ideally, people should choose to follow the right moral path their conscience provides them with, and proceed to study God’s character through that choice. It is this kind of spiritual investigation that will give God the “invitation,” so to speak, to direct human law. In turn, yielding to the intrinsic moral purity of God’s character protects society from being driven by the whims of custom law, by extension affecting the other levels of legislative development (common law, precedent, and legislation). Finally, living “as servants of God” in everyday life and under the law helps us to see past sinful biases (the “cover-up for evil”) better than humanistic government.

"Feminism" Response

Since God’s creation of the Universe, men and women have been the two building blocks of the family, and, by extension, society. As such, both men and women reflect God’s image, although in different ways. For example, while God grants men a natural sense of emotional calm and “distance” that enables them to act quickly in decisions requiring rapid action, He gave women a nurturing side that enables them to bond with their children and “think out” more complex social dilemmas. Especially in the Genesis account, it is shown that God created men and women to complete each other. Therefore, the Christian view on the question of gender importance respects both men and women equally before God, whose image both sexes bear equally. 

            There are two alternatives to the aforementioned equality of men and women, both of which are polar opposites of the other. The first view upholds males over females. Such thinking prevailed in the days before women were allowed to vote or even own private property. A religious example this kind of sexism is Islam. Within this system, Muslim women are only good for bearing male children, and satisfying the sexual appetites of their husbands. Apart from these jobs, females have essentially no value in Muslim culture. The other extreme is known as Feminism, a movement that ostensibly exists to “empower” the common woman. Feminism has “positive” roots, such as the desire for women’s suffrage. However, as the movement gained momentum, Feminism also gained new (and evil) motives. The main three goals of contemporary Feminism, then, are the destruction of the traditional family, as well as eliminating homemaking as a viable career choice. Rather, feminists encourage women to pursue a life that revolves around a career dedicated to market production—without the burden of a husband and children. By aggressively pressuring women to join the world of market production, as opposed to granting them the right to choose between a domestic or corporate lifestyle, Feminism defeats its own purpose of empowering women to make their own choices.

A famous example of Feminism in practice is the Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA. The ERA has one main idea: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” At first glance, the ERA sounds perfectly reasonable. To cite an earlier example, initiatives such as the ERA guarantee basic human rights to each gender—for example, women’s suffrage. However, upon closer inspection of the ERA, E. Carolyn Graglia notes in her essay, “Domestic Tranquility,” that the “equal rights amendment…was intended…to promote the feminist goal of an androgynous society.” For example, “It would…require drafting of women for military service, including combat.”  History and Biblical records show that combat is not an area God set aside for the typical nurturing woman. Rather, the battlefield is where men are meant to serve. For example, the kings of Bible times were known for fighting alongside their armies on the battlefield—queens remained in the palace). Disrupting this natural order only leads to emotional trauma and feelings of purposelessness for the female soldier—not utopian androgyny or sexual equality, as feminists hope. Measures like the ERA are meant to subvert the traditional family and force women to “abandon their traditional roles and refashion themselves after the feminist role models who promoted [the ERA]” (Graglia).  The ERA is the most aggressive, blatant attempt by Feminism to rip women away from the traditional family setting. By placing females at the forefront of a literal “fend-for-yourself” career and lifestyle, contemporary feminists fail to protect the value of women. Rather, they substitute the delicacy and elegance that should be highlighted in women with the bloody traditions brought upon the world by the Fall of Man.

Christians should view Feminism as a threat to the traditional family, and, by extension, the church and state—proper institutions that Christianity has fought to establish and preserve under God’s holiness throughout its lifetime as a worldview. By taking an active position in society and voicing support for the traditional family so reviled by Feminism, Christians can still save a form of sociology ordained by God. Verses such as I Corinthians 11:3 and 11:7-10 set a clear Biblical standard against Feminist principles:

“Now…the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God…A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.”

Feminists call for the overthrow of any kind of "sign of authority" over women; however, the removal of such a sign will lead to familial, and therefore societal, instability. In closing, Christians have a sociological and a Biblical duty to rescue the dignity of the traditional family, as well as the dignity of women who find homemaking more spiritually and emotionally fulfilling than market production.  

"Sexist? Homophobic?" Response

Every major religion has a fundamental set of laws, most often through the written word (like the Christian Bible or Muslim Qur’an). Such texts outline the lifestyle expected of the adherents of the religions they represent. For example, the Christian Bible, as well as its moral standards (i.e. the Ten Commandments), are assumed by Christians to be the holy Word of a perfect and righteous God whose expectations are to be met. Since God exists on a spiritual level beyond that of human affairs, the things He says through the Bible are perfectly objective and rational. That is, Christians understand that the moral system God establishes in His Word is free of any unrighteous hate, bias, or prejudice. Even when God punishes individuals in the Bible, He does so to achieve a greater spiritual lesson for the whole church, such as the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). Therefore, one can only grasp the true message of the Bible if he or she is a Christian who believes in God’s existence, flawlessness, and omniscience.

Unfortunately, many people attempt to discredit the Bible by interpreting it through a non-Christian lens. This style of “analyzing” Scripture dooms the reader to an erroneous inspection of the biblical text, since he or she is now examining it using a different method than the one it was meant to be read with.

A common societal example of this dilemma is the accusation that the Bible teaches Christians to be “homophobes and sexist.” Such an assumption is created by most Christians’ aversion to homosexuality as a form of sexual immorality. The church often cites verses such as Romans 1:21, 26-28 to explain this aversion:

“For although [Mankind] knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened…Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another…Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion…Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.” (NIV)

While this passage does point out that homosexuality is wrong, and God’s punishment for Man’s pride, it does not call for the church to embrace homophobia or sexism. In fact, passages such as Acts 15:19-20 even command the church to reach out to those in danger of sexual immorality, in order to help them turn to Christ. This confirms the old saying, “God hates the sin—not the sinner.” Christians who morally stand against homosexuality (calmly arguing for a “straight” position is different than the hatred of homophobia), then, are simply agreeing with the religion (and, by extension, the lifestyle) they have chosen to follow. For example, one cannot claim to be a Muslim without trying to emulate Muhammad’s actions. Likewise, a Postmodernist considers himself subject to the ethical standards of his culture—which he believes are correct, if even for a short period of time. In conclusion, what is commonly labeled as “Christian homophobia” is really the Christian community taking a moral stand for the God they represent. If Christians do not take this moral stand, they will become hypocrites in God’s sight—even if they gain the love of the world and its “tolerance.” Logically, however, Man’s applause should mean nothing to the Christian. Rather, it is much more acceptable to stand before God with a firm moral backbone, yet hated by the world.

            As to the charge that Christians are sexist, the aforementioned principles of Biblical examination also apply. For example, the Genesis account clearly establishes women as the “completers” of men. For example, after creating the sea and the land, God created the creatures that would fill them, such as fish, birds, and other animals. After creating Adam, God proceeded to take his rib to create the first woman, Eve. Just as the animals filled the other areas of the earth, God made Eve to bring fulfillment to Adam’s wife. In God’s words, “it is not good for man to be alone.” In fact, some people even use this event to make the argument that the Bible teaches that women are the pinnacle of Creation.  For instance, Biblical characters such as Deborah show the significance of women and their leadership skills. Even Rahab was used by God to help save the Israelites and their leaders, and Ruth’s actions ended up rescuing the Messianic Line. In fact, the Book of Proverbs often portrays Wisdom as a woman. Also, without women, it is impossible to obey God’s cultural mandate—for man to multiply in the earth and subdue it. As well, in a traditional, monogamous marriage, a man’s wife often saves him from making brash decisions. In addition, a woman’s stronger connection to her emotions is necessary to balance, and even enhance, her husband’s masculinity. Husbands and wives have one main duty to each other—to make the other stronger in Christ. Such a spiritual duty is not laid on one spouse alone, but is meant to be equally shared by both people in the relationship. In comparison with ideologies such as Islam and Secular Humanism, Christianity also elevates women. The respect Christianity gives to women, as well as their spiritual duties, fully outclasses the childbearing role granted to them in Islam. Even secular thinkers see both women and men as “matter in motion”—that is, there are no moral absolutes that govern the way women should be treated (“all is matter”); therefore, they have no spiritual or emotional significance, either. In conclusion, the Biblical/Christian view of women is far from “sexist;” rather, it renders all genders equal before the power of a holy God.