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.
No comments:
Post a Comment