Christians and proposed laws that are considered immoral.

[Gerr]

What is to be a Christian's attitude towards a proposed enactment of a law that he/she considers immoral/sinful? For instance, many Christians consider legalizing addictive drugs which are presently considered illegal, or same sex marriages, or polygamy, etc. This is NOT a discussion about a particular immoral/sinful practice, it is rather a discussion about the attitude/position a Christians takes. Can a Christian consider something sinful/immoral and yet as a matter of public policy endorse it? How?

[Dr. Shane]

The civil government has the right to pass laws with regulate behavior between a person and another person. The civil government has no right to pass laws which regulate behavior between a person and their God. That is a distinction that must be clear.

As a member of a democracy, I want to support laws that are best for society. I do not want to use the civil government to enforce my religious beliefs on other members of society. However some of my religious beliefs are good for society as a whole. For example, my religion believes it is sinful to murder other people. I support a prohibition on murder not because my religion believes it is a sin, but because I believe such a ban is best for society.

All laws are passed because of morality. The speed limit is set because we believe driving above a specified speed places other motorists in danger which we judge to be immoral. Laws dictate that food manufacturers must put labels on their products because we believe it is their moral responsibility to inform the consumers of what is in their products. Example after example can be listed. A nation's laws are a reflection of the nation's morality.

My religion should cause me to try to win the hearts and minds of others for Jesus. My religion should never send me into the voting booth to force my religion on others. My civic duty is to vote for what I believe is best for society - which may at times agree with my religion. I see my civic duty as being my obligation to my community, state and country. I see it as something distinctly different than my religious duty owed to God.

[Neil D]

This is NOT a discussion about a particular immoral/sinful practice, it is rather a discussion about the attitude/position a Christians takes. Can a Christian consider something sinful/immoral and yet as a matter of public policy endorse it? How?

The problem is whether you believe that the standards that you live by are community standards imposed by God onto all of humanity...

Since God died for our choice, not for community, at least for me, the standards that God gives are for me...and me alone....I came into this world with no standards/values....by my becoming a Christian/follower of Christ, He gives to me my values and my standards to live by...

Granted, if everyone is a Christian and feels that they have the same standards as I do, then there is NO need for community standards since the community already has those standards individually. Since this last idea is rather idealistic, the only hope is for me to communicate my standards to the best of my ability, and hope that the individuals in the community accept them.

Therefore, in the case of poligamy, I can relate to the headache that women give to men with all thier demands/tasks/"honey-do lists"....In the case of gay marriage, I can give sympathy to the gay couple who are in the hospital situation of one of them is dying and his family excludes the partner....IOWs, I identify where I can, and point to a better way when I am able....

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes. A Christian can support a civil law that is considered to be immoral or sinful. God gave us humans the right to sin. We should not take that right away from people.

We do not now live in a society governed by God's rules, as did Isreal.

There is also the issue that something that may be moral, may not have a proscription as to how it is carried out. E.g. The Bible says something about the Christian duty to provide for the needy. But, it does not say anything as to how that should be accomplished.

Yes, civil law should protect society. As morality may be attached to just about anything, I may support civil laws that have a moral basis. E.g. Murder has a moral foundation. I may support civil laws that prohibit murder as such protects society.

So, getting back to homosexual marriage: Yes, I believe that homosexaul practice is sin. No, I do not beleive that homosexual practice, done in private, should be prohibited by law as people have a right to sin. I also beleive that homosexual couples should have the same civil rights as do heterosexual coupled and I believe thtat they currently do not have such. I favor them being granted such civil rights--whether by civil union or by marriage is up to the individual State in my mind.

In general terms, with some specific exceptions, I believe that the idea that homosexual marriage is a threat to religious liberty is simple paranoid thinking.

[Gerr]

My religion should never send me into the voting booth to force my religion on others.

Am I forcing my religion/personal moral values on others by voting against a proposed law that I consider abominable?

[Gerr]

Yes. A Christian can support a civil law that is considered to be immoral or sinful. God gave us humans the right to sin. We should not take that right away from people.

The freedom to sin is a given. But for a Christian who lives in Indonesia (an Islamic nation), would he/she vote for a law that calls for the extermination of all that do not convert to Islam?

Quote:

We do not now live in a society governed by God's rules, as did Isreal.

True. But should we then endorse every law proposed by a gov't just because it is not under God even though it is immoral or sinful? By endorsing such laws, are we not then participants in the same sins?

[Dr. Shane]

Am I forcing my religion/personal moral values on others by voting against a proposed law that I consider abominable?

Many things are considered abominations by many people. These include things like lying, spitting in public, racism, family members not talking to each other and husbands forgetting their anniversary date. Biblically, most abominations dealt with idolatry. Others included, bringing prostitutes into the temple, remarrying an ex-wife after she had married another man, fraud and eating unclean meat.

Would voting for a ban on fraud be forcing my religious values on others? Perhaps so but that is besides the point of why I support laws against fraud. I support laws against fraud because I believe they are best for society.

What about laws against pornography? My religion prohibits me from using pornography. However I value the right to free speech and believe that a picture being a 1,000 words is a form of speech. Thus I object to a ban on pornography. That said, I do support restrictions because I believe restrictions are best for society. Models must be 18 years old, one must be 18 to purchase it and it should only be sold in places where adults have access. I believe we should also restrict its promotion through advertising.

[Dr. Shane]

I also beleive that homosexual couples should have the same civil rights as do heterosexual coupled and I believe thtat they currently do not have such.

Here is a moral statement. This reflects the morality of secular humanism. The question becomes, should secular humanists force their morality on the rest of the country?

Secular humanism is a competing belief system in our world today. The two major tenants of secular humanism are (1) evolution, and (2) moral relativism. Secular humanism is all about forcing these two tenants on the rest of society. Those that get caught up in it have a form of arrogance caused by intellectual pride. This is the complete opposite of the religion brought to the world by the humble Carpenter born in a barn. Secular humanists are more guilty of forcing their morality on others than any other group of people in society today.

That is not to dismiss the concern about evangelical Christians and the Religious Right. The politically active far-right certainly poses a threat to religious liberty. However secular humanists pose an equal if not greater threat. I would not be surprised to see these two groups unite in the end time to force Sunday worship on the world. Both groups believe they know what is best for others and are willing to use the civil government to force their beliefs on the world.

[Gregory Matthews]

1) No. A Christian would not likelly vote for their own death.

2) No. I would never endorse every law proposed by civil authorities.

3) No. God gives people the freedom to sin. Christians have not been tasked to take that freedom away.

[Gregory Matthews]

I believe that the right it inherit property should be equally given to all.

Am I a seccular humanist because I belive the homosexual couples should have that right to the same degree as heterosexual couples?

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane, you introduced the issue of civil rights with your reference to "Hernandez." Judge Kaye in that decision lists a number of basic civil rights that all people should have and that homosexual couples do not have.

Do you really mean to say that those who support those listed civil rights for homosexuals are seccular humanists?

[Gerr]

1) No. A Christian would not likelly vote for their own death.

By endorsing an immoral/sinful law, are we not in fact voting for our own demise since such sinful behaviors brings with it judgments?

Quote:

2) No. I would never endorse every law proposed by civil authorities.

So by what criteri-a/-on would you oppose it if not on the basis of its moral implications?

Quote:

3) No. God gives people the freedom to sin. Christians have not been tasked to take that freedom away.

,

God gives people the freedom to sin, yes, but nowhere does He endorse sin by law! It's a long stretch to say that by voting against it, a Christian is taking away another person's right to do what they want to do in their private lives.

As I see it, what you are saying to me is that we are to endorse an immoral/sinful practice rather than resist it! That, to me, is not only embracing the sinner but the sin as well! We are commanded to practice the former, but I can't see doing the latter.

[Gerr]

In general terms, with some specific exceptions, I believe that the idea that homosexual marriage is a threat to religious liberty is simple paranoid thinking.

Have you been following what has happened in Canada?

[Dr. Shane]

It's a long stretch to say that by voting against it, a Christian is taking away another person's right to do what they want to do in their private lives.

Private or public life. The civil government can pass a law against a sinful behavior (like gambling) and people still have free will to do it. However if they get caught, they suffer the consequences. Even when the sin is made legal, there are still consequences. The consequences are just different.

Homosexuality is sinful. No doubt. Drug abuse is sinful. Child abuse is sinful. Eating unclean meats is sinful. Some of these things we ban and others we do not. However the consequences are still there regardless the position of the civil government.

We are in the middle of a culture war. On one side is the Religious Right with their agenda. They want to use the civil government to force their agenda on the population as a whole. On the other side are the secular humanists who also wish to use the civil government to force their agenda on the population as a whole. Seventh-day Adventists are in the middle. Some Adventists get sucked into the thinking of the Religious Right. Other Adventists get sucked into the thinking of secular humanism. We need feel sorry for those poor souls and pray for them. Those of us in the middle are simply concerned about religious liberty. Our eyes are wide open to the threat to religious liberty from both the Religious Right and the secular humanists. Surely we are living in the last days.

[Bravus]

It's partly a question of priorities, IMO. Should Christians put a heap of energy into fighting these laws? Or, given that energy and time are finite, should they focus on (a) spreading the gospel and ( relieving the oppressed?

[Dr. Shane]

Good point, Bravus. Like I have said before, my main concern is religious liberty, which is something we need to spread the gospel.

[Bravus]

Freedom to discriminate is not a religious liberty issue.

[Bravus]

3000 texts in the Bible about how we deal with the poor, and what is it: 4 or 5 about homosexuality? None specifically about drugs, but another 4 or 5 about alcohol abuse.

When our priorities mirror God's priorities, He will honour our efforts.

[Gerr]

While you have a point about priorities, my question, however, is not about priorities but about what positions we take when confronted with proposed laws that are immoral/sinful. IMHO, voting FOR them is tantamount to ENDORSING them. I can't in conscience do that. Voting against them, to me, is not the same as depriving another person's right to do them because they can still do them privately regardless.

[Bravus]

Yeah, good point Gerry. I meant to say something about this earlier and forgot.

In my opinion, every Christian should be absolutely free to vote his/her conscience on every such question. Laws don't actually come directly to citizens to vote on them all that often, but, for example, while I would have voted against Proposition 8 in California, I would be completely fine with Christians who felt constrained to vote for it.

Where I have an issue - and where the point about resources comes in - is organised campaigns in relation to particular laws. The church ought not to tell members how to vote, and ought not to get involved in organised campaigns, in my view.

I realise that's a little off your original topic, but it's implicit.

[Dr. Shane]

Freedom to discriminate is not a religious liberty issue.

I think it is. A Catholic adoption agency discriminates against gay couples in placing children. The reason they discriminate is because of their religion. How is that not a religious liberty issue?

[Gregory Matthews]

Because they do not have a relilgious liberty right to be an adoptation agency.

[Bravus]

As with renting church halls - an issue someone addressed with great clarity here recently - so with providing adoption services. If someone wishes to be in that business, they must be willing to do it in a non-discriminatory manner. Discrimination is unacceptable, so if they want to discriminate they need to get out of that business. Historical involvement in any business is no guarantee of future involvement.

[doug yowell]

What is to be a Christian's attitude towards a proposed enactment of a law that he/she considers immoral/sinful? For instance, many Christians consider legalizing addictive drugs which are presently considered illegal, or same sex marriages, or polygamy, etc. This is NOT a discussion about a particular immoral/sinful practice, it is rather a discussion about the attitude/position a Christians takes. Can a Christian consider something sinful/immoral and yet as a matter of public policy endorse it? How?

I think this is an important question that many in our church never stop to seriously consider.Until the abortion rulings few Christians ever thought it commendable to support politically the legalization of what God had prohibited in the Bible.In defense of abortion on demand the idea of "freedom of choice" suddenly became a principle which trumped all.Or as constitutional attorney Bruce Cameron once commented,"We have exchanged the Bible for the Constitution."This attitude of "Am I my brother's keeper?" is most often reflected in the response, I'm personally against...but I support a person's right to ..." thus helping to promote exactly what God has forbidden. This view of sinful human behaviour as primarily innocuous to society openly reflects the person's view of the arbitrary nature of God's law,since "it doesn't hurt anyone..."So the "Christian"now adds their voice of support to evil while retaining their innocence of corporate responsibility."...who,knowing the righteous judgment of God,that those who practice such things are deserving of death..approve those who practice them." Eph.5:5-13 also speaks clearly to this question.Christians have the duty to oppose what they know to be wrong. They have no excuse for promoting what they know to be wrong.

[Gerr]

Very good. Thanks, Doug.