I believe I understand what Russell Moore and Andrew Walker were seeking to do with this piece, and I wish them well and applaud their efforts. There is much that is valuable about what they are saying, particularly in their recognition of the distinction between sins and crimes. However, comma . . .
The problem, as I see it, is embodied in a sentence near the end of their post. The context that makes it problematic is cultural climate in the West today. I do not say any of this to applaud the Ugandan legislation, about which I know nothing, but rather to point out how the forces of Progress in our nation use such things to maneuver us into a position that is much more to their liking.
“The jailing and execution of people for consensual sexual immorality, in contexts like we see in many places around the world, isn’t Christian, either.”
This sentiment rests on a particular understanding of the old order, the order of Christendom, at the very time that this order is under a full scale assault, by the very people this sentiment is designed to protect.
I have perhaps said it before, but my pastoral philosophy of ministry is summed up by this: “What would I do here if I were the devil?” and then try to counter that. And if I were the devil, I would take this sentence, and then take two steps beyond it.
The first step beyond it, if once we have established that consensual sexual immorality ought not to be a crime, is to start promoting various forms of consensual sexual immorality that the state would have a necessary interest in discouraging. Things like adultery and prostitution come to mind. Prostitution can be as consensual as buying a can of beans is.
When it comes to sexual immorality, the human heart is amazingly creative, and since the forces of immorality are not at all interested in finding some peaceable point of equilibrium with us, they will find multiple ways to push the boundaries. They can always figure out ways to push us that will require the defending culture, if it acts, to act with some form of a civil penalty that represses their consensual immorality. It may not be jailing and execution, the penalties they mentioned, but anything else the modern state does — fines, deportation, etc. — depend upon the power to jail. Why should the marriage partner who didn’t commit adultery get the kids? And so forth. Why should the state get to penalize someone for what was a consensual sexual act between a boss man and his secretary?
Also, incidentally, I am not here trying to build my ideal biblical libertarian republic from scratch. You have to play cards with the hand you were dealt, and you should dance with the one what brung ya. So the immediate question is not whether prostitution was criminalized in Moses’ Israel, about which I have opinions, but rather what the practical effect would be in the present if it were decriminalized in 49 states. Such a decriminalization could not be separated from the current push for widespread acceptance of every form of sexual deviance, and it puts Moore and Walker in the awkward position of advocating for the decriminalization of prostitution because of how our forebears treated the Baptists. But I can’t imagine that this is what they would want — although the structure of their argument seems to require it.
So why worry about what Uganda might do to criminalize a consensual sexual act? Why aren’t Christians fighting the injustice of criminalized consensual acts sexual here?
When the bad guys have pushed that kind of thing sufficiently, they will then take the next step. In fact, their agenda is far enough along that they have already been taking it. What’s with that tired old category consensual? The first place that this comes under assault is with age of consent laws. Those laws presuppose the old order of Christendom, and a childhood protected from sexual predations was a cultural artifact of the Christian gospel. I thank God for it. The apostles of Progress are trying to dismantle the entire thing, and I really don’t think we should be helping them in any way.
Doug,
Isn’t it possible to decry governments laying down unBiblical punishments for homosexuality, while still recognizing that it would be equally unholy, though in the opposite direction, to allow that kind of sexual sin to run amok in the public square? I Timothy 1:8-10 seems to suggest that the civil government does have a say in some aspects of sexual ethics. I know you are at least open to the concept of theonomic ethics from what I have read of you.
They also said,
I’m sure they make this jive with Leviticus somehow, but I wonder how. My problem is not with saying whether or not such acts should be legal, but rather with saying that, given Scripture and that it was illegal within the people Israel, it is unjust to do so.
Doug, One other thought. I believe there is incredible peer pressure on Christians to relegate themselves to areas that will not impede the cultural decay that is taking place. Christians can have Sunday mornings, and then, only in dealing with sufficiently esoteric issues that we will not really impact anything or anyone, and thus we will be out of the way. That said, I do not think most Christians have a self-conscious sociopolitical ethic. Churches do not teach this, and in fact, they teach the opposite, that we should stick to the spiritual stuff (as if social justice is carnal).… Read more »
Wesley, Exactly my point. They claim it is not Christian to execute people for sexual immorality. However, in the OT, there were occasions where it would have been sinful not to do so. My concern is that the authors really do not have a sincere Biblical belief that it is now unChristian to have what most people in our present day would scorn as a Puritanical government; rather, the perceived embarrassment from advocating what is seen as old fashioned and neanderthal leads them to this conclusion. I mean, if there is an exegetical argument to be made, then let them… Read more »
By what standard can you consent? When I worked in a nursing home, part of the orientation included a warning: Residents can have sex with whomever they wish except you. They can not legally consent to have sex with you and if you violate this, you will be charged with statutory rape.
Why can’t sexual offences not be considered capital crimes? Jesus didn’t pardon that woman out of mercy, it was out of justice. If the authorities brought both of them who were guilty, he would have had no choice but to condemn them.
Well, I want to give them a lot of slack. I take Russell Moore as a great representative of Christianity, but I do wonder what exactly they meant by saying that. They might could have said that, given today’s culture and the shape of our government, it may not be the most expedient of stances. That may have been a better statement than saying that it is “an affront to the image of God”.
Wesley, You are correct, as was Doug. We have to start with the hand we currently have, and work from there. I think a significant problem though is that the destination in view on the part of the church is the antithesis of Leviticus. I think most Christians today either assume that “we just don’t do that anymore” or they are embarrassed of those laws and repudiate them. One thing to consider is that if God expects a greater degree of control over what goes on in the public square, and we do not do that, then much like neglecting… Read more »
I’m a bit surprised to find Leviticus 20:13 unBiblical. ;-)
Is there any problem with exchanging actions into their premise: “At the same time, we believe laws criminalizing ______________ to be unjust and an affront to the image of God embedded in all persons.”
How about:
incest (consensual),
pedophillia (Consensual, “and please do not confuse the issue with your old, tired and staid thoughts about age of consent”.),
bestiality (the animal “consented”),
public drunkeness (It was just me lying in the street, puking in the gutter.”),
driving under the influence (“I did not get into an accident.”)
If I understand Doug’s point aright, at least part of what is wrong (unwise/shortsighted/misguided?) with the argumentation of this article is that it relies upon the foundation and shared good will of a Judeo-Christian culture and legal system (i.e. Christendom). We no longer, however, live in such a system, and like President Obama is finding out with Vladimir Putin, if we assume that the other guy is going to play by the same rules, we will often end up being played for a fool. … Read more »
David wrote: “That said, I do not think most Christians have a self-conscious sociopolitical ethic. Churches do not teach this, and in fact, they teach the opposite, that we should stick to the spiritual stuff (as if social justice is carnal). That said, don’t you think that one of the greatest challenges facing the church today on topics like the one above deals with the fact that Christians do not have a Biblical, consistent, coherent answer as to what separates public and private spheres?” I agree with David. This is one of the biggest issues that Christians need to figure… Read more »
I agree with Katecho.
I would also add that I think/sense that God is about to open a world of hurt on the U.S. and our role is restoring the covenant relationship between God, the governing and the governed from the bottom up. We have work to do and it is a joy to do it.
@Katecho, I definitely do not agree with Moore on that particular point, however he is coming from a “two-kingdom” perspective and not a Dispensationalist perspective. Unless you know something I do not know? … Read more »
I apologize for any implication that Moore or Walker is a Dispensationalist. I’m actually not familiar with either of them at all. I was speaking of the negative effects of Dispensationalism on its own, but I would include the two-kingdom view as having the same error with regard to public truth. The idea that Christ is not yet asserting His Kingdom authority among the nations is a serious error that has confused the Church for too long. But I believe this would be an instance of disagreement among fellow Christians that doesn’t call for rhetorical broadswords to come out (maybe… Read more »
“Why don’t they teach logic in schools these days?” 1. Murder is against the will of God. … Read more »
Somehow, I just knew those paragraph breaks just wouldn’t pan out…
I guess the questions that always floats through my mind are the questions; 1)What do you do if you are the one in power?; and 2) How do you distinguish capital offenses from non-capital offenses? I am not Post-Millennial, but I do have to answer these questions. I wonder if we are in the sexual mess that we are in as a society, at least in part, because we consider sexual immorality to be such a private matter. Yet, the Old Testament clearly considers adultery (Lev 20:10), incest (Lev 20:11-12, 14), sodomy (Lev 20:13), and beastiality (Lev 20:15) to be… Read more »
Tim, Through the ages of the church, there has not been enough study on the issue of the application of God’s law to modern times. Today, I think most people are simply embarrassed by what books like Leviticus say, and so the issue is not studied because it seems too far “out there”. And indeed, compared to where we are right now, it is pretty far afield in one sense. I think in terms of process, that the method by which Christians decide which laws, if any, are still to be applied in some fashion has to be exegetical, not… Read more »
Tim Mullet wrote: “I wonder if we are in the sexual mess that we are in as a society, at least in part, because we consider sexual immorality to be such a private matter.” The situation seems to be even more general. We consider truth itself to be such a private matter. We have lost touch with the idea of any public truth that is true for all. The Gospel is not true for all, but only if you “accept it privately”. This is what we have become. We Christians have bought off on this kind of relativism. However,… Read more »
Katecho, I agree with your assessment that truth itself is such a private matter. Relativism is fairly ubiquitous. Yet, it only seems to go one way, correct? The sodomites certainly want to impose their sexual morality (or lack thereof) on the rest of society. They do not believe that acceptance of their morality is optional. They do believe that the state should punish disobedience to their dictates. They do not believe these matters are up in the air so to speak. … Read more »
Tim, the founders of the United States of America found themselves on an island continent (though populated) where they were tasked with forming a government. A significant number of those men (not all) – and their wives – were born-again believers. They knew exactly what kind of government to form and they did it. They formed it around Judeo-Christian law and it worked very well (not perfectly) for a very long time (please don’t anyone bring up slavery – it’s been done to death). This country offered nothing to it’s immigrants other than freedom from government intrusion into their lives. … Read more »
Tim, forgive me for sounding like I’m lecturing you. I understand your questions were largely rhetorical and believe that we are on the same page.
Melody, something I said struck a nerve, I’m trying to figure out what it was? :)
Tim,
Pastor Wilson has (at least) two superb sermons on the nature of government.
Here is one: http://www.canonwired.com/sermons/21-principles/
and another: http://www.canonwired.com/sermons/governmental-tax-cheats/
I just know you will love them as I did.
Melody, if you have not heard them, I highly recommend them.
A little of topic…’Prostitution can be as consensual as buying a can of beans is.”. Was ‘is’ necessary?
Timothy, I just listened to those two last week… probably because we have the same name…
@Tim.
I brought it up, because of the triune (correct term?) notion of governance that Pastor Wilson shows us: God<->gov<->citizen. In the current thread we are only focusing on gov<->citizen and God<->citizen. I think the current discussion resolves itself when we citizens re-learn what God’s stance towards the God<->gov. link is . My sense is that He is not pleased with God<->gov and just fine with God<->citizen and will restore what His citizens require.
Arguments and discussion and governance that only have a gov<->citizen relationship are meaningless to the Christian.
I would also add that this change in model from God<->gov<->citizen to gov<->citizen by the pwb in gov is what has many Christians on their rhetorical heels. To ‘complicate’ things are the unsaved and un-educated who only know gov<->citizen–where gov effectively replaces God.
Why so much unholy kissing? Because the command 5x repeate,d Greet one another with a holy kiss, is totally disregarded by most churches.
Man! I like Russel Moore! And I’m a baptist! But I’m still sitting here scratching my head about how executing homos could be called unbiblical? Apparently it was good enough for The One Who Sits Enthroned in Heaven. Trying to be a bit more spiritual than God, Mr. Moore? And let’s not even start on the image of God. The reason for killing the person who murders is precisely because of what murder does in terms of the image of God. Should we be surprised, then, that God legislates capital punishment when two men get confused about what member was… Read more »
Liberal professing Christians do have a socio political ethic. Attend a United Methodist Church some time . It is usually stated in thge liturgy. BTW. the Constitution only refers to one race and it does so twice. that race is Indians
David said: “One thing to consider is that if God expects a greater degree of control over what goes on in the public square, and we do not do that, then much like neglecting a lawn, the weeds will invariably spring up.” I’ve read the various posts by everyone on this subject, and they’re all very good. Indeed, the roles and boundaries of church and magistrate are not always easy to discern. And like Katecho said, the concept of truth in general has been diminished in the public sphere, since truth and religion have been mostly relegated to the private sphere. However, I think… Read more »
Scripture clearly mandates (in Rom. 13:1-7 and 1 Pet. 2:13-17) that Christians should submit to the governing authorities regardless of the faith of the authorities, and that we should honor and obey the governing authorities. In light of this biblical precept, in what circumstances can Christians engage in civil disobedience? And if such engagement is warranted, what might this look like? How should Christians go about doing this? I ask the questions, yet I lack the prescriptive answers. This is partly because the apostles in the New Testament era didn’t live in a world of democratic, religious freedom. Moreover, it was… Read more »
If and Moore and Walker are to be understood correctly, Christians must immediately demand the repeal of all laws against prostitution and pedophilia and rape, “To this end, though, we believe a nation can teach a positive truth in its laws about marriage and sexuality without prohibiting and targeting its opposite.”
In light of this biblical precept, in what circumstances can Christians engage in civil disobedience? And if such engagement is warranted, what might this look like? How should Christians go about doing this? I ask the questions, yet I lack the prescriptive answers. Dan, Last week I was in the same boat. Then I was referred to Pastor Wilson’s two sermons on this very subject.They will answer you questions. I posted the links above in a response to Tim Mullet. Short synopsis–> 1. Government is a good given to us by God. 2.… Read more »
Hi Timothy. Thanks for your reply. I’ll definitely check out those 2 links. This subject is worthwhile for all of us to think through.
Dan et al, Because (I think) I am in an older demographic than many of the posters here, I must remember that even though the questions reveal a thought that these questions are new, they really are not. They were “new’ to me at one point in my life, and as I performed the auto didactic process, it was part of how I discovered why I felt so out of step with modern evangelical theory. … Read more »
@RFB
Thank you for the references. I found links to those works
http://www.portagepub.com/products/caa/sr-lexrex17.html
http://www.constitution.org/vct/vind.txt
I will give them a read.
cheers
Katecho is correct. A ‘dispensationalist’ reading of the OT is likely at least part of the problem for so many issues. Our fathers in the faith – especially those who exercised some influence in the setting up of governments/states – had no issue with seeing key OT passages as very relevant to the individual believer AND the Church. Dave W., I do wonder how helpful it is to call those caught in the grip of serious (moral) sin, ‘homos.’ Helpful in the sense of not merely winning the argument, but winning the man. Rosaria Butterfield’s story may not map onto… Read more »
One liberal friend said that the one positive of feminism is that sexual harassment in the workplace has decreased because of government intervention. Thoughts? comments?
Robert, perhaps that’s true, except when the sexual harassment was perpetrated by a popular liberal President in the oval office. The feminists were strangely silent. It was just sex, after all, and Hillary stood by her man just like a good traditional — I mean feminist — woman would do.