The Institute (協会)

"King and a Kingdom" by Derek Webb comes to mind. He says, "My first allegience is not to a flag, country or man...to democracy or blood, but to a king and a kingdom."

This causes me to consider issues like gay marriage...It is morally wrong, but should unbelievers be forced by law to abide by the morality of a faith that's not their own?

Josh asked, "This causes me to consider issues like gay marriage...It is morally wrong, but should unbelievers be forced by law to abide by the morality of a faith that's not their own?"

GREAT question. I'm sure someone will answer tackle this one for ya!

It seems to me that "to abide by the morality of a faith that's not their own" is sort of a given in any society where someone loses the political battle. The fact that a particular moral imperative can come uniquely from a particular religion does not mean that it is a bad idea to impose it as a matter of policy.

Historically, there are a couple ways to resolve that question. Under the influence of Catholic philosophers, many Protestants think that the law is rooted in nature itself, and thus certain aspects of morality ought, and must, be encapsulated and enforced by law. Others, like John Stuart Mill, think that the coercive power of the law ought only to prohibit and punish force or fraud. Still others (Rawls) think that the only legitimate basis for coercion is in principles shared by everyone reasonable.

I think the best Christian answer lies in understanding the means and the ends sought. What end are you serving? If it cannot be achieved by coercive means, then the government ought not to do it. If you hope to convert people to faith in Christ, then government cannot do it because faith is not induced by coercion.

By contrast, if you think that the natural family is more healthy for civil society and reproduction than a homosexual-based family unit, then refusing to allow gay marriage makes a lot of sense. Additionally, if you think that natural law principles apply to the bond of marriage, then calling gay marriage "gay marriage" is a non sequitur. In that case, it would immoral to allow gay marriage.

I neglected another historic Christian approach, that of Abraham Kuyper. In his view, there are certain spheres of sovereignty, autonomous from the other spheres. The natural family would be one sphere, where the government is not permitted to establish its own control over governance (that being left to the parents). Another would be social society, another worldly power, etc. etc. You can find this in his Lectures on Calvinism.

I think Kuyper's view has limited utility, and is useful mostly as a way of understanding the contours of natural law principles. But then again, that's because I'm inclined toward a weak version of natural law, not a sphere of sovereignty view. You can think of classical liberal or libertarian thought as a Kuyperian philosophical structure: individuals are sovereign within certain areas of life, and the government is (and ought to be) powerless to intrude.

In the gay marriage issue, the sphere of sovereignty approach causes problems because "marriage" as a legal and cultural institution has long been embedded in the government, providing peculiar benefits otherwise unavailable to individuals. It will not do to insist that gayness is a matter of individual freedom and thus gay marriage ought to be created, because marriage is created/recognized by governmental authorities. If marriage is rightly within the bounds of governmental authority, then the argument from individual freedom fails because it crosses spherical boundaries. If you're a natural law person, though, then even the government itself is bound not to violate certain natural laws (the institution of marriage being one constraint), and so individual freedom cannot trump natural law.

You know, I've heard arguments like Meacham's about the Constitution time and time again, and quite frankly, the shallow comment "no acknowledgement of God" really grates on me. Those who have read the volume of papers on the Constitutional Convention know better; our Founders certainly weren't the same guys as were in London in 1688/9, but they also would not have been welcome at a freethinkers' convention.

Josh asked, "...should unbelievers be forced by law to abide by the morality of a faith that's not their own?"

I think it's important to note that all law, to some degee, is moral law. From laws that require us to pay our taxes or sign up for selective service, to laws that prohibit gay marriage or drug use, all laws impose one standard of morality over another.

Yes it is

"I think it's important to note that all law, to some degee, is moral law."

A law is not "to some degree a moral law." Law is to every degree a law of morals. That is, every law is a judgement of what is good and what is bad. The only question is: on which set of morals is a given law based.

Josh's question was whether "unbelievers should be "forced" by law to abide by the morality of a faith that's not their own..." He was referring to "gay marriage."

If a law is passed that prohibits homosexual marriage, yes. If there are laws extant that prohibit homosexual marriage, yes. The law is king. And so long as a law is not contrary to God's Law, then it should be obeyed by every member of society.

I hate to say this, but the only people who believe that this nation was founded by Christians are people who did not descend from slaves.

Carl,

Good point, one that I agree with for the most part. However, one must consider that every state in the union establishes laws such as this one from South Carolina

SECTION 53-3-110. Garden Week designated.

The week beginning the first Sunday of June each year is designated "Garden Week".

I think everyone who voted "yes" for this law believes it's a "good idea" but no one would actually argue it on a moral basis. My point is, not all law is equally "moral law."

Great point though. I do understand what you are saying.

Lionel, interesting thought; would blacks nearly universally say that they were not Christians at all, or suggest that they were Christians living in grievous sin in one very important area? My take from years at universities is that there is at least a strong subcategory who would either say that they were sinning grievously, or even that slavery goes hand in hand with Christianity.

Your point is well taken; just trying to ask a question or two to flesh it out a bit.

Carl said: "If there are laws extant that prohibit homosexual marriage, yes. The law is king. And so long as a law is not contrary to God's Law, then it should be obeyed by every member of society."

This gets to the heart of my question, not just on gay marriage but on Christians living in a non-Christian nation. The non-Christians are not going to think, "Is this law contrary to God's law." It's unreasonable to expect that of them.

So digressing to "the law is king," and also what Darden said about any law deriving its moral authority from somewhere...So, are American Christians just in a race to get the legislature to pass laws that support their views, laws that are derived from their moral authority, so that we would have a non-Christian nation with Christian laws? Is it just a race for power?

If I sound young, naïve, unexperienced and full of questions, it's because I am...

Great post, Anthony. I like it when folks get all riled up!
Nations are irrelevant. If we are Christians, then we have no other allegiance. We do not attach ourselves to any pagan institution. It is not wrong to contract or covenant with a group of individuals, for the purpose of lower transactions costs in trade, or mutual protection. It is wrong to make unprovoked use of force.
The Constitution is a nice piece of paper. It is not perfect. Either debate political philosophy from what is obvious about human nature and revealed truth or worship a document that makes no claim to inerrancy. Sure, there were a lot of Christians involved. A lot of Christians helped build the George Washington Bridge. I don’t worship the structure (except in my especially Objectivist moments!).
Gay marriage. Christians ought not to apply to a pagan institution for sanctioning of a Christian and monotheistic sacrament. If the pagans want to apply there, let them.
Tusc0n raider wants to introduce Mill, Rawls, and Kuyper to the argument. Why not invite Nozick, Hayek, Marx, and Cohen while we’re at it. (Are you in my political philosophy course?)
Mill wants utilitarianism, but he wants it under and imposed by a state with many attachments to collectivism.
Rawls wants a Democratic Equality which is neither Democratic, nor Equal. Discuss amongst yourselves. G.A. Cohen puts him in his place.
Kuyper, if I’ve got the right guy, opens the door for Rushdoony and Gary North (whose economics and commentary I admire greatly), but their Theonomy is out of place.
Jesus calls us to give up use of political mechanisms in achieving the gospel. He calls us away from the pagan institution which is the state. The state seeks to do the regenerating work of Christ, to change human nature, by force. It has been, so far, unsuccessful.
If one is truly an advocate of natural law they would do well to consider advocating a government which is limited to the judicial, which adheres to a common law process of legal discovery, and denies access to legal reform by the legislature. This law must be limited to protection of rights, and enforcement of contracts. There ought to be no positive laws, and no laws which establish privilege in any way.
Then, as Christians, we must assume full and exclusive responsibility for looking after all of the least of these.
Sorry for the GYOB

Carl said: "If there are laws extant that prohibit homosexual marriage, yes. The law is king. And so long as a law is not contrary to God's Law, then it should be obeyed by every member of society."

I could have worded the last with a slight but important difference. "As long a law is not contrary to God's law, every Christian member of a given society must obey it. For pagans, the primary impetus in obeying laws will be the threat of punishment."

"So, are American Christians just in a race to get the legislature to pass laws that support their views, laws that are derived from their moral authority, so that we would have a non-Christian nation with Christian laws? Is it just a race for power?"

With Jurisnaturalist, I agree that our primary mission as Christians is to spread the Gospel. But secondarily, I think that as American Citizens who happen to be Christians we have a responsibility to seek the good of society. As Christians we are responsible to seek the good of all men. As Americans we are responsible to seek the good of our Nation and her people. Homosexuality being contrary to God's law, it cannot be good for society. And while they are still legally permitted to do so, Christians should actively seek to prohibit such evils. That is why I disagree with this statement by Juris: "Christians ought not to apply to a pagan institution for sanctioning of a Christian and monotheistic sacrament."

Who is this society fellow you speak of?
If we are to imagine some sort of collective to which we belong, I assert that there is only one legitimate collective and that is the church. To be able to relinquish the ambit of self-interest honestly and consistently requires a change in human nature only possible through regeneration. Therefore, you do not really belong to any collective "society." And there is nothing that is "good" for society, only that which is good for other individuals. What is good for other individuals is Jesus. He exercises His power through you and me.
The only honest motivation for laws that are good for society is fear. Yet we as believers have been confronted with perfect love which casts out all fear. We must be of all men most courageous.
I purchased a marriage license from the state because it buys me and my wife discounts at the pagan store. I would not deny anyone that opportunity through protectionist measures designed to maintain a privilege. I would prefer that the state ignore the difference that the church might demonstrate its peculiarity against a bolder relief.

Juris,

Really, you must excuse me. I had thought from the screen-name you have chosen that you knew something of law. Please accept this brief primer on the meaning of "society."

"Society: An association or company of persons (generally unincorporated) united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose. In a wider sense, the community or public; the people in general. Gilmer v. Stone, 120 U.S. 586, 7 S.Ct. 689, 30 L.Ed. 734." (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition.)

Now back to Josh's question, which was whether "unbelievers should be "forced" by law to abide by the morality of a faith that's not their own..." He was referring to "gay marriage." The answer is yes. The reason for this is made clear by putting the question more succinctly; viz.,

"Should unbelievers be forced to obey the law?"

Of course they should. Every citizen must obey the law. "Law is the standard and guardian of our liberty," and again "Laws are the very bulwarks of liberty; they define every man's rights, and defend the individual liberties of all men." Ostensibly, our Constitution is the Law of the land with nothing higher; and this, no matter how some evil legislators and judges have attempted to twist its meaning.

When once laws are established, let men obey them. If they will not obey the laws of the land, let them overthrow the government and write their own. Or would you have citizens choosing willy-nilly what laws they wish to obey?

"I purchased a marriage license from the state because it buys me and my wife discounts at the pagan store. I would not deny anyone that opportunity through protectionist measures designed to maintain a privilege."

If this is your view of marriage, I deem it to be perverse, and can only offer you my deepest sympathies.

"And there is nothing that is "good" for society, only that which is good for other individuals. What is good for other individuals is Jesus. He exercises His power through you and me.
The only honest motivation for laws that are good for society is fear."

It is not good for "society," nor is it good for the "other individuals" that comprise society, that a murderer should be set free. Yes. Fear is a motivation to obey the law; but only for evil men.

"Yet we as believers have been confronted with perfect love which casts out all fear."

And yet, still, we are to "Fear God."

Carl

Carl,
Per your definition of society, the individuals enjoined must do so for some common purpose. But solidarity of purpose is impossible without oneness of mind, which is unique to the church. I know little formal law. Juris Naturalis is my political position, coined by Richard Maybury. Law ought to be severely limited to torts and contracts, with no opportunity for political manipulation.
I do not recognize my marriage certificate as covenantal. My vows to my wife, my God, and my church form the covenant and sacrament which I am bound by. The certificate obtained from the state operates merely as a discount card, placing me in a different tax bracket, and lowering transaction costs in regards to questions of property and problems with the children.
Should we obey the laws of the land, sure. Should we seek to influence what those laws are to obtain privilege? No. Should we work to eliminate privilege in the law? Absolutely. My argument is not to extend the secular franchise of marriage to homosexuals, but to eliminate state involvement in private affairs, and eliminate all legal privilege. Christians in politics have all too often fallen into the trap of working to obtain greater privileges for themselves as a special interest group. Instead they ought to be working for justice and the elimination of privilege. We ought not to advocate a marriage amendment, we ought to advocate policies which leave government blind in regard to vices, and less distracted from punishing crimes.
I concede that fear is a motivation for evil men to obey the law. But what should they fear? An arbitrary law-making body? Or the truth? Punishment? Or price of restitution plus damages?

What are we as believers to fear? God ONLY.