Nomodiphas: Ok, I think you’ve gone too far. There have been way too many abuses in the past for this to even be plausible. How much harm and evil have been done in the name of God? I think of Medieval Europe and how the clergy subjugated the laity to their arbitrary rules by claiming that only they knew God’s will. How many cults have been started because someone claims to have a special revelation from God?
Philosophos: I won’t argue with these facts, but I need to clarify something. I am not talking about God’s specific revelation to individuals; I am talking about God’s general revelation to all mankind. I believe God does talk to individuals, however I believe what He says to them cannot be forced upon others for that is a recipe for abuse. If only one man is able to hear from God it is only a matter of time till God conveniently tells them that other people are meant to serve him or something of that nature. We see this type of abuse by shaman and other types of tribal leaders as well as modern cultic leaders. These ‘divine’ revelations tell men like Joseph Smith that they are allowed multiple wives, including underage relatives. I think it was probably a similar situation with David Koresh. Individualized revelation, though it does occur, cannot serve as a foundation for law because there is too much opportunity for abuse. Because the information from which man reasons is false and incomplete and because man’s unnatural environment corrupts his naturally good subjective reactions to good and evil and because individualized revelation is subject to abuse, God, in His mercy, revealed all the truth that man needs to know in His Word. It is only this general revelation that can serve as a foundation to laws.
Nomodiphas: Ok, I agree with you that rationalism and subjectivism fail and that individualized revelation produces too much abuse to be a sound foundation for laws, however even with a general revelation is there not potential for abuse in the way people interpret it?
Philosophos: Of course there is and that is why no one person should be put in a place where they are viewed as having the only or authoritative interpretation. One reason the medieval church was able to rule the people as they did is because people did not have access to the Bible. They had no way of knowing what God said, so they had no way to judge the validity of the clergy’s teaching. We are to all have access to God’s Word and each one of us is to read it and test the words of every man according to the standard of God’s Word. We are to not defer to the interpretation of another, but to read and study the Word on our own and ask God to interpret it for us. When each person knows the Word it prevents abuse from those claiming to have some special revelation or authoritative interpretation.
Consider how Moses told the Israelites to treat God’s Word. In Deuteronomy chapter 11 he instructed them to ‘put these words of mine in your heart and soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand . . . teach them to your children talking about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. Write them on the doorpost of your house and on your gates.’ With a working knowledge of God’s Word it would be impossible for a ruler or priest to manipulate it on behalf of a particular interest. It is true that much evil has been done in the name of God. This happened when a group of men set themselves and their institution (the medieval Catholic Church) up to be the sole interpreter of God’s Word. These men used their power as sole interpreters of the Bible to rule much of Europe (their ruler, the ‘heir of Peter,’ commanded armies that rivaled any King’s) and their institution became very wealthy in the process, controlling up to 1/3 of the continent and owning hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of serfs.
This institution knew that if people had access to the Bible they would quickly recognize how far their institution (which they claimed to be the one, true church) had strayed from the truth. So these powerful men persecuted anyone who questioned them, claimed to have a different interpretation then them, or simply wanted to study the Bible on their own. In order that their despotism could continue unchallenged, men and women were burned at the stake simply for wanting to read God’s word on their own. The church burned one of its priests, John Hus, at the stake for the crime of preaching in the vernacular and making a translation of the Bible for the laity. This establishment launched a number of crusades in Southern France against men and women who desired to sing hymns and discuss God’s Word out of a sanctioned building. People were slaughtered by the millions over the centuries for the transgression of reading the Bible on their own and coming to conclusions independent of the organization that called itself the universal church.
So, yes, quite a bit of evil and abuse resulted from a misinterpretation of the Bible. But this only occurred because the people were repressed and unable to compare the doctrines of the church against God’s Word (as the Apostle Paul himself instructed all believers to do). Now we all have access to God’s Word so there is far less potential for abuse through misinterpretation. All that is required is that people remain vigilant and test everything that they read or hear against God’s Word.
We have already talked about why the rule of law is preferable to a rule by men. Men can be greedy or arbitrary in ruling. If men do this while ruling, won’t they act the same way when they make laws?
Nomodiphas: Well, if a man is subjugated to his own laws that will restrain him to some degree, but he will always find ways around them. It seems like the dangers present in a rule by man system persist in a rule by law system, albeit to a lesser degree.
Philosophos: Exactly. I think there are two main reasons why God revealed the moral law to us. The first is that, left to our own devices, we are unable to discern it. The second was to prevent abusive rule.
The Godly principles laid out by God Himself in His Holy Word are to be the foundations for our laws and government. We would be wise to look to tradition to see how these laws have best been applied in the past, so that we may see how we can best apply them to our society. We will be unable to do this perfectly, but as long as we keep God’s revealed Truth as the basis for our actions policies we will not stray too far.
Nomodiphas: What about things that Scripture does not talk about?
Philosophos: Are there any black-and-white issues that are not clearly spelled out in Scripture? Is slavery a sin? Is dealing crack a sin? Is polygamy a sin? I think we would agree that these are categorically black-and-white, although Scripture lacks an express prohibition. But even where Scripture does provide a black-and-white rule, there remains tremendous ambiguity as to its application. Exactly what actions constitute "sexual immorality" or "adultery"? If I borrow my neighbor's lawnmower and don't return it for three weeks, does this constitute "theft"? If I leave the lights on and the faucet running in my utilities-included apartment, does that constitute "theft"?
My point is that even the simplest black-and-white rule in Scripture is too complex to be understood on its face. The laws given by Moses are merely signposts pointing toward God's values—specifically the law states the outer boundaries of behavior that reflect God’s value. And it is up to us to read the signposts together, seek His heart together, and follow His Spirit together in becoming more like Him. As we embody His values and together seek out his Truth we will be able to zoom-in and discern the shades among the seemingly gray soup of life.
We are always looking for precise rules. When X, do Y, or when A, do B etc. But if life is reduced to simply recognizing the situation and applying the appropriate rule there is no need to interact or relate with God—and relation with God is our reason for existence. The Bible does not give us mere rules; it gives us a glimpse into God’s heart. The Law of Moses shows us the things God values. It is from an understanding of these values, especially the value of justice, that we should base our system of government.
Nomodiphas: Isn’t there a worry that if we claim to have the one correct notion of justice that we will be accessed of imposing our morality on others?
Philosophos: This idea of imposing your morality, your view of justice on another presupposes that there is no absolute notion of justice or morality, just a collection of views and opinions that we should all be free to follow. It presupposes that there is not a single set of principles that a good/healthy/just society or individual should be structured around. But there are universal laws in nature and math, why wouldn’t there be universal laws in ethics as well? Secondly, every government imposes some form of justice on its citizens. No nation has ever existed where people are allowed to do whatever they please. If the government must impose some form of justice, wouldn’t it be best if we imposed the correct form? In Romans 2:20 Paul wrote that ‘the law is the embodiment of knowledge and the truth.’
If we accept that there is a God and that the Bible is His revealed Word, we must accept it all, we cannot pick and choose. Either it is all inspired by God, or none of it is. For if only part of it is inspired by God by what means may we determine what is true or relevant and what is false or outdated? Further, as we have agreed upon, every other source of discovering the truth is unable to function as a basis for sound laws. Rationalism can be used to justify slavery as can tradition and subjectivism leads us to collectively wrong conclusions because we share the same unnatural environment. Descartes understood well that if the basis for your knowledge is unsound all the wisdom and knowledge you gain that is built from that base will be untrustworthy. We have the Truth and all we come to know must be based upon it. Justice exists outside of all men and opinion, good government comes into agreement with it. Because we have the Truth it is our duty to declare it and reform the government so that it comes into agreement with the Truth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment