Should Christians try to bring biblical law into civil society?

With the run-up to the general election Christians from a whole host of wide ranging backgrounds are urging one another to sign the Westminster 2010 Declaration of Christian Conscience (which you can sign following the link if you so desire). The declaration itself is an attempt to encourage those in authority to uphold certain 'Christian' moral standards and allow people of faith to act freely in accordance with their consciences. From this flows an important question: Should Christians seek to impose a 'Christian' morality on a multicultural, multiethnic and multireligious society? It is not my intention to comment specifically on the Westminster 2010 Declaration nor do I want to encourage or discourage people from signing, or not signing, it. Instead, I simply want to explore the question of whether Christians should seek to implement their morality on society.


It is possible to argue that where the Bible makes clear and direct moral statements, such as in the Ten Commandments, these constitute a Christian moral code. As such, this is the best moral code for all people. Therefore, being the best moral code for all people, it must be right to enforce this code into civil law. This view, however, causes a number of difficulties. The Apostle Paul tells us:

For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20, ESV).

These verses highlight the fact that the purpose of the law, that is the Ten Commandments, is to bring knowledge of sin. According to Paul, keeping the law does not justify anyone, it exists so that we can know what sin is. This, however, causes a two-fold problem for the view that we should bring the Ten Commandments into civil law.


Firstly, given that we are all by nature sinful, by bringing the Ten Commandments into civil law we introduce legislation into society that nobody - including those who want to implement it - can keep. Secondly, there are clear spiritual implications of the Ten Commandments that cannot be policed. We know that Jesus stated:

You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Mtt 5:27-28, ESV).

and:

You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgement.' But I say to you everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgement; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council;  and whoever says, 'You Fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire (Mtt. 5:21-22, ESV).

Jesus claims that even our impure thoughts are as though we have physically broken these commandments. If we introduce the Ten Commandments into civil law we still cannot police sinful thought. Ultimately, this leads us to enforce only a part commandment. Worse still, by only enforcing the commandments in part we give the impression that sinful behaviour is merely a physical act and not inclusive of our thoughts as well. In this way, by seeking to enforce the Ten Commandments through law we water them down and make them less effectual. We change their purpose from highlighting sin to coercing righteousness and, in so doing, we achieve neither.


We must consider what our motivation is for seeking to enforce the Ten Commandments through civil law. In the verse quoted previously, Paul makes it abundantly clear that keeping the law does not justify us in the sight of God. As such, we will not bring anyone into the kingdom of God by enforcing the Ten Commandments through our legal system. If our motivation is not simply to bring people to God but to encourage a good moral standard for society we are equally going to fail. Without the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ there will be no change in behaviour. The Apostle John tells us clearly that:

the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed (John 3:19-20, ESV)

Unless we are changed by Christ there will be no change in our moral behaviour. Even where such things are enacted through civil law, and as we have seen they cannot be properly enacted and end up weakening the commandments themselves, behaviour will remain unchanged. This is witnessed throughout the Old Testament where the Israelites fell time and again away from the commandments that were enacted through their own civil law.


In reality, for the Christian, rather than wasting our time on changing a moral, outward law we should instead focus our time and attention on spreading the good news of the gospel which can change the hearts of men and women. By enacting moral laws we cannot hope to change the morality or sinful nature of anyone. By bringing people into a saving knowledge of Christ their hearts will be changed which will in turn cause them to live lives pleasing to God without the need for coercive legislation.


If we cannot implement the Ten Commandments, on what basis should we enact laws? All men, women and children are made in the image of God. As such, all people command a level of respect and dignity that extends beyond cultural, religious and ethnic differences. Due to the image in which they are made they demand equality and respect. Sinfulness cannot be a basis for removing such rights from people as the Apostle Paul notes, quoting the Psalms, 'None is righteous, no, not one (Rom 3:10, ESV).' Moreover, we cannot argue that some sins warrant removal of these rights and others do not. The Apostle James notes 'for whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it (Jam 2:10, ESV).'  As such, we are all sinful (Rom 3:10) and therefore all accountable for the whole of the law (Jam 2:10). Given that we are all guilty of the whole of the law, sin cannot be grounds for removing these basic rights, inherent by virtue of being made in God's image.


If we accept that there are basic rights that extend to all people the basis of our laws can only be as follows: Everything is lawful that does not impinge upon the common rights of others. Such a basis will inevitably mean that certain of the biblical commandments will be enacted in civil law. For example, if we accept that every person has the right to life, murder clearly becomes illegal as it impinges in the most direct way upon this basic right. However, other biblical commandments would not be enacted in civil law. For example, an unmarried couple who decide to have a sexual relationship do not impinge upon the basic rights of anybody else in society. As such, despite what the biblical teaching on the matter is, there is no justifiable reason to legislate against such behaviour in law.


As Christians, we must be careful to differentiate between the civil law which governs us and the moral law of the Bible by which we are called to live. We must recognise, first and foremost, that without saving knowledge of Christ any attempt to enact biblical law in society is simply a case of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We cannot change the moral thoughts and behaviours of people through civil law - this can only be done through Christ. When we recognise this, our focus should become less on seeking to change moral behaviour and more on seeking to change hearts with the gospel.


This should also change our view of civil law. Rather than seeking to enact a moral code that can never be truly kept we can instead support those laws that uphold the basic human rights that extend to people worldwide by virtue of the fact that they are made in the image of God. Moreover, sin is not a basis for removing such rights and our law should reflect this. As Christians we are called to highlight sin through the preaching of the gospel, not to punish it. It is not through civil law that people will come to know sin but by the preaching of the gospel. Therefore, we should not concern ourselves with punishing sin through civil law. Instead, we should focus on preaching the gospel, upholding those rights that extend to all people and allow all behaviours in law that do not impinge on such rights. This does not mean that we cannot highlight sinful behaviour in the preaching of the gospel but it does mean that we should have no part in condemning or punishing people by law for such behaviour.

Debunking error or preaching truth?

It is not uncommon to hear preachers highlight a variety of scriptural interpretations and doctrinal statements that, over the course of half an hour or so, are duly debunked ending in the assertion of the supposed correct view. Is this the most helpful approach to biblical teaching? Of course, it is eminently right and proper that correct doctrine based on biblical truth is taught and restated in our churches; nevertheless, the preacher can seek to do this in one of two ways. Either biblical truth can be taught exclusively, without reference to other errant views and interpretations, on the basis that knowledge of truth allows us to recognise anything that is not truth itself. Alternatively, particular errors can be highlighted, demonstrated errant and correct biblical truth taught to steer people directly away from specific errors and clearly towards biblical truth simultaneously.


It is possible to argue that, of these two approaches, the first is the better. By teaching biblical truth exclusively the preacher must make a sound interpretation, backing up each statement he makes with clear verses from the text and can apply his interpretation directly to the people to whom he is speaking. In order to fill a half hour sermon he must state the correct interpretation of scripture, show how he arrived at such an interpretation, illustrate his points clearly and make his points applicable to the people listening rooting all of this in the text. Where the preacher is faithfully doing this he can rest assured that in teaching what is true people will themselves be able to determine that which is false if they so encounter it.


The second approach, however, brings with it a number of difficulties. Firstly, nothing is added to the listener's understanding of scripture by teaching what the passage does not mean. The aim of teaching should be to aid understand of the meaning of scripture. When we spend time explaining why particular views are errant we are ultimately telling people something they do not need to know. Instead, we should teach primarily what the Bible does mean and in so doing we teach people what they actively need to know as opposed to the endless list of things they do not.


Secondly, the more views we raise in a sermon the greater the possibility of causing confusion. We may offer an expert explanation of why each interpretation, apart from our own, is errant but for many this will come across as just one view amongst a sea of others. The greater number of views we introduce the more this seems to be the case. Moreover, the list of things a passage of scripture is not saying is infinite and we could spend a lifetime explaining what a passage does not mean without ever getting to the point. Far better to spend time simply explaining biblical truth exclusively rather than concerning ourselves with the infinite number of things the passage does not teach.


Thirdly, by highlighting specific false teaching we may bring particular errors to the attention of people who otherwise would not have encountered them. In doing this, the best we can hope for is that those listening will recognise the errant teaching for what it is. More likely, however, we may cause some to investigate the error we highlighted further and, in doing so, may lead some to be swayed by compelling arguments that far exceed the intellectual plane on which our own preaching functions. Furthermore, we may add to this problem ourselves by, no doubt unintentionally, misrepresenting the exact nature of the error we are trying to steer away from. Those that quite legitimately investigate these matters further may see such misrepresentations as unfair criticism and become more inclined towards the error we were trying to direct against because we have unfaithfully represented them. Moreover, where we disagree with an interpretation it is extremely difficult to avoid making straw-man arguments. When we do this we unfaithfully represent views in order to knock them down. This can lead many to see our own interpretation as weak as we can only defend it against the straw-men we put up ourselves. Where we stick to proclaiming biblical truth exclusively, without reference to error, we avoid such accusations.


Fourthly, highlighting numerous errant interpretations can be a means by which some seek to avoid illustrating and applying biblical truth. Instead of seeking to teach biblical truths from the text, illustrate these points and apply them clearly some preachers spend more time stating various errant views and the reasons why they are false. If one highlights only two errant interpretations alongside the supposed correct one - giving a statement of why each is errant and the correct one is true - there is little time left in a sermon for any illustration or real points of application. In reality, this can either be a means of masking an otherwise weak sermon or an attempt to avoid the more difficult aspects of sermon preparation.


Therefore, when we come to a passage we should seek to teach what it states exclusively. We should avoid explaining what the passage does not mean and should avoid highlighting false doctrines and errant interpretations. By faithfully teaching biblical truth exclusively we equip the listener with everything they need to avoid false doctrines and errant interpretations. Where we begin to concern ourselves with tackling such particulars we open ourselves up to a whole host of difficulties that are best avoided by simply teaching the truth of the Bible exclusively.