Our civil law needs to be based on the Bible but not
starting at Israel’s Judaic law complete with all of the
ceremonial aspects. Note that God does hold those without
the law in the Old Testament accountable for their sin;
Nineveh, at Jonah’s preaching, being just one of them.
Citizens of Nineveh heard the prophet Jonah preach one of
the shortest sermons you would ever hear “In 40 days Nineveh
will be destroyed”. This short sermon from the book of
Jonah and what follows is packed with politics.
Furthermore, since it was not dealing with Judaic laws it
may be considered to be an application of ‘natural law’.
What does this short sermon tell us? Number one, God is all
powerful. He is the authority to fear. Two, there is evil
for which God will punish a nation. Then the resulting
repentance of Nineveh from King to the lowest peasant tells
us 3) God shows mercy with national repentance.
Where should we start when considering codifying True
natural law in our civil judicial system? History provides
an answer.
At the founding of the colonies much of colonial law was
based on the Bible. In 1639, Thomas Hooker incorporated
much of the Deuteronomy case law as civil law in
Connecticut. Homosexuality was a capital crime in the same
category as murder. There are many other examples which may
be shown that in early American history civil law was based
on the Bible.
This is not to say early American history was perfect in
applying the Bible to define civil justice. As an example,
one lesson the Baptists helped to correct was that a
particular church membership should not be required for
voting. Democratic participation in political government
should not be decided on ecclesiastical affiliation.
There are many church denominations within the broader
category of “Christian”. Jim Spivey, a professor at
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in _Separation No
Myth_ created a table of the seven different kinds of
church-state arrangements. Establishmentarians are those
who know state action (moral law) is religious in nature
and set up the state with defined religious intent. Jim
concluded “Establishmentarians are of three types:
pluralists who say the state should support several churches
equally; non-pluralists who support only one state church;
and reconstructionists who aim at recreating a theocratic
government.” Reconstructionists want a Christian state
(civil government) but not any type of church or churches
establishment.
The Declaration of Independence gives natural law as a just
response to overthrow a tyrannical king. When Jefferson
penned “Supreme Judge” I’m sure he thought of The Christian
God as revealed within the Bible. Romans chapter 13 says
civil rulers are God’s servants who carry the sword to
punish evil doers. Some of God’s 10 commandments such as
“you shall not murder”, “you shall not steal” and “you shall
not lie [under oath in court]” would be things that fit the
core value category. Civil laws against these acts with
appropriate punishment would, or should, be morally
culturally acceptable.
Paul mentions homosexuality as something leading up to the
debased mind, i.e., seared conscience. I believe this is a
key point in a cultural civil core values discussion. There
have always been individuals who have approved of or at
least condoned homosexuality. But, this is very different
from an entire culture or nation condoning this sin. How
does God treat nations for a level of sin reaching this
point? Genesis 19:4-8 says
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men
of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last
man, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot,
“Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them
out to us, that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out to the
men at the entrance, shut the door after him, 7 and
said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8
Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any
man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you
please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come
under the shelter of my roof.”
and now Judges 19:22-24
22 As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the
men of the city, worthless fellows, surrounded the
house, beating on the door. And they said to the old
man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who
came into your house, that we may know him.” 23 And the
man, the master of the house, went out to them and said
to them, “No, my brothers, do not act so wickedly; since
this man has come into my house, do not do this vile
thing. 24 Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his
concubine. Let me bring them out now. Violate them and
do with them what seems good to you, but against this
man do not do this outrageous thing.”
In the first case, these were two major cities in the region
of the Dead Sea today. They did not have “The Law” since
this not only preceded the birth of Moses, but also the
Jewish nation. God chose and executed punishment directly
via fire and brimstone upon the cities.
In the second case, this city, Gibeah, was considered an
upstanding city in Israel. They knew by the Law of God
homosexuality was evil as well as a criminal crime. God
chose to punish not just this city of the tribe of Benjamin
but the entire Jewish nation by a ravaging civil war.
Moral consciences of both the “worthless fellows” of the
city, and also “the old man, the master of the house” who,
without batting an eyelash offered women to be raped
instead, appear to have been seared.
Well, that’s just the Bible. What about known historical
cultures and societies you ask?
Another fire and brimstone punishment on a city was Pompeii.
Mount Vesuvius erupted in 79 A.D. and entombed the city.
The archaeologist who discovered the city in 1599 was
reported to not want to tell the world what he had found due
to the sexual depravity on the walls of the buildings.
Figures of humans were naturally captured in this burial as
if someone, perhaps God, wanted their depraved behavior to
be preserved. Only recently the “two maidens’ of Pompeii
were actually found by DNA and other more modern testing to
be two unrelated men hugging each other at the moment of
death.
Homosexuality was definitely practiced in Pompeii.
Interestingly, at this time in the Roman culture, Pompeii
had a reputation as the place to go for all kinds of deviant
sexual activity. God’s word as recorded by Paul in the book
of Romans was right on the mark about debased minds and
behavior being done deserving death “but [gave] approval to
those who practice them.”
Is the argument using the rise and fall of civilizations
being proportional to cultural moral standards on the mark
or is it sophistry?
Here are other resources outside of the Bible which show how
the general relationship of sexual morality within a culture
can either strengthen and build it or cause the culture to
decline.
One conclusion J.D. Unwin in _Sex and Culture_ came to after studying 86 world cultures throughout history is that when deviant sexual activity such as homosexuality is accepted within the
culture, there are at most 3 generations before a total collapse.
Edward Gibbon in _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ documents sexual sins including homosexuality of most
of the Roman emperors.
Mary Eberstadt published research confirming Unwin’s findings.
Both Unwin and Eberstadt provide substantial evidence that a
sexual revolution has long-term, devastating consequences
for culture and civilization.
If we agree that Christian natural law is the correct choice
for civil justice, i.e., definitions of core values, the
Bible must be the standard to do this difficult task.
Are there any who have attempted this in our lifetime?
Rouses J. Rushdoony in _Institutes of Biblical Law_
deliberately tackles the question of what, specifically, does God expect of nations. What are the definitions God gives to core values?
The first things Rushdoony says in his book are:
Law is in every culture religious in origin. Because law
governs man in society, because it establishes and
declares the meaning of justice and righteousness, law
is inescapably religious, in that it establishes in
practical fashion the ultimate concerns of a
culture. Accordingly, a fundamental and necessary
premise in any and every study of the law must be,
first, our recognition of this religious nature of law.
Second, it must be recognized that in any culture the
source of law is the God of that society. If law has its
source in man’s reason, then reason is the God of that
society. If the source is an oligarchy, or in a court,
cynic, or ruler, then that source is the God of that
system. Thus, in Greek culture law was essentially a
religiously humanistic concept.
The late Dr. Bahnsen had a PhD degree in psychology with
emphasis on epistemology. He gives justification showing
the Bible is the only source we may use to tackle this
task in his book _By This Standard_.
Let’s go back to those two examples: chattel slavery, and
homosexual marriage. Chattel slavery was wrong not
particularly because it was slavery, but because it was
kidnapping. People were taken from their homes without
cause and then shipped and sold. Chattel slavery was
always wrong and always a sin worth civil penalty.
The 14th amendment recognized this and applied proper law.
Homosexual marriage is now permitted via progressive
interpretation of the 14th amendment. What is the
correct response to follow in our democratic republic
to return to a Christian-based natural law?
Who will speak up for God? Who will tell it like it is?
Who is training our Christian constitutional lawyers? The
marriage amendment movement is dead. But, even if it passed it
was only fighting the flames of decay. To get to the source
of the flame a better amendment, placing the United States
under the Christian God, would be the only choice.
In Dr. Gary North’s book _Political Polytheism_ he mentions
certain texts of the USC and in particular the “no religious
oath” in Article VI, paragraph 3, to prove that in a
judicial legal sense the USC, agreeing with Henry Morris, the
Christian religion has no legal relevance. Thus, he
proposes this as an amendment at the conclusion of his book:
What is needed is a very simple modification of the
U.S. Constitution. First the Preamble should begin: “We
the people of the United States, as the lawful delegated
agents of the Trinitarian God of the Bible, do ordain and
establish …” Second, Article VI, Clause 3, should state
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and
the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all the
executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States
and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution; and a
Trinitarian religious Test shall be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the
United States.”
According to Unwin, here in the U.S. the 3-generation clock
began ticking with the sexual revolution in the 1960’s. Why
are the Christian pulpits not preaching that “Jonah” sermon?
“Unless you repent in 2 generations the United States will be
destroyed.” How old will your grandchildren be in 2060?