The Moral Wars

[GDL]

Your sentence which followed seemed to me simply to be expanding on your argument that the Church is not subject to secular law, but I was disagreeing with that. We cannot claim to be above secular law.

"As discussed elsewhere, the Church is not subject to secular law. It does not have to and cannot conform to secular law that is not in accordance with ecclesiastical law..."

The Church is not subject to secular law. I do think this to be accurate. The second part does expand. I'll expand more:

The Church must evaluate all secular law to determine if it is in accordance with its law. We have guidance on morality and ethics. We have guidance on the evaluation of and submission to secular institutions. We are mandated to reject any authority that stands against the highest authority. By being subjected to secular law pursuant to our highest authority, we are really not subject to secular law on it's own authority, but on God's authority. The secular has only the authority it is authorized to have. All else is usurpation.

Once you allow the secular to make up its own authority, then you'll need to throw away conscience you've argued for so well, and you've put it on par with God. There is only one God.

​

 

[Paidiske]

"As discussed elsewhere, the Church is not subject to secular law. It does not have to and cannot conform to secular law that is not in accordance with ecclesiastical law..."

The Church is not subject to secular law. I do think this to be accurate. The second part does expand. I'll expand more:

The Church must evaluate all secular law to determine if it is in accordance with its law. We have guidance on morality and ethics. We have guidance on the evaluation of and submission to secular institutions. We are mandated to reject any authority that stands against the highest authority. By being subjected to secular law pursuant to our highest authority, we are really not subject to secular law on it's own authority, but on God's authority. The secular has only the authority it is authorized to have. All else is usurpation.

Once you allow the secular to make up its own authority, then you'll need to throw away conscience you've argued for so well, and you've put it on par with God. There is only one God.

I disagree, but I see it as a side issue, as I think in practice we would end up in the same place, although our reasoning in reaching that place is somewhat different.

I do think, though, that this sort of claim - to be above the law in any meaningful sense - does not help the Church's credibility, especially given the context of grave lapses by the churches (such as the systemic issues with child sexual abuse). It does sound as if we are arguing to be given a free pass to do whatever we please, no matter how harmful.

 

[Bradskii]

To the degree that they can. IOW, as soon as I step out into the world (so to speak) I have some things I cannot do according to the rules I live by and the conscience I have. And, actually, I have some directives to draw the line and do what God says and reject what is not in line with it, knowing that there may well be consequences from the world for doing so.

I'm sure we could come up with rules of the larger group that you would not abide by, even if we have to project where we could be headed, or maybe have been at points in history.

The mob is capable of putting about anything into force. Thus the views against democracy.

Can you give me an example or two of what you are compelled to do in society that you would not do within your religion? Or even examples of what you cannot do in society that you can within your religion.

 

[Bradskii]

The secular has only the authority it is authorized to have.

​

The secular has authority over all. Whatever religion or whatever belief or whether you believe or not. The secular has authority over society. And you are part of that group. So unless you live in a theocracy, that includes you.

Within your own religious group you can be excused from secular rules (up to the point where they impact outside your group onto society in general).

I see no problem with this.

 

[GDL]

The solution is to operate within the relevant group. If your religion doesn't want to sanctify ssm for example, then fine. I have no problem. I'm happy with whatever you decide to do within your church that only affects members of your church. But...as soon as you step outside of the church, then your religious rules do not apply. Now you're in the larger group comprising all society so you have to obey the same rules as everyone else does.

If I'm a member of your church then you have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do. If I'm not a member of your church then you don't. But...if I'm not a member then I can't tell you what to do inside your church either (as long as it doesn't impact on anyone outside your religion).

Well and good. Even acceptable to some degree. But it does not address the issue of the national vote.

If I have a large enough group, then I can legislate what I think to be right. As Quid est Veritas ("QeV") pointed out earlier, just because we are where we are today in a democracy does not mean we will be there tomorrow.

It is for this reason that the secular has worked very hard to try to place & keep the Church within its 4 walls and not allow it to emerge or vote its thinking. But there are too many in the Church that see this for what it is and know its fallacy. Some of us view the inroads of secular thinking into the Church the OP speaks of to be the Church's own fault. The things that come against it are always there and we are warned in several places to not be deceived.

One of the issues in your language is your use of "religious rules." We don't view Biblical morality and ethics to be just religious, but the only right standard for all of us that will work. As QeV also pointed out, there is one Morality. It is only this that many of us will vote for, just as you vote for what you believe.

 

[GDL]

The secular has authority over all.

As I've said quite clearly, we have different views. I will vote against anything I see as against the authoritative standard I believe is right.

One of is right and one of is wrong. Do you think we will agree on which is which? Do you think one of us should not be able to vote? Would you want to control whether or not I can vote?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Another "Lost Cause" that excellently illustrates what I was talking about, is Usury. This was condemned by the Romans, the Mediaeval Church, Islam, Buddhism, etc. The Old Testament too, though the Jews interpreted it that they could lend to non-Jews to become the go to bankers in the Mediaeval period.

Yet today it is normal in our society. In fact, a cornerstone of our finance for the last 400 or so years. But as soon as the religious objection started dying away, it reappeared secularly - in the Socialists and Communists decrying the wage slavery and Capital from the 19th century onward. Today it is marching ahead, that Usury is an evil again, as we look to overthrow the 1% or decry the billionaires. I would really not be surprised if the heyday of the West was also that where Usury was not condemned. It also illustrates the principle where we use euphemism to evade - dropping the term Usury almost entirely. It also illustrates where Christians missed the boat on what is moral, forgetting our Scripture's condemnation and the Church Fathers, only for someone else to take up the mantle - even more often than not, our enemies. But even then, we never forgot that excessive greed was a moral failing, though perhaps our eyes were turned by the glitter somewhat. The immoral can be normalised, but there is always an opposition somewhere. The Tao as Lewis has it, will out.

 

[disciple Clint]

We’re a nation of Christians. And also of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and almost every religious belief (and non-belief) under the sun. What’s much more important is that our government is secular. And can show no preference or favoritism to any one lawful religious belief or variety of worship over another.

And for the record, the percentage of Americans identifying as Christian has been rather steadily declining over the years. While the percentage of those indentifying as Other or None has been increasing. Here’s survey data from the Statista site:

Self-described religious identification of Americans 2020 | Statista

Yes those are both concepts which are on the decline, which is what I was pointing out. There is no doubt that as a nation we have become much more secular.

 

[GDL]

I disagree, but I see it as a side issue, as I think in practice we would end up in the same place, although our reasoning in reaching that place is somewhat different.

I do think, though, that this sort of claim - to be above the law in any meaningful sense - does not help the Church's credibility, especially given the context of grave lapses by the churches (such as the systemic issues with child sexual abuse). It does sound as if we are arguing to be given a free pass to do whatever we please, no matter how harmful.

Take the abuse issue you raise - and let's use the issue Roman Catholicism has had.

I get what you're saying. But no one, including the Church is above the Law - but God's Law - and secular law only where it agrees with God's Law - which would really make it God's Law.

I think there's warrant in the NT to turn the perpetrators over to the secular institution that has the delegated power of [up to] the sword to punish what God says should be punished.

This would once again put us in line with Scripture and not against it. By God's directive and authority the secular would be used to do what God has given it authority to do.

Another poster here brought up Romans 13. The state has certain powers and responsibilities given to it by God, and we are clearly commanded by God to be subject to them when they are in-line with God's standards - His Law. Unless we're prepared to argue for OT Law for the Church to be authorized re: punishment, up to corporal punishment, then it seems the state has this delegated power.

IMO to have buried this matter with $, transfers, excommunications (???), and whatever, etc... was an insufficient response and any loss of credibility is warranted. It is not only the secular that thought/thinks the loss is warranted. The crimes were heinous and should have been and be treated as such.

Still, assuming my opinions are Biblical (I'm just saying these things on the spot and have not read any Catholic or other opinions and justifications for their handling of the matter), it would be the Church doing what it's supposed to do and the secular what it's supposed to do according to the highest Authority, which is not Rome, in the opinion of many, and not speaking of the secular.

Based upon Romans 13, I'm not certain how the Church assumes to itself the authority to handle internally what are clearly criminal acts the secular has the power to punish. IOW, is the RCChurch the usurper here? And if it is, then what is the resolution?

Your thoughts?

Late here so may have to delay responding further.

 

[Paidiske]

But no one, including the Church is above the Law - but God's Law - and secular law only where it agrees with God's Law - which would really make it God's Law.

I would put it slightly differently, and say that no one is above secular law; but that where secular law directly contradicts Christian duty (for example, if secular law were to compel one to kill) then Christians have a responsibility to oppose that particular aspect of law. Preferably by seeking to have it changed, rather than through simple defiance.

IOW, is the RCChurch the usurper here?

I am not enough of a legal expert (in Australian law or other legal systems) to opine on historical incidences of not reporting and how they might have sat within the legal system of the time.

But I think the large problem is that the ways the churches handled this really failed to handle it. Abusers were enabled to continue abusing, going from victim to victim and from place to place. What might have started as woeful and naïve ignorance around patterns of abuse by those in authority, at some point becomes willful culpability by those who knew and did not put a stop to it.

But, having demonstrated our complete incompetence in this matter, we cannot then complain when the secular state mandates basic standards of competence for us, or try to claim that we should not be subject to such basic standards. That would amount to saying that we should be allowed to go on being incompetent, with children and vulnerable people paying the price for our privilege. The lack of basic compassion or human decency in such a claim would be breathtaking, and quite rightly provoke outrage from the wider community.

 

[Bradskii]

Well and good. Even acceptable to some degree. But it does not address the issue of the national vote.

If I have a large enough group, then I can legislate what I think to be right. As Quid est Veritas ("QeV") pointed out earlier, just because we are where we are today in a democracy does not mean we will be there tomorrow.

It is for this reason that the secular has worked very hard to try to place & keep the Church within its 4 walls and not allow it to emerge or vote its thinking. But there are too many in the Church that see this for what it is and know its fallacy. Some of us view the inroads of secular thinking into the Church the OP speaks of to be the Church's own fault. The things that come against it are always there and we are warned in several places to not be deceived.

One of the issues in your language is your use of "religious rules." We don't view Biblical morality and ethics to be just religious, but the only right standard for all of us that will work. As QeV also pointed out, there is one Morality. It is only this that many of us will vote for, just as you vote for what you believe.

But you are free to vote (in the secular world) to try to change laws that you think are wrong or to bring into existence those that you think are morally required. I have no problem with that. But the vote that you have exists within the secular world. And the arguments that you might want to use to try to persuade people to vote as you would in the secular world must be themselves secular. Your religious arguments are only valid within your religion.

So if, for example, you want to persuade an atheist that contraception is wrong, a religious argument ('cos God says so) is useless.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh, for sure. I fail to see where I advocated for setting up some version called "Christian Morality" that we are all beholden to, though.

No, maybe you didn't, but the movement to do that is part of the discussion anyway.

 

[durangodawood]

....Politics and public policy has certainly become front-and-center for many people.

For American Christians especially.

 

[GDL]

But, having demonstrated our complete incompetence in this matter, we cannot then complain when the secular state mandates basic standards of competence for us, or try to claim that we should not be subject to such basic standards. That would amount to saying that we should be allowed to go on being incompetent, with children and vulnerable people paying the price for our privilege. The lack of basic compassion or human decency in such a claim would be breathtaking, and quite rightly provoke outrage from the wider community.

I guess part of this is the point.

Church law and secular law should be compatible, because God's Law is the Authority. When Christians begin such discussion out come the cries against theocracy, and rightfully so in some to many respects.

This compatibility will not work, for example, for those like some on this thread who want to define their own morality.

Now, when Rome claims to itself the authority it says it has, it oversteps IMO and in that of many others. In the NT there is warrant for Christians to bring charges against Church leadership per 1 Timothy 5:19. No one is above God's Law.

In Romans 13, again, God's standard of good and evil is the standard for secular powers who have the sword. As I said, since the Church does not carry the power for certain criminal punishment, then it seems the Church should be handing certain criminals over to the state for punishment.

Back to the ones in the pews: All Christians are responsible for learning about sin, which is lawlessness. We have a process outlined in Matt 18 for presenting claims to a fellow Christian who has committed lawlessness against us. It escalates to taking 2 or more witnesses if we are at first rejected. It escalates to taking it to the congregational judiciary if still rejected and the judgment of the judiciary to be final. The verse about the gathering of two or more witnesses having the Lord's attendance in the matter is in this context.

Paul rebukes Christians in 1 Corinthians 6 for treating the matter of having a competent congregational judiciary lightly.

According to Paul in Galatians 6, the identifier of being "spiritual," which is one of the ways Paul identifies the mature in Christ vs. the infants in Christ, is to be able to identify any sin/lawlessness, and to assist the sinner out of such. It is these mature ones who are able to "fulfill the Law of Christ."

In Hebrews 5, the mature is identified as having become learned in the "Word of Righteousness" and having faculties well exercised in discerning/judging both good and bad.

In Leviticus 19:18, the context for the second great commandment to love neighbor as self, is rebuke for being out of line with God while not taking personal vengeance. So, love neighbor is assisting neighbor to not be in lawlessness. Which pretty much compares to the Galatians 6 fulfilling the "Law of Christ" by identifying and assisting others who are in lawlessness/sin.

Judging per Jesus Christ was to be done cautiously and learnedly beginning with self judgment. The "do not judge" is normally taken out of context and then goes against all of what I've just identified.

There are checks and balances in all of this all the way up to bringing charges against congregational leadership. No one is above God's Law correctly understood and applied.

There's no room for people to be developing their own morality. There also seems to be little to no warrant for the Church to handle certain offenses beyond a point and certainly not to bury them. It seems it can and should judge, but certain convictions it seems should be outsourced for punishment beyond the excommunication the Church can do.

The point about having the secular involved in regulating the Church is understood, but with the secular developing its own standards apart from and in contradiction to God, I don't see how this works at all. Apart from all having the same standards, the best there can be is tensions in and suspicions in compromise.

 

[GDL]

And the arguments that you might want to use to try to persuade people to vote as you would in the secular world must be themselves secular. Your religious arguments are only valid within your religion.

This argument is a fallacy pushed against the religious by the secular. I can bring from any source any argument and any vote I choose to bring. The secular and any other religious can choose to agree or disagree and out-vote me.

Your thinking on what the secular is does not align with what I think the Ultimate Authority of the secular is. As has been well-stated, there is one Morality. This is our position. We understand you have your position. This is the ebb and flow of nations.

 

[GDL]

For American Christians especially.

Which is an interesting thing to be taking place in interesting times.

 

[jayem]

"

The Church is not subject to secular law. I do think this to be accurate. The second part does expand. I'll expand more:

The Church must evaluate all secular law to determine if it is in accordance with its law. We have guidance on morality and ethics. We have guidance on the evaluation of and submission to secular institutions. We are mandated to reject any authority that stands against the highest authority. By being subjected to secular law pursuant to our highest authority, we are really not subject to secular law on it's own authority, but on God's authority. The secular has only the authority it is authorized to have. All else is usurpation.

Once you allow the secular to make up its own authority, then you'll need to throw away conscience you've argued for so well, and you've put it on par with God. There is only one God.

Churches are subject to some secular laws. Particularly as regards employment and health and safety matters. Though a church itself is tax-exempt, it must withhold income taxes, and FICA (SS and Medicare taxes) on non-clergy employees. To my knowledge, states can require a church to provide work comp insurance for employees. A church can be required to follow building codes, and a kitchen serving the congregation and guests must meet state and local health standards.

And though church property is almost always tax-exempt, I believe churches (and really all tax-exempt non-profits) should pay a user fee to help support police, fire, and EMS services these institutions use. It's only fair. And I don't think this would displease God. If there is a God..

 

[Speedwell]

This argument is a fallacy pushed against the religious by the secular. I can bring from any source any argument and any vote I choose to bring. The secular and any other religious can choose to agree or disagree and out-vote me.

I think the point was that you can bring arguments from any source you want, but that religious arguments are not likely to be persuasive in the secular world.

 

[Bradskii]

This argument is a fallacy pushed against the religious by the secular. I can bring from any source any argument and any vote I choose to bring. The secular and any other religious can choose to agree or disagree and out-vote me.

I'm assuming this, but you don't live in a theocracy. Therefore any vote that you make is within the secular grouping. Which includes all religions and all those of no faith. If you want to vote to make contraception illegal then you can. But to carry any weight, the decision to make it so will be based on secular arguments, not religious ones. Because...we do not live in a theocracy.

If those of the Muslim faith were to vote in the majority and then decide to make Sharia Law the legal basis for determining punishment then that would effectively equate to a theocracy. Laws for all that are based on the religious beliefs of some.

That's not acceptable to me. Or to you. Except that you want to say that if it concerns your religious morality then it's ok.

It's not.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes those are both concepts which are on the decline, which is what I was pointing out. There is no doubt that as a nation we have become much more secular.

You've always been a secular nation. It's like pregnancy. You can't be 'much more pregnant' and yoj can't be 'much more secular'. You're either a secular nation or a theocracy.