Making Men Moral Conference
6 comments | Permalink
If you want to hear some excellent speakers on talk about moral judgment in the public square, it'd be hard to beat this upcoming conference at Union University. Here's the lineup:
- Robert P. George
- Richard John Neuhaus
- Jean Bethke Elshtain
- Russell D. Moore
- Gregory A. Thornbury
- Harry L. Poe
- Paul Kerry
- David Novak
- James Stoner
- Christopher Tollefsen
posted by JT at Tuesday, January 06, 2009
6 Comments:
If all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags to God, then "making men moral" is basically handing out more dirty rags.
I agree, Ruby Red. A "Making Men Believers" conference would actually have more of a positive moral impact than one aimed at their actions.
Ruby Red and Colin,
The conference is about making moral judgment in the public square, not about making men judicially righteous before God. Here's the exact quote from the conference website:
"Times change, but the challenge of applying moral principles to contemporary politics remains. Join several prominent thinkers as we wrestle with how to promote a healthy moral ecology in an uncertain age."
I'm sure neither of you would say there's no need to worry about applying moral principles to the rule of law because, after all, laws can't save anyone.
For example, it's hard to imagine any reasonable parent neglecting the moral instruction of his child on grounds that "our own righteousness is as filthy rags."
Yes, it is--when compared to the standards of a Holy God. But that same Holy God makes it very clear in Scripture that He cares about justice for the weak and oppressed. Admittedly, laws aimed at cultural improvement can't save a man's soul, but they can take the whips off the backs of the oppressed and save babies from the dumpster.
And that alone is reason enough to applaud this conference.
I applaud your reasoned response, SK.
Admittedly, laws aimed at cultural improvement can't save a man's soul, but they can take the whips off the backs of the oppressed and save babies from the dumpster.
Whips off the backs of the oppressed. Is there slavery in America today? Admittedly there is slavery in places like Somalia and Sudan today, but they aren't inclined to listen to the moral judgment of a think tank in Tennessee, and the bible in any event (Titus 2:9) does not teach freedom for slaves. "Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them. This is how you take the whips off the backs of the oppressed: Bring the oppressors one at a time to the foot of the cross.
Babies in dumpsters. This is already against the law. The law already holds this to be immoral, and when people throw babies away and are judged by the law and punished, this is a far more pointed instruction than someone in a Tennessee think tank wagging their finger of moral judgment at them.
Ruby Red,
I'm sure you know that name-calling is no substitute for legitimate argument, so I'll not comment on your "Tennessee think tank" jab. (For the record, my organization is headquartered in Colorado.)
Nevertheless, your logic here is baffling. I'll highlight just two points.
First, babies are thrown in dumpsters to the tune of 1.2 million per year. It's called elective abortion and it's perfectly legal here in the U.S. through all nine months of pregnancy. With the election of Barak Obama, we now have a Commander in Chief, along with a Democrat controlled Congress, firmly committed to the proposition that an entire class of humans can be set aside to be killed. True, my use of the term "dumpster" was somewhat figurative (though many abortion clinics do just that--toss the bodies of unborn humans in the trash), but I assumed discerning readers would know that.
Second, the purpose of good moral law (including laws against slavery, abortion, etc.) is not to change men's hearts, but to control the heartless. True, those with changed hearts don't need laws, but how is that an argument against Christians spending significant resources promoting justice? The fact that many people have hard hearts is a presupposition of civil law, not an argument against it. Since we can’t appeal to their conscience, we resort to the force of law to restrain evil behavior. That is to say, the purpose of legal reform is not necessarily to change the hearts of unregenerate men, but to restrain evil acts by heartless individuals.
Martin Luther King made this same point when he said, "The law cannot make the White Man love me, but it can sure stop him from lynching me." Am I right to infer from your comments that the only legitimate way to stop evil behavior is to convert evil doers to Christ one at a time? Wow. That's got to be cold comfort to the millions of suffering oppression worldwide. I'm curious: What's your biblical evidence for thinking that? Suppose, for example, an evil dictator is committing genocide against thousands of his people. (Pol Pot comes to mind.) Suppose further that you, as a political rival in that country, have the military means to stop him and restore the rightful rule of law. Would you act decisively to save lives or simply share theology with the attackers, one at a time, in hopes they will stop killing the innocent? To use another example, should the United States have shared the gospel with Hitler instead of moving against him militarily?
Scripture tells political sovereigns (in this country, that's you and me--remember, we have a government of the people) that God will hold them accountable if they don't promote justice for the weak and vulnerable. I agree sharing the gospel is critical (I’ve argued elsewhere it’s not either share the gospel or promote justice in the culture—we can do both), but by no means does that relieve us of our moral duty to save as many lives as possible when confronting pure evil.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home