If we know what a good government should and shouldn’t do, then we’ll know:
–If government should legalize and fund abortion
–If government health care is a good idea
–If military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is appropriate
–Whether stimulus/bailout legislation is the right course of action for helping the economy
–Whether gay marriage is acceptable
–The answers to a host of other issues our society faces
That’s essentially been the question we’ve been looking at: what are the legitimate responsibilities of government?
But before we answer that question, we need to realize that whatever answer we give will be based on our worldview. And that’s the reason why there are so many different and conflicting ideas as to what responsibilities government has: because there are a lot of worldviews out there. So we need to answer the question behind the question: which worldview is legitimate? As C.S. Lewis wrote, “The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.” That’s why the pro-lifer and pro-choicer, the big government proponent and limited government proponent, the hawk and the dove will never agree because they’re coming from different worldviews. What we need to do is examine the worldviews and see which, if any, have fundamental or fatal flaws, and which, if any, are fundamentally sound. As we’ve seen in past Perceptions, not all worldviews are created equal.
We’ve seen that scientific naturalism says, “Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy” if we’re going to govern ourselves. But I ask, why should reason be balanced with compassion and empathy? Scientific naturalism has no answer.
Postmodernism says, “Culture creates reality and therefore culture creates the foundation of government; so whatever a people group decide is right and wrong is right and wrong.” But then how could we possibly govern ourselves when there are so many different and even conflicting cultures? How can the Jew and the Nazi both be right? The polygamist and monogamist? The slave owner and abolitionist? Postmodernism just smiles that quirky, knowing smile, rocks on the back of its heels, shrugs, and says, “qchoue3thih aoeh?” (you postmodernists can interpret that however you’d like… 
)
So what does biblical theism say with regard to government?
Well, if I had to boil it down to one word, I’d say: law. Law based on biblical ethics.
Although there are plenty of nuances and subtle paths we can travel on in discovering (or critiquing) what principles the Bible lays down for government (to which I recommend the Civil Government, Law, and Politics section of The Biblical and Christian Worldview for the 21st Century website), I’ll focus on the one area that’s the linchpin of them all: absolute truth.
The fact is, if people are going to get along, they’re going to need to be in agreement. If society is going to get along, they’re going to need to agree on what’s right and wrong. And that’s the fatal flaw in scientific naturalism and postmodernism: they both lie on the bed of relativism — the philosophy that there is no absolute truth (which, as we’ve seen, is an absolute truth in itself, and therefore shows itself to be contradictory). So in both worldviews you may believe that rape and murder are wrong, but that doesn’t mean that I or anyone else have to agree that they’re wrong; how dare you impose your moral opinions on me. Hmpff
Looking at it from a politically philosophical standpoint, if there are no absolutes, then there’s no reason why slavery can’t be a part of society, or genocide, or infanticide, or year-round NASCAR…
As stated above, scientific naturalism says, “Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy” if we’re going to govern ourselves, but it can’t answer why reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy. Biblical theism, however, has the answer.
Biblical theism says reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy because there is a God who epitomizes reason, compassion, and empathy. This God made us in His image and therefore we ought to follow that same pattern of character. Otherwise we risk having a crummy time and a really crummy eternity.
Now I’m not saying you have to like the reason the Bible gives; all I’m saying is that the Bible offers a reason; as we’ve seen, you can’t say the same for scientific naturalism.
Postmodernism, unlike scientific naturalism, rejects the idea that reason is useful, looks at all the cultures of the world and says, “They’re all right.”
Biblical theism, however, says, “There is absolute truth. Therefore some cultures are closer to living out the Truth than others.” So the biblical theist has no problem condemning the culture that encourages genocide or racism, because the biblical theist says, “God values Man, so it’s wrong to unjustifiably take his life or consider him inferior.” The postmodernist, however, can’t tell the Nazi, “You’re wrong in sending Jews to the gas chamber.” All he can say is, “How you treat Jews is… different from how I treat them.”
“Okay, biblical theist,” the critic says. “You believe in absolute truth. Riddle me this: you’re a good, blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan living in Germany in 1942. The Gestapo knocks on your door and asks if you’re hiding Jews. You have a family of four Jews hiding in your basement. Do you lie (breaking the Ninth Commandment of not lying) and tell the Gestapo you’re not hiding Jews or do you tell the truth and allow the Gestapo to arrest your hideaway Jews (and effectively break the Sixth Commandment of not killing)?
The quandary the critic poses the biblical theist really isn’t a problem when you understand there’s a difference between absolute truth/moral absolutes and situational ethics. Dennis Prager’s 2005 article, “Judeo-Christian Values Part 11: Moral Absolutes” provides an insightful response to this dilemma. Prager explains moral absolutes as:
…if an act is good or bad, it is good or bad for everyone in the identical situation (“universal morality”). But “everyone” is hardly the same as “every situation.” An act that is wrong is wrong for everyone in the same situation, but almost no act is wrong in every situation. Sexual intercourse in marriage is sacred; when violently coerced, it is rape. Truth telling is usually right, but if, during World War II, Nazis asked you where a Jewish family was hiding, telling them the truth would have been evil.
Thus we see that the fundamental and fatal flaws of governments based on scientific naturalism or postmodernism are issues reasonably, compassionately, empathetically (and let’s add justly) resolved within a biblically theistic framework.
Are there particulars critics will bring up trying to discredit biblical theism as the only legitimate foundation for government? No doubt. And I’ll be glad to answer questions any honest inquirer has, but let me say this: those particulars within biblical theism that some would wish to discredit still do no good in supporting any other worldview. To point out the problems with biblical theism doesn’t mean that scientific naturalism, postmodernism, or Marxism-Leninism are right (and yes, I know the opposite is true). The previous Perceptions showed the serious failings of the other worldviews when looking at why they ought to be followed. Here, I make the case, I give the reason, why biblical theism ought to be followed. Again, I’m not saying people will agree with or like the reason given by biblical theism; but it is a reason. The other worldviews fail miserably in providing any coherent reason why they should be followed.
As Francis Scott Key (the writer of the Star Spangled Banner) stated:
I do not believe there are any new objections to be discovered to the truth of Christianity. Men may argue ingeniously against our faith, but what can they say in defense of their own?
Next time: biblical theism v Marxism-Leninism. Thanks for reading.
[...] last Perception examined scientific naturalism and postmodernism; let’s now take a look at [...]