This is not only a lovely essay, but a loving one. Thank you for writing it. For having the thoughts of the weaker brothers at heart. We need laws.
And recently, I can't stop thinking of the ten Commandments. Of their beauty as it touches all of human life. Like the law of making a safety net. Now I understand why David says God's law is delightful. His commandments are not grievous at all. It all makes sense how loving God and one's neighbour fulfills the law.
My friends and I are currently writing on the ten commandments. I will let you know when it is done.
Not in details, but I can very well identify my young self with the “live and let live” and other similar naive ideas… Sadly, I don’t know if such lessons can be learned earlier and not via simply life experiences…
I am beginning to think this line of thinking is byproduct of a conservative movement that is often overwhelmed by its own legalism rather than reality. This has been the conservative position on abortion and you are definitely losing the culture there.
Now that I have your attention, in general, limitations or rules or walls or fences can be good. They can also be bad. Even a good rule does not, by default, teach anything. Based on your own words, laws don't teach, they help "civilization chug along and still allows some of the rougher elements of society to function, as long as they stay in the lines." If laws taught then shouldn't society be progressing towards this utopian state because of all the laws out there teaching us to better? To proclaim 'good laws are an act of love' without the proper context or nuance necessary regarding the human experience is irresponsible or naive. This is where I take issue with your article.
First, laws may restrain behavior but that does not mean you or society has learned anything. If you live in a dry city, can you confidently say that you've learned to resist the temptations of alcohol or drink responsibly? You really think that bring stricter divorce laws back will save marriages and foster healthy relationships and families? I see many conservatives so quick to try to use the rod to teach someone things that are not transactional but transformational. Maybe we have different goals. I am not aiming for behavioral correction but heart transformation. Let's use rules to punish evil and promote good. Let's not be lazy and allow rules to be our evangelism and discipleship.
To put it very practically and poignantly (and relate it back to abortion), if someone are voting for Trump solely because he's 'the most Pro-life President' ever then you are not fulfilling the Great Commission. You cannot legislate morality. If someone's Christian witness ends at the ballot box but doesn't proceed to incarnating, as Jesus demonstrated, then you've missed the point. If you are trying to win back the culture we already have the model. It just takes hard work, sacrifice, and intentionality.
Secondly, rules also have a human context. The War on Drugs was not merely good saints trying to make society safer. It was an attack on poverty and black people. Maybe that is not considered a 'good law.' Which goes back to context, good for whom? What is good?
I am sure you've heard of "The Drawbridge Exercise." The point being all sorts of policies are in place, whether the teach or are just is up for debate. In a complex society, in a society within a fallen world, even 'good' laws can have negative impacts. Notwithstanding, I don't think you will find a functioning society that just imposes its will on people because it wants to enact and enforce 'good' laws.
Finally, freedom is the answer. I know you are not writing an explicitly Christian article but that is how I'm choosing to respond. Maybe if there were rules I'd behave better (but I still don't think I would've have learned anything). When Adam and Eve, it was one rule but a lot of freedom. Reflect my image, reproduce, reign over the earth and don't eat this one fruit. That rule didn't teach them and they weren’t corrupted by the Fall. I think God's trajectory is for us to operate in freedom and we should aspire to that. I am not advocating for lawlessness but suggesting add proper context to our reality.
Galatians talks about the use of the Law. To your point, the law came to teach, (430 years later). However, the law is not the point and never was. In fact, the law didn't work! Which is why Christ came and proclaimed freedom. Galatians is encouraging Christians to live in the freedom of Christ and not be subjected to law, which you cannot argue was bad law. Also, the harm is thinking that the law is bringing about human flourishing rather that one's transformational change (in Christ). This is what you are doing in the article. I am arguing that the law is focusing on the gift and losing sight of the Gift Giver and His bigger picture.
P.S.
I am also not buying the fact that the lack of laws, which allows for abuse, therefore makes the abuse more substantive than others living within the freedom. So to 'live and let live' does not mean death. Someone who has been sober for 20 years and walks into a party with alcohol. They may not be cool or even a buzz kill but their fortitude to abstain is more honorable than walking into a sobriety party. This is the whole point of Christianity being countercultural. If male friendship is worse off because homosexuality, hyper male sexualization, or whatever then redeem male friendship. The 'Trad Wife Phenomenon' is trending amongst Gen Z right now. If divorce is high, redeem marriages. If abortion is wrong then redeem life, all of life from womb to tomb for ALL people. Be countercultural and present the viable alternative rather than trying to force your worldview on others. Christians should wear rainbows, it is a sign from God reflecting His mercy and grace. Again, I'm not advocating for lawlessness but that the law is THE tool to achieve our desired outcomes, for either political or moral side. We should be more realistic and more purposeful than rules and regulations.
I wonder if the main reason people advocate for liberal drug policies is to show everyone else how progressive they are. If you're lazy, it's easier, too. You don't have to do anything. "Live and let live."
Liberal drug policies are not the Christian solution. If that person on the street fiending for drugs was your brother or daughter, would you want them having easy and unlimited access to any substance?
No.
It's strange to think that a policy which we wouldn't apply to a family member should be applied to all of society. If it doesn't work at the individual level, why would it work for everyone?
Things might work for an individual or family that simply don't scale. Or, they don't work when taken out of the context of mutual duty and love. And the state's tool is the sword, legalized violence or the threat thereof. I understand the hesitancy of brining that sword to bear on so many things, and in general, I think we do bring it to bear on way too many things.
But we've seen what happens with overly liberal drug policies. We don't have to conjecture. Handing out needles on the public dime out of "compassion." Insanity.
Hello sir, just found you on the app and read this article. Not only is it well written, but it’s insightful, and you have—as the best writing does—shown me a new way of thinking. I’ve never thought about law from this angle . . . I’ve always been more of the “I don’t think it’s right but I don’t think the government has the right to tell you that you can’t” type of guy. But now I’m forced to reconsider my stance on some of these very hot topics. And you’re right—taking the neutral position is merely, when I am completely honest with myself, a de-escalation tactic. What’s right, what I must do if I’m to stand for what I value, is what many (typically those on the political left) name-call and demonize. The truth is that this is a deeper than surface level discussion, and when you really dig into it, you see that most of these accusations are barriers implemented to prevent having a real discussion.
This is not only a lovely essay, but a loving one. Thank you for writing it. For having the thoughts of the weaker brothers at heart. We need laws.
And recently, I can't stop thinking of the ten Commandments. Of their beauty as it touches all of human life. Like the law of making a safety net. Now I understand why David says God's law is delightful. His commandments are not grievous at all. It all makes sense how loving God and one's neighbour fulfills the law.
My friends and I are currently writing on the ten commandments. I will let you know when it is done.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Not in details, but I can very well identify my young self with the “live and let live” and other similar naive ideas… Sadly, I don’t know if such lessons can be learned earlier and not via simply life experiences…
I am beginning to think this line of thinking is byproduct of a conservative movement that is often overwhelmed by its own legalism rather than reality. This has been the conservative position on abortion and you are definitely losing the culture there.
Now that I have your attention, in general, limitations or rules or walls or fences can be good. They can also be bad. Even a good rule does not, by default, teach anything. Based on your own words, laws don't teach, they help "civilization chug along and still allows some of the rougher elements of society to function, as long as they stay in the lines." If laws taught then shouldn't society be progressing towards this utopian state because of all the laws out there teaching us to better? To proclaim 'good laws are an act of love' without the proper context or nuance necessary regarding the human experience is irresponsible or naive. This is where I take issue with your article.
First, laws may restrain behavior but that does not mean you or society has learned anything. If you live in a dry city, can you confidently say that you've learned to resist the temptations of alcohol or drink responsibly? You really think that bring stricter divorce laws back will save marriages and foster healthy relationships and families? I see many conservatives so quick to try to use the rod to teach someone things that are not transactional but transformational. Maybe we have different goals. I am not aiming for behavioral correction but heart transformation. Let's use rules to punish evil and promote good. Let's not be lazy and allow rules to be our evangelism and discipleship.
To put it very practically and poignantly (and relate it back to abortion), if someone are voting for Trump solely because he's 'the most Pro-life President' ever then you are not fulfilling the Great Commission. You cannot legislate morality. If someone's Christian witness ends at the ballot box but doesn't proceed to incarnating, as Jesus demonstrated, then you've missed the point. If you are trying to win back the culture we already have the model. It just takes hard work, sacrifice, and intentionality.
Secondly, rules also have a human context. The War on Drugs was not merely good saints trying to make society safer. It was an attack on poverty and black people. Maybe that is not considered a 'good law.' Which goes back to context, good for whom? What is good?
I am sure you've heard of "The Drawbridge Exercise." The point being all sorts of policies are in place, whether the teach or are just is up for debate. In a complex society, in a society within a fallen world, even 'good' laws can have negative impacts. Notwithstanding, I don't think you will find a functioning society that just imposes its will on people because it wants to enact and enforce 'good' laws.
Finally, freedom is the answer. I know you are not writing an explicitly Christian article but that is how I'm choosing to respond. Maybe if there were rules I'd behave better (but I still don't think I would've have learned anything). When Adam and Eve, it was one rule but a lot of freedom. Reflect my image, reproduce, reign over the earth and don't eat this one fruit. That rule didn't teach them and they weren’t corrupted by the Fall. I think God's trajectory is for us to operate in freedom and we should aspire to that. I am not advocating for lawlessness but suggesting add proper context to our reality.
Galatians talks about the use of the Law. To your point, the law came to teach, (430 years later). However, the law is not the point and never was. In fact, the law didn't work! Which is why Christ came and proclaimed freedom. Galatians is encouraging Christians to live in the freedom of Christ and not be subjected to law, which you cannot argue was bad law. Also, the harm is thinking that the law is bringing about human flourishing rather that one's transformational change (in Christ). This is what you are doing in the article. I am arguing that the law is focusing on the gift and losing sight of the Gift Giver and His bigger picture.
P.S.
I am also not buying the fact that the lack of laws, which allows for abuse, therefore makes the abuse more substantive than others living within the freedom. So to 'live and let live' does not mean death. Someone who has been sober for 20 years and walks into a party with alcohol. They may not be cool or even a buzz kill but their fortitude to abstain is more honorable than walking into a sobriety party. This is the whole point of Christianity being countercultural. If male friendship is worse off because homosexuality, hyper male sexualization, or whatever then redeem male friendship. The 'Trad Wife Phenomenon' is trending amongst Gen Z right now. If divorce is high, redeem marriages. If abortion is wrong then redeem life, all of life from womb to tomb for ALL people. Be countercultural and present the viable alternative rather than trying to force your worldview on others. Christians should wear rainbows, it is a sign from God reflecting His mercy and grace. Again, I'm not advocating for lawlessness but that the law is THE tool to achieve our desired outcomes, for either political or moral side. We should be more realistic and more purposeful than rules and regulations.
I wonder if the main reason people advocate for liberal drug policies is to show everyone else how progressive they are. If you're lazy, it's easier, too. You don't have to do anything. "Live and let live."
Liberal drug policies are not the Christian solution. If that person on the street fiending for drugs was your brother or daughter, would you want them having easy and unlimited access to any substance?
No.
It's strange to think that a policy which we wouldn't apply to a family member should be applied to all of society. If it doesn't work at the individual level, why would it work for everyone?
Things might work for an individual or family that simply don't scale. Or, they don't work when taken out of the context of mutual duty and love. And the state's tool is the sword, legalized violence or the threat thereof. I understand the hesitancy of brining that sword to bear on so many things, and in general, I think we do bring it to bear on way too many things.
But we've seen what happens with overly liberal drug policies. We don't have to conjecture. Handing out needles on the public dime out of "compassion." Insanity.
"Things might work for an individual or family that simply don't scale."
I agree. You can be a communist within your family, but we know that ideology doesn't scale up to a country with millions of people!
Hello sir, just found you on the app and read this article. Not only is it well written, but it’s insightful, and you have—as the best writing does—shown me a new way of thinking. I’ve never thought about law from this angle . . . I’ve always been more of the “I don’t think it’s right but I don’t think the government has the right to tell you that you can’t” type of guy. But now I’m forced to reconsider my stance on some of these very hot topics. And you’re right—taking the neutral position is merely, when I am completely honest with myself, a de-escalation tactic. What’s right, what I must do if I’m to stand for what I value, is what many (typically those on the political left) name-call and demonize. The truth is that this is a deeper than surface level discussion, and when you really dig into it, you see that most of these accusations are barriers implemented to prevent having a real discussion.