Sin and the Law - Part II

Some readers of my blog know that it is usually a re-posting of a column I write for the West Plains Daily Quill. After my "Sin and the Law" column appeared in The Quill (see Feb. 22 religion page or my Feb. 24 blog post), a letter was sent to the editor, in which the writer presented his reasons for disagreeing with my comments which had centered on my confusion over why certain sins, as defined by scripture, are targeted by some Christians to be against the law of the land when other sins are overlooked.

Online subscribers of The Quill can read the full text of the letter on page 7 of the March 7 edition, but in his letter, the writer asserted that I implied, “Christians should not talk against sin or try to get laws made.” First, I ask did Jesus tell us to “get laws made?” Second, I certainly believe anyone, Christians and non-Christians, should be able to say whatever they want, in accordance with freedom of speech.

One area where the writer and I agree is that sin is damaging. Where we likely disagree is that I believe scripture is meant to show Christians the way to be happy and blessed when we follow the mandates of the New Testament, (by not sinning) rather than as an instrument of meting out judgment against others. 

Certainly Christians are instructed to share the gospel with others outside our faith. However, forcing non-Christians to abide by biblical law is simply not a concept Jesus promoted. If New Testament scripture can be found, in context, which points to Jesus saying his teachings should become the law of Rome, the government of his day, I would like to see the reference. 

Aside from that, my main point in the column in question is: If Christians are to identify certain sins which should be against the law of the land, how is it decided which sins to target? The letter writer avoids directly answering this question.

In my original post, I did not mention specific issues, but the writer does. He talks of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which prohibits same-sex marriage and is rather ironically named, in my opinion. It is a prime example of my expressed confusion. If marriage is to be defended, can we permit divorce? About half of all marriages, including those between professing Christians, end in divorce. If marriage needs defending, perhaps, bear with me, we should start with banning divorce.  

We can’t outlaw divorce, some might say, there are legitimate reasons for it. Let us accept that premise. Divorce becomes legal only in the case of a spouse being abused or cheated on. I believe those would be the only legitimate reasons in scripture for getting divorced. (There is never, I repeat never, a legitimate reason or scriptural defense for committing adultery. Those being cheated on have recourse. Those doing the cheating do not. God does not ever give Christians permission to have affairs. Although, thankfully, he offers forgiveness when they do.) What if we try to “fix” the underlying adultery issue which causes divorce, by passing laws?

Shall we go back to the days of “The Scarlet Letter” and make adultery a crime? If adultery is against the law, can we assume individuals will stop cheating on their spouses? Actually, we can already surmise the answer would be “no,” as adultery is already a crime in about half the states in the union, but it is one of the least-enforced offenses on the books. (The letter writer presents a list of laws which he asserts “our so called leaders” have determined “do not have to be enforced.” Included in his list: DOMA, voter fraud, immigration, perjury, "some drug laws" and gun laws.) He did not include adultery in the list. Maybe he thinks adultery should be criminalized, but I contend it’s a good thing adultery laws are not enforced, because the jails would be filled up in a hurry.

How and why can Christians target same-sex marriage but not divorce and adultery? This is an example of how the letter writer's reasoning plays out when taken to its extreme. 

I have also gone to an extreme to make a point. I obviously do not think divorce, or adultery for that matter, should be against the law. I have friends and family members who have been divorced and are now remarried. Several of them, in fact, who were before and are since in the ministry. I know it has been agonizing for them to go through the process, but I would not deny them the freedom to choose the path they believe is best for them, for whatever reason. (Although there is a pretty good case to made, based on New Testament scripture, that those who are divorced should not be in leadership positions in the church.)

And I have friends who are homosexuals who want to choose a path they also believe is best for them. How can we, in good conscience, look at how the Church behaves and try to claim the moral high ground by denying anyone the chance to wed, and then, add insult to injury by saying we are defending marriage? 

The letter writer says, "I think that we are now in a position where we need some laws to protect moral values."

It brings me to my second point. If morality is legislated, who gets to write the laws? Do Christians decide for everyone else? Do we convene a panel of sadducees and pharisees? Does the letter writer get to decide? What about me? I can make a pretty good case for what should be against the law, based solely on scripture, but I doubt he would agree with my ideas.

For example: Jesus said to love our enemies, bless and pray for them, and “turn the other cheek.” In Romans 12:20-21, we are told, “Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” The “coals” we are to heap on the heads of enemies are not bombs, we are to heap good on them. That would seem to be a reasonable argument to ban war, from a biblical view, wouldn’t you think? Maybe we should pass laws immediately ceasing all hostilities and shutting down the huge war machine in the U.S.

And if we try to incorporate the teachings of Jesus in his “Sermon on the Mount” into the law of the land, we’re all really sunk, because at the very least, the following could easily be criminalized: being angry at a “brother;” calling someone a fool; not only committing adultery, but “looking lustfully” at women; praying in public (that’s an interesting one, isn’t it?) and having a savings account, just to name a few.

My goal is not to try to claim that I am right and the letter writer and those who share his views are wrong. My goal has always been, by expressing my opinions in this space for the past several years, to make us all think. Specifically, to make those of us who claim to be followers of Jesus think about how we have arrived at what we believe. I am often concerned that our Christian views have been too much influenced by sources other than the teachings of Jesus.