Whose Morality Should We Legislate? 44 Quotes from Frank Turek and Norman Geisler

"We're living in a society in which people feel no obligation to control their own actions. Instead, we rationalize and justify every aberrant behavior under the umbrella of freedom granted by the First Amendment, never admitting that freedom without reasonable and responsible limits destroys individual lives and ultimately destroys the fabric of a civilized society."

Deconstructionism, the Constitution, and Biblical Interpretation

Introduction

As a defender of the Christian worldview my primary goal is to see unsaved people be saved, but in many conversations, I see numerous intellectual stumbling blocks for them, many put in place by other Christians. This is the reason that I not only defend the Christian worldview in general but also in details, often to fellow Christians who disagree with me (see a fuller explanation in this post: Internal Debates and Apologetics). In many of my discussions with fellow Christians on different theological positions, the proper interpretation (meaning) of what the Bible says is the focus. I also have political discussions with Christians in which we discuss the meaning of the words of the U.S. Constitution. Most of us agree that the proper interpretation of the Constitution is found in its authors, just as we believe that the proper interpretation of the Bible is found in its Author. We agree that in neither case is the meaning of the two ever found in the readers (deconstructionism). However, I have detected an inconsistency in the rejection of such an idea when it comes to one and not the other. Today, I want to explore this inconsistency and how removing it from our thinking can help, at least one, theological debate come closer to resolution.

Book Review: Legislating Morality- Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible

Introduction

Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek has been on my reading list for quite some time. It is often brought up by skeptics that Christians do not have a consistent view of morality, especially when it comes to government. This is often used as evidence of internal inconsistency within the Christian worldview and often leads to the conclusion that Christianity is false. And with the political season upon us yet again, I have been involved in many discussions about morality and politics. When defending the existence of God by using the moral argument, it is important to recognize the difference between moral ontology and moral epistemology (does objective morality exist vs. which objective morality exists) to address the claim of an internal inconsistency; however, we cannot stop there. Often the challenge comes from a genuine concern about the consistency of the moral code that Christians say is objectively established by the God of the Bible. So, it is important that defenders of the Christian worldview educate themselves on views of morality, and in political seasons, the morality of legislating morality.

A few weeks ago I decided to put reading two other books on hold and go through this one to better prepare myself as these discussions become more and more common with the season. Was I disappointed with that decision? I will give this book my usual chapter-by-chapter summary treatment then provide my recommendations at the end.

SCOTUS' Decision on Gay Marriage: A Philosophical Critique

Introduction

As the entire world is probably aware by now, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in late June 2015 that "marriage" does include same-sex couples. The majority opinion (written and presented by Justice Kennedy) includes the recognition that historically "marriage" has been defined as being a union between two individuals of the opposite sex. The opinion describes three cases that the SCOTUS heard and its reasoning for its conclusion that it was time to redefine "marriage."

As a defender of the Christian worldview, which includes objective value and objective morality, I feel that it is necessary to comment on this highly emotional and political issue. I have read and heard several opinion pieces from various sources (my favorites on linked at the end of this article), and I hope to not be redundant with this article's more philosophical approach to critiquing the ruling. I also hope to provide a reasoned and gracious response that, I pray, will speak to the hearts and minds of those caught in the middle of this battle. I want to start with two important recognitions:

Homosexuality, Intolerance, and Mozilla

"Inclusivism" In The Tech Industry
The last couple of weeks have seen some interesting controversy in the technology industry. Its not over technical standards or best practices, but rather over politics and worldviews. Recently Brendan Eich (former CTO of Mozilla- the creators of the Firefox web browser) was promoted to the position of CEO. Shortly after that it became known that he made a donation a few years ago to support the passing of Proposition 8 (a proposal to ban gay marriage) in California. This, of course, stirred much controversy around Eich and his political views. He and Stephen Shankland (CNET) discussed the potential effects this controversy could have on the Mozilla company here.

Eich was careful to hold his ground while explaining that Mozilla has historically held inclusivism in high value. He pointed to the fact that Mozilla has international offices in parts of the world that generally disagree with the pro-homosexual position. Throughout the conversation Eich implied that Mozilla's inclusivism included those who dissented from the pro-gay lobby. He even said:

Unrecognized Agreement and Unity

Introduction

Last week Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis (AiG) posted an article explaining why he believes that Reasons to Believe (RTB) and Stand to Reason (STR) have compromised scripture. Last week I responded by pointing out areas of agreement between those ministries and Answers In Genesis. I also explained some simple errors that Ham had made and showed how more areas of agreement could exist when those errors are understood and corrected. I concluded the post by linking to a few other responses by other bloggers.

Ken Ham offered a general response to the critiques of his original post and a specific one regarding the idea of "reformation". Ham did not name any specific blogs or provide links to which ones we was specifically addressing, so it makes it quite difficult to provide feedback on the soundness of that part of his response.

Agreement on Biblical Authority and Inerrancy

However, in his response, I would like to make clear a few other areas of agreement among the RTB, STR, AiG, and the bloggers who critiqued Ham's original article. Ham makes it very clear in his discussion about what he means by "reformation" that AiG's focus is to defend the authority of scripture. He believes that the loss of this doctrine is one of the key reasons people are leaving the Church. He believes that naturalists have convinced young Christians that scripture and science are completely incompatible. This is another area where these ministries can shake hands.

Ravi Zacharias on Race and Homosexuality

This quote got me thinking...

"The reason we are against racism is because a person's race is sacred. A person's ethnicity is sacred. You cannot violate it. My race is sacred; your race is sacred; I dare not violate it. The reason we react against the issue of homosexuality the way we do is because sexuality is sacred. You cannot violate it. How do you treat one as sacred and desacrelize the other? Sex is a sacred gift of God. I can no longer justify an aberration of it in somebody else's life than I can justify my own proclivities to go beyond my marital boundaries.

Every man here who is an able-bodied man will tell you temptation stalks you every day. Does it have anything to do with your love for your spouse? Probably not, because you can love your spouse with 100% desire to love the person, but the human body reacts to the sight entertained by the imagination and gives you all kinds of false hints that stolen waters are going to be sweeter. They are not. They leave you emptier. So a disposition or a proclivity does not justify expressing that disposition and that proclivity. That goes across the board for all sexuality.

When God created mankind and womankind, it was His plan, not our plan. It is extraordinary what He said. He said, 'It is not good for man to live alone.' Well, man wasn't living alone; God was with him. Why did He say that? He created the mystique and the majesty and the charm and the complimentary nature of womankind in a way that made it possible for her to meet his emotional needs that God, Himself, put only within her outside himself from himself in her in that complimentariness. It is a design by God." -Ravi Zacharias*