A Critique of Modern American Society and Christian Involvement

Abstract: This paper will critique modern American society. The six major goals of society – truth, justice, equality, the correct relationship of governmental to individual sovereignty, liberty and love – will be examined to determine how they operate in society and if those operations are appropriate logically, pragmatically and biblically. Each of the terms will also be defined, and both positive and negative examples of their operation in America will be given. Finally, the divinely-ordained role of the church in a pluralistic society will be addressed.

The Declaration of Independence has been described as “our nation’s birth certificate” (Boorstin & Kelley, 1990, p. 552). It tells us in a few words what were the ideals and hopes out of which this nation was born. And what lofty ideals and hopes they were!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. (1776/1993)

According to Paul Weiss (1959), the Declaration of Independence exhibits no uncertainty as to the place of “natural rights” in establishing the proper basis for society: “it does not doubt in the slightest that men have rights, that some of these rights are known, and that they are supernaturally bestowed” (pp. 46-47). Natural rights are rights that derive from nature. All men possess these rights simply by virtue of their being human. These rights are self-evident and they come into existence as soon as a person comes into existence (Arkes, 1992, p. 14). Hadley Arkes (1992) wrote that all human beings possess rights “quite apart from those ‘posited,’ or set down, in the law.” (p. 13) These rights are “natural” rights. The government only protects these rights; it does not bestow them since they are already given to man by God. These rights are not established by any majority vote; they are natural to all men. Thomas Aquinas (1273/1947) argued that natural law (and thus, we could say, natural rights) provides the universal foundation for morality as well as for all social and political institutions, and it is the paramount standard by which these institutions can be judged (pp. 1009-1010). Ellul (1960), the great French thinker, wrote that “society [will be] stable…[only] when man enjoys his [natural] rights” (p. 80). The following essential rights are natural ones, and they will establish a strong foundation for a pluralistic society: liberty, truth, love, the correct relationship of governmental to individual sovereignty, equality and justice. The founders of America recognized that such natural rights are indeed the absolutes that should form the moral basis for a humanistic American society and for its institutions; and with that sound moral foundation for a pluralistic society, this great nation began.

But where is America today? Unfortunately, the picture is not good. “As we near the end of a century and a millenium, America is entering a collective search for its national soul.” (Eberly, 1994, p. 15) Indeed America appears to be in the midst of a major social and cultural upheaval. At the root of this upheaval lies a steady decline in individual morality. The very concept itself of moral truth is increasingly denied.

This existential bewilderment of the West has caught many by surprise because it has come at the end of this much heralded century of humanism’s zenith. As knowledge in every field grew exponentially, the assumption was made that the loftiest dreams of the human spirit would finally be attained. Instead, those hopes have been dashed, and the answers that were sought after have become more remote than ever. (Zacharias, 1996, p. 6)

America’s Founders accepted the concept of a standard of moral authority, but our leaders today have largely rejected it. Many of America’s leaders have, at best, a tenuous grasp on the meaning or significance of natural law (Arkes, 1992, p. 13). Without a clear concept of a “higher law,” morality becomes contingent upon the whim of the moment, and “individuals are not responsible to any transcendent moral authority for their actions” (Zacharias, 1996, p. 38). Without any ultimate truth or standard of right, every man will do “that which [is] right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25, KJV). In this Hegelian world all truth becomes “relative,” and justice becomes “an empty concept, a meaningless term” (Gaede, 1993, p. 38).

The bitter fruit of this moral chaos can be seen everywhere in America. Paradoxically, America, which in so many ways is the strongest nation on the earth, also increasingly leads the world in many categories of social pathology (Eberly, 1994, p. 15). The family has been eroded as an institution. Single-parent households are increasing. Over half the marriages that are begun now end in divorce and the rate is increasing. The suicide rate for teenagers is on the rise, and births to unwed mothers have risen to almost 30 percent of all births (and dramatically higher in many cities). The abuse of children in this country is increasing and homeless children roam our cities. Racial tension permeates our society. America seems obsessed with pornography; in the United States it is an $8 billion industry, which makes it bigger than Hollywood movies and the record industry (Schlosser, 1997). A recent study reports that 30 percent of American households with Internet access visit an at least once a month (Rose, 1997, pp. 220-221)! Abortion is legalized under the pretext of “choice.” Children in elementary schools are selling drugs and bringing guns to school. President Clinton has recently observed that “high school seniors are more likely to take weapons to school than to take calculus in school” (Blank & Cohen, 1997, p. 25). “The rise of AIDS, rather than halting the revolution as might have been expected, provided the pretext for graphic sex education and new power.” (Eberly, 1994, p. 21) In spite of a much-lauded “healthy” economy, the actual quality of life for many is declining. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The citizens, for a large part, no longer trust their government. And our government seems powerless to fix the situation.

As Ravi Zacharias (1996) wrote, “even though scholars tire of hearing it, the truth of Alexis de Tocqueville’s statement is hard to ignore. The famed French thinker repeatedly said it was America’s religious bond…that held her together.” (p. 38) Having abandoned her moral foundation, America threatens to plunge even further into social and cultural disintegration. Her challenge now is to rediscover “the basic assumptions about human beings, society, and the law that originally shaped the American republic” (Eberly, 1994, p. 58).

In the midst of this darkness, the Christian church must recover her own unique role in the world. According to 1 Peter 2:9 (NIV), God has called His people to be “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that [we] may declare the praises of him who called [us] out of darkness into his wonderful light.” The church is God’s “holy nation,” and we are to reflect His character and life to those around us. A central part of that ministry involves our commitment to the absolute truth of God’s word. Without that truth, we have no true foundation for life, morality or ministry. Unfortunately, a growing number of evangelical theologians are reconsidering the basic methods and sources of theology in light of postmodern thought and are arriving at conclusions more akin to the prevailing secular notions of “tolerance” and “political correctness” than the absolute propositional truths of the Scriptures (Erickson, 1997).

In the remainder of this paper the major social goals of America – truth, justice, equality, the correct relationship of governmental to individual sovereignty, liberty and love – will be critiqued to determine if they are appropriate logically, pragmatically and biblically. Then the proper role of Christians in society will be examined.

Truth

Truth has been defined as “the character of being, or disposition to be, true or steadfast in allegiance; faithfulness, loyalty, constancy….facts, the matter or circumstance as it really is…the real thing…consistent with fact or reality” (Brown, 1993, p. 3412). Williams Watkins (1995) defines truth as “that which corresponds to reality, to what actually is” (p. 65). By the term “absolute” is meant “that which is true or right for all people at all times and in all places” (Watkins, 1995, p. 65). If we hold to no absolutes then the notion of “truth” becomes meaningless in a morass of relativity. Relativism may be defined as the view that “there is no such thing as a belief being absolutely true or false; beliefs are true or false only relative to a given point of view” (Hasker, 1980, p. 289). Relativism, according to Gaede (1993), “is the idea that all values and beliefs are equally legitimate and that you cannot judge between them” (p. 45).

Although relativism has many spokesmen, yet, as a philosophy, it has few true adherents. As Watkins (1995) argues, if people were “really relativistic in their perspective, their overriding mentality would be ‘Live and let live.’” (p. 68) However, America is a cultural battleground of various sides all trying to win the other side over to embrace their own particular “truth.” If we really believed that our particular truth was not absolute but only relative, why would we spend so much time, effort and money trying to persuade others of its “truthfulness”? It is strangely paradoxical that those who trumpet the cause of “tolerance” the loudest are frequently the most intolerant of those who don’t share their views! Furthermore, the whole notion of relativism is fundamentally and philosophically opposed to the basic concept of human rights. If humans do indeed have legitimate rights – irrespective, at this point, of however someone may define those rights – then this becomes an example of a truth that is, in fact, absolute and not relative at all. In short, truth must be absolute, or else it is not truth at all.

Since we have rejected the concept of absolute truth we must find some value to replace it, and the doctrine of “tolerance” has risen to meet that need. Gaede (1993) wrote:

Tolerance is a value that conforms nicely to the world we live in. Having pretty much decided that truth is not attainable, we have made tolerance of a plurality of truths a virtue. Having no truths worth defending, we have made nondefensiveness a mark of distinction. (p. 27)

Such tolerance is not based upon the presence of conviction but rather its absence. In this way, relativism and tolerance are closely related and fellow-participants in the great moral confusion in which America finds herself.

How Truth Operates in America Today

We live in a culture that is riddled with moral and ontological relativism. In the first place, most of us would have a hard time articulating what we believe. Moreover, what we believe today is easily displaced by something else tomorrow. Our beliefs are more a matter of feelings than anything, and thus our confidence in them varies with our hormones, our situation and our friends. (Gaede, 1993, p. 44)

“The postmodern consciousness…entails a radical kind of relativism and pluralism” (Grenz, 1996, p. 14). Both relativism and pluralism are not new, but the postmodern variety differs significantly from the older forms. As Grenz (1996) notes, “the relativistic pluralism of late modernity was highly individualistic; it elevated personal taste and personal choice as the be-all and end-all. Its maxims were ‘To each his/her own’ and ‘Everyone has a right to his/her own opinions.’” (p. 15) In contrast, postmodern relativism focuses on the group or the community. Since truth is relative to the community in which a person participates, and since there are many human communities, there are necessarily many different truths.

In today’s society, “confidence in truth has increasingly broken down” (Gaede, 1993, p. 25). According to George Barna (1994), in 1994 nearly three-quarters of all adults (72%) in America agreed that “there is no such thing as absolute truth” (p. 81). Amazingly, 62% of “born-again Christians” sided in with the national majority in affirming this error and accepting relative truth as the standard (p. 83)!

In the education systems of this country, relativism has been enthroned. Pontius Pilate’s cynical question to Jesus, “What is truth?” (John 18:38, KJV) is today frequently taken to be a mark of intellectual and political sophistication. The word “dogmatic” has come to stand “in our language precisely for all that is ignorant and arrogant, for the very opposite of a sincere searching for the truth” (Newbigin, 1989, p. 5). Allan Bloom (1987) wrote, “there is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative” (p. 25). Bloom goes on to say, “the relativity of truth is not a theoretical insight but a moral postulate, the condition of a free society, or so they see it” (p. 25). Thus, instead of providing intellectual leadership in this time of moral confusion, the academic establishments have instead capitulated to the prevailing cultural winds.

Professions and academic disciplines that once possessed a life and structure of their own have steadily succumbed, in some cases almost entirely, to the belief that nothing matters beyond politically desirable results, however achieved….It is coming to be denied that anything counts, not logic, not objectivity, not even intellectual honesty, that stands in the way of the “correct” political outcome. (Bork, 1991, p. 1)

One direct consequence of the “death of truth” and the rise of relativism in American society has been an incredible upsurge in popularity of New Age religions as well as ism in this country. In the past, intolerance meant bigotry or prejudice, which true Christians would abhor. But today, intolerance has come to mean simply disagreeing with anyone else’s beliefs. Because all truth is relative, therefore it is “off-limits” to judge someone else’s choice of religion. Since there is no objective, external truth, but reality is, in fact, only a social construct of each individual community, what right does anyone have to say that another’s beliefs are “wrong”? Thus relativism has provided the “philosophical framework that lends intellectual respectability to views and practices that once were considered superstitious or weird” (Leffel & McCallum, 1996, p. 205).

George Barna’s (1994) figures have already been quoted showing that nearly three-quarters of all adults in America agree “there is no such thing as absolute truth” (p. 81). Yet Barna’s (1994) studies also show that 84% of all adults in America agree that “religion is very important in their lives” (p. 115). So in America we have a very religious people, but a people, nevertheless, who largely have rejected the concept of absolute truth. In previous generations, this would easily have been recognized as the extraordinary contradiction it is, but the modern doctrine of “tolerance” has made it, not only acceptable today, but popular. It is significant that this doctrine of religious tolerance has always been a part of eastern al traditions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. These religions teach that everything is part of one essence and that all religions are many paths to the same goal. Consequently, as America has embraced the concept of “tolerance” a natural result has been the giving of scholastic, institutional and governmental credibility to religious traditions that are far removed from Christianity.

In distinct contrast to this confusion, stand the many churches in America today who are boldly proclaiming the truth of God’s word. One of the consequences of relativism is that it is increasingly considered inappropriate to try to change someone else’s mind. As a result many evangelicals are “petrified to express their faith” (Gaede, 1993, p. 45). So the churches and ministries that do not, through fear of man, shrink back from their divine mandate to preach the gospel are to be encouraged and commended. Relativism naturally “undermines the credibility of any form of orthodox belief” (Gaede, 1993, p. 47); therefore Christians who accept the ultimate infallibility and inerrancy of the word of God cannot compromise with the modern doctrines of relativism and tolerance.

As Watkins (1995) notes, “many philosophers have pointed out the self-refuting nature of relativism” (p. 66). Relativism “can’t be argued on its own grounds” (Gaede, 1993, p. 45). Essentially, if the claim that “all truth is relative” were itself true, that would lead to the conclusion that even the claim that all truth is relative is itself only a relative truth. However the claim that all truth is relative uses the word “all” which does not allow for any exceptions. Therefore either the claim that all truth is relative is an absolute truth, in which case it contradicts itself, or the claim that all truth is relative is itself relative, in which case it is false since the claim itself contends that there are no exceptions to its own claim that all truth is relative.

Gaede (1993) makes a further observation regarding the internally inconsistent character of the modern doctrine of tolerance:

If the worst thing you can be is intolerant, then how do you express your moral outrage? If you are intolerant of someone who is intolerant, then you have necessarily violated your own principle. But if you tolerate those who are intolerant, you keep your principle but sacrifice your responsibility to the principle. Indeed, the only person who can find consistency on this matter is the individual who is wholly committed to tolerance, to the point of being apathetic. (p. 23)

Bryan Appleyard (1993) made this same observation when he wrote, “Tolerance becomes apathy because tolerance in itself does not logically represent a positive virtue or goal. So the tolerant society can easily decline into a society that cares nothing for its own sustenance and continuity” (p. 13). In short, neither the concept of relativism nor the doctrine of tolerance can be considered internally logical.

But while the modern concepts of relativism and tolerance are not logical, it must be recognized that they are, to some extent, pragmatic. There is a growing diversity in our society. Our governments, neighborhoods, schools and businesses are “increasingly dealing with racial, cultural and gender diversity” (Gaede, 1993, p. 36), and this growing diversity represents a potential threat to peace and productivity in society. Consequently, attitudes of relativism and tolerance have met a practical need in American society. Fewer people get their feelings hurt, and there is less disruption in the workplace, the schools, and society at large – at least in theory. In reality, of course, as already has been noted, sometimes the most vocal proponents of “tolerance” are themselves the least tolerant, and the frequency of demonstrations and even riots in this country are testimony to the fact that through the doctrine of tolerance, America has obtained a certain peace in some areas at the price of peace in others.

According to the Bible, the primary, and clearest, source of truth is the written word of God. Jesus said, “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17, KJV). Jesus said that He is truth personified (John 14:6). This is not a reference to truth in some relative sense, but to truth in its most absolute sense. Furthermore, the Bible rejects all other “paths to truth” that contradict what it says: Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6, NIV) Concerning the Lord Jesus, Peter said, “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) In the face of society’s cry for “tolerance,” the Bible is clear that it does not “contain” some relative truth that is valid only for a few, but that it “is” the clear propositional truth of God to be accepted and obeyed by all men.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NIV)

Moreover the current practice of being “politically correct” was specifically denounced by Jesus in His words to the religious leaders of His day in Matthew 6:1-18 and Matthew 23:1-12. In those passages Jesus revealed that the Pharisees’ motive in their religious activities was not to present the truth for its own sake, but to present what was expected by other people in order to maintain their own personal vested interests. Finally, the role of the church is not to try to be acceptable to everyone and to change our message in accordance with the prevailing winds of public opinion, but Paul’s command was:

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:2-4, KJV)

Justice

Justice is “the maintenance of legal, social, or moral principles by the exercise of authority or power; assignment of deserved reward or punishment” (Brown, 1993, p. 1466). According to Mortimer Adler (1981), the domain of justice can be divided into two main spheres of interest:

One is concerned with the justice of the individual in relation to other human beings and to the organized community itself – the state. The other is concerned with the justice of the state – its form of government and its laws, its political institutions and economic arrangements – in relation to the human beings that constitute its population. (pp. 186-187)

The concept of justice “embodies the universal ideals of freedom, fairness, and moral equality that should guide a free society” (Eberly, 1994, p. 84). As Joseph Folliet (1963) has written, “there is domestic justice, economic justice, civic justice, cultural justice – a justice for all relations and situations….(but always) justice is marked by objectivity, universality and the rigorous character of the obligations it imposes” (p. 111). Thus, true justice extends equally to all parts of society and to all areas of life. Justice should be pursued for all men. It should not be upheld for only a certain segment of society.

All justice must be based upon truth. It requires a moral foundation. That is why, as Gaede (1993) observes, justice “is so closely linked with righteousness in the Bible” (p. 48). To determine what is just, one must first have a clear understanding about what is right and wrong. Without a clear concept of truth, justice becomes “an empty concept, a meaningless term” (Gaede, 1993, p. 38).

How Justice Operates in America Today

Justice cannot be separated from truth. But if all truth is relative then justice also becomes relative. If we have rejected the idea of moral absolutes then we have no consistent grounds for moral justice either. As Gaede wrote, “there is no truth without justice, no justice without truth” (p. 49). “Without a higher basis for judging good and evil, right and wrong, the ends of human action are judged on purely utilitarian grounds – the best for the most.” (Eberly, 1994, p. 57)

Without justice being based upon absolute truth, the law quickly degenerates into an arbitrary political tool. This is what has happened in America. The legal systems of this country have become increasingly politicized, and, as Robert Bork (1991) has noted, “the most active agent in transforming the federal courts has been the Supreme Court of the United States” (p. 12). Over the past few decades the Supreme Court has repeatedly departed from the original meaning of statutes as well as the Constitution itself, resulting in the judicial enactment, or attempted enactment, of items on the modern liberal agenda.

The Supreme Court has approved reverse discrimination on the basis of sex and race under a statute that clearly forbids it, found a right to abortion in the Constitution without explaining even once how that right could be derived from any constitutional materials, and came within one vote of finding a constitutional right to engage in conduct. For a few years the Court even abolished the death penalty, though the Constitution several times explicitly assumes that penalty to be a matter of legislative choice. (Bork, 1991, pp. 8-9)

Because of this politicizing, many people in America have given up on the legal system as a potent and meaningful force for justice. But this should not be surprising, since “no legal system can produce increasingly political results without at some point ceasing to be, or earning the respect due, a legal system” (Bork, 1991, p. 349).

The recent trials of O. J. Simpson give us a graphic example of a legal system in America that has become deeply politicized. In 1995, in Los Angeles, O. J. Simpson went to trial for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend. The racist remarks of an investigating detective fueled defense claims of a police conspiracy, and prosecutors and defense lawyers alike traded charges of racism and “playing the race card.” Defense lawyers accused the judge of racism in his rulings on the evidence. The media focused on the racial composition of the jury, and commentators wonder whether the jury truly put aside issues of race and celebrity status when it considered the evidence and released Simpson. It has been said of the American public that “most people, or [at least] most white people, think that O. J. did it” (Schatzman, 1997), and, after the trial, polls showed a marked decline in public confidence in the American jury system (Saalman, 1996, p. 164). But if Simpson’s criminal trial, which found him not guilty, seemed to end in his favor because of the race issue, paradoxically his civil trial, which established his responsibility for the two deaths, appeared to also be decided upon the same issue of race. The lone black juror to survive that trial said, “race had everything to do with the verdict” (Schatzman, 1997). In short, “both the criminal and civil trials, and how the media, the juries, the various ethnic publics, and the legal system reacted to them was all about race. Pure and simple.” (Schatzman, 1997) Neither trial was about justice.

Three years earlier, again in Los Angeles, police severely beat a black man called Rodney King. A bystander with a video camera recorded the beating for the whole nation to see. Months later, an all-white jury refused to convict the officers involved, provoking a riot that burned hundreds of buildings and injured and killed scores of people. African-American citizens across America were outraged. However, later, some of the officers were convicted in federal court of civil rights violations. Although this is an example of an ultimately positive instance of justice being carried out in America, yet doubts remain. If no camera had been running, would anyone have believed Rodney King’s claims that he had been beaten? Can blacks truly get justice from a white American justice system?

For justice to be truly “just” it must be based upon absolute moral truths. “Justice requires a moral foundation….To do justice, one must know the difference between right and wrong.” (Gaede, 1993, p. 48) But in our society relativism has replaced truth. Relativism posits that all values and beliefs are equally legitimate and therefore you cannot judge between them. In this philosophical context, laws cannot ultimately be considered “right” or “wrong”; and laws become whatever society’s most powerful political group makes them to be. That is not true “justice.”

If our modern society’s notion of justice is not logically consistent with the true concept of justice, it is indeed pragmatic. “Without a higher basis for judging good and evil, right and wrong, the ends of human action are judged on purely utilitarian grounds – the best for the most.” (Eberly, 1994, p. 57) Of course, what actually is considered “the best for the most” will vary, depending on who you ask. Consequently, although true justice cannot be promoted in a society that embraces moral relativism, yet practical expediency is served, albeit in a very subjective, and inherently unequal, manner. In a relativistic society, the right to define what is just and what is not is inevitably claimed by those who happen to be in power at the time.

The opposite view, and the biblical one, is that justice is based upon ultimate and absolute truth. Thus true justice is not merely the tool of the state, but it transcends and judges the will of the state. Ultimately the law of God is the final and unchanging norm of right action, by which everyone will one day be judged (Acts 17:30-31). This does not deny that the temporal administration and preservation of social justice is the divinely-bestowed task of the state (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17). But the principle of justice is higher than the constitution of the state; therefore justice cannot properly be understood merely as right based upon might, or upon political expediency. There is a natural justice that holds for all men everywhere.

The Bible is, of course, the infallible guide as to what exactly constitutes justice. As Boice (1996) asserts, “the only way we can begin to know what justice is and act on it is if God, the author of justice, directs us in the correct way through Scripture…We must be a people of the Book.” (p. 239) Consequently, God has given Christians a special responsibility to act justly in their lives and relationships for the purpose of modeling true justice to the rest of society, because to Christians have been “committed the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2). Therefore it is the church’s responsibility to maintain justice within her own ranks (1 Corinthians 5:12; Matthew 18:15-20) and to be a shining light of consistent justice revealing the ways of God to this dark world (Matthew 5:14-16).

Equality

Equality refers to “the condition of having equal rank, power, excellence, etc., with others” (Brown, 1993, p. 841). George Abernethy (1959) wrote, “the idea of equality is one of the greatest seminal ideas in our political, social, economic, and religious history” (p. 15). Adler (1981) affirmed, “by being human, we are all equal – equal as persons, equal in our humanity” (p. 165). Since all men are created equal, society’s goal must be to provide all men with the protection of equal rights, freedom of conscience and freedom of belief, the liberty to develop their own individual potential, and the right of fundamental human dignity.

It is important to understand, however, that while equality, “by definition, prohibits the deprivation of the equal rights of others” (Cox, n.d., p. 2) and this aspect of equality can, and should, be governmentally enforced, yet equality does not prohibit the possibility of unequal outcomes for all men. On the one hand, society should protect the rights of all men to equal opportunity. However, it is up to each individual whether he will use those opportunities successfully. That cannot possibly be enforced through legislation. As William Raspberry (1995) humorously wrote, “[quotas and numbers are] the language people use when they don’t want to do the right thing to correct an obvious injustice.”

“A social process which assures equal treatment thus represents equality…whether or not the actual results are equal.” (Sowell, 1987, p. 121) Furthermore, due to the abundant individual differences between men, equality of opportunity actually guarantees inequality of outcomes. A correct understanding of the idea of equality does not mean that all men are in all respects alike, but that “they are and ought to be alike [only] in certain respects” (Perry, 1944/1959, p. 273). Therefore to attempt to guarantee equality of outcome to one man will necessarily do violence to the liberties of another man and rob him of his equality of opportunity. Of course, as George Will (1983) demonstrates, “equality of opportunity” is easier said than done:

“Equality of opportunity” is a much more complicated matter than most conservatives can comfortably acknowledge. Prenatal care…infant stimulation, childhood nutrition and especially home environment – all these and other influences affect the competence of a young “runner” as he or she approaches the academic hurdles that so heavily influence social outcomes in America. There is, of course, vast scope for intelligent disagreement as to what can and should be done to make “equality of opportunity” more than an airy abstraction. (pp. 130-131).

Nevertheless, it remains indisputable that equality of opportunity can be enhanced by various forms of state action.

How Equality Operates in America Today

At the heart of the breakdown of American society generally, lies “the cult of self and self-fulfillment” which is pursued at the cost of nearly everything else (Boice, 1996, p. 23). According to Boice (1996), our fundamental problem is “unbridled individualism, which is individualism in the most radical sense (‘me alone; no one else matters’), utterly untempered, constrained by not a single moral absolute” (p. 23). This individualism poses a great threat to the practical possibility of equality in America. If men were truly altruistic and “esteemed other better than themselves” (Philippians 2:3, KJV), then the doctrine of equality would be given more than just a token acquiescence. But for equality to pervasively succeed in a society it must be a moral doctrine that has been embraced, and committed to, on a personal level, by the participants in that society. True equality cannot simply be legislated. Robert Bork (1991) points out:

Congress can properly require that hotels not turn away guests on the basis of race but make an exception for a person who rents a room or two in a private residence. It can enforce associations in restaurants but refuse to do so in law partnerships. It can make a thousand detailed tradeoffs and produce a complex code that articulates no general principles but reflects moral intuitions, political pressures, and compromises. (p. 81)

Furthermore, the popular doctrine of relativism is fundamentally opposed to the basic concept of equality. If we claim that all men are equal and then try to ensure societal equality on that basis, our claim of equality becomes an example of an absolute truth that our doctrine of relativity won’t allow us to hold. Thus, we cannot simultaneously accept both ideas and maintain logical consistency.

The fact that our society does not really consider all men to be equal can be seen in the legalization of abortion. The mother may well possess the freedom of choice regarding the use of her own body in many circumstances, but that freedom should not extend into matters where her “choice” to destroy the life of the baby within her would negate the father’s freedom to choose, as well as the baby’s freedom to live! Thus, in an abortion not all participants are treated equally. The baby, in particular, is afforded neither equality of opportunity nor equality of outcome!

A good example of the true equality of men can be seen in the many churches across this nation that are multi-racial. As Gaede (1993) affirms, “the real church is – and always has been – multicultural” (p. 63). One of these churches is Living Faith Fellowship in Elkhart, Indiana. Living Faith Fellowship has a clear goal to be multicultural in make up and practice. It has started a Hispanic fellowship to meet the need for evangelizing the growing Hispanic community in the city of Elkhart. The Hispanic fellowship has its own Mexican pastor and its services are conducted in the Spanish language. At the same time, this fellowship is considered very much a vital part of the church as a whole. The leaders are committed to the vision that there is only one church and not two. Therefore, the Hispanics, whites, Indians and blacks in the church try to do as much as they possibly can together. The church recently celebrated the first anniversary of the Hispanic fellowship in a combined bilingual meeting. All the participants marveled at the growth and health of the Hispanic fellowship and the unity between the races within the church as a whole. This church also is praying about starting a Chinese-speaking fellowship as an outreach, again with the goal of being one unified church consisting of many nationalities and cultures.

It has already been shown that equality of opportunity is fundamentally different from equality of outcome. Equality of outcome for everyone simply cannot be achieved without violating the equality of opportunity for many. In such situations, what is called “equality” is, in reality, an unjust “inequality.” Furthermore, the self-contradictory idea of relativism undermines society’s strivings for true equality. If all truth is relative, then who are we to suggest that all men are equal? Perhaps the equality of all men is simply a “relative equality” and open to arbitrary definition? The logical fallacy of this way of thinking is clearly evident.

Modern America’s commitment to “equality” is generally not born of idealism but of pragmatism. As Gaede (1993) notes, many businesses and educational institutions are embracing multiculturalism today (p. 36). They are opening their ranks to people of genders, races and cultures other than what they are used to including. However, they usually do not do this out of a heartfelt commitment to the concept of the equality of all men, but more from practical necessity. The growing diversity of society threatens those institutions that won’t adopt a multicultural and inclusive stance.

Christians, on the other hand, should not be inclusive and sensitive to others “simply because it’s good to be sensitive; we are sensitive so that we can better love others and do what is just and right” (Gaede, 1993, p. 37). This represents a profound difference from modern society’s approach. As Christians, our primary goal should not be inclusiveness for its own sake; our goal is to please God and He commands us to seek love, justice and truth. Therefore we should strive to honor the equality of all men simply because that is truth; we should not do it for how we can profit from it.

The biblical conception of man is that all men are created equal by God (Genesis 1:27-28). According to the Scriptures, all men are equal in their “common heritage in Adam and Eve as the parents of all human beings (Genesis 3:20), in their common inheritance of the sin nature (Romans 5:12), and in their common need for the Savior (John 8:24)” (Cox, n.d., p. 8). However, the Bible, as already noted, does not endorse the pragmatism of typical multiculturalism, neither does it apologize for making statements that are unequivocally presented as absolutes.

Governmental versus Individual Sovereignty

“Sovereignty,” according to Brown (1993), may be defined as “supremacy in respect of power or rank,” and a “sovereign” is “a person who has supremacy or authority over another or others” (pp. 2959-2960). In society there must be a clear differentiation between governmental and individual sovereignty. The government must have power, but that power must be limited. This is consistent with the truth of the equality of all men. Since all men are created equal, and endowed with certain unalienable rights, therefore “rulers, in their equality with all other citizens, rule over them only by way of citizen-granted conditional authority” (Cox, n.d., p. 34).

Rights of authority are…legitimately transferred by consent from the individual to governing authorities. This legitimate transfer typically occurs for two basic reasons: economy or efficiency of operation and as [a] check against the inability of individuals to be consistently moral… (Cox, n.d., pp. 18-19)

But such a transfer of authority is not to be absolute, and the different spheres of governmental and individual sovereignty must be recognized. Bork (1991) has correctly observed that the Founders bequeathed Americans “the full right of self-government…[which was] limited only as to specified topics” (p. 352). While the government must have authority to prosecute those who break the laws of the land, the individual must have authority to determine many of the aspects of his own lifestyle. For example, as long as it does not extend into the area of abuse, parents should have the right to determine the nature of the discipline of their own children. With regard to education, parents again should have the right to make their own choices on behalf of their children. John Coons (1992) asserts, “Shifting educational authority from government to parents is a policy that rests upon basic beliefs about the dignity of the person, the rights of children, and the sanctity of the family” (p. 15). Society’s goal must be a well-crafted balance between governmental and individual sovereignty, recognizing that “the state and men need one another” (Weiss, 1959, p. 119).

How Sovereignty Operates in America Today

According to Robert Bork (1991), America today generally errs on the side of too much governmental authority. He notes that, in some recent rulings, the Supreme Court has contradicted the Constitution on matters such as approving reverse discrimination on the basis of sex and race, affirming the rights to practice abortion and , and temporarily abolishing the death penalty (pp. 8-9). Then Bork concludes:

My point is not that these choices are necessarily morally or politically wrong; my point is simply that, under the Constitution, these are questions left for the people and their elected representatives, not for courts, to decide. (p. 9)

Don Eberly (1994) wrote:

The government’s greatest harm…[is in] its destructive influence on civil society and its institutions, such as the family, church, neighborhoods, and other mediating structures that provide humankind meaning and life-sustaining support. A society that wishes to remain free and strong will protect these institutions from governmental overextensions and politicization. (p. 69)

Eberly goes on to offer the hope that although these institutions have been weakened in America, they can, nevertheless, be restored, but only if individuals are “seen as capable of self-government by both themselves and their leaders” (p. 100).

The issue of in America provides us with an example of the incorrect use of governmental authority. In May 1996, the Supreme Court gave an unexpectedly strong boost for (Hetter, 1996). Their decision halted a movement to copy a Colorado constitutional amendment that barred localities from protecting . At a minimum, the decision was considered “likely to kill antigay ordinances in Cincinnati and Alachua County, Fla., and end efforts in Idaho and Oregon to pass similar measures” (Hetter, 1996). In a piercing dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said it was not the courts’ business “to take sides in this culture war” (Asseo, 1996).

The Bible teaches that man’s conscience informs him on matters of right and wrong (Romans 1:32; 2:15). The laws of nature also reveal elements of ultimate truth to man (1 Corinthians 11:14). Regarding , Paul stated very clearly that such practices are not “natural” (Romans 1:26-27, KJV). This means that man, without any special revelation from God and without embracing Christianity as such, should be able to judge as ultimately morally wrong. In fact God expects man to do this, and He condemns men for continuing to practice, and consenting with others who practice, what are obviously grievous sins against the natural order (Romans 1:32).

This same incident also provides us with an example of the proper use of governmental authority. While President Clinton, long sympathetic to gay causes, endorsed this decision by the Supreme Court, he also “tacked rightward by adding that he would sign legislation allowing states to refuse to recognize gay marriages” (Hetter, 1996). Without any additional comment on the president’s apparent ability to agree with both sides at the same time, it must be noted that this particular decision at least was in harmony with truth and is to be commended.

America was founded upon the ideas of individual responsibility and limited government control. The nation is still trying to balance those two goals today. In all fairness, it is not always easy to determine exactly where the spheres of governmental and individual sovereignty should each begin and end. The task is made even more difficult when society rejects the concept of absolute truth. Without an ultimate standard, the task of determining appropriate limits of governmental power becomes merely an exercise of expedient political pragmatism.

It is in society’s best interests to achieve a harmonious balance between governmental and individual sovereignty. Weiss (1959) made this observation:

The state must look to men for sources of energy, effort, knowledge, and decision, and men must look to the state for opportunity, organization, and comprehensive objective… Without men [the state] could of course not be, but without making proper use of them it will act but blindly and soon come into opposition with the very beings it ought to benefit. (pp. 119-120)

God, according to the Bible, is sovereign over all things (Ephesians 1:11), but in His sovereignty He has ordained the human governments of this world. Paul wrote, “there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God” (Romans 13:1, KJV). The fact that Paul wrote these words during the reign of wicked Nero demonstrates that this divine ordination extends to bad governments as well as to good ones. In a pluralistic society this is an essential principle to understand: God has ordained human governments, even when they aren’t just or compassionate. At the same time, however, the Christian must always recognize that his first responsibility of obedience remains to God (Acts 4:19). If the believer must ever choose between obeying an instruction from God and an unrighteous dictate from a divinely-ordained governmental authority he should always obey God. In one sense, this is a biblical affirmation of the balance that must necessarily be kept between individual sovereignty and governmental sovereignty.

Freedom, License and Liberty

The concept of freedom involves the following ideas: “exemption or release from slavery or imprisonment….the power of self-determination attributed to the will…the state of being able to act without hindrance or restraint” (Brown, 1993, p. 1023). In the context of society in general, “natural liberty” has been defined as “the state in which everyone is free to act as he or she thinks fit, subject only to the laws of nature” (Brown, 1993, p. 1577). This definition is essentially similar to that proposed by Thomas Hobbes (1651/1949, p. 66), and it reveals the fact that true liberty does not mean we are entirely without restraint of any kind, but we are only free within the constraints of the natural laws and rights upon which the society is founded.

License, on the other hand, is a certain kind of “freedom.” Hillery (1980) has said that license is synonymous with “egoistic freedom” (p. 167). This is a “do your own thing” kind of freedom, and stands in stark contrast to both “disciplined freedom,” which is based upon the idea that true freedom requires sharing and sacrifice, and “conditional freedom,” which considers other people and things (Hillery, 1980, p. 167). Mortimer Adler (1981) wrote that “doing as one pleases, when so doing is illegitimate, unlawful, or unjust, is not liberty, but license” (p. 143). John Locke (1690/1952) also spoke of the contrast between true liberty and license (p. 26).

How Freedom, License and Liberty Operate in America Today

True liberty in society must be firmly grounded upon a commitment to absolute truth. However, if society has rejected the concept of absolute truth, then there will be no generally accepted standard of right and wrong. In such a society there will therefore be no established limits to our “freedoms,” but everyone becomes theoretically “free” to determine the extent of the limits of their own behavior according to their own particular view of truth. As Robert Bork (1996) has observed, “men seek the removal of the constraint nearest them” (p. 61). This can only lead to confusion and alienation between competing groups in society all of whom are trying to get the nation’s justice system to reflect what they claim as their own particular “liberties” and limits thereof. Thus, in our society that has embraced the doctrine of relativism, liberty very easily becomes license. As Adler (1981) has wisely noted, “to demand that the scope of one’s circumstantial freedom shall be unlimited…is to ask for an anarchic society, not a freedom that is consonant with living in society cooperatively with other human beings” (p. 143). Alder went on to write about autonomy:

Autonomy…consists in being a law unto oneself. Autonomy can be possessed only by individuals living completely solitary lives, not by them as members of organized societies that cannot endure or prosper without effective government or coercively enforceable laws….Living in organized societies…human beings neither have autonomy nor are they entitled to unlimited liberty of action. Autonomy is incompatible with organized society. Unlimited liberty is destructive of it. (Adler, 1981, p. 144)

Pornography represents one of the worst examples of the abuse of liberty in America. As an industry, pornography arose in America after the Second World War and has grown enormously ever since. “Largely fueled by loneliness and frustration, the sex industry has been transformed from a minor subculture on the fringes of society into a major component of American popular culture.” (Schlosser, 1997) Twenty-five years ago, a federal study of pornography estimated that the total retail value of all the - ography in the United States was no more than $10 million, and perhaps less than $5 million; but last year Americans spent more than $8 billion on pornography in various forms! (Schlosser, 1997) It is a further shame to this nation that American pornography dominates overseas markets. According to Bruce Taylor, who is president and chief counsel of the National Law Center for Children and Families, pornography degrades women, promotes rape, and thrives on prostitution. (Schlosser, 1997) Women are frequently treated as slaves or even animals in pornographic material. Moreover, young, impressionable children are morally threatened by the ease with which pornography can be obtained via the Internet.

The national video chain, Blockbuster, set other video stores in the country a good example when they refused to carry - material in their stores. Congress also acted in an exemplary manner when they passed the Communications Decency Act in 1996, one provision of which sought to protect children from pornography by making it a crime to put - material on the Internet where children can find it (Asseo, 1997).

But in June 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had violated free-speech rights when it tried to curb pornography on the Internet (Asseo, 1997). The justices voted to uphold a lower court ruling that struck down the law, and said that Congress’ effort went too far because it also would keep such material from adults who have a right to see it. The court said that words and pictures are protected by the Constitution’s First Amendment if they are deemed indecent but not obscene. (Asseo, 1997). Sadly, one of the government’s primary arguments had been the morally-weak assertion that offensive material on the Internet was driving people away from the Internet. This argument was easily rejected by the court in view of the phenomenal growth of the Internet (Asseo, 1997). Consequently, the highest court in America has ruled to defend an industry that debases women, keeps men in to their base lusts, and threatens the healthy moral formation of children, and all on the basis of “free speech”! This could not have happened if we were a nation strongly committed to God’s word that, without apology, condemns both lust and the exploitation of human beings.

America has always stood for the general right of free speech and free expression, but this freedom should not be without limits. In fact, no society can “grant unlimited rights of free expression to anyone…without being reduced to chaos and the utter frustration of its efforts to achieve its professed aims” (Leiser, 1979, p. 150). Applying this principle to pornography, Boice (1996) has correctly proposed, “we need to say that freedom to print sexually obscene material stops at the point at which it harms others” (p. 173).

While freedom and liberty in general are vitally important in a free society, nevertheless, there must be limits to our liberties and freedoms. Competition in business must be kept within bounds, health ordinances enforced and the laws of the land kept. Moreover, to give rights to one person necessarily entails certain limitations on the freedoms of others. For example, the freedom one person has to own property is always accompanied by limitations on others’ freedom to use that same property. Thus, private property distributes freedom and unfreedom (Lebacqz, 1986, 60). One person has the freedom to work – indeed he has the right to contract his labor to others – but he does not have the freedom, or right, to force someone else to give him a job. The businessman is free to pursue his trade but not by means of exploiting the poor (Gladwin, 1980, pp. 177-178). The right to free speech must be guarded in a free society, but not to the extent of permitting destructive pornography. Furthermore, our liberties must be in harmony with an ultimate standard of right and wrong, or else they will soon be reduced to license.

It would be in America’s best interests to recover her moral equilibrium, to reject relativism, and to return to an absolute standard of moral truth. As Mortimer Alder (1981) said, unlimited liberty will only destroy society (p. 144). Without a final standard by which appropriate limits to liberty may be established, our society will be destroyed from within by license under the guise of “freedom.”

Adler (1981) wrote that human lies primarily in our enslavement to our own lower nature. Therefore, true human freedom, or moral liberty, “lies in reason’s control of the passions, made firm by moral virtue, the acquired habitual disposition to make right rather than wrong choices” (pp. 141-142). This mirrors the biblical truth of true liberty. A very important New Testament concept is that man’s response to the divine gift of liberty is to freely accept bondservice to God (Romans 6:17-22), to Christ (1 Corinthians 7:22), to righteousness (Romans 6:18), and to all men for the sake of the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) and of the Savior (2 Corinthians 4:5). “Christian liberty is neither an abolishing of responsibility nor a sanctioning of license.” (Packer, 1980, p. 899) Thus we may be technically “free” but that does not mean we have the liberty to do anything we please, but we must use our freedom responsibly, with an eye to what is expedient and edifying and with a tender regard for one another (1 Corinthians 8–10; Romans 14:1–15:7). In one sense Christian liberty becomes “a new kind of slavery” (Gundry, 1975, p. 1036).

In contrast, a self-serving anarchic license that seeks only for its own way, even though it does so with the justification of a relativistic “liberty,” is not liberty at all but to sin (Romans 6).

Love and Compassion

Love is defined as “that state or feeling with regard to a person which manifests itself in concern for the person’s welfare, pleasure in his or her presence, and often also desire for his or her approval; deep affection, strong emotional attachment” (Brown, 1993, p. 1635). The law of love is essentially expressed in Aquinas’ first and general precept of natural law – “do good and avoid evil” (Aquinas, 1273/1947, p. 1009) – and is thus a vital part of the necessary foundation of a healthy society. Aquinas’ words reflect those of Paul in Romans 13:8-10:

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (NIV)

True love will produce actions of love. Love was Jesus’ “supreme ethical demand” (Lebacqz, 1986, p. 84); it must result in practical deeds and not just in words (1 John 3:16-18).

True love will be expressed in a manner consistent with justice and truth. Therefore, while we should love all men, we should not love what they believe, or stand for, necessarily. Gaede (1993) affirms this distinction: “We are inclusive of people but not of beliefs” (p. 60). Don Eberly (1994) has rightly observed:

To love unconditionally…is not to be confused with tolerance, a term that can imply moral neutrality and consent… [True love can] accept others while rejecting their convictions…The growing calls for Americans to be more tolerant have not produced citizens who act with genuine benevolence toward one another. (p. 78)

Since true love is not mere sentimentalism, it will also be expressed in a manner consistent with wisdom. So, for example, if a man needs food but is not willing to work for it, he should not simply be given food and money and allowed to continue along a path that is destructive not only to himself but also to society as a whole, but he should only be given practical assistance if he first demonstrates a willingness to accept his personal responsibilities in society. Love is not a matter of “sappy sentimentality that always gives in to the perceived needs of others” (Gaede, 1993, p. 73). So, while true compassion will necessarily result in social action, it will be social action of a kind consistent with truth, justice, morality and accountability.

How Love and Compassion Operate in America Today

In our society, we have lost the balance between love and truth. On the one hand, the doctrine of tolerance commands us to “love and not judge.” This doctrine forbids us to speak out against anything that contradicts truth, and requires us to embrace every idea as equally valid. On the other hand, many Christians, in their pursuit of a standard of truth, have lost their love for fallen men, and their “truth” has become harsh and bitter. Gaede (1993) speaks very well to this issue:

It seems to me that this connection between truth and love is especially vital as we confront the issue of our differences. Each side of the current debate over multiculturalism would have us separate love and truth. Advocates of exclusion often do so as protectors of truth, while advocates of inclusion place themselves on the side of love. But actually the two are inseparable. It is the truth that calls us to love; and it is our love that testifies to the truth. (p. 70)

We must seek a similar balance between love and justice. When Jesus reached out to the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), He crossed many cultural and religious boundaries to embrace her as a person. Yet He simultaneously dealt with her sin in a manner that was direct and just. Gaede (1993) suggests that we in the modern world would have “either rejected her totally or affirmed her every word” (p. 61). But that is not what Jesus did. He acted in a manner that was, at once, consistent with love, truth and justice.

There is also a tendency in our society to think of love almost exclusively as a feeling or emotional state. This misconception is fostered by the Hollywood image of “love.” Love can, and should, be accompanied by feelings of affection; but, at its heart, love is a commitment to action. People who genuinely love do not do it by words alone, but they love by their actions. “Those who only defend the truth with words and don’t act in love are a noisy gong, a clanging cymbal” (Gaede, 1993, p. 71).

The modern history of evangelicalism in America provides a very interesting, but negative, case study. In the nineteenth century, evangelicals were at the forefront of efforts to combat evils in society. This was true with respect to the abolitionist and prohibitionist movements. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, however, the liberal movement developed within many Protestant denominations, reflecting the impact on theology and church life of some of the modern learning, such as evolution and literary-historical criticism. For many Christian leaders in established denominations, these developments were disconcerting. It appeared that many believers were abandoning the heart of the Christian faith in their attempt to be modern. So the “fundamentalist” movement began around the turn of the century, emphasizing the doctrinal “fundamentals” of the faith. As liberalism became more vocal and influential, the fundamentalists’ emphasis shifted from affirmation of fundamental doctrines to criticism and rebuttal of liberal teachings. They also began to distance themselves from the “social gospel” they said the liberals were substituting for the true biblical gospel. The result of all this was a narrowing of the classical evangelical position and a neglecting of the social application of the gospel, which had so strongly characterized the evangelicalism of the nineteenth century and earlier. (Erickson, 1997) The legacy of this is that in American society today, the word “fundamentalist” carries with it a connotation of one who is unloving, uncaring, separatist, cold, hard, bitter and angry. Furthermore, evangelicals who strongly believe in the Scriptures are almost automatically characterized as without love and concern for society and its ills. This was an unfortunate historical development, and one that many evangelical denominations and leaders have sought to rectify in recent years.

There are many good examples of Christian love at work in America today. In Brooklyn, New York, every week Bill Wilson and his staff minister to more than 20,000 children who are twelve years old and younger, at dozens of sites throughout the inner city. This ministry is a very dangerous one: “I’ve been stabbed twice, and beaten. Our buildings have been burned. The Sunday school buses have been blown up. People on my staff have been mugged, raped, even killed. It’s not television here; it’s real life.” (Wilson, 1992) Nevertheless, Metro Ministries continues, in spite of the extreme dangers and difficulties, for one reason: “We love them.” (Wilson, 1992) Concerning his ministry, Wilson (1992) says,

I choose to live in a ghetto in Brooklyn, even though I could live anywhere else in the United States. Why do I do it? Because when I walk out the door of my warehouse every morning, I see the destruction; it doesn’t go away. I’m in the urgency…The hookers and the junkies on the corner are my friends. I eat dinner every Thursday night with some homeless men…When you come close to so much death, it does something to you. It forces you to act. I call it the burden of truth: when you see truth, and all of a sudden – perhaps for the first time – you know it’s the truth and know you have to respond… To me, “the need” is the call. I didn’t hear an audible voice calling me to the ministry. I believe that if you see a need and you can fill it today, then that’s the call of God for you today… Our biggest national problems won’t be solved by a presidential election. God is waiting for you and me to respond to the needs of hurting people.

In this way, Bill Wilson demonstrates compassion that is not in word only, but also in action.

A “love” that is not balanced by truth and justice, will result in what Marvin Olasky (1992) calls “compassion fatigue”: “around the country, ‘compassion fatigue’ is evident as people tire of seeing generosity misused or, apparently, of no use” (p. 4). The “French observer Alexis de Tocqueville was amazed by how strong was the American compassion for the sufferings of one another” (Olasky, 1992, p. 219), and today we must recapture that same vision. America needs a love that is genuinely based upon truth; a love that is administered in justice and with accountability. Without that foundation, we will continue to waste government money on social programs that achieve no long-term benefit.

A love that does not result in action is mere sentimentalism. Love must be practical as well as spiritual. One of the deficiencies of historic fundamentalism, as discussed, is that it divorced man’s spiritual needs from his practical needs. While emphasizing the priority of man’s spiritual needs, the church must also offer answers for the needs of the whole man.

Evangelical Christians are recognizing that social action and evangelism are not opposite poles. They are complementary partners in the task of the church. The task of the church cannot be split into the “social” and the “spiritual” dimensions…In many cases, costly service must accompany the gospel proclamation. In almost all cases, tremendous benefit to the well-being of society can and should result from making obedient disciples. (Pickett & Hawthorne, 1992, p. D-213)

In the Bible, God’s love to man is seen in His concern for all men (Deuteronomy 33:3; Matthew 5:45). That concern is expressed in practical ways: God cares for men and provides for them. His love to men is especially shown toward His chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:7-8; Romans 5:8). God is revealed as loving because He is love itself (1 John 4:8, 16). The greatest practical expression of God’s self- for man was the death of His Son on the cross (John 3:16; Romans 8:32).

Because God is love, His church should be known for her love (1 John 4:19), and that love must be expressed in practical ways and not just in word (1 John 3:16-18). Furthermore, the church should not only love “her own” but she should also express love toward all men (Deuteronomy 10:19; Galatians 6:10). Even her enemies should be treated kindly (Exodus 23:4-5; Matthew 5:44). “There can be no such thing as a Christian who advocates truth in the name of hate.” (Gaede, 1993, p. 73) Even when believers disagree with people over what constitutes truth they must still conduct themselves in a manner consistent with godly love. The church must learn what it means to genuinely embrace people while rejecting the falsehoods they believe. That is God’s attitude toward fallen man and it must characterize those who are born of Him. Thus genuine, balanced love in the Christian community will be the preeminent sign above all others, to the world, of the reality of Christian discipleship (John 13:35).

The Role of Christians in Society

The proper role of the church in a pluralistic society has been mentioned throughout this paper; some summary remarks will be made here. In the New Testament, Peter makes a wonderful statement concerning the role of Christians in society: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9, NIV) God calls His church a distinct “holy nation” which has been called to glorify Him. Jesus said of His people that they are “in the world” but they are not “of the world” (John 17:11-16, NIV). Paul wrote that God “has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Colossians 1:13, NIV). God has called us to be different; He has called us to be separate. However, at the same time, God has called us to remain in the world and to be a positive influence in our society. Jesus has called us to be “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-14, NIV). Somehow the church must find a balance between uncritically immersing herself into a fallen society and its goals and means on the one hand, and totally rejecting secular society, in which God has called her to participate, on the other.

Boice (1996) addresses this issue when he describes the unfortunate state of so many evangelicals in America in choosing one extreme or the other:

Either we have detached ourselves from the problems of our country, believing that the political system and the government that flows from it are so corrupt that no true Christian should have anything to do with them…or else we have become so enamored with the political process that we have been swept up into the idolatrous notion that the kingdom of God can come by the political involvement of Christians. (p. 233)

As Boice, goes on to say, we must repudiate both extremes and work to articulate the correct responsibility of Christians in a secular society.

In defining what that responsibility is, a pivotal Scriptural passage is found in Matthew 5:13-14 (NIV): “You are the salt of the earth…You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.” Jesus clearly says that His disciples are to influence their world. But what is to be the nature of that influence? Is Jesus endorsing political involvement, for example, in this passage? The answer to the question of Jesus’ intention in His words is found in the next two verses, in the same context:

Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:15-16, NIV)

What Jesus meant by “salt” and “light” is clear. He was not specifically endorsing immersion in society’s political systems in order to change the laws of the land and impose Christian morality on society; but He said, in essence, that it would be our character – our “good deeds” – that would reveal the nature of true religion to a fallen world and bring His Father glory. And there is a vast difference between those two ideas!

If the church in America is to model true “redeemed life” in the midst of our fallen society, then that life should be expressed in relation to the major social goals of America: truth, justice, equality, the correct relationship of governmental to individual sovereignty, liberty and love. With regard to truth, the church’s first responsibility is to resist the temptations of tolerance and diversity, and, instead, to believe and boldly proclaim the absolute truth of God’s word. God has given us a solemn charge to “preach the word” (2 Timothy 4:2). Secondly, the church community also has the responsibility to “transmit truth from one generation to the next” (Gaede, 1993, p. 46). God has called His church to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), and, as such, we must not succumb to the pressure of the world around us to conform to Hegelian relativity, but we must “shine as lights in the world; holding forth the word of life” (Philippians 2:15-16, KJV). Finally, the members of the church must live in such a manner that is consistent with what they say they believe, and be set apart thereby.

We live in a world that not only separates knowing from doing but increasingly considers that normal…We see [this] in the church, where Christians find it easy to affirm certain beliefs but then live as if they didn’t matter…We think of learning as a head game more than a serious undertaking, and we tend to value discussions of truth over its application. (Gaede, 1993, p. 52)

The church in America must also be committed to justice. “Christians cannot turn a blind eye to the problems of prejudice, racism and exploitation that exist in our society. We cannot wink at such evils, nor can we simply accept them as the inevitable consequences of human fallenness.” (Gaede, 1993, p. 53) At the same time, we must distinguish the believer’s responsibility to seek justice from the question of political involvement. While the church must have a common commitment to the essential principles of justice, “the political question – how can we best act upon that assumption in the public arena? – is a secondary question about which, Christians can and will legitimately disagree” (Gaede, 1993, p. 54). Moreover, when the Bible commands us to walk in justice (e.g., Micah 6:8), it is not telling us “merely to talk about justice or to get other people to act justly. It means to do the just thing yourself”(Boice, 1996, p. 239). It is not the calling of the community of faith to administer justice to the world at large (1 Corinthians 5:12-13; Romans 12:19), but it is her responsibility to maintain righteousness within her own community (1 Corinthians 5:12; Matthew 18:15-20) and to be a shining light of righteousness revealing the ways of God to this fallen world (Matthew 5:14-16). Finally, if we are to truly reveal the nature and ways of God there are many times when an exact standard of justice will be tempered by godly compassion and mercy. It is appropriate for us, who have personally experienced the amazing grace and mercy of God, to render that same mercy to others and to understand that “judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!” (James 2:13)

Regarding equality, God has called the church to rebel against the rampant individualism and selfishness of America and to respect the equality of man. Consequently, “there is much within the agenda of multiculturalism that most Christians…would want to affirm” (Gaede, 1993, p. 35). In addition, God has given His church an even higher calling than seeking the mere equality of man. Our calling is to imitate our Lord and to be selfless. If Christians were truly altruistic and “esteemed other better than themselves” (Philippians 2:3, KJV), what an example that would set for the world!

God has sovereignly ordained the human governments of this world (Romans 13:1), and He commands His people to obey them. At the same time, however, the Christian’s responsibility is always to obey God first (Acts 4:19-20; 5:29). Thus Christians have a responsibility not only to model obedient citizenship to those around them, but also to assist society in knowing what are the appropriate limits of governmental authority.

Regarding freedom, the church must model to the world the difference between liberty and license. New Testament passages such as Romans 14:1 – 15:7 show us that although we may be technically “free” to do something, yet we do not thereby possess the liberty to actually do it, if our actions would hurt someone else. God’s command to us is not simply to seek what we want, but instead to “follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another” (Romans 14:19, KJV).

The highest manifestation of Christian character is love. In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul eloquently describes the nature of true love. It is not just a feeling, and it is not just words. But love is a commitment to practical action. John wrote:

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. (1 John 3:16-18, NIV)

If we will love one another with this kind of divine love, then the resulting unity in the church will be a great testimony to the world of the reality of God’s love to all men (John 13:35; 17:21).

Additionally, the church has other God-given responsibilities toward society (Bandow, 1988, pp. 74-77). She has a responsibility to pray:

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone – for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:1-4, NIV)

In one sense, the church should also act as society’s “conscience,” teaching society, both by precept and example, the nature of “true religion” which is to help the orphans and widows, and to live in a righteous manner (James 1:27, KJV). Right moral values “cannot be determined by the freedom of personal choice or a 51 percent vote” (Boice, 1996, p. 233), but the church in a pluralistic society will provide guides for moral conduct. The church should promote the kind of moral values that properly undergird and strengthen society and its government. Among the specific values that should be addressed are a commitment to justice, a belief in the sacredness of life, an emphasis on personal and communal responsibility for the less fortunate, a respect for individual autonomy, a bias against the state expanding its powers too far, a desire to promote the family unit, and an obligation to promote peace (Bandow, 1988, p. 31). But even as it assists in shaping public policy, the church must still be kept institutionally separate from the state (1 Corinthians 5:12-13).

Furthermore, God has also called His church to patiently bear the persecution that He said would come to us from society (Matthew 5:10-12; John 15:18-19).

We must never forget that the early church did not explode because it was a comfortable haven for those weary of life’s pressures or because it accommodated the culture’s values. The early church turned the world upside down because the believers confessed that Jesus, not Caesar, was Lord. They didn’t embrace the culture; they scandalized it. (Colson, 1992, p. 240)

But the most fundamental task of the church in society is to directly preach, with both our words and lives, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ final words to His disciples were:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you… (Matthew 28:19-20)

Good government cannot transform the hearts of men and give them eternal life. Only repentance from sin and faith in the Lord Jesus will save men from sin and death. This is the primary task of all Christians: to lead men to Jesus.

If the church will do all this then men will see the light of Jesus Christ before them, and the Father will be glorified (Matthew 5:16). As Boice (1996) has written, “the world is waiting for us to do that. It is waiting for Christians to be Christians.” (p. 241)

References

Abernethy, G. L. (1959). The idea of equality: An anthology. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press.

Adler, M. J. (1981). Six great ideas. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Appleyard, B. (1993). Understanding the present: science and the soul of modern man. New York: Doubleday.

Aquinas, T. (1947). Summa theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). New York: Benziger Brothers, Inc. (Original work published 1273)

Arkes, H. (1992). Natural law: Its reappearance and why it continues to matter. Constitution, Winter, 13–18.

Asseo, L. (1996, May 21). High court ruling in Colorado case forces new look at similar initiatives. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved November 29, 1997 from the World Wide Web: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/AP521A.HTM.

Asseo, L. (1997, June 26). Smut controls on the internet violate free speech, court says. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved December 1, 1997 from the World Wide Web: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/AP0626Z.HTM.

Bandow, D. (1988). Beyond good intentions: A biblical view of politics. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books.

Barna, G. (1994). Virtual America. Ventura, CA: Regal Books.

Blank, J. & Cohen, W. (1997, December 15). Prayer circle murders. U.S. News & World Report, pp. 24-27.

Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind: How higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today’s students. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc.

Boice, J. M. (1996). Two cities, two loves: Christian responsibility in a crumbling culture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Boorstin, D. J. & Kelley, B. M. (1990). A history of the United States since 1861. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Bork, R. H. (1991). The tempting of America: The political seduction of the law. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Bork, R. H. (1996). Slouching towards Gomorrah: Modern liberalism and American decline. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Brown, L. (Ed.). (1993). The new shorter Oxford English dictionary. (4th ed., Vols. 1-2). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Colson, C. (1992). The body: Being light in darkness. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing.

Coons, J. E. (1992, April). School choice as simple justice. First Things, 15-22.

Cox, W. F., Jr. (n.d.). Chapter 1 – Equality. Virginia Beach, VA.

Declaration of independence. (1993). In V. Wilson, Jr. (Ed.), The book of great American documents (pp. 11-19). Brookeville, MD: American History Research Associates. (Original work published 1776)

Eberly, D. E. (1994). Restoring the good society. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Ellul, J. (1960). The theological foundation of the law. (M. Wieser, Trans.). Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.

Erickson, M. J. (1997). The evangelical left: Encountering postconservative evangelical theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co.

Folliet, J. (1963). Man in his environment. (M. Murphy, Trans.). New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc.

Gaede, S. D. (1993). When tolerance is no virtue: Political correctness, multiculturalism & the future of truth & justice. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Gladwin, J. (1980). God’s people in God’s world: Biblical motives for social involvement. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Grenz, S. J. (1996). A primer on postmodernism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Gundry, S. N. (1975). Liberty. In C. F. Pfeiffer, H. F. Vos & J. Rea (Eds.), Wycliffe Bible encyclopedia (Vol. 2, pp. 1035-1036). Chicago: Moody Press.

Hasker, W. (1980). Cultural Relativity and Relativism. In C. P. De Santo, C. Redekop & W. L. Smith-Hinds (Eds.), A reader in sociology: Christian perspectives (pp. 289-301). Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

Hetter, K. (1996, June 3). The new civil rights battle: The Supreme Court hands gays a win in the struggle between tolerance and tradition. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved November 29, 1997 from the World Wide Web: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/GAY.HTM.

Hillery, G. A., Jr. (1980). A Christian perspective on sociology. In C. P. De Santo, C. Redekop & W. L. Smith-Hinds (Eds.), A reader in sociology: Christian perspectives (pp. 159-175). Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

Hobbes, T. (1949). Leviathan. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. (Original work published 1651)

The holy bible in the King James version. (1972). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

The holy bible: New international version. (1979). London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Lebacqz, K. (1986). Six theories of justice: Perspectives from philosophical and theological ethics. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

Leffel, J. & McCallum, D. (1996). Postmodern impact: Religion. In D. McCallum (Ed.), The death of truth: What’s wrong with multiculturalism, the rejection of reason and the new postmodern diversity (pp. 199-212). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

Leiser, B. M. (1979). Liberty, justice and morals: Contemporary value conflicts. (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Locke, J. (1952). An essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government. In R. M. Hutchins (Ed.), Great books of the western world (Vol. 35, pp. 25-81). Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. (Original work published 1690)

Newbigin, L. (1989). The gospel in a pluralist society. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Olasky, M. (1992). The tragedy of American compassion. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Packer, J. I. (1980). Liberty. In J. D. Douglas (Ed.), The illustrated Bible dictionary (Vol. 2, pp. 898-900). Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

Perry, R. B. (1959). Puritanism and democracy. In Abernethy, G. L., The idea of equality: An anthology. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press. (Original work published 1944)

Pickett, R. C. & Hawthorne, S. C. (1992). Helping others help themselves: Christian community development. In R. D. Winter & S. C. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perspectives on the world Christian movement: A reader (Rev. ed.) (pp. D-213 – D-219). Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Raspberry, W. (1995, September 8). Integration, quotes, maybe it’s time to rethink the whole thing. Virginian Pilot-Ledger-Star. Editorial.

Roberts, J. W. (1975). Love. In C. F. Pfeiffer, H. F. Vos & J. Rea (Eds.), Wycliffe Bible encyclopedia (Vol. 2, pp. 1035-1036). Chicago: Moody Press.

Rose, F. (1997, December). Sex sells. Wired, 5.12, 218-284.

Saalman, G. (1996). Postmodern impact: Law. In D. McCallum (Ed.), The death of truth: What’s wrong with multiculturalism, the rejection of reason and the new postmodern diversity (pp. 163-177). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

Schatzman. (1997, April 4). Race, media, American law and O.J. Simpson. Los Angeles Sentinel. Retrieved November 28, 1997 from the World Wide Web: http://library.regent.edu/wm/el/s/edumark/getdoc.cgi?id=86742092x0y193w0&OIDS=0Q001D005&Form=RL&pubname=Los_Angeles_Sentinel&puburl=0.

Schlosser, E. (1997, February 10). The business of pornography: Who’s making the money? U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved November 27, 1997 from the World Wide Web: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/10 . l.

Sowell, T. (1987). A conflict of visions. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.

Watkins, W. D. (1995). The new absolutes. Liberty, life & family: an interdisciplinary journal of common concerns, 2 (1), 63-98.

Weiss, P. (1959). Our public life. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Will, G. F. (1983). Statecraft as soulcraft: What government does. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Wilson, B. (1992). Whose child is this? Altamonte Springs, FL: Creation House.

Zacharias, R. (1996). Deliver us from evil: Restoring the soul in a disintegrating culture. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing.