Morality
in a Fallen and Pluralistic World
Jesus taught His disciples to pray, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:10, KJV) Man will only ever find complete fulfillment, peace and happiness in obeying the will of God, and the will of God will only ever be obeyed perfectly in His kingdom. At the end of this present age, Jesus will return to the earth to establish His kingdom on the earth, and from that time forward the redeemed will enjoy the truly “good,” and the truly “moral,” society. In the meantime we must content ourselves with a definition of a “good” and “moral” society, in a pluralistic context, that is considerably less than what God will one day bring into reality.
According to Eberly (1994), the good society “is a society with shared values and personal and social order. It consists of positive ideals, strong communities, civility and manners” (p. 16). The good society will be built around the “tripod of character, community and culture” (p. 23), and the fundamental values upon which this society is based will be respect and personal responsibility. This society cannot be legislated, but it will be achieved “through the cooperative efforts of individuals from all sectors of society” (p. 16). To have this society, the business and professional communities must concentrate on ethics and quality, the mission of education must be character and virtue, the focus of civil government must be to restore integrity and competence to the necessary public institutions, and religion should take her place in shaping society’s values (p. 23).
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). Consequently, change at the governmental level will not be sufficient to realize the good society, but “legislative change must be accompanied by broad-based change in values and conduct at the personal level” (Eberly, 1994, p. 25). Therefore, the good society will be founded upon the sound character of the people in it.
The aim of the good society “is its own common good, the good of the social body” (Maritain, 1949, p. 8). The goal of this society is not the individual good nor the mere sum of the individual goods of each of the persons who constitute it. Jacques Maritain (1949) rightly observed:
Such a formula would dissolve society as such for the benefit of its parts, and would lead to an “anarchy of atoms.” It would amount either to a frankly anarchic conception or to the old disguised anarchic conception of bourgeois materialism, according to which the entire duty of society consists in seeing that the freedom of each one be respected, thereby enabling the strong freely to oppress the weak. (pp. 7–8)
Thus the natural end of the good society should be “virtue and well-being in community, established for the benefit of all” (Eberly, 1994, p. 67).
To attain this, the good society must be established upon a general acceptance of certain fundamental transcendent truths, the members of this society recognizing that there are, in fact, absolutes. This paper will first discuss the concept of “natural rights” as the basis upon which the good society can be built. Then the key components present in the good society will be considered. Finally, society’s primary institutions and their role in the operationalization of the key components in society will be examined.
Natural
Rights
The concept of “natural rights” grew out of the idea of “natural law” which had its origin in Greek philosophy (Vidler & Whitehouse, 1946, p. 12). Aristotle (trans. 1952) wrote that natural justice is “that which everywhere has the same force and does not exist by people’s thinking this or that” (p. 382). In other words, natural law does not depend upon people accepting it. The Greek philosophers inspired the Romans. Cicero’s (44/1959) famous passage regarding natural law follows:
True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions….It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and for all times, and there will be one master and one ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. (p. 211)
This passage clearly sets forth the concept of natural law. It is universal and unchangeable. It is above all human systems of laws and it is self-evident to rational mankind. The awareness of this law will lead naturally to the conviction that human society must be organized, not haphazardly, but in essential accordance with natural law (Fuchs, 1965, pp. 182–186).
The great medieval thinker, Thomas Aquinas produced an extensive formulation of the idea of natural law. He described how the first and general precept of natural law – “do good and avoid evil” – could be specified in a concrete order of precepts (Aquinas, 1273/1947, pp. 1009–1010). Thus natural law is not simply a monolithic first principle that governs all spheres of human activity, but is rather a series of specific principles governing individual spheres of activity. In Aquinas’ view natural law 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 (Ryan, 1965, p. 34; d’Entrèves, 1977, pp. 44–46). Yet Aquinas believed that other laws are necessary as well, and “human laws must be established to draw out all the conclusions of natural law, and to ‘restrain evil men from wrongdoing by force and by fear’” (Aquinas, 1273/1947, pp. 1009–1010).
Although Aquinas was the first writer to extensively formulate the concept of natural law, the idea has undergone refinement since his statements, and John Locke (1690/1952), in particular, re-cast “natural law” as “natural rights” (pp. 25–28). The two concepts are closely related, since laws prescribing behavior on the part of one party often create a right on the part of another party to expect that behavior. Locke believed that “there were certain rights to which we are entitled simply because we are human” (Sloshberg, 1983, p. 523).
Thus, 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 human being comes into existence (Arkes, 1992, p. 14). According to Hadley Arkes (1992), all human beings possess rights “quite apart from those ‘posited,’ or set down, in the law.” (p. 13) These rights are “natural” rights. They are not derived from any government, nor are they established by the majority vote; they are natural to all men.
In a pluralistic society these are the absolutes that should form the moral basis for that society and for its institutions. Without these absolutes, the law quickly “degenerates into an arbitrary tool of the politically organized” (Eberly, 1994, p. 57). Without a clear concept of a “higher law,” morality becomes contingent upon the whim of the moment. 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 in the midst of the confusion the state inevitably becomes the final arbiter of all moral issues, its power expanding far beyond all legitimacy.
To achieve the good society America must rediscover “the basic assumptions about human beings, society, and the law that originally shaped the American republic” (Eberly, 1994, p. 58). As Eberly (1994) notes, America’s founders were not “religious rightists,” but they “converted their worldview into a social and political philosophy and then argued on that level, not on the level of sectarian religion. By so doing, they created a broad basis for securing the values needed to undergird American democracy.” (p. 65)
According to Paul Weiss (1959), the American Declaration of Independence exhibits no hesitation as to the place of natural rights in forming 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. “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.” (pp. 46–47)
As Weiss (1959) observes, neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution of the United States explicitly deal with the question of whether or not anyone – a sovereign power, individuals, the states, or a society – might justly alienate the rights which all men are said to have (pp. 47–49). Nevertheless, the foundation of the good society must be its commitment to the concept of natural rights. When a society’s prevailing philosophy and its ideas of law and justice are no longer anchored to a transcendent reality, confusion and oppression inevitably result. “Society [will be] stable…[only] when man enjoys his [natural] rights” (Ellul, 1960, p. 80).
In the good society the following essential rights will be enjoyed as 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. These components will now be discussed in detail.
The
Key Components of the Good Society
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). The biblical idea of freedom has as its background the thought of imprisonment or slavery. “Liberty means the happy state of having been released from servitude for a life of enjoyment and satisfaction that was not possible before….In the New Testament liberty becomes an important theological concept for describing salvation.” (Packer, 1980, p. 898)
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 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 is a valuable one, as 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 limits of the natural laws and rights upon which the good 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). John Locke (1690/1952) also spoke of the contrast between true liberty and license (p. 26).
Therefore, while freedom and liberty in general will be at the foundation of the good 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. As Weiss (1959) notes, “We want men to stop at a red light, and do not much care whether they stop because they are afraid to be fined, because they are anxious to do their duty, or because they believe this is a way in which good may be brought about.” (p. 104)
To give rights to one necessarily entails certain limitations on the freedom 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 manipulating and exploiting the poor (Gladwin, 1980, pp. 177–178).
In the good society we should all have the right to live without fear of being murdered, but that freedom from being murdered can only be secured by limiting the freedom of others to murder us! This argument could very effectively be applied to the issue 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!
In the good society we should all have 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 utter frustration of its efforts to achieve its professed aims” (Leiser, 1979, p. 150). Applying this principle to pornography, Boice (1996) has proposed, “we need to say that freedom to print sexually obscene material stops at the point at which it harms others” (p. 173).
So, while we affirm the importance of freedom and liberty in the good society, they must be understood within their appropriate limits so that the abuse of license is avoided.
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). Truth is used in the Old Testament in two senses. Firstly, it refers, in the intellectual sense, to facts which may be ascertained to be true or false (Deuteronomy 17:4; 1 Kings 10:6). Far more commonly, it is used, in the existential and moral sense, of truth as the attribute of a person (Genesis 42:16). In Greek literature, the words for truth do not have the same personal and moral connotation, but truth is intellectual: historians use “truth” to distinguish real events from myths, and philosophers to denote real being in an absolute sense. The New Testament uses both the Old Testament and the Greek connotations in its complex usage of “truth.” In its meaning of uprightness of character the word is applied to God (Romans 3:7) and to men (Ephesians 5:9) alike. Truth is also used in the absolute sense of that which is real and complete as opposed to what is false and wanting (Mark 5:33). The Christian faith in particular is called “the truth” (Ephesians 1:13) and Jesus said that He is truth personified (John 14:6). (Palmer, 1980, pp. 1600–1601)
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). 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)! But in the good society, absolute truth is of the utmost importance.
The primary, and clearest, source of truth is the written Word of God. Jesus said, “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17, KJV). But God has provided means of natural revelation as well. 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 , for example, 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 implies that in a pluralistic society there can still be certain standards of truth embraced by all participants in that society, whatever their specific religious affiliation may be. As Weiss (1959) states, there is a “kind of truth which transcends local conditioning” (p. 239) and is valid for all men.
If these natural truths are rejected by society, then men are destined to wander in a meaningless and purposeless existence without rudder or compass. This also places a special burden on the members of the church, which is God’s intended “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15, NIV), to not succumb to the pressure of the world around them to conform to Hegelian relativity, but to “shine as lights in the world; holding forth the word of life” (Philippians 2:15-16, KJV).
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). In the Bible love is understood in three different contexts (Roberts, 1975, pp. 1053–1054). Firstly, God’s love to man is seen in His concern for all men (Deuteronomy 33:3; Matthew 5:45), but especially to 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 expression of God’s love for man is, of course, the death of His Son on the cross (John 3:16; Romans 8:32). Secondly, the love of man to God in the Bible is the total response of man (Deuteronomy 6:5, “with all the heart”; Mark 12:29-30) to his gracious God. Love to God is expressed ethically especially in keeping His Word and fearing Him (Exodus 20:6; Deuteronomy 6:3-5).
Finally, the love of man to man in the Scriptures in founded on the previous love of God (1 John 4:19) and is demanded especially for neighbors (Lev. 19:18; Matthew 19:19) as well as for all men in general (Deuteronomy 10:19; Galatians 6:10). Even enemies are to be treated kindly (Exodus 23:4-5; Matthew 5:44). Love was Jesus’ “supreme ethical demand” (Lebacqz, 1986, p. 84), it must be expressed in practical deeds and not just in word (1 John 3:16-18), and it is the believer’s duty to counter evil with good rather than to retaliate (Romans 12:17-21). Godly love is not forced nor constrained; it is not rendered because one “has to” but because one “wants to” in a spontaneous and authentic response to the reception of divine love (Romans 5:5). This love is the preeminent characteristic of the Christian community. and is the sign above all others to the outside world of the reality of Christian discipleship (John 13:35).
Love of this nature is unique to Christianity, and stands in marked contrast to the world’s concept of love. “No Greek, no Roman, no Egyptian, no Babylonian in Christ’s day or in any of the centuries before ever thought of God’s nature as being characterized by love or as love being an important virtue for binding a people together” (Boice, 1996, p. 262). At best the gods were considered to be impartial; and as far as people were concerned, erotic love was affirmed along with a certain element of affection in the family. But the great self- of the God of the Bible and the sacrificial love He requires of His people are rarely found outside of the Christian faith, according to which love is neither a mere sentiment, nor an nd romantic affection, but a voluntary self-giving even to the point of self-slavery (Roberts, 1975, p. 1054).
This 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 the good society. Since true love is not mere sentimentalism it will be expressed in a manner consistent with justice and wisdom. So, for example, if a man needs food but is not willing to work for it, he will 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 will only be given practical assistance if he first demonstrates a willingness to accept his personal responsibilities in society. 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)
So, while true compassion will necessarily result in social action, it will be social action of a kind consistent with truth, morality and accountability.
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). The Bible teaches that God is the absolute Sovereign over all things (Daniel 4:32–35; Ephesians 1:11).
Because God created everything that exists, He is, therefore, the absolute Owner and ultimate Ruler of all that He made. All things belong to God; and He preserves them and governs them, and He directs them to the final purpose that He appointed for them. Everything is under God’s complete control. Nothing can happen apart from God’s sovereign will. God does not merely exert some general influence over things, but He actually rules in the universe that He created. Even the sinful actions of men can occur only by God’s permission….Although the sovereignty of God is universal and absolute, it is not a blind, arbitrary sovereignty. It is a sovereignty which operates in harmony with infinite divine wisdom, justice, holiness, goodness and love. The affairs of this world are not governed by a blind “fate” or by accident or by an abstract “chance” or “fortune,” but the Governor and Ruler of all things is the Lord who is infinite in wisdom, righteousness and love. (Webber, 1995, p. 35)
In His sovereignty God 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). This ordination extends to bad governments as well as to good ones. Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king, observed, “the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men” (Daniel 4:17, KJV). In a pluralistic society this is an essential principle to understand: God has ordained human governments, even when they aren’t righteous. At the same time, however, the Christian must always recognize that his first responsibility of obedience remains to God (Acts 4:19). If he ever must choose between obeying a clear instruction from God and an unrighteous dictate from a divinely-ordained governmental institution he should always obey God. In one sense, this is to exercise his individual sovereignty over governmental sovereignty.
Thus, in the good 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 fundamental to the concept 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). Since all men are equal, no one person has the inherent right to rule over another. Abraham Lincoln believed that the “doctrine of self-government [i.e., that human beings have a natural right to be governed only with their own consent] is right – absolutely and eternally right” (Arkes, 1992, p. 14), and in this understanding he echoed the founders. They understood that the right of human beings to be governed with their own consent is grounded in the attributes that set men apart from animals. Cox (n.d.) has written the following:
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… (pp. 18–19)
But such a transfer of authority is not to be absolute. In the good society, the different spheres of governmental and individual sovereignty must be recognized. 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). In Cox’s (n.d.) words, “autocracy in education must be abolished for the good of each and every citizen and ultimately for the good of the entire country (p. 34).
Michael Walzer (1983) lists nine appropriate limits to the power of government (pp. 282–284):
1. Government sovereignty does not extend to enslavement. State officials cannot seize the persons of their subjects, compel their services, imprison or , except in accordance with procedures agreed to by the subjects themselves or by their representatives.
2. The officials of the government cannot control the marriages of the people, search their homes without appropriate warrants, or interfere in their personal or familial relationships or regulate the domestic upbringing of their children.
3. The government is bound to proceed in accordance with the shared understanding of justice, guilt and innocence, sanity and insanity, etc.
4. State officials cannot sell political power or auction off specific decisions. Nor can they use their power to advance their own political interests or those of their families or friends.
5. There can be no discrimination against racial, ethnic or religious groups, since all citizens are equal before the law.
6. Arbitrary taxation is not allowed, and the free procedure of business should occur within its own appropriately agreed upon sphere.
7. The religious life of the citizens cannot be controlled.
8. The academic freedom of teachers should not be constrained.
9. The government must guarantee free speech, free press, free assembly and the basic civil liberties.
In the good society, this is one of the very reasons why government exists: “to guarantee certain unalienable rights of equality for its citizens” (Cox, n.d., p. 21). It should be noted that the government does not, itself, bestow these rights upon individuals – God, Himself, gave men their rights – but the government’s purpose is to protect these rights.
Equality
It has already been noted that the concept of equality lies at the foundation of the good society. Equality refers to “the condition of having equal rank, power, excellence, etc., with others” (Brown, 1993, p. 841). According to George Abernethy (1959), “the idea of equality is one of the greatest seminal ideas in our political, social, economic, and religious history” (p. 15).
The biblical conception of man is that all men are created equal by God (Genesis 1:27–28). This does not mean that all men are in all respects alike, but that “they are and ought to be alike in certain respects” (Perry, 1944/1959, p. 273). Obviously men are born with different capacities and talents, but they are still the same in regards to their common humanity. R. B. Perry (1944/1959), the American philosopher, has made the following observations:
All men…possess the same attributes in some degree. All…possess the same skeleton, the same organs, and the same physiological functions….the reproductive process is the same…All men experience pleasure and pain, hunger and thirst, fear and anger, love and hate, joy and despair. All men recollect the past, anticipate their future, and perceive their present….All men are created in the same image of God. (pp. 273–274)
According to the Scriptures all men are equal in their “common heritage in Adam and Eve as the parents of all human beings (Gen. 3:20), in their common inheritance of the sin nature (Rom. 5:12), and in their common need for the Savior (John 8:24)” (Cox, n.d., p. 8).
Since all men are created equal, the good society will 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. In other words, the good society will protect the rights of all men to equal opportunity, but it cannot guarantee that all men will use those opportunities successfully. That is up to the individual and it cannot possible be enforced through legislation. Furthermore, due to the abundant individual differences between men, equality of opportunity actually guarantees inequality of outcomes. 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.
It is a moral dilemma that in the pursuit of equality, occasionally the pursuit of liberty will actually undermine liberty. The issue of enforcing education on families is an excellent example of this. Thomas Jefferson (1779/1944) believed that the government should maintain a general education system that all citizens would participate in (p. 40). Through being educated and literate, people would thereby be in a position to be able to maintain their own liberties. Paul Weiss (1959) wrote that “children must be educated, even though they and their parents prefer to keep the children in ignorance” (p. 103); and herein lies the dilemma. Education may indeed pave the way for the protection and higher enjoyment of equality and liberty, yet, as John Stuart Mill (1859/1952) pointed out, when the management of the affairs of one portion of the population are freely possessed by others, no matter how well-intentioned, there is a consequent, and unavoidable, loss of liberty (pp. 302–312).
The specific issue of enforced education has already been addressed under the heading of “Governmental versus Individual Sovereignty,” but this issue has contemporary implications that involve other broader issues. Don Eberly (1994) has rightly observed, “an expert class has asserted cultural hegemony over much of American life, robbing individual Americans of their status as true citizens and reducing them to the status of clients” (p. 100). In the good society the individual, and his liberty, will be reclaimed “from the clutches of [condescending] imperial elites” (Eberly, 1994, p. 100). Citizens will take responsibility for their own lives and destinies and refuse to delegate that responsibility to others, and, in this way, true liberty and equality will be maintained.
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). Over the centuries the nature of justice has been disputed. “The conflict is between those who say that might makes right and those who say that power can be either justly or unjustly used, that justice is of a higher order than utility” (Jewett, 1975, p. 980). Those who hold to the “might makes right” position, in essence, hold that the stronger party does no injustice in serving his own interests and the weaker party suffers no injustice if he suffers when resisting those who have the rule over him. In this view justice for the individual consists in keeping the laws of the state, and for the state, in enforcing whatever laws it has the power to promulgate in the interests of its own self-preservation (Jewett, 1975, p. 980).
The opposite view, and the biblical one, is that justice 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. This does not deny that the 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. There is a natural justice which holds for all men everywhere. The anthropologist, Philip Ekka (1965), has observed that men from a variety of different cultures and societies around the world hold to the fundamental idea of a universal moral law and system of justice (pp. 100–125). For the founding fathers of America, this natural justice consisted in certain rights granted to all men by God. These rights were unalienable in the sense that the state could guarantee them, but never deny them.
Consequently justice should be pursued for all men. It should not be upheld for only a certain segment of society. The good society “should be based on the highest principles of justice and the public good” (Eberly, 1994, p. 84). In this social context justice involves the obligation to render to one’s neighbor that which is due to him as his own. 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. For example, with regard to business, the Scripture says that the laborer is worthy of his hire (Luke 10:7; 1 Timothy 5:18). The Bible is replete with specific examples on exactly how justice should be administered in practical situations.
It should be noted that 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). At the same time, citizens in the good society will recognize that the government cannot be omnipresent in a society that wishes to be free, and they will voluntarily act “to protect the weak and vulnerable – the unborn, orphans, widows, abused women and children, and the poor” (Eberly, 1994, p. 85).
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) This puts a special burden on the church to realize that to her have been “committed the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2). Thus Christians have been given by God a special responsibility to act justly for the purpose of modeling true justice to the rest of society. 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 ranks (1 Corinthians 5:12; Matthew 18:15–20) and to be a shining light of righteousness revealing the ways of God to this dark world (Matthew 5:14–16).
Furthermore, 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) As Boice (1996) has written, “the world is waiting for us to do that. It is waiting for Christians to be Christians.” (p. 241)
The
Primary Institutions of Society
Society
A proper understanding of the purpose of society is based upon an acceptance of two truths. Firstly, when God created the world He declared it to be “good” (Genesis 1:31; 1 Timothy 4:4). A part of the world that God made was the community of men. God made man for community – for societal living. Then, as Boice (1996) has observed, God endorsed the various roles that man would fulfill in that community (pp. 149–151). He affirmed “secular vocations” by placing Adam and Eve in the garden to take care of it. He established the first family on the earth. Even after the Fall, God called men to be kings and other government officials. He gave laws for the proper functioning of society. He established business as legitimate in human community. So, all of these social institutions are creations of God and are not inherently evil. They were established to glorify God (1 Peter 2:9).
Secondly, we must recognize that man fell into sin. Consequently, even though society was originally created by God and its institutions still retain value, nevertheless, the secular world is not to be embraced uncritically – it is a fallen world. In the midst of this fallen world, however, man is still said to be in the image of God (1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9). This is a tension we must embrace. Even though man is fallen and, apart from salvation through the Lord Jesus, will never be able to find true fulfillment and happiness – societal and otherwise – yet fallen society still serves a purpose on this earth and secular people have genuine insights and skills to offer. Society still exists to define, maintain, give order to, and continue man’s way of life. In society man learns the skills and gains the knowledge and values of life. Without society man would not survive, and he would have no meaning. Society provides the rules of behavior, laws, and systems of authority to give order and meaning to the lives and relationships of those in it.
Consequently 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 man and his world, which were originally created by God, on the other. The institutions of this fallen world still do, in a limited manner, serve the purposes for which they were created by God. So, while maintaining a respectful “distance” as those who have been translated into a completely different kingdom (Colossians 1:13) and as those who God calls a distinct “holy nation” called to glorify Him (1 Peter 2:9, KJV), we still must recognize the legitimate roles of society and the legitimate abilities of man, albeit fallen and thereby limited, to fulfill some of those roles.
Education
It has been argued for centuries that the purpose of education is to “produce good men who will act nobly” (Boice, 1996, p. 24). Allan Bloom (1987) wrote that the “real motive for education [was] the search for the good life” (p. 34). Paul said that God’s desire is for us to be transformed though proper teaching to be able to serve God and fulfill His will (Romans 12:1–2). In this present context it is appropriate to say that education primarily functions to preserve and transmit the good society. Thus “civil responsibilities, societal orderliness, and national prosperity [are among] the highest order goals for education” (Cox, 1997, p. 132). Through education, the society’s way of life is internalized and socially-appropriate human behavior learned. In the good society education takes place both through training by adults with whom the child is in daily contact (the parents and immediate associates) as well as by the separate agency of the school.
Education serves to equip people with the practical knowledge and skills they need for daily life and activity. Thus a major purpose for education is “to prepare individuals to live in a society…and…to focus on all the skills necessary for living on this earth” (Cox, 1997, pp. 140–141). But proper education will also perpetuate the good society itself by teaching the next generations the fundamental concepts of freedom, truth, love, equality and justice, upon which the society is built. This is the fundamental purpose of education in the good society: “to preserve the ideals and values by which free men and women order their lives” (Eberly, 1994, p. 111). Leland Ryken (1987) wrote about the view of the Reformers and Puritans regarding the purposes of education:
Reformation and Puritan zeal…produced an educational theory governed by goals. Unlike our day, which Albert Einstein characterized as having perfect means and confused goals…the Reformers knew what education was for, their ultimate goal being moral and religious growth in the life of every student. (pp. 40)
In the context of a pluralistic society this goal should still be affirmed. If this does not take place the good society will eventually crumble. Education should be “moral and spiritual as well as intellectual, and designed to serve God as well as society” (Ryken, 1987, p. 51).
Religion
Doug Bandow (1988) articulates several clear responsibilities of true religion specifically toward the government of a pluralistic society (pp. 74–77). The first responsibility lies in the area of prayer. Through the prophet Jeremiah, God directed the Jews who had been exiled in Babylon to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7, NIV; cf. 1 Timothy 2:1–2). As John Gladwin (1980) beautifully states, “government is an institution within God’s order, and to pray for it is to share in God’s concern for it” (pp. 156–157).
The second responsibility of genuine believers toward their society is obedience to the state. Jesus instructed His disciples to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Matthew 22:21, NIV). Peter told believers to “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men” (1 Peter 2:13, NIV). Paul repeated this same idea in Romans 13:2 (NIV): “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.” This duty is not absolute, of course. Believers must place their commitment to God before the requirements of the state (Acts 4:19–20; 5:29; Daniel 3 & 6).
The third responsibility of the truly religious is to help shape and form public policy. Right moral values “cannot be determined by the freedom of personal choice or a 51 percent vote” (Boice, 1996, p. 233), but the religious system in a pluralistic society will provide guides for moral conduct. Thus true religion serves to promote the sort of moral values that properly undergird and strengthen the 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 religious system must still be kept institutionally separate from the state.
Then, toward society in general, religion has a number of responsibilities. True believers should have and live with a passion for helping the poor, promoting justice, and otherwise demonstrating the love and righteousness of God (Bandow, 1988, p. 29). In one sense, religion is to 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).
With regard to the specific responsibilities of Christians in a pluralistic society, as Boice (1996) notes, “Christians are citizens of two kingdoms, the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and they have responsibilities in each” (p. 151). Boice (1996) goes on to recognize that those responsibilities are not on an equal plane and Christians are citizens of God’s kingdom first. Nevertheless Christians still have a responsibility to work for the good of secular society and those in it. Therefore Christians “need to participate in secular life rather than merely shoot from the sidelines at secular people and at what secular people are doing” (pp. 151–152). Mourning the isolation of today’s religious conservatives from society, Eberly (1992) wrote, “the church has vast wealth, professional acumen, intellectual power, and spiritual and moral vitality, nearly all of which has been applied to building insulated evangelical institutions” (p. 13). Consequently, “it is hard to imagine how…lasting accomplishments in public policy can be possible for a group that rarely possesses even token representation in culture-shaping institutions” (Eberly, 1994, p. 46).
In purely spiritual terms, the institution of true religion serves to assist us to better love, and serve, both God and our fellow man. As Christians we must model the unique qualities of life that being a Christian brings (Boice, 1996, p. 170). True religion is based upon the eternal Word of God, rather than upon the myths and legends of man, and it helps to define spiritual truth as well as godly behavior. Through the ordinances of true religion we are enabled to draw closer to God, to grow spiritually and to serve one another with the abilities God gives us. Ultimately, true religion provides us with the true meaning and purpose of our lives and of our society.
But the most fundamental task of the church in the good society is to directly preach, with both our words and lives, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 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.
Family
The family is the basic unit of the good society. It is not only necessary for the propagation of the human race, but the family is the very first school of human instruction. Through the prophet Malachi, God said that the primary purpose of the family is to raise up a “godly seed” (Malachi 2:15). Families teach and impart to their children such vital character virtues as respect and consideration for others, submission to authority, honor for human life and property, self-discipline and obedience to the law. It is in the family that the primary concepts of freedom, truth, love, equality and justice will be principally taught and modeled to the children. John Coons (1992) has observed that “raising our children to represent our values is the most important form of [free] speech most of us will ever experience” (p. 16).
Harvey Bluedorn (1997) has wisely noted that “all parents are homeschoolers,” whether or not their children actually attend a school (p. 34). As Kurt Baier (1971) has written, “moral training…prepares a child for full membership in a moral community, that is, a community with a morality” (p. 94). In the good society, the family will excel as the primary agent of moral training. This is in accordance with God’s instruction to parents to teach their children in His ways (Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 6:7; Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4).
The breakdown of families in this country largely explains the increasing poverty, alienation, and dysfunction of the nation’s young people. A growing body of research indicates that “fathers play an indispensable role in the cognitive and psychological development of children, in developing character and discipline, in forming healthy gender identification, and in a host of other personal factors” (Eberly, 1994, p. 115). In these matters nothing can take the place of a healthy family, and, in particular, a healthy relationship with a father. No school, government program or child support payment will ever be able to take the place of nurturing fathers and mothers.
The good society will be committed to forging strong families as the basic and indispensable building-blocks of its own success and health. The family should serve to provide the context of stability in which the future generations will be birthed, trained in the things of life, taught about God, cared for, protected and provided for. In particular the role of the father must be emphasized in society. According to Eberly (1994), “all serious social problems in America are empirically tied to missing or dysfunctional fathers….the greatest social problem in America is not ‘the family’ but fatherhood” (p. 117). Certainly it is usually not mothers who neglect their children. The good society will promote the virtues of responsible fatherhood, attaching social status and rewards to men for their upholding the importance of fathering, and putting pressure on adult males who abandon their own flesh and blood (Eberly, 1994, p. 117).
Families must take general responsibility for their children and for their development and moral training, instead of abdicating those tasks to im ocial institutions. Harvey Bluedorn (1997) asserts that “the way to destroy the family is to divide the children from the parents. And the way to divide the children from the parents, is to remove from the family its authority in education” (p. 35). This authority must be respected by the state and by the educational systems; a synergy should be maintained between the two social systems of child training and development, which are the family and the state education system. As a result, the children will receive the best possible socialization by being raised in the multi-generational context of the extended family, and they will also develop the best possible value system through being taught by precept and example the appropriate moral absolutes, as well as the technical and professional skills they need, both at home and in school.
In the good society, the covenant of marriage will also be recognized as the only appropriate place for the expression of human . This commitment is fundamental to a healthy society. John Gladwin (1980) wrote the following:
The relationship of man and woman in marriage is an image of the relationship of God to man in the covenant of his love. Around and within this covenantal relationship of God to man is built the society of mankind – marriage leads to family, which in turn leads on into a wider community. This is not something incidental to our lives but an integral part of human nature as God created it. (p. 171)
Thus the institution of the family will determine and regulate the physical propagation of the society.
Finally, the family will also function as a “distributive sphere” whose boundaries must be respected. “Important distributions are carried out within the family and through the alliances of family…dowries, gifts, inheritances…mutual aid of many different kinds” (Walzer, 1983, pp. 227–228). More importantly love, concern, honor and respect are shared primarily within the familial sphere. In the good society this will be respected and encouraged. The care, protection and welfare of both the young and the old will center in the family (cf. 1 Timothy 5:4, 8).
Civil Government
The role of the civil government has already been discussed at length, so some summary statements will be made here. In the good society the civil government will regulate relations among men in the pluralistic world. According to Bandow (1988), the specific functions of the government are to preserve order, protect life and property, and maintain justice and righteousness (pp. 73–102). “Perhaps the state’s most important role is to protect citizens from the sinful conduct of their neighbors” (Bandow, 1988, p. 82). This is in agreement with Paul’s statements in Romans 13:4 (KJV) that the state is “the minister of God” whose purpose it is to “bear the sword.” The government is to act to preserve order – people’s ability to live “quite and peaceable lives” (1 Timothy 2:2, KJV) – in a sinful world.
In maintaining order and justice, as much as possible the authorities will attempt to govern through moral persuasion and education, rather than just imposing external force upon people to comply, since coercion is not only contradictory to the moral quality of action but is also inadequate in producing genuine obedience anyway (d’Entrèves, 1977, p. 89). One of the primary roles of the government must be to “develop and project a credible vision for all [citizens]: one that builds social cohesion around the highest ideals” (Eberly, 1994, pp. 38–39). This is not, however, to deprive the government of the right to exercise force since, in the fallen world, “that is the nature of governments. There is no other way in which they can operate” (Boice, 1996, p. 194).
The government is to act with justice and impartiality in preserving societal order, and it must work to best serve the needs of the entire society and not just certain groups within it. It should be noted that the duty of the government differs from the responsibility of individuals in society. “Individuals must respond virtuously to the needs and rights of their neighbors; government must regulate, coercively yet fairly, relations between both righteous and unrighteous men. In short, the contrast is personal virtue versus public impartiality” (Bandow, 1988, p. 85).
At the same time, however, the power of the government must be limited (Bandow, 1988, pp. 77–81), as has already been discussed, and no state can interfere with people’s right to worship God. Jesus’ famous statement in Matthew 22:21 (NIV) that we should “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” provides clear instruction as to the appropriate limitation of the power of the state.
The first part of Jesus’ answer reinforced Caesar’s authority, even in such an unpopular matter as taxes. His second part drew limits. Although the state has a God-given and therefore legitimate authority, the authority of God is greater. Therefore, those who know God must worship and obey Him, even if it means disobeying Caesar. (Boice, 1996, p. 185)
Thus, in the good society “the state must be a subsidiary of society. The state must be society’s servant, not its master” (Eberly, 1994, p. 68).
The government, moreover, has a certain role to play in helping the needy, although the primary responsibility for that task should lie with individuals. The government is also to plan, coordinate and finance the various activities that are deemed necessary for the joint welfare of the members of the society, and to protect the society from outside enemies.
Business
“The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it” (Psalm 24:1, NIV). We are but stewards of God’s creation, and so He expects us to handle ourselves in business matters with character, integrity and responsibility. In the good society, morality will discipline self-interest in the marketplace, and “business leaders will understand the relationship between culture and economics…Values and character, or the lack thereof, have costly consequences for the workplace and the economy” (Eberly, 1994, p. 108).
The economic institution’s primary function is to provide means whereby members of the society may survive and maintain themselves. As Walter Lippmann (1943) has observed, “all property is a complex system of rights…[and] the special rights which make up different kinds of property are not immutable” (pp. 274–275). Nevertheless, the general right to private property must be respected and protected from dispossession by either force or fraud by the government, and, to be effective, ownership must be enforceable in civil courts (Bandow, 1988, pp. 83–84).
With regard to the church, business relationships give us the opportunity to glorify God by conducting our lives and ministries in a manner that is honest and ethical. We must also unselfishly allow our business interests to be tools in God’s hands to meet the needs of others in practical and financial matters (Ephesians 4:28). Although we are not “of” the world, yet we are still “in” it, and so we must participate in the economic system of our society to a certain extent if we are to survive. Jesus affirmed wise business dealings (Matthew 25:19-27), and bemoaned the frequent naiveté of His people with regard to economic matters (Luke 16:8). Throughout the Scriptures God blesses His people in their businesses (e.g., Job 42:12), although only when their hearts are first and foremost set upon Him (Matthew 6:33).
Conclusion
In the beginning, God made man in a condition of society to glorify Himself. God originally made man in His own image. From eternity God has always been triune in nature: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit existing in loving, self-giving harmony. God made man able to fellowship with Himself in a manner that was meaningful to both God (i.e., man was no mere unresponsive robot) and man (i.e., man was able to actually “know” and love God). When God looked at His created man, He said, “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18, KJV). God had created man not only for relationship with Himself, but also for relationships with other men (and women). Man is made for society. Society and its institutions are not man’s ideas, but God’s.
To be able to find eternal life, peace and true meaning, man must be restored to God through faith in Jesus’ death on the cross. Then the redeemed will live in the perfect society in God’s eternal kingdom. Only then will man find the place of true society – both with God and with other men – for which he was originally created. Until then we must live in a pluralistic society. For this society to be “good” and it must be founded upon a universal recognition of the natural laws and rights that God has placed in His universe, and the primary institutions that God has established for mankind must be developed and honored. Then we can have the “good society,” in which the church stands as the vehicle for the restoration of the image of the perfect human society that God originally intended for mankind; one that would exist in self- and harmony and reflect His glory (1 Peter 2:9).
References
Abernethy, G. L. (1959). The idea of equality: An anthology. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press.
Aquinas, T. (1947). Summa theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). New York: Benziger Brothers, Inc. (Original work published 1273)
Aristotle. (Trans. 1952). Nichomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.). In R. M. Hutchins (Ed.), Great books of the western world (Vol. 9, pp. 339–436). Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
Arkes, H. (1992). Natural law: Its reappearance and why it continues to matter. Constitution, Winter, 13–18.
Baier, K. (1971). Ethical pluralism and moral education. In C. M. Beck, B. S. Crittenden & E. V. Sullivan (Eds.), Moral education: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 93–112). New York: Newman Press.
Bandow, D. (1988). Beyond good intentions: A biblical view of politics. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books.
Barna, G. (1994). Virtual America. Ventura, CA: Regal Books.
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc.
Bluedorn, H. (1997, October). Seven undeniable truths of homeschooling. The Christian Conscience, 3 (8), 34–39.
Boice, J. M. (1996). Two cities, two loves: Christian responsibility in a crumbling culture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Brown, L. (Ed.). (1993). The new shorter Oxford English dictionary. (4th ed., Vols. 1–2). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cicero. (1959). Cicero: De re publica, de legibus. (C. W. Keyes, Trans.). London: William Heinemann Ltd. (Original work published 44)
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.
Cox, W. F., Jr. (1997). Christian nationalism and its implications for educational philosophy. Journal of Church and State, 39, 131–143.
Eberly, D. E. (1992, December 14). The stakes beyond the White House. Christianity Today, 13.
Eberly, D. E. (1994). Restoring the good society. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Ekka, P. (1965). Anthropology and the idea of a universal moral law for society. In I. Evans (Ed.), Light on the natural law (pp. 100–125). Baltimore, MD: Helicon Press, Inc.
Ellul, J. (1960). The theological foundation of the law. (M. Wieser, Trans.). Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
d’Entrèves, A. P. (1977). Natural law. (2nd ed.). London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd.
Folliet, J. (1963). Man in his environment. (M. Murphy, Trans.). New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc.
Fuchs, J. (1965). Natural law: A theological investigation. (H. R. Reckter & J. A. Dowling, Trans.). New York: Sheed and Ward.
Gladwin, J. (1980). God’s people in God’s world: Biblical motives for social involvement. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
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.
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.
Jefferson, T. (1944). A bill for the more general diffusion of knowledge. In P. S. Foner (Ed.), Basic writings of Thomas Jefferson (pp. 40–46). New York: Wiley Book Company. (Original work published 1779)
Jewett, P. K. (1975). Justice (ethics). In C. F. Pfeiffer, H. F. Vos & J. Rea (Eds.), Wycliffe Bible encyclopedia (Vol. 1, pp. 980–981). Chicago: Moody Press.
Lebacqz, K. (1986). Six theories of justice: Perspectives from philosophical and theological ethics. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.
Leiser, B. M. (1979). Liberty, justice and morals: Contemporary value conflicts. (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
Lippmann, W. (1943). An inquiry into the principles of the good society. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, Publishers.
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)
Maritain, J. (1949). The rights of man and natural law. (D. C. Anson, Trans.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Mill, J. S. (1952). On liberty. In R. M. Hutchins (Ed.), Great books of the western world (Vol. 43, pp. 265–323). Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. (Original work published 1859)
Packer, J. I. (1980). Liberty. In J. D. Douglas (Ed.), The illustrated Bible dictionary (Vol. 2, pp. 898–900). Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.
Palmer, F. H. (1980). Truth. In J. D. Douglas (Ed.), The illustrated Bible dictionary (Vol. 3, pp. 1600–1601). 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)
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.
Ryan, C. (1965). The traditional concept of natural law: An interpretation. In I. Evans (Ed.), Light on the natural law (pp. 13–37). Baltimore, MD: Helicon Press, Inc.
Ryken, L. (1987). Reformation and Puritan ideals of education. In J. A. Carpenter & K. W. Shipps (Eds.), Making higher education Christian: The history and mission of evangelical colleges in America (pp. 38–51). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Sloshberg, W. W. & NesSmith, W. C. (1983). Contemporary American society: An introduction to the social sciences. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
Vidler, A. R. & Whitehouse, W. A. (Eds.). (1946). Natural law: A Christian reconsideration. London: S. C. M. Press Ltd.
Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Webber, M. (1995). From eternity to eternity. (2nd ed.). Goshen, IN: Pioneer Books.
Weiss, P. (1959). Our public life. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
