Defining Crime and the Limits of Civil Government

Below are links to a conversation between Margaret Romao Toigo of Land of the Free, Home of the Brave and Dory Zinkand of Wittenberg Gate. Margaret does not state her religious affiliation. Dory is a Reformed Evangelical and a member of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA).

A major theme of the posts is finding that balance in which civil government has the authority necessary to effectively safeguard the rights of the people, and yet is limited enough as to not intrude into their personal lives. Each writer takes a different aprpoach to solving the problem.

Traditional Judeo-Christian Morality, by Margaret Romao Toigo.

Excerpt: The most important among America’s primary founding principles are freedom of religion and the separation of church from state. However, one needn’t be a Christian — or even believe in God — to understand that the profound wisdom in Matthew 7:1-5 is essential to our progress toward the goal of realizing the promise of liberty as it was laid out by the Framers a little over two centuries ago. And as we pursue that goal, we must be careful not to confuse universal truths with religious and other dogma, lest we forget that it is our God-given (or natural) free will that places the onus of seeking truth on human conscience, which is what should allow us to separate church from state without sacrificing our moral clarity.

On Judgment vs. Discernment and Sin vs. Crime, by Dory Zinkand.

Excerpt: Margaret speaks of a free will. If she means that in the sense of a freedom of conscience, (as opposed to the theological understanding of those words), I heartily agree. This concept, too, is entirely Biblical. Biblical government (both church and state) is very limited on what areas it can judge. For example, coveting is a sin, but no church or state authority is ever seen in Scripture to have the authority to find someone guilty of it. That is a matter of individual conscience and God will ultimately judge.

The Difference Between Crime and Sin, by Margaret Romao Toigo.

Excerpt: The question of whether any given law protects or infringes upon civil and human rights is the fundamental difference between the prosecution of crime and the judgment of sin, which is why we must guard our rights by recognizing the distinction between transient social conventions and the unchanging, unalterable truths of conscience as well as the difference between the mortal humans we elect to protect and defend our rights and the institutions we turn to for guidance in matters of conscience.

By What Authority and By What Standard?, by Dory Zinkand.

Excerpt: I'm with her for the gist of this, but there are two concepts here that I'm sticking on. One is that I question the existence of, "unalterable truths of conscience," or the practicality of  using such a standard to determine what should or should not be civil law. How does one determine if something is an unalterable truth of conscience? Is it by doing a survey of current thinking or by looking at cultural trends historically? Do we have experts who can decide these things? ...All any tyrant would have to say is that this or that standard is an unalterable truth of conscience and that would be that. By what concrete standard could anyone object?

Comments

[cwv warrior]

Okay, I'll bite. Dory is right about the finding of "unalterable truths of conscience". I've actually thought of blog suicide and saying what I really think on this. I believe in theocracy. I have never heard anyone, leader-wise, say this. Since I learned about the "creator-redeemer distinction", found in early reformation documents (I'd have to look it up), I have decided Christianity could very well work, tangled in a government document. Of course, freedom of conscience goes with the deal. Citizens are to behave under the law of the Creator in civil matters, which to me should include some morality issues which influence the young. (porn, sodomy, civility in public language, blasphemy) The Redeemer is never jammed down anyone's throat, the Creator is. Thus, our source of Truth in Law is the Creator. Envy? That is a command which only hurts yourself until you go ahead and steal it. It's a sticky wicket and I don't see us ever getting back to such a State.

[Dory]

I hear you, cwv. Theocracy is a word I hear bantied about in the press a lot these days. It's just another way of comparing the so-called religious right with the Islamicists. (Sigh.) But, to be more precise, theocracy is what Israel had before Saul when God directly ruled them, told them when to go to war, etc. It literally means God rules.

Theonomy, however, means that God's law is the basis of the law of the land. That's what Israel had from Saul onward, more or less depending on whether they had a good king or a tyrant king at the time. It's probably more along the lines of what you and I are talking about, and the best we could hope for right now.

Unfortunately, theonomy is a dirty word in many Christian circles, I think mostly because of misunderstanding and partly because of some theonomists who take a pharisaical approach to it.

A country like Iran could be fairly characterized as a theonomy. Unfortunately, they have misidentified what is the true God's true law and applied a law that isn't just.

It just ain't easy being ruled by sinful men, eh? Praise God that King Jesus is on His throne and we will have a blessed theocracy for all eternity!

[cwv warrior]

Amen! Thanks for the new word, theonomy. What concerns me most is the checks and balances being out of wack so that injustices like Terri Schindler Schaivo can even play out. In this great country, sinful rulers, including judges, are supposed to be stoppable, aren't they? The bottom line is the people ruling (by the people), with a thing called "right to resist" when it gets bad. God was going to be our final Authority, not men, which is why Adams and atleast one other leader(?) said the republic wouldn't stand without a moral people. Thus, the sheer tragedy of taking Bible from our children. Truly, Jesus is our only Hope.