parresia

Backwards.I read an article the

Backwards.

I read an article the other day that told of Arizona's governor who signed into law a repeal of what were considered by some to be "outdated" laws. Some of these now former-laws are prohibitions against sodomy and unmarried cohabitation. Under these laws the civil authorities had the right to prosecute and, if found guilty, punish the persons involved in those activities. But, that was then, those are outdated laws: this is NOW. Did somebody say National Organization for Women? That's right, I forgot to mention that the governor of Arizona is a woman; guess she doesn't spend much time as a housewife, you think?

Anyway, the key reason the governor said she signed the law was that she didn't think "government belongs in the lives of people." I wonder how she justifies upholding laws such as prohibitions against child-molestation or polygamy? I mean, isn't it her riding principle that government should stay out of our lives? It seems to me that if she values consistency she would repeal all laws that have anything to do with "our lives." Wouldn’t doing that entail abolishing nearly all laws including prohibitions against murder and theft? In other words, it seems her “principle” stated above is grossly too general to a real reason at all for signing the law. So what do we have here?

What we have here is a failure to understand biblical principles. Predictably, in the vacuum that ensues is whimsical human folly, and I think the governor’s decision is an all-too-perfect example. To demonstrate, the governor also said that moral instruction is to come from families and churches, not government. What she says here is only half right, even though it sounds really nice. Yes, moral instruction is to come from the home and church, but that does not mean that punishment is reserved only for the church and home. The Bible clearly expects the civil authorities alone to punish evil doers with the sword, not fathers and not pastors. It is the role of fathers to instruct their children in the way they should go, this obviously includes some forms of punishment, but it does not include the sword. Similarly, the role of the church is to enhance and support the father’s teaching, as well as exercising discipline, which is a form of punishment, yet the church also does not punish with the sword.

The governor of Arizona was correct when she said that moral education was to be left to the families and churches, but she failed to realize the important distinction between “teaching” and “punishment.” Teaching may be necessary for punishment, and punishment may be necessary for teaching, but teaching is not always a sufficient form of punishment, and punishment is rarely sufficient for teaching. For instance, when the civil authorities rightly put someone to death for a capital offence, the civil authorities’ goal is not to educate (though some education may occur at the time); the civil authority’s goal is to punish. To put it yet another way, the governor’s want to limit the punishing power of the civil authorities on account of her notion that it is not their job to educate in morality, fails to properly assign purpose to both the civil authorities and families.

Without a biblical foundation this improper assignment of roles is practically unavoidable. God’s word happens to consider things like homosexual sex, and unmarried cohabitation to be crimes; those guilty of such acts are to face not only potential “punishment/education” from their parents and church, but also very serious punishment (without education) from the civil authorities. This idea may indeed seem outdated to many non-Christians, but God’s word (and law) never goes out of date. The governor of Arizona ought to have more carefully thought through her “reasons” for signing the law, because as it stands, her legislature now represents a law contrary to God’s. Any such human “law” is lawless.