7
Freedom and the Law
You cannot use law to hold back a moral
landslide.
It simply won't do it. You'll just
add to the laws. – Os Guiness
When the framers of the American Constitution first gathered,
they faced a fundamental question. The question was not merely, can
we create a free republic? The question was, can we create a free
republic that will remain free? Those men knew their history, and
they knew that history was against them. On the day the Constitution
was to be signed, Benjamin Franklin wanted to address the assembly
but, old man that he was, he was too weak to stand. So his speech was
read by James Wilson of Pennsylvania. It is a speech of profound
wisdom, but there was one statement that echoes down through time
and is entirely relevant to the topic at hand. It is a long sentence, and
deserves careful thought:
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its
faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government
necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but
what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and
believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a
course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other
forms have done before it, when the people shall become so
corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of
any other.
Ben Franklin did not rule out the possibility of the American
experiment ending in despotism. But he felt it would only go that way
when the people were no longer capable of any other form of
government. It had happened through history over and over again, and
he felt it might well happen again. The odd thing about the statement
to me was the idea that a people might need a despotic government,
that there might be people incapable of living free.
For Ben Franklin and the Founders, the first step in gaining
freedom —the American Revolution—was past. They had now taken
the next step and drafted a Constitution. But the biggest challenge lay
beyond their horizon: sustaining freedom—a challenge Ben Franklin
knew well enough. Why? Because he was a student of history.
According to Os Guinness, “The Framers knew their history in a
way many modern political leaders to their shame don't.” What they
understood was this: “If you have a corruption of customs, the
Constitution itself will be subverted. People will follow the same
laws, but with a different rationale, and you'll see a steady decline.”
If he was right, law is not enough to sustain freedom. We believe
in the rule of law in this country, and the idea was carefully drawn as
a distinction from the rule of a king. What we may not have realized
is that the law can become just as tyrannical as any king.
How would that happen? Well, just look at how the courts are
interpreting the law. We are no longer being governed by all the
people, but by the law as interpreted by a few judges. And what is
guiding the judges, the Constitution or the customs of the time? In
recent years the courts have been increasingly influenced in their
decisions, not by the words of the Constitution, but by the evolving
morality of the times.
Dr. Guiness went on to ask: “What was the Framers’ solution to
this? Many people think it’s the Constitution and law. It isn’t. That's
only half the answer. The other half is quite clear, and incredibly
overlooked today, even among scholars. It’s what I call the Little
Triangle of Assumptions.”
His triangle of assumptions is simple enough, and it is entirely
compatible with Ben Franklin’s statement. The three sides to his
triangle are:
1. Freedom requires virtue.
2. Virtue requires faith of some sort.
3. Faith requires freedom.
In Navy firefighting school, I learned about the triangle of fire.
For a fire to burn, three things are required: temperature, fuel and
oxygen. The concept of firefighting in any circumstance, from the
flight deck to a steel compartment below decks, was this: Remove
any side of the triangle, and the fire goes out.
So it is with Os Guinness’ little triangle of assumptions. Remove
one side from the triangle, and all is lost. He argued that if freedom
has to be guarded by laws, it will eventually be lost, because every
new law takes away some freedom.
There was also a sound logic behind the framers’ insistence on
religious liberty. Virtue cannot be maintained in the absence of some
kind of faith. The argument is not that law is unnecessary, but that the
rationale behind the laws is crucial. And that without virtue, the
whole structure of society may come unraveled.
Continuing to think in threes, Guinness went on to say that we
have three massive contemporary menaces to faith and freedom.
Three menaces that will, if the framers were correct, eventually affect
the system and freedom will not survive. The menaces are:
1. The idea that faith, character and virtue are fine if you want
them, but they have no place in the public square.
2. A breakdown in the transmission of values.
3. A corruption of customs.
Nancy Pearsey addressed the first of these by warning that
Christians are cooperating in their own marginalization.
Faith, they
think, need have nothing to do with their education, their jobs, their
careers. They find a way to compartmentalize their lives and restrict
faith to the private sphere.
The second menace, the breakdown in the transmission of values,
began with the banning of prayer and Bible reading from the public
schools. How can you teach right from wrong without some standard
of right and wrong?
The third, a corruption of customs, has moved on apace for a long
time now. Guinness dates the beginning to the 1960s, when many
foundational assumptions were being “profoundly eroded or under
assault. What is life? Is there such a thing as truth? What’s a family?
What’s a marriage? What’s justice more than power?”
He sees freedom in America “tilting towards evil,” and warns: “If
not reversed, your children and grandchildren will experience the
consequences. No great civilization survives if it cuts its relations to
its roots. We are on the edge of doing that. As faith goes, so goes
freedom. As freedom goes, so goes the United States.” He went on
to ask: “Are we beyond the point of hope? I'm personally an optimist.
Things are not nearly as bad here as they have been in times past, and
they have been turned around.”
When faith went in [Germany], it produced the most
horrendous evil the world's ever seen. I wouldn't bet that we
are yet to see an American evil of monumental proportions
unless there's a turning back. You cannot use law to hold back
a moral landslide. It simply won't do it. You'll just add to the
laws. You've got to rejuvenate the culture.
“A moral landslide” is a pretty good description of what we have
seen in recent years, and the decline seems to be accelerating.
Obscenity and nudity on the public airways finally stung Congress to
action to start fining broadcasters who insult the public. But the
problem with Congress is that they only have one tool to work with:
the law. And every law passed by Congress is, in some small way, an
infringement on freedom. You can hear the howls coming from those
whose ox is being gored this time, but I can’t help wondering when
someone will decide that we can’t teach the Bible over the public
airways. And don’t think that’s not possible. The government owns
the airways just like it owns the courthouse. And it is not such a great
step from banning the Ten Commandments in the courthouse to
banning the Gospel from radio.
Let me return to Os Guinness’ idea that freedom requires virtue
and that if freedom has to be guarded by laws, it will eventually be
lost. The Apostle Paul said something like this in his second letter to
the Corinthians. He was addressing a local problem and then, in what
seems like an aside, he tossed in one of his more profound theological
statements.
. . . Or do we need, like some people, letters of recom-mendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letter,
written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. You
show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our
ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living
God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts (2
Corinthians 3:1-3 NIV).
He shifted his point of reference from letters of commendation to
the letter of the law. He was himself a minister of the New Covenant,
not the old. He spoke of the differences between his ministry and that
of Moses. Tablets of stone, to nearly any reader, suggests the Ten
Commandments, and Paul spoke of those commandments as written,
not on stone tablets, but on the heart. It was here that Paul began the
theme that Os Guinness will echo centuries later. External laws
cannot hold back a moral landslide. They can only erode our
freedoms. In my opinion, this was the fundamental error of first
century Judaism. With the Oral Law, the Mishnah and the Talmud,
they built a fence around the law. In the process, they took away
freedom after freedom, and that was precisely what Paul was driving
at in his epistles when he talked about liberty and freedom. He was
not urging freedom from the law, but from the laws written by men
to enforce the law that was written in stone.
“Laws written in the heart” is a pretty good definition of virtue.
You can’t make the letter of the law work without the Spirit. This was
Paul’s fundamental premise:
Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for
ourselves, but our competence comes from God. He has made
us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the
letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives
life (vv. 5, 6).
Laws are necessary, but when virtue has fled, they can’t hold. In
the absence of virtue, the letter of the law can only take away
freedom. It will require more laws to enforce it and in the end, they
will kill freedom. The law, as we may be seeing now, can be as much
a tyrant as any dictator. There is nothing wrong with the law, as such.
Paul acknowledged that it was glorious. But he also said that the
ministration of the spirit is even more so. In fact, without virtue and
without the Spirit, all the law can do in the end is condemn us—for
we will break it. Continuing:
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved
in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites
could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its
glory, fading though it was . . . (v. 7).
As Paul was not himself the New Covenant, but a minister of it,
so Moses was not himself the Old Covenant. Paul chose an odd
construct in calling the Old Covenant a “ministry that brought death,”
but of course it did bring death. The law was never an instrument of
salvation. It is the definer of right and wrong and, in the Old
Covenant, it was combined with a ministry of enforcement. It was not
living within the law that brought death. Honoring one's father and
mother could hardly bring death. Dishonoring them could, in certain
circumstances. It is only in the breach that either law or covenant
becomes a “ministry of condemnation.”
Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We
are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep
the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading
away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the
same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not
been removed, because only in Christ is it [the veil] taken
away. (vv. 12-14 NIV).
Paul has a way of mixing his metaphors, so it is sometimes
necessary to explain what he is saying. The Old Covenant was a good
thing. It made it possible for Israel to continue as a civil society. But
the law alone was not enough, not if it remained external to the
people. There is no set of laws that can be written to govern a people
who do not wish to be governed by those laws. We learned that in the
years of Prohibition, but seem to have forgotten it in the modern
world.
For Israel, the law was everything. But they could not see beyond
the law. They had a veil over their eyes which blinded them to the
spirit of the law. What this means to me is that the Christian can read
the Old Testament law without the veil. He can see clearly what God
is saying to us and can internalize the law.
Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their
hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is
taken away (vv. 15-16).
This chapter of the letter to Corinthians is commonly
misunderstood. When Moses was read (which happened Sabbath by
Sabbath in synagogues everywhere), the Jews did not see what lies
within, behind, and underneath the law. Their eyes were veiled. But,
said Paul, when one turns his heart to the Lord, the veil—not the
law—is taken away. Thus one can see the real spirit of the law behind
the letter. The veil is a strange metaphor, but it seems to say that
Judaism never truly understood the law. And far from saying that the
law is taken away, when anyone turns to the Lord, their understanding
of the law becomes clearer—the veil is lifted.
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect
the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with
ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the
Spirit (vv. 17, 18).
The key to understanding the matter is this. The letter of the law
does not convey liberty. The Spirit of the Lord conveys liberty. Not a
few religious movements in the past have tried to manage their flocks
according to the letter of the law. As a result, they have stifled the
work of the Spirit among God’s people, and destroyed their liberty in
Christ.
So Paul and Os Guiness were saying the same thing. Freedom
requires virtue, an internalizing of the law; and if freedom can only be
guarded by external laws, it will eventually be lost.
Guiness’ other point was this: “Virtue requires faith of some sort.
This is is the simple reason that the Framers argued there should be
religious liberty.”
This is inescapable. Without faith, without God, we become our
own arbiters of what is right and what is wrong. So, first Congress, and
then the courts start deciding right from wrong for us and, in the
process, squeeze our liberties into oblivion. We will follow the
“evolving standards of morality” around in an every tightening circle
until all our liberty is gone.
We have long since tossed God out of the schools and our kids are
taught that we have no designer, no guarantor of our freedoms, no final
arbiter of right and wrong. We have to look to ourselves; there is no
God to save us.
Finally, Guinness’ third assumption in his little triangle is that faith
requires freedom. “If that triangle is perpetual, then freedom has a
chance of defying the odds and keeping alive.” Without freedom, faith
will be squeezed to nothing.
So the question is still before us: Will we survive as a civilization,
or will we, like all the great ones before us, go into decline? Everyone
knows about Rome. And while we don’t think about it very often, the
great Islamic Empire of a thousand years ago is now reduced to the
cowardly killing of women and children in a vain attempt to achieve
their objectives. There was a time when the Islamic Empire was even
greater than Rome’s or Alexander’s. But it is gone.
In our own time, we have seen the disappearance of the British
Empire. So, why should we assume that we are any better? That which
might have made us better—faith—has been tossed aside. As we have
already heard from Os Guinness:
Law alone won’t do it without faith. Because without faith, you
have no basis for the law. Benjamin Franklin said one more thing that
echoes in our own generation:
Much of the strength and efficiency of any Government in
procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on
opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the
Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of
its Governors.
No one has contributed more to the diminishing of respect for the
wisdom and integrity of our governors than the governors themselves.
Day by day the political machines, created and controlled by those who
govern, continue to trash the reputations of those who oppose them.
You would think Peter was speaking of our generation when he
spoke of “them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and
despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not
afraid to speak evil of dignities (2 Peter 2:10).
In our day, the “general opinion of the goodness of the Govern-ment” is in tatters. Government is the joke of the late night comedians.
How can a generation of lawmakers, so despised by so many, reverse
a moral landslide? Have we, in Ben Franklin’s words, “become so
corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any
other”?
|