God’s Law and Society (7 of 10) The Myth of Neutrality

Order the DVD at: http://forerunner.com/law/law.html

One of the most common objections to Christians bringing the morality of the Bible into politics is the idea that somehow there ought to be a public square that is neither secular nor Christian, but “neutral.” Jesus addressed the issue of neutrality when He told His disciples in Matthew 12:30: “He who is not for Me is against me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.” The very idea that we, as followers of Christ can peacefully coexist with a pagan world system is refuted by the Lord himself, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth, I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34).

Many Christian leaders prop up the idea of “neutrality in the public square.” This viewpoint expresses the essence of antinomianism: that the righteousness of one’s conduct can be divorced from the moral Law of God—or that one’s political views can be divorced from one’s theology. In truth, the only option besides a biblically based society ruled by the Law of God is a pagan society ruled by lawlessness. There is no neutral ground.

The myth of pluralism is the number one fallacy which undermines the social ethic of the modern Christian conservative movement. Our vision for America has become truncated by an anti-Law position. The Word of God is clear on one thing: the moral Law of God is the standard, not natural law, not pluralism, not what man thinks is right in his own eyes. The Bible provides the vast majority of laws needed to govern a society. Those it does not directly define, it addresses in principle. Although we may not always agree on interpretation, we should agree on the Law of God as the standard. Either we stand for the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the totality of life, or we become enemies of the cross.

We asked our panel of experts to comment on the myth of neutrality:

Question #7:— What about the idea that the civil government should remain neutral and recognize that we live in a democratic, pluralistic society?