Government vs. God

UTT Blog Post #8 - Law

Which came first: the chicken or the egg? – This commonly asked and quoted question probes to discover origin. As such, it can also be asked when contemplating the origin of law. Often, law is solely associated with government as forms of societal regulations. As a result, universal laws and the concept of such are generally forsaken.

Sarah’s belief that all laws are created by society seems like a very naturalistic or secular humanist conjecture. Her confining of law to the physical world only indicates her lack of belief in a higher power or higher law that has influenced society’s laws. In terms of “universal” law, Sarah may also prescribe to the belief that society definition of law and what it ought to include is synthesized into a universal law that becomes applicable for all because it has been defined by the actions of all. Either way, Sarah’s approach to law is a naturalistic one which denies the existence of a creator or higher authority. Thus, it places all moral responsibility on society as a whole to create and enforce laws. I believe that Sarah represents many in society today who would argue that the patterns and preferences of a culture lead to their laws. However, it is important to remember that society’s role as law implementation and enforcement, doesn’t mean that the universal laws or symbols came about independently.

Just as the chicken came before the egg, so God established His laws of morality in eternity past. In this way, rather than allowing society and pop culture to dictate the rules of society, God’s expectations for his creation are to dictate what society enforces as law. As Christians, we have the responsibility to follow God’s authority, be it supernatural. While skeptics and secular humanists like Sarah may frown upon this, we can delight in knowing that we worship and serve the creator rather than the creation.

The Fibs of Feminism

UTT Blog Post #7 - Feminism

In a society where we find more women in the workplace than in the home, it is dominated by feminist ideals supported by women and men alike. While this may not be the traditional connotation or image of feminism, it is important to remember that not all feminist ideas are those supported by the sexual revolution of the 60’s and 70’s. Returning to its roots over the past three decades, every woman who has decided to abandon the home and pursue a corporate life out of desire rather than necessity has contributed to the feminism of today’s society.  Instead of being brought up, taught, and cared for by their mothers, nannies and expensive daycares are responsible for rearing children. Essentially, by creating a society that encourages female contribution to the workforce, our culture is allowing society (in the form of daycare, preschool, and summer camps) to train our children in acceptable social habits, prepare them for grade school, and teach them morality by way of discipline. Thus, the influence of parents over their children is weakened and possibly severed at a very young age. Yet, for the purpose of capitalist consumerism, society easily overlooks these issues and dismisses them, barely blinking an eye.

This may be what our society says, but what does Christianity say to the feminism of today? Sadly, this could be difficult to know for the undiscerning eye. While the Bible clearly expresses the female role intended by God, this role is not modeled by a large majority of the church. While this is sometimes a result of financial necessity, it is often a direct reflection of conformity to society practices. In the Bible, God creates woman to be man’s companion or “helper.” Due to the male’s prior existence and survival instincts, he is to take on the role of protector and provider. The female then, created with more emotional substances, is to be the caretaker of the home and care provider of her children. Because God equipped the women to fulfill a certain role within the family and society he expects them to do so. As Christians we should have the same attitude toward the role of women. This means, that Christianity does and should discourage feminist ideals which advocate for the equivocation of male and female when it is evident that God did not create them that way.

It is important to remember that rejection of feminism does not mean that Christianity does not value women or their capabilities. Rather, it encourages those in the body of Christ to take on the Biblical given them by God. In this way, women are able to fulfill their full spiritual potential, rather than full earthly potential. In fact, returning to this traditional form of family would demonstrate a higher regard and respect for the woman’s role in the house, rather than degrading it of debasing its importance as feminists themselves have done. Therefore, it is the job of the Christian woman to challenge feminism by pursuing the Biblical definition of the her role in the house and doing the job that God created her for.

Accepting vs. Excepting

UTT Blog Post #6 - Sexism and Homophobia

Accepting. Inclusive. Tolerant. Today’s culture is one which seeks not only to accept, but embrace, every type of personality, identity, and lifestyle represented within society. It is one that promotes both the tolerance and exploration of new or different ideas. It thrives on diversity of appearance, preference, and lifestyle. Sure, as a member of society, this approach to treating others in our community is only logical. It creates for a harmonious community and promotes a general sense of camaraderie. From this perspective, it can be easily understood as to why so many non-Christians, perceive Christianity to be a sexist and homophobic religion, due to its doctrinal rejection of these practices. However, it is also important to understand that rejection of certain practices, such as homosexuality, or embrace of traditional lifestyles, such as women as homemakers, does not constitute either homophobia or sexism. The Bible does not teach that we should be afraid of homosexuals, nor does it instruct to discriminate against either gender. Rather the Bible teaches what a godly lifestyle should look like and warns against what it should not be as well. Specifically, Biblical Christianity abides by the belief that man and woman were created by God to be with one another and one another alone. Therefore, as both Christians and members of society, we should abstain from practicing or condoning this lifestyle, but remember to approach those living in sin not out of pure condemnation but out of love and concern. In a way, it saddens me to think that the outside perception of the church is such a negative one. While this stereotype may be legitimately true for some Christians, instead of being thought of as homophobes, we should be seen as the ones who are willing to reach out to those who are different from us. In this way we can show the love of Christ through our actions and further the kingdom. Distancing ourselves from wrongdoing does not make it disappear or edify the Lord. In turn, we should not allow male leadership within the church to be mistaken for sexism. Even though this may seem discriminatory through the world’s eyes, it is important to remain true to the Biblical establishment of gender roles. Moreover, in response to society ridicule it is imperative that the church function as an example of how both male and female can be strong leaders and individuals within their God-given roles. In conclusion, the societal perception that all Christians are sexist and homophobic is an inaccurate one that should be battled by loving those around us, as to not create a sense of exclusivity within society.

Sociology and the State

UTT Blog Post # 5 - Parenting and the State

Parenting. Let’s take a look at this word. Parenting is defined as “the methods, techniques, etc., used or required in the rearing of children; the state of being a parent; parenthood.” Simply by definition of the word, it is made evident that the duty of raising a child is that of a parent’s. The dictionary does not say that the parenting is the act of giving life to a person or the act of providing for a child. Rather, it states that the “rearing of a child” is the responsibility of a parent.

At first glance the statement that “It is in the states best interest to be more involved in parenting, even to the point of controlling what is taught in the home” seems like a logical one. Why wouldn’t society want a structured and standard way of raising children? It would be easy to argue that state involvement in parenting would equalize each child’s opportunity to achieve success. It could also prevent poor parenting and child abuse. Furthermore, governmental rules for parenting could foster both cohesion within and amongst families and, therefore, progress within society. This, of course, is assuming that the involvement of the state in parenting doesn’t eliminate the boundary that exists today between family and state. The other large assumption made in accepting this idea is that the parenting regulations instilled by the state will be beneficial ones which serve to help the growth of each child rather than benefit the government or country as a whole. Another challenge arises when determining/defining morality and punishment. Many families today subscribe to different religions and standards. Beyond this, we live in a society that promotes passive parenting, which could potentially make the legalization of truly effective punishment difficult. Instead of stepping beyond the boundaries of its responsibilities in taking control of parenting in society, the state should be allowed only to monitor household conditions so as to protect society’s children.

Many who distrust the actions and intentions of others quiver at the idea that the state not have a say in the way the family ought to operate. While I agree that it is important for a society to ensure the safety and wellbeing of its people, especially children, I also believe that giving the state the ability to manipulate the parenting process heavily blurs the distinction between the state and the family while encouraging a lack of responsibility amongst parents. Therefore, instead of looking only at the potential for success that state involvement in parenting could have, it is important to recognize the dangers of surrendering the rights, privileges and responsibilities of a parent – a position instituted by God – to the government.