What Should Concern Christians Today?
By Lynn S. Nored
This blog was first written on Sept. 28, 2012. The top concerns in 2017 according to Gallop are: the economy, dissatisfaction with government, healthcare and immigration.
Though the priorities have changed slightly, the concerns Christians should have have not. It is worthwhile revisiting them.
According to a Rasmussen poll March 4, 2012, the following are the top concerns of Americans (1) :
Economy
|
82%
|
Health Care
|
62%
|
Gov't Ethics and Corruption
|
61%
|
Taxes
|
60%
|
Energy Policy
|
54%
|
The above concerns are only symptoms of much larger issues facing our nation. We have two major crises: a) a religious/moral/ethical crisis and b) a political crisis. They are explicitly related. And, they are not centered solely in one political party over another.
Both have[CW1] been festering for a long time. We shall explore briefly how moral and ethical concerns have evolved to merge into the political realm to become very personal crises. Since our Founders had presuppositions about virtue and religion and based our political system on those presuppositions, we will survey what our Founders meant by these terms. Our very system of government is based on certain assumptions about “we the people” and we will review these fundamental principles. Subsequently, we will show how the degradation in our virtue, morals, and ethics is affecting that very system of government. The result is both a moral and political crisis. However, it is the erosion of our moral underpinnings of our government that should be the greatest concern for Christians. There is a solution—somewhat surprising in its nature.
Do you believe that truth is absolute and can be known? Do you believe that God himself revealed moral truth to man? Even the ancient philosophers consented that there is a higher or highest “good.” They asserted that there[CW2] is “truth” to be known. In fact they believed this “truth” is what is ultimately desirable and relates to any other “good” that can be desired. There is in fact a higher good. (2) Ultimately, that higher good is God, Himself. When God and His Natural Laws are called into question, serious problems result.
This year, 2012, happens to be the 25th anniversary of the publication of Allan Bloom’s book “The Closing of the American Mind” (3) . Though no real friend of religion, Bloom did foresee the sea change in Americans’ attitude towards “absolute” truth as well as the understanding there is a higher good to be pursued. In 1987 he wrote in his opening chapter on virtue: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative”. Tolerance becomes the only virtue and the “true believer” is the greatest danger. “
As I reviewed this book before the faculty of Oklahoma Christian University in 1987, some were skeptical of its conclusions. They were mistaken. Being in the “cocoon” of a protected Christian environment, some did not foresee the erosion of truth in our society. That erosion began with the replacement of God as Creator with modern era philosophical ideas about man. Now, in today’s post modern society, there is no “good” literature, art, social structures, political structures or even religious structures. (4) There are just different manifestations that the power structures in particular societies have created. For Foucault truth “is something that 'happens', and is produced by various techniques (the 'technology' of truth) rather than something that already exists and is simply waiting to be discovered.” (5) . The effects of these concepts on moral, ethics and religion should be self-evident. There is no transcendent God. Morals and ethics are socially determined by power structures. Revealed truth and Christianity are clearly not to be revered, but become the objects of oppression in society.
Do not be complacent. These ideas are and will directly affect you, your children and your grandchildren. If your children take AP English or go to college, they will learn that the reader’s response to what he is reading determines the “truth” of the text for him regardless of what the writer actually says or means. Examples of how these ideas have permeated our culture are easy to find. The “truth” taught about sexuality and sexual activity is now relative. Any other attitude is bigotry. One only has to listen to TV, movies, songs, or You Tube to both hear and see how religion is denigrated. In Canada a case is now before its Supreme Court that would effectively ban speech in the bible regarding homosexuality. Speech that is anti-abortion would be labeled as “hate speech” (6) . “A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the “gay” agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be “engaged and productive citizens.” “ (7)
Your children will learn that the sometimes real oppression and moral foibles of the Founders are more important than the ideals and ideas they espoused. Of course this delegitimizes any of their accomplishments. From this standard David, the King of Israel, who was a murderer and adulterer, was certainly not a man to be admired or emulated as a “man after God’s own heart”.
Dear reader you will have noted how these ideas originated from the precept that all truth is relative. They then migrated to the public political area in both education and law and have become restrictive. It is that intersection between religious freedom and political freedom that I wish to explore. The erosion of liberty we see follows directly from the vilification of truth and of God.
How is this possible in this country of “the land of the free?” It is possible because the very foundations of the religious and political freedom we have in this country are derived from God as the highest good. If this connection is destroyed, then liberty is destroyed. The Declaration of Independence declares: “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness---That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men.” Here absolute truth and the highest Good, God, the Creator, is proclaimed. Our “rights” are not those granted by a government of any kind, but are given by God himself. Man is created “free”. Moreover, the Declaration echoes Paul in Romans 13: 1-7 in understanding that government is necessary to secure those rights and to protect against the “wrong-doer”.
All men are created “equal” in the sense that are “endowed by their Creator” with the same rights. Clearly, men are not born with the same abilities. Neither do all have the same initiative, desires, particular strengths, or ambitions. This of necessity dictates different outcomes from an economic perspective even though all have an equal right to pursue and secure property. The Declaration echoes Paul in there is no distinction between classes, ethnic groups, gender, or individuals in the freedom granted each individual (Gal 3:28).
There is a competing idea of “equality” put forth by many in the U.S. and the world. This idea of equality is defined as equality of “outcomes”. In this interpretation of “justice”, if one man has more of something than another, this is a great evil. Furthermore, man through scientific progress can eliminate these inequalities with an enlightened[CW3] , intelligent, administrative class. These are two competing visions of equality. They give rise to totally different forms of government. They cannot coexist.
There is another attribute that flows from the fact that our “rights” of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” are endowed by our Creator. That fact is the people must be a “virtuous” people if the freedom given to us is to be secured. From the following quotes from the Founders it is clear virtue and morality are required of the people:
John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (8) Benjamin Franklin wrote on April 17, 1787, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." (9) . For George Washington “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports” Further, “ It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government.” (10)
Virtue is defined as “Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness.” (11) . This goodness is for us to be like God in His goodness. ("be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect" – Matt. 5:48). Hence any departure from this as a source for our virtue and morality is a crisis for our people and how they govern themselves.
How would the Founder’s define virtue or morality? Three sources are instructive: The first is the Bible itself, the second is writings of the Founders, and the third is their understanding of the classical philosophers. Perhaps the greatest listing of Christian virtues is that given by Peter in 2 Peter 2:5-7 and Paul in Galatians.
II Peter 2:5”For this very reason make every effort, by your faith to produce virtue, by virtue knowledge, 6by knowledge self-control, by self-control steadfastness, by steadfastness godliness, 7by godliness brotherly affection, and by brotherly affection love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they keep you from being idle or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Chris. Gal.5: 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying one another.”
And of course we have the Lord’s summary: Matt. 22:38–40 (NIV)
38 this is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” We also have the following Matt. 23:23 (NIV)……”the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. ‘
In the first of these lists from Peter one should note that each statement leads step by step to the conclusion of the greatest virtue of all, “love”. In the first instance of faith to virtue the meaning is “by your faith produce virtue”. The form of the list in Gal begins with the greatest virtue, “love”. Both of the above lists are not to be taken as “complete”, but are representative lists. [1] Other virtues explicitly listed include: justice, mercy, faithfulness, fidelity, compassion, forgiveness, wisdom, humility, peace-loving, considerate, submissive, bearing good fruit, impartiality, sincerity, pure, righteous, producing good deeds.
Typically these lists include two paths: a virtuous path or a path of vice. These complementary lists are also instructive as to the virtues that should be pursued. For example, the admonition against theft and covetous has as it[CW4] s implied opposite, working for what one has instead of taking from another. ( Eph 4:28 “Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need.”)
The second source of definition of the Founders “virtues” may be found in their own writings. Benjamin Franklin listed them in his autobiography. (12) : Temperance, Silence, Order, Resolution, Frugality, Industry, Sincerity, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Tranquility, Chastity, and Humility. In the case of George Washington, three things may be observed from his First Inaugural Address 1) He calls upon God for guidance 2) He understands virtue is necessary for happiness and a successful nation and 3) He understands “the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained” (13) . In Washington’s Farewell Address he further reinforced these views: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle[CW5] … it is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government” (14) . In the case of John Adams most quoted speech (previous given) he stated our Constitution was only suitable for a “moral and religious” people.
A very direct source for how the Founders thought about virtue is contained in the wording of the Virginia Declaration of Independence adopted by the Virginia Convention on May 15, 1776. Section 15 of that Declaration states: “That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles “ (15) . The Constitution of Massachusetts of 1780 echoes these same principles in Article III: ….” the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality” (16)
The third source for their thinking is their reliance upon classical philosophy including a) historical perspective b) the meaning of virtue, fame, and honor c) the common language of Latin and Greek sources and d) how to think about Natural Law and political philosophy. One popular example of virtue from the classics was “The Choice of Hercules”-- recounted as part of Xenophon’s Memorabilia in his intellectual biography of Hercules. This is an allegory of a young Hercules who is given the choice of two routes: 1) one of ease and pleasure into dissipation and 2) a difficult road leading to a summit of achievement. It is the later that epitomized public and private virtue. (17) . One can also note the influence of Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics definition of virtues: Courage, Temperance, Liberality, Magnificence, Gentleness, Agreeableness, Truthfulness, Wittiness, Feeling Shame, Justice, Reason, Knowledge, Prudence, and Wisdom (18) . In Plato’s Republic he declared that there are four chief virtues of the soul: justice, prudence, temperance, and fortitude.
What may we now conclude about virtue, religion, and ethics and the Founding? First, these principals were “front and center” in the both the public square and private life. Second, they reflected a profound view of man and his relationships to others. Third, the Founders rested the foundations of their new government on the virtuous character of the people.
But, what kind of government is best defined to secure the rights endowed by the Creator? Since God has created us free and government is both good and necessary, the Declaration proclaims that government[CW6] s derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Constitution begins with “We, the people”. Though granted freedom by God (living under His precepts), in constituting government, it is The People that are Sovereign. There are three principles embodied in our Declaration and detailed in our Constitution. They are a) Representative government b) Limited Government and c) Separation of Powers.
Let us take these in order. Why representative government? Suppose that government resides in a single person—not elected by the people. Does anyone suppose that any man is so good that he will not abuse that power? From such power tyrants are and have been created. Indeed, that is one of the charges against the King in the Declaration—he governed without any consent of the governed at all. Since all men are created equal, it follows that government should be by the consent of those governed.
Suppose that “the people” are to govern through a “pure democracy”. Our Founders were well aware of the failures of pure democracy. Here the majority rules on any issues and the rights of minorities are abused. Passion sways public opinion with reflection, reasoning, and wisdom in short supply. A representative form of government tends to avoid both of these deficiencies. The representative is a proxy for the people in making laws for government. The people, though sovereign, are then distinct from the government. If the sovereign people disagree with laws made by their representatives they must make this disagreement known through the election process. This in effect, limits the powers of both and avoids the abuses of the tyrant and the mob.
There is also a fundamental difference in moral philosophy between the founders thinking that rejects mass democracy. Society is built from the God given rights of individuals, to families, and to associations of groups with common aspirations and needs. The Christian point of view reflects this in individual accountability (each person is responsible for his own actions, Jer. 31:29-31) and the viability of marriage (for this cause…. Gen 2:24). Christians are also in “community” or fellowship with one another as well as form distinct congregational associations.
In contrast to the above “a distinctive feature of the political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau is the rejection of social subdivisions in the state. According to Rousseau, the citizens must not be distracted from the good of the whole by group loyalties and interests. The proper dedication to the common good requires that the people be dissolved into an undifferentiated mass of individuals. Traditional Western civilization is incompatible with Rousseau's vision and must be overturned. To accomplish that goal it is necessary to destroy the elaborate groupings and social patterns through which that civilization manifests itself. Rousseau wants society swept clean of decentralized, group-oriented structures. He wants the state to have no "sectional associations" (société partielle).” (19)
The Founders[CW7] ’ moral and religious virtues would enable civic institution and relationships to form reflecting those values. Local institutions would reflect individual and private responsibilities and a decentralized society. Rousseau’s view of “one size fits all” for the common good results in a collectivistic, centralized government. Not only was this contrary to the Founders[CW8] ’ view of man, they were certain this was the road to tyranny.
This brings us to question of why limited government? Who is to be sovereign? The people or the government? If the government is larger than the private sphere, which would dominate? The government also has a monopoly on force through laws that have been passed. If the government exceeds the private society and its institutions and has monopoly on force it must of necessity be limited in order for the government to be representative. If the power of government is unlimited, what is to prevent it from being self-serving? Some might say it would not be so as the government is to be “servants” of the people. In addition, with our advancements in science, wouldn’t it be better to have those in government who have superior education and understanding to decide all matters for the people? James Madison in Federalist 51 understood that man inherently has problems that preclude giving a single person or group of persons (the government) unlimited powers over others. (20)
“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
The Founders were also aware that government could become the instruments of “legal plunder” where one group could use the law itself to “plunder” another group. Frederic Bastiat wrote in “The Law” that the function of government was to protect the life, liberties, and property of its citizens. “The system of legal plunder (which many now celebrate
as “democracy”) will erase from everyone’s conscience, he wrote, the distinction between justice and injustice. The plundered classes will eventually figure out how to enter the political game and plunder their fellowman. Legislation will never be guided by any principles of justice, but only by brute political force.” (21) He also warned against the power of the state in education where teachers supported by the state would never teach against “legal plunder” as this would undercut their own support. He anticipated industries lobbying for special favors –what economists call “rent seeking” and “rent avoidance”. These warnings and ideas reinforced the Founders belief in limited government to protect the citizens and their property. Jefferson at first used the word “property” instead of “happiness” in the Declaration. As Bastiat said, it does not take a dictator to enforce conformity or uniformity in a society. It only takes a strong government to make such things “the law”. (21)
The third requirement for government according to the Founders is “separation of powers”. Separation of powers is not accomplished by simply defining completely separate legislative, executive, and judicial authority. Thomas Jefferson wrote the following in his “Notes on the State of Virginia”:
“All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands are precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice. As little will it avail us that they are chosen by ourselves. An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. “
It was precisely for the above reasons that the states had reserved to them all powers not explicitly given to them in the constitution. This principal was enshrined in the 10th amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
No one branch of government was to have complete legislative, executive, and judicial authority over any activity of the people. On the other hand, checks on each of the branches authority would be contained within the others. For example, the power of the purse constrains the executive. The power of the courts constrains the legislature. And the power of appointment constrains the judiciary.
Understanding the political system of the founding and its basis on morality and religion is only part of the story. The real story and problem is what has happened to religion, virtue, morality, and ethics and their effects on that political system. In “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010” Charles Murray (22) , answers that question for a White America. He condenses the Founding virtues into four elements: 1) Industriousness 2) Honesty 3) Marriage and 4) Religion. The first two are virtues within themselves and the second pair “refer to institutions through which right behavior is nurtured.” Indeed, these four can be said to encompass most of the virtues we have discussed previously in some fashion.
What has happened to “industriousness”? It was said that without active occupation Americans are “absolutely wretched without it.”
“A side effect of this passion for industriousness was embarrassment at being thought a failure. Francis Grund wrote during a decade of life in the United States, “ I have never known a native American to ask for charity. No country in the world has such a small number of persons supported at public expense…An American, embarrassed by his pecuniary circumstances, can hardly be prevailed upon to ask or accept the assistance of his own relations and will, in many instances, scorn to have recourse to his own parents.” (23)
It is the assumption that hard work will lead to a better life for one’s self and one’s children that was a defining characteristic of Americans.
What has happened to industriousness and self reliance? First, a new “lower class” has been created since 1960. Murray defines this new lower class as males 30-49 not making a living (income for two is below the proverty line) and single women raising children. This group has increased from a computed value of 8% of the population in 1960 to 20% in 2008. The food stamp program has grown from an average of 7.9% of the population from 1970 to 2000 to 14[CW9] .7% today. (24) . The Heritage’s Foundation Government Dependency Index (composed of Housing, Health Care, Welfare, Retirement, Higher Education, and Rural and Agricultural Services) has increased 15 times its original amount since its inception in 1962.
Today, a full 70 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to pay for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance, with recipients ranging from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries. Heritage’s Patrick Tyrrell writes that other findings from the study show: (25)
· Government dependency jumped 8.1 percent in the past year, with the most assistance going toward housing, health and welfare, and retirement.
· The federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before in 2011 to subsidize Americans. The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation’s average disposable personal income ($32,446).
· At the same time, nearly half of the U.S. population (49.5 percent) does not pay any federal income taxes.
· In the next 25 years, more than 77 million baby boomers will retire. They will begin collecting checks from Social Security, drawing benefits from Medicare, and relying on Medicaid for long-term care.
· As of now, 70 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years. However, research shows that private, community, and charitable aid helps individuals rise from their difficulties with better success than federal government handouts. Plus, local and private aid is often more effectively distributed.
What does the above say about the virtue of work? Of Self-reliance? Of Industriousness? Clearly, these virtues have eroded. If[CW10] 50% of the population does not contribute any portion of their taxable income, then how does this reflect on the moral nature of our people? One may say that this 50% should not contribute because--? Because the other 50% has more and should support those who have less even though the other 50% contributes nothing? Is this a Christian attribute? Biblical examples would seem to indicate otherwise.
II Thess. 3: 10 “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.” II Cor. 8 Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia; 2 How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.
Moreover, it is not a virtue to covet what others have and you do not. It is a vice.
Exod. 20:17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. Luke 12:15Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.”
Indeed, a scripture search reveals how much the Lord condemns those who covet what others have that they do not. It is in most of the lists of vices along with adultery, murder, etc.
Closely related is the vice of greed. Greed and corruption in the political area is no stranger to the United States. (26) . Political corruption is the betrayal of an office for some consideration—often for some financial consideration. Though existing to some extent throughout our history, it has become endemic both in the business world and in congress. Even a cursory look at the frequency of convictions for either federal or state offices reveals the increasing frequency of convictions in recent years. (27) . Dacher, a psychology research professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and faculty Direct[CW11] or of the Greater Good Research center writes as follows:
“In 1986, Ivan Boesky spoke here at our university and proclaimed “greed is healthy.” Lore has it that Boesky and this speech inspired the Gordon Gekko character in Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street,” and the[CW12] “Greed is … good” speech. Now, some 25 years later, seven studies we conducted, some on this same campus, have proved the opposite, that greed, far from being good, undermines moral behavior.” (28)
Of course, many are familiar with results of greed leading to corruption on Wall Street by the likes of Bernie Madoff who bilked clients through a $50 Billion dollar Ponzi scheme. (29) However, the root causes are best illustrated by the statement of Greg Smith a Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. He relates how the firm changed from one where:
“It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money...” Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. ..”
To a firm where you were promoted if you were:
1) Persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. 2) Get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman and 3) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym. (30)
As Greg Smith indicates, it is the moral bankruptcy that is the root of the problem.
Political parties of both the right and the left have plenty in their midst who share in the title “Culture of Corruption”. Republicans lost congressional seats in 2006 largely because of the financial and moral corruption of a number of members (e.g. Jack Abramoff for bribery and Mark Foley for solicitation of pages for sex). (31) Michele Milken has an entire book entitled the “Culture of Corruption” on democrats. (32) . Moral bankruptcy does not discriminate in its destructive and corrosive results.
Another fundamental virtue for a virtuous people is honesty. Tamar Frankel in her book “Trust and Honesty: America's Business Culture at a Crossroad” defines honesty as relating to “integrity and openness to toward other people, while dishonesty represents the opposite: deceit, corruption shame, cheating, and duplicity.” Further:
“Deception covers the population in all works of life: management and employees; Main Street and Wall Street corporation; lawyers, accountants and physicians. More individuals cheat in school examinations and in sports. More job applicants cheat on their resumes. More people and businesses defraud more vulnerable consumers. Fraud has contaminated science, journalism, newspaper management, the professions, and the financial infrastructure.” (33)
Though the news has been on sensational events of corporate malfeasance with Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, and such personages as Mike Milken, meanwhile Charles Murray documents 80% of state and federal inmate populations of white males ages 28-49 come from a “new lower class.” (22) . According to Murray incarceration is a crude measure of dishonesty (as well as stealing, lying, or any number of other vices.) Since this statistic is on a new, white “lower class”, dishonesty is certainly not confined to Wall Street or the highly educated class.
Given the above is it any wonder that our political system reflects the fundamental dishonesty of our populous[CW13] nation. For example, take our national debt. In Thomas Jefferson’s view this was dishonesty of the highest order. He wrote in a letter to John Taylor in 1816:
"I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." (34)
“Reported that federal spending will drive the national debt to “unsustainable” levels in the coming decades, fueled by ever-rising health care costs and federal entitlement spending. “The growing fiscal imbalance is driven on the spending side by rising health care costs and the aging of the population,” the GAO said in its report, The Federal Government’s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, Spring 2012 Update. (35)
This problem is not the exclusive domain of any one party. Both have contributed. It is intellectual dishonesty of the first order to think that that one can spend 44% more than one takes in revenue can be sustained. (2012 White House Budget office estimate, (36) ).
Lying in politics whether domestic or international is no recent invention (See “The Virtues of Mendacity” by Martin Jay or “Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying In International Affairs” by John J. Mearsheimer). Some would say it has reached its heights with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky or George Bush and the Iraq war. Of course, whether it is the current President or his challengers, “fact-checkers” can always find what they deem “lies.” For example,
“Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post dropped a four-Pinocchio fact check on Barack Obama’s claim, during a recent “60 Minutes” interview, that “90 percent” of the federal deficit is due to George Bush’s policies, while only 10 percent of it comes from Obama policies.” (37)
David Runicaman of The University of Cambridge argues in “Political Hypocrisy” that “we should accept hypocrisy as a fact of politics, but without resigning ourselves to it, let alone cynically embracing it.” (38) . This is not the attitude Christians should take. Jesus said of those that opposed his teaching:
44 “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8:44 (NIV)
The Preacher states in Proverbs:
Proverbs 16 There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, …..
No Christian can possibly countenance those who lie.
Now, let us suppose you lived in New York City and had teen-age girls. Would you believe that your child would be attending a school system where:
“More than 7,000 New York City girls ages 15 to 17 get pregnant each year. More than two-thirds of those pregnancies end in abortions.”?
Moreover, this school system not only dispenses condoms and birth control pills but also the “morning after pill”. It does so unless you specifically request that they not do so. (39) . If you live in this same state of New York, a U.S. appeals court is “set to take its turn Thursday at considering the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law restricting the recognition of same-sex unions that has already been struck down in several other places. “
The U.S. Attorney General is to argue against this law passed by Congress! (40) . At present, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia, recognize same sex marriage. What these events have in common is a complete disrespect for marriage.
Charles Murray summarizes why traditional marriage between a man and women is important from a social and community point of view:
“Trends in marriage are important not just with regard to the organization of communities, but because they are associated with large effects on the socialization of the next generation. No matter what the outcome being examined—the quality of the mother-infant relationship, externalizing behavior in childhood ( aggression, delinquency, and hyper-activity), delinquency in adolescence, criminality as adults, illness and injury in childhood, early mortality, sexual decision making in adolescence, school problems and dropping out, emotional health, or any measure of how well or poorly children do in life—the family structure that produces the best outcomes for children, on average, are two biological parents who remain married.”
Murray gives definitive statistical trends about pre-marital sex, unwed births, divorce, and the growing divide between the working middle and lower class and the college educated. In the 1960’s 86% of both groups said premarital sex with someone they were going to marry was wrong. Though initially college educated accepted premarital sex more readily than others in the 1980’s their view became more traditional. In the meantime marriage among the white working class (high education or below, skilled blue collar workers, low skilled workers, etc.) only 48 percent were married compared to 83 per cent those college educated. In addition in 2010 one-third of the working class were divorced. At the same time non-marital births rose from 2 % in 1917 to over 30% in 2010. (22)
The importance of marriage to our society has been recognized regardless of one’s particular religious beliefs. (41)
Many arguments for marriage focus on it as a natural, pre-political social institution intrinsically connected to the vital public interest in the begetting and raising of children. “Across history and cultures,” reports marriage scholar David Blankenhorn, “marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father[CW15] ” “ Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples,”[CW16] argues Blankenhorn, “would nullify this principle in culture and in law.” (42)
It is precisely the connection between marriage, on the one hand, and the begetting and raising of children, on the other hand, that makes marriage, as the Supreme Court wrote in Loving v. Virginia, “fundamental to our very existence and survival.” (43) This connection is also why race is not relevant to marriage but gender is. With procreation, the most important public purpose of marriage remains uniting men and women in a “formal partnership” that will last through “the prolonged period of dependency of a human child.” (44)
The intergenerational and long-term benefits of marriage to society are profound and irreplaceable. The public has a strong interest in using law and policy to recognize, affirm, support, solidify, encourage, strengthen, and defend marriage as the cornerstone of the family and the building block of society[CW17] . (41)
A succinct discussion of marriage and its effects on public policy (and thus politics) is provided by the article “Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles”. The principles are (45) :
1. Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husband and wife.
2. Marriage is a profound human good, elevating and perfecting our social and sexual nature.
3. Ordinarily, both men and women who marry are better off as a result.
4. Marriage protects and promotes the well-being of children.
5. Marriage sustains civil society and promotes the common good.
6. Marriage is a wealth-creating institution, increasing human and social capital.
7. When marriage weakens, the equality gap widens; as[CW18] children suffer from the disadvantages of growing up in homes without committed mothers and fathers.
8. A functioning marriage culture serves to protect political liberty and foster limited government.
9. The laws that govern marriage matter significantly.
10. “Civil marriage” and “religious marriage” cannot be rigidly or completely divorced from one another
Principle 8 will suffice to show how marriage affects our system of government in a profound way:
“Strong, intact families stabilize the state and decrease the need for costly and intrusive bureaucratic social agencies. Families provide for their vulnerable members, produce new citizens with virtues such as loyalty and generosity, and engender concern for the common good. When families break down, crime and social disorder soar; the state must expand to reassert social control with intrusive policing, a sprawling prison system, coercive child-support enforcement, and court-directed family life.3 Without stable families, personal liberty is thus imperiled as the state tries to fulfill through coercion those functions that families, at their best, fulfill through covenantal devotion. “ (45)
It should be self evident that the breakdown of the family leads to pressure for government to provide the “glue” for society that the family provides naturally. Again, whether one is talking about marriage between a man and woman, divorce, sex outside of marriage, or homosexuality, biblical principles underpin these issues even when society downgrades them.
One may now ask “What kind of society has America become?” If our very political system according to our Founders depends on a moral and religious society, are we a secular or religious society? Since 1972 the white working class, ages 30-49, that say they have no religion have increased from 4% to 21% in 2010. In white working class America those who are disengaged from religion entirely increased to 59% of this group (22) . It is typically reported that 40% of the U.S. attend church regularly. However, a closer look determines actual church attendance is less that 20% (17.7% according to Olson and backed up by other scientific studies (46) ).
If religion underpins our society and spirituality is down, how has this “played out” in practice?
“The folks who make up God as they go are side-by-side with self-proclaimed believers who claim the Christian label but shed their ties to traditional beliefs and practices. Religion statistics expert George Barna says, with a wry hint of exaggeration, America is headed for "310 million people with 310 million religions." "We are a designer society. We want everything customized to our personal needs — our clothing, our food, our education," he says. Now it's our religion.” (47)
The above fits perfectly with the abolishment of absolute truth as revealed in the bible. Religion, along with morality becomes whatever a person defines it to be for himself. This comports with the cultural trends Barna depicts in his book “Futurecast.” He reveals the following trends: (48)
· From Excellence to Adequacy
· From Optimism to Pessimism
· From the Common Good to the Individual
· From Delayed Gratification to Instant Gratification
· From Respect to Incivility
· From the Christian God to an Amorphous God
· From Truth to Tolerance
· From Trust to Skepticism
· From Heroes to Celebrities
· From Knowledge to Experience
Increasingly Americans are basing their moral decisions on feelings rather than objective truth. Is it any wonder that this is reflected in the political sphere?
What shall we make of all of this? Our fundamental premise in this essay is that we have a political crisis in America caused by a moral, ethical, and religious crisis. Certainly, our political system as established by the Founders is under transition. Certainly, our religion, ethics, and morals have departed from those established by God in the bible. Certainly, our political and social institutions are experiencing the degradation that results from that deterioration. What does this mean for nation? And, should we be concerned as Christians? “It is natural for liberals to see it as the function of the government to help people in need and hence to support social programs, while it is equally natural for conservatives to see the function of the government as requiring citizens to be self-disciplined and self-reliant and, therefore, to help themselves.” (49) . It is also natural to simplify our problem by blaming it on simplistic “strict parent” (i.e. conservative) or “nurturing parent” (i.e. liberal) models of government. That however, is not the root of the problem. The real problem is not the fundamental system of government, but the morality and ethics of the people. Christians should and must be concerned about the basic world-view of their neighbors. Is this world-view based upon God and godly principles?
I am no fan of socialist or progressive policies. Fundamentally, I agree with Hayek that this is the path to slavery and despotism. (50) .
“Economic control is not merely control of a sector of a human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all of our ends. And whoever has sole control of the means must also determine which ends are to be served, which values are to be rated higher and which lower. In short, what men should believe and strive for.” (50)
A recent illustration of this dilemma is the controversy over the birth control, contraception, and the “morning after” pill.
In January 2012, the Obama administration announced that as part of the rollout of the health care reform law, most health insurance plans must cover contraceptives for women free of charge.The announcement of the new rule set off a political firestorm among religious and conservative groups, who denounced it as a threat to religious freedom…….“Never before,” Archbishop Dolan said, “has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.” (51)
Regardless of your specific opinion on normal use of contraceptives, this bill would also authorize the morning after pill which does terminate pregnancies. Here we have the classical class of government imposing their own view of what is “right”—just as Hayek predicted for an overreaching government. Please not[CW19] e, however, if “we the people” had basic moral and ethical respect for the sanctity of human life, no such provision would ever be enacted. Therefore, this political problem is fundamentally a moral and ethical problem.
Unfortunately, it a common belief among intellectuals that
“Oppression, poverty, injustice, and war are all products of existing institutions—problems whose solutions require changing these[CW20] institution, which in turn require changing the ideas behind those institutions.” Further, intellectuals believe “that solutions to these problems can be excogitated by intellections.” They see themselves as “an anointed elite, people with a mission to lead others in one way or another to better their lives”. John Stuart Mill thought these “thinking minds” should solve all problems. These “intellectual leaders whose deeper insights can liberate people from the needless restrictions of society” were solution to society’s ills. (52)
This view falls into one of the Bible’s prime sins—that of pride.
However, the above is not the only vision of society. There is another view, a fundamentally biblical one. In this view, the inherent flaws of human beings are the fundamental problem. Social structures whether created by liberals or conservatives will not solve this problem. The problem is in inherent in Man since the Fall. What then is the answer? The answer lies in returning to absolute truth. Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6 NIV).
Though some Christians are comfortable working through our existing political system to re-establish the foundations of government of our Founding, others are not. There has been great disagreement over this issue since the beginnings of the Restoration Movement. What is true is political structures alone will not make a moral and ethical society. Each Christian must decide this for himself. A Christian can be a Christian within any political system—whether tyrannical or democratic. That is not the issue.
What should Christians be concerned about today? Christians should be concerned about evil and sin in our world-individually, in our family, in our local community, and in our governing bodies. The virtues of industriousness, honesty, Christian marriage, and religion based upon the principles of Christ would not be problem in society if each individual looked to Christ for guidance. No, this does not eradicate sin. Sin is in the world. But, this is the way society can be transformed—by transforming each individual life.
What can individual Christians then do to help restore our societal morality? First, live daily as directed by Christ. Second, as[CW21] little as it sounds, Christians should attempt to bring their neighbor to Christ one individual at a time. That is the fundamental task of all Christians. Whether that is done by letting your light shine and being a part of a “light set on a hill” or some other explicit way depends upon the spiritual gifts God has given you. We will never reform America by just reforming our political institutions and structure. We will never solve our problems of poverty and crime through structural change alone. It is only Christ that can transform one’s life and through this means society will change.
There is, perhaps, a third possibility. Can Christian leaders who participate actively in governmental, business, and civil structures act as transformational agents for society? And, in doing so will the blessings of God accrue to that nation? The answer to this question is the subject of another essay.
Bibliography
1. Rasmussen Report. Rasmussen Reports: Importance of Issues. [Online] Mar 4, 2012. [Cited: Mar 17, 2012.] http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/importance_of_issues.
2. Stanford Encylcopedia of Philosophy. Aristotles Ethics. [Online] May 1, 2001. [Cited: Mar 17, 2012.] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/.
3. Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind. New York : Simon and Schuster, 1987.
4. Foucault, Michael. Religion and Culture. Manchester : Manchester University Press, 1999.
5. O'Farrell, Clare. Michel-foucault:Key Concepts. [Online] 2007. [Cited: Mar 17, 2012.] http://www.michel-foucault.com/concepts/index.html.
6. Weston, John Henry. Supreme Court of Canada homosexual "hate speech" case could be decisive for religious freedom. [Online] Oxt 13, 2011. [Cited: Mar 17, 2012.] Supreme Court of Canada homosexual ‘hate speech’ case could be decisive for religious freedom.
7. Weston, John-Henry. Judge Orders 'Gay' Agenda Taught to Christian Children. [Online] Oct 13, 2007. [Cited: Mar 17, 2017.] http://www.wnd.com/2007/02/40339/.
8. Adams, John. Message from John Adams to Officiers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of Mass. [Online] Oct 11, 1798. [Cited: April 25, 2012.] http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/115/Message_from_John_Adams_to_the_Officers_of_the_First_Brigade_1.html.
9. Sparks, Jared. The Writings of Benjamin Franklin. [Online] 1840. [Cited: April 24, 2012.] http://www.partyof1776.net/p1776/fathers/Franklin%20Benjamin/quotes/contents.html.
10. Washington, George. Washington's Farewell Address. [Online] Sept 1796. [Cited: April 24, 2012.] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21/pdf/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21.pdf.
11. The Free Dictionary. The Free Dictionary. [Online] [Cited: April 24, 2012.] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/virtue.
12. Franklin, Benjamin. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. [Online] [Cited: May 2, 2012.] http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page38.htm.
13. Washington, George. Washington's Inaugural Address of 1789. [Online] 1789. [Cited: May 2, 2012.] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/inaugtxt.html.
14. —. Washington's Farewell Address. [Online] Sept 19, 1796. [Cited: May 2, 2012.] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21/pdf/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21.pdf.
15. Virgina Convention. Virginia Declaration of Rights. [Online] June 12, 1776. [Cited: May 7, 2012.] http://www.constitution.org/bcp/virg_dor.htm.
16. John Adams et. al Massachusetts Constitutional Convention . Massachusetts Constition of 1780. [Online] June 15, 1780. [Cited: May 6, 2012.] the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality.
17. Bederman, David J. The Classical Foundations of the American Revolution: Prevailing Wisdom. [Online] 2008. [Cited: May 6, 2012.] http://books.google.com/books?id=fm8Gfi1TmkQC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=The+Founders+of+Constitution++and+Classical+Philosophy++Virtues&source=bl&ots=6zbdWIDrsB&sig=QGwxcppcEvXI-M4MKhp_xwniJy0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ndamT8WqEeahiQKT9M3IAg&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=The.
18. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. [book auth.] W.D. Ross. The Works of Aritotle Volumne II:Great Books of the Western World. Chicago : Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952, pp. 335-436.
19. Ryn, Claes G. Politcal Philosophy and the Unwritten Constitution --Humanities Institue. [Online] July 10, 2010. [Cited: May 6, 2012.] http://www.nhinet.org/unwrit.htm.
20. Madison, James. Federalist 51. [Online] Feb 6, 1788. [Cited: May 8, 2012.] http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm.
21. Bastiat, Federic. The Law. Auburin : Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 1850 Reprinted in 2007. 978-1-933550-14-5.
22. Murray, Charles. Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. New York : Crown Forum, 2012.
23. Grund, Francis Joseph. The Anericans in their Moral, Social, and Political Relations. London : Longman, et al, 1837.
24. Obama Creates a Nation of Food Stamp Dependents. www.investors.com. [Online] Mar 3, 2012. [Cited: July 7, 2012.] http://news.investors.com/article/605491/201203231859/obama-really-is-the-food-stamp-president.htm.
25. Tyrrell, William W. Beach and Patrick D. The 2012 Index of Dependence on Goverrment. Washington, D.C. : The Heritage Foundation, 2012. Heritaqe Center for Data Analysis.
26. Grossman, Mark. Political Corruption in America: An Enclyclopedia of Scandels,Power, and Greed. Santa Barbara : ABC-CLIO, 2003. 1-57607-060-3.
27. Wikepedia. List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes. Wikepedia. [Online] [Cited: August 13, 2012.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes.
28. Piff, Dacher Kelter and Paul. Greed Prevents Good. NY Times The Opinion Page. [Online] 03 15, 2012. [Cited: Sept 14, 2012.] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/15/does-morality-have-a-place-on-wall-street/greed-on-wall-street-prevents-good-from-happening.
29. Lenzer, Bernie. Bernie Madoff's 50 Billion Dollar Ponzi Scheme. Forbes.Com. [Online] 08 12, 2012. [Cited: 09 14, 2012.] http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/12/madoff-ponzi-hedge-pf-ii-in_rl_1212croesus_inl.html.
30. Smith, Greg. Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs. NY Times The Opinions Page. [Online] March 4, 2012. [Cited: Sept 14, 2012.] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all.
31. Smith, R.Jeffery. Republican Scandals Helped Pave the Way for Democratic Gains. Washingonpost.com Politics Elections. [Online] The Washington Post, Nov 8, 2006. [Cited: Sept 14, 2012.] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110800623.html.
32. Milken, Michele. Culture of Corruption. Washington D.C. : Regnery, 2009. 978-1-59698-109-6.
33. Frankel, Tamar. Trust and Honesty: America's Business Culture at a Crossroad. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2006. 13-978 -0-19-517173-0.
34. Andrew Libscomb. http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff15.txt. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson "Memorial Edition" Letter to John Taylor28 May 1816. [Online] Library of Congress, 1903. [Cited: 09 23, 2012.] http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff.htm.
35. Cover, Matt. Home News. GAO: Federal Spending Driving "Unsustainable" Debt. [Online] CNN News , April 12, 2012. [Cited: 09 21, 2012.] http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gao-federal-spending-driving-unsustainable-debt.
36. White House Budget Office. Home • The Administration • Office of Management and Budget. Historical Tables. [Online] 2012. [Cited: 09 26, 2012.] http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.
37. Hayward, John. Obama Gets Busted for Deficient Lies. Human Events Blot. [Online] Human Events, 09 26, 2012 . [Cited: 09 26, 2012.] http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/26/obama-gets-busted-for-deficit-lies/.
38. Princeton University Press. Political Hypocrisy:. [Online] Princeton University Press, 08 07, 212. [Cited: 09 26, 2012.] we should accept hypocrisy as a fact of politics, but without resigning ourselves to it, let alone cynically embracing it.
39. Tanner, Karen. NYC Schools dispensing morning-after pill to girls. Bloomberg Business Week News. [Online] Sept 12, 2012. [Cited: 09 27, 2012.] http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-09-26/nyc-schools-dispensing-morning-after-pill-to-girls.
40. Associated Press. Defense of Marriage Act before NY Appeals Court. Fox News Politics . [Online] Sept 27, 2012. [Cited: 09 27, 2012.] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/defense-marriage-act-before-ny-appeals-court/.
41. Messner, "Thomas M. Religion and Morality in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate. The Heritage Foundation -Family and Marriage. [Online] July 10, 2010 . [Cited: Sept 28, 2012.] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/07/religion-and-morality-in-the-same-sex-marriage-debate.
42. Blankenhorn, David. The Future of Marriage. 2007.
43. Loving v Virginia . 388 , V ir. : U.S. 1, 12, 1967.
44. Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe. The War Between the Sexes. The American Enterprise Institue. May June, 1966.
45. The Witherspon Institue. Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Pirnciples. The Witherspoon Institute Family Marriage and Democracy. [Online] August 2008. [Cited: Sept 28, 2012.] http://www.winst.org/family_marriage_and_democracy/WI_Marriage.pdf.
46. Lowry, Rebecca Barnes and Linda. 7 Startling Facts: An Up Close Look at Church Attendance in America. Church Leader.com. [Online] Outreach Magazine. [Cited: 09 28, 2012.] http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/139575-7-startling-facts-an-up-close-look-at-church-attendance-in-america.html.
47. Grossman, Cathy Lynn. More Americans Tailoring Religion to Fit Their Needs. USA Today -religion. [Online] USA Today, 09 13, 2011. [Cited: 09 28, 2012.] http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-14/america-religious-denominations/50376288/1.
48. Barna, George. Futurecast: What Todays Trends Mean for Tomorrow's World. Austin : Tyndale House Publishers, 2011. 978-1-4143-2406-7.
49. Lakoff, George. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago : Chicago Press , 2002. 0-226-46770-8.
50. Hayek, F.A. The Collected works of F.A. Hayek Vol 2: The Road to Serfdom. Routledge : University of Chicago, 2007 Original 1944. 978-0-226-32054-0.
51. Contraception and Insurance Coverage. The New York Times: Times Topics. [Online] The New York Times, May 21, 2012. [Cited: Sept 28, 2012.] http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/contraception/index.html.
52. Sowell, Thomas. Intellectuals and Society. New York : Basic Books, Intelluals and Society. 978-0-465-02103.
[1] The following are other examples of listings of “virtues” in the New Testament: Mark 7:21–22 (cf. Matt 15:19); elsewhere in the Pauline letters at Rom 1:29–31; 13:13; 1 Cor 5:9–11; 6:9–10; 2 Cor 12:20–21; Eph 4:31–32; 5:3–5; Col 3:5–8; 1 Tim 1:9–10; 2 Tim 3:2–5; Titus 3:3; Jas 3:13–18 (esp. v 17); 1 Peter 2:1; 4:3, 15; and Rev 21:8; 22:14–15. A summary listing of vices contained in these scriptures follows: sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, gossip, God-haters, insolence, boastfulness, dissension, jealousy, swindlers, drunkards, cheaters, fits of rage, selfish ambition, disorder, bitterness, anger, obscenity, coarse joking, impurity, lust, evil desires, lying, unholy, irreligious, homosexuality, lovers of money, abusive, disobedient to parents, unforgiving, brutality, treachery, rashness, foolishness, hatred, covetous, idolatry
