Dr Greg Bahnsen - Hot Potatoes: Do Gays Have Rights? (Part 2)

Questions of welfare and warfare are hot potatoes in our society, then the question of homosexual rights is a scalding one. And I'm very, very conscious of the fact of how emotional and how prejudicial discussions of homosexual rights can be. The fact that we have but a short time will not allow me to say all the things I might like to say by way of qualification and an explanation. But I do want you to know that, as I said at the beginning of my last lecture, the Christian's approach to homosexuality does involve an element of compassion. I really do believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has the power to deliver homosexuals from their sin. And I really think that's the most loving and helpful thing that you can say to a person. I don't think that it's helpful to. To tell people this is a condition, that this is your biological makeup or some kind of genetic deficiency, or it's somehow programmed into you by your nurturing, whatever it may be, and thereby suggest that this kind of bondage or slavery is something you can never escape from. God has the power to break all the bondage of sin. And God has a heart often not seen in other human beings. But God has a heart whereby he's willing graciously to forgive those who have involved themselves even in this form of perversion. But the fact that I as a Christian hold out good news and hope for homosexuals doesn't mean that my attitude with respect to homosexual rights in society must be one of tolerance. You know, if compassion and love were to be confused with tolerance, then we'd allow our children to do anything they want, walk out in the middle of a busy highway, because who are we to restrict their freedom? If we love them, we let them get killed, right? No. Love and tolerance are not the same thing. Tough love sometimes says tough things need to be done, particularly in society where God himself has spoken. And who of us as God's people, who of us that bow the knees of the Lord Jesus Christ would ever say that? When God has said in his Word that homosexuals are to be punished by the state, well, God, that just won't work today. Or God, maybe in a past generation that would have been all right. Or God, don't you want to rethink that? Or our tradition doesn't favor that. Jesus said to the Pharisees of his day, you make void the word of God by your traditions. We as Christians do not want to bring American tradition. We don't want to bring our preconceptions. We don't want to bring our private opinions in any such way as to distort or to curb what God himself has taught in his holy word. And so I begin with an affirmation of love for godly love for those who are in the bondage of homosexual sin, and a promise that God's promise that they can be delivered from it. But that doesn't determine the issue. That is my assignment tonight. And that is what should we in a social setting say about alleged homosexual rights? Midge Dector once wrote, and I think this is an excellent starting point for our consideration. We Americans are living in what might be called a culture of rights. With a new one born every day, we are a culture of rights. Every wish of some sizable group seems to have earned the status of a basic human right. People will tell us health care is a right. They'll tell us blacks have rights, women have rights, the handicapped have rights, children have rights, renters have rights, animals have rights. That's a good one. Students have rights, workers have rights. And what do we have rights to? We have a right to housing, a right to childcare, a right to education, right to a job, a right to welfare, a right to a minimum wage, a right to die, or a right to die with dignity, a right to government funded abortions. And on and on it goes. And I want to maintain tonight that this is first of all a travesty of language to talk about all those things being rights. And secondly, I would argue it shows a revulsion to rationality to talk that way. By no stretch of the imagination, if you understand what rights are all about, can all those things I've mentioned be rights? Whenever someone talks about rights in our present day, I don't think anyone can be really sure what is clearly meant by the term. And so Midge Dector observes, further, it means everything and anything. When Americans speak of rights, they are usually referring to the feeling that it's the responsibility of something called society to make their lives in one way or another less of a struggle, less of a gamble, less of an inconvenience, more worth living. But a society which thinks of every desirable thing in life as a right is a community that has lost the ability to distinguish among what is just, what is unjust, and what is neither. If we're going to answer the troubled question about homosexual rights, we're going to have to spend a few minutes, first of all, analyzing what it means for something to be a right not to be right, but to be a right to be a right means it's a matter of justice. It means that you must be protected in the performance or pursuit of something in if it is your right. Justice is violated when your rights are violated. And so understanding what is meant by a right is the first step toward understanding justice in the civil state. Put it very simply at the beginning, and I'm going to go back and do it with a little more detail for you. Very simply, we have to ask the question, where do we get our rights? Where do we get our rights? We just look them up in a book somewhere. Somebody had the opinion you have the right to. You have the right to. That won't do any good because you can look up another book that says you don't have that right or you have contrary rights. Most people, when they're confronted with the question of the source of our rights, will answer, well, the state must, must be the source of our rights. And I guess if you heard my first lecture this evening, you know that my soul is revolved by that kind of talk. And if you're a Christian, your soul should be revulsed by it. And even if you're just a plain old American who understands the philosophy of the state that was at the founding of our country, you should be revulsed by that kind of talk. As you know, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights proclaim that human beings have certain rights, broadly the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Specifically, rights are detailed like Congress may not prohibit the freedom of the press or of assembly, etc. Etc. And according to the teaching of God's word as well as the practice of this country, or at least the stated intention to be practiced in this country. All men have the same rights. Rights are a matter of impartiality. And these rights do not derive their legitimacy from the generosity of the framers of the Declaration or the writers of the Constitution. All men have these rights impartially, and they do not derive their legitimacy from the generosity of those who were writing about them. Rights are not understood in a Christian context, nor were they understood in terms of our founding documents as grants or indulgences. That is, the state doesn't say, we grant you the right to have free speech. You know why it's not a grant from the state? Because what the state gives, the state can take away. And so a right is not something the state State can determine. A right is to use the language of the Framers Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, inalienable. It's something that cannot be taken away. Rights limit the power of the government. Grants and indulgences expand the power of the government. And so it should be obvious in our own country, from the history of those founding documents and the arguments that went into their being established, that rights were understood as limitations on the state safeguards against personal liberty being violated. Rights were not something that the state dreams up and grants to us. And so rights as they're understood in our historic context mean not benefit rights, that is somehow that you have a right to somebody else's provision for your housing or your education or your food or whatever it may be, but rather they are freedom rights. You have the freedom to pursue something, worship or the press or assembly, or to bear arms, whatever it may be. Remember, what the government gives, the government can take away, and therefore our rights to free association, the press, worship, etc. Etc. Our rights are not a grant or an indulgence from the government. They are inalienable. If the government could remove those rights, then it would not have been a right after all, it would not have been inherently yours, and there would have been no duty on the part of others to forbear you in your chosen liturgy or your chosen whatever you want to read, whatever it may be. And so very simply, all I'm trying to get at here is that if there are rights at all, not just benefits from the government, if there are rights, then they cannot be derived from our political authorities. Well, if rights don't come from somebody just writing down their opinions and rights don't come from political authority, then we have to ask the obvious question, where do rights come from? If I have a right to free speech, you have a duty to forbear my speaking. You may not like it, you may not want to stick around. You can get up from your chair and walk out and say, I don't want to hear this, but if I have a right to free speech, which you don't have the right to do, is to make it impossible for me to speak, to suppress my expression of my opinion. Therefore, anytime a person has a right, there is a corresponding moral duty on other people. And what I'm asking is, where does that moral duty come from? Where do we find our moral duties? This is an easy one for Christians. I'm not surprised at all that poli sci departments around the country are totally befuddled by it. By the way, most departments of political science have realized that rights can't come from the state. That doesn't make any sense to say that. But they don't know what else to say. What did the framers of our founding documents Say these inalienable rights were given to us. Right. We have been endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. That's not a popular opinion. It's not politically correct today, but it's the only thing that is politically correct, understand me? It may not be the suitable thing to say if you want to be popular, but it is the only thing that makes sense to say. It is the truth that rights are something with which we are endowed by our Creator. And the reason for that is that once you understand what we mean by the term a right, when you understand that my having a right is translated as your having a duty, then the question is, what's the source of our moral duties? And the Christian is the head start on this because we know that all moral duties come from God. For there to be any rights whatsoever, you need a transcendent and personal source for your law. A transcendent personal source. A source of law that goes beyond our present situation, which goes beyond our own human limits, our own individual opinions and proclivities and so forth. We need a transcendent personal source of moral law. And as Christians we believe God is that transcendent source of law, that his character has been revealed to us in his laws. The Bible does not have what many Christians today have, and that is kind of like an allergic hostility to God's law. The Bible always speaks of the law of God in terms of its reflecting God's character as something wonderful and good, pure, certainly not to be disregarded, something we should want to follow after the inward man. Indeed, it is a sign of being a new covenant believer that the law of God is written on your very heart, out of which are the issues of life. Jesus, when he came into this world, did not come to destroy the law or the prophets he said he came to fulfill. And therefore not the slightest jot or tittle would pass away from the law until everything has happened, until heaven and earth pass away, in which case anybody who teaches the breaking of the least of these commandments will be least in the kingdom of heaven. And so the law as it reflects God's holy character is not something for us to be against, to be negative about, to be hostile. Of course, if the law is misused, as the Pharisees tended to do, as the Judaizers certainly were doing, when the law is made into something, God doesn't intend it to be a way of salvation, a way of gaining self righteousness before God, then the law, that use of the law is a very ugly thing and that is condemned but you'll never find the Bible condemning the law. The misuse of the law. Yes, the misapprehension of the law, mistakes with respect to its place in the way of salvation, that God's holy word is never criticized by God. Aren't you glad? Because, you see, if God ends up criticizing what he has said previously and we can't count on what he's saying today, he may end up criticizing that later too. This is the sad thing in this whole controversy about law and grace in the evangelical community. Evangelicals who think that in the New Testament God is critical of the law of the Old Testament don't realize they've just undermined all hope of salvation for them. Well, any assurance of salvation for themselves in that, for all we know, a few days before the final judgment, God will say, no, that wasn't such a good idea. The gospel abrogated too. But God doesn't do that. God doesn't alter what goes forth from his mouth. And so the law which God has revealed as a reflection of his holy character, we maintain is the foundation of our moral duties. Now, if it's the foundation of our moral duties, that is, it's what lays the duty on you not to kill me, not to silence me, not to burn down my house, and so forth, then it turns out that the law of God is the source of my rights. It is the standard by which I understand justice in the world as well. And so we have to ask what is meant by a right? And secondly, what's the source of the moral duty that is communicated when you utter a right? And the Christian answer is, we need the transcendent moral authority of God. And to back up this opinion, I'd like to quote none other than Harry S. Truman. But those of you who know my writing and my lectures will be shocked by that. I have something good to say about Harry Truman. You know, I don't know whether he really believed this, but what he said at one point in his career, well, I'll tell you, I can't quibble with it. Here's what he said. I quote, the fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the mount. He's a theonomist. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State Yoo hoo. Amen, Harry. That's right. If you don't see rights, that is more broadly justice in the sociopolitical sphere as being defined by God's moral code, in the end, there will never be rights for anybody except the state that has the authority to enforce them. And so, as a Christian, I believe that rights depend upon our moral code. Secondly, I believe our moral code is derived from God's revealed word. Now I can answer the question, do homosexuals have civil rights? All depends on what kind of rights you're talking about. Do they have a right to a speedy trial? Sure they do. Do they have a right to legal representation? Sure they do. So they have the right to be judged by a jury of their peers. Bible doesn't quite put it that way. But those principles, I think are biblical principles. But as you know, that isn't what homosexuals are interested in. Homosexuals who are campaigning for their civil rights are not talking about the right to a speedy trial. They're talking about the right to not have to go to trial for their chosen lifestyle. And so we have to ask ourselves some further questions. Now I'm going to go back and retrace my steps. I want to be more detailed so we can get a more precise answer. At the end of our reasoning process, let's ask what is meant by this expression, a civil right? And I'm going to delineate for you three different definitions of civil right. And then I'm going to talk to you about the relationship between these three concepts. And then I'm going to lay on you some real obvious biblical material. And if you've understood the logic and the definitions I've given you, then you'll know how to answer the question at the end. Just so you know where we're going. First of all, civil right, that expression, a civil right, means at least three different things in our contemporary political atmosphere. Sometimes by civil rights we're referring to what I'm now going to call freedom rights. By civil right we will mean a freedom right. In such cases, a person is free to act without coercion, and others have the duty of forbearance toward his decisions, and the state refrains from interfering with his behavior. As I told you earlier, examples would be the civil right, that is the freedom right to free assembly, free speech, private property. If I have a right to my property, that means you may not interfere with my use of the property, and the state doesn't interfere in the use of my property or the selling of my property, or what have you so we have freedom rights. But now secondly, this expression civil right can refer to what I'll now term a benefit right, a benefit right. In such cases, a person is said to have a right to receive something from others and those others correspondingly have the duty to provide it to satisfy that right. Here we might have as an example the alleged right of the disabled or elderly to welfare provisions. To say that they have a civil right to welfare is to say they have a benefit right. And somebody who, I don't know, somebody has the duty to provide that for them. To put it broadly, welfare rights, benefit rights assert that some people have the right to live at the expense of others. I know that sounds harsh, but that's what it comes down to. If you want to call welfare charity, I'll praise you for that and I'll support you. I'll try to urge the church to do more of it and Christian people to do more of it. But when you call it a right, you're now making it a matter of justice and therefore a duty of others. And the amazing thing is anybody who says that, it's said everywhere in our liberal poli sci departments in this country, but no one answers the question, well, if it is the duty to provide for these people, then whose duty is it? Of course, in our country the way to answer it is, well, it must be impartial and universal. Therefore it's everybody's duty and amazing everybody, everybody in this country has a duty, has a duty to support me if I should become disabled. Well, I'm not here. I've already talked about welfare and I think the absurdity of that point of view. But I just find that just remarkable that anybody who thinks it through clearly could believe that, that everybody in the, in this country has a duty to support me. I'd like to believe they love me and some people will do it. But I'm talking about a duty. Now this is the second sense of civil right understood as a benefit right. And finally, civil rights are spoken of in our day and age sometimes as non discrimination rights. Non discrimination rights. To possess a non discrimination right means that others are obligated not to regard adversely something about you when you desire employment or housing, education or public accommodations. So that if a person has a civil right, understood as a non discrimination right. If a person has a civil right pertaining to skin color or nationality or sex, it means that these considerations must not be used to discriminate against that person when it comes to extending services and opportunities. We have before us three notions of A civil, a freedom right, a benefit right and a non discrimination right. Ironically, those who advocate civil rights in the second and third census, those who advocate benefit rights and non discrimination rights actually reduce civil rights. In the first sense, it's logically inescapable. If you believe that someone has a benefit right or a non discrimination right to some degree, you are going to limit the liberty of other people, their liberty over against the organized power of the state. And so that again shows us how important it is to have an objective standard crime where individual freedom, that is a standard whereby we know where individual freedom can be forcibly curtailed by civil officials. If somebody has or group of people have benefit rights, then to some degree we don't have complete freedom over our property. This stands to reason. That benefit is going to be satisfied by taking property, money or real property or goods from others to satisfy that need. Moreover, if you look at the third sense of non discrimination right, if somebody has a right not to be discriminated against, and I own the factory that's hiring people, then my freedom, my freedom rights are curtailed to the degree that this person has a non discrimination right. There's really no way around this. Rights in senses two and three automatically curtail rights in the sense number one. Now, unless we set these different senses of civil rights out and clearly differentiate them, any discussion of homosexual rights will quickly become confused. To maintain that homosexuality is a civil right might mean one of three things. It might mean first of all that it's a freedom right. People have a right to pursue homosexual relations. Second, and the state ought not to refrain. Excuse me, ought to refrain. Let's get that right. The state ought to refrain from bringing sanctions against that pursuit. So homosexuality is a freedom right. Or secondly, it might mean people have a right to receive homosexual favors and others have the duty to provide them. That's what it would mean if homosexuality is a benefit right. Thank God no one that I know of is arguing that at this point. Or thirdly, it might mean that homosexuality is a non discrimination right. People have a right to be granted employment, housing, whatever it may be, without discrimination against their homosexuality. And others have the duty not to regard adversely that sexual preference in such situations. Okay, so now let's look at the logic of the situation. The relationship of sense one to sense two to sense three. And let's take an example that I hope will be clear to everybody. We have laws on our civil books in every state against child molestation. And I don't think anybody in the contemporary. Well, I take that back There are a few, but they're marginal. Most people are not going to have any trouble with that. We believe that the state ought to punish child molestation. It's a very horrible thing. I hate to even use it as an illustration for fear that you might think that I'm light hearted about it. I'm not. I use it because I think this is an illustration you'll all tie in with. No problem about this. Now, is it logically possible for child molestation to be a non discrimination right? And the answer is no. Because in the first place it would have to be a freedom right in sense number one before it could be a non discrimination right in sense number three. Want me to walk this through for you? Let's say someone comes to your factory and says, I'd like a job here. You've been advertising. And so you try to do a little bit of background. And in the process of interviewing the person through person says, you know, one of the things I love to do is to rape children. You say, excuse me, did you say what I thought you said? Person says, yes. He said, well then get out, get off my property, I don't want to see you. Now. This person says, well, that wasn't very nice of that person. So they go down to the police station and they say, you know what? Just because I raped children, they wouldn't hire me over there. You know what the police are going to say? You do what? We have a room for you back here. We'd like to get some more information. Now I'm not trying to be cute here. It's obvious that if something is a crime, if some kind of behavior is criminal in its character, it cannot be a non discrimination right. You always have the right to discriminate against criminal behavior. That's just the logic of the situation. To put it simply, non discrimination presupposes non criminality. Now the question is what sorts of things ought to be crimes from a Christian perspective? No one will be able to escape appealing to some definable moral principle or system when he comes to the question of civil rights. Because civil rights, even if you're talking about non discrimination rights, civil rights presuppose that you understand what is criminal and what is not. If you don't understand what is criminal, then you can't say what is and what is not a non discrimination right. We simply must not, we cannot overlook the interdependence of civil law and ethics, the interdependence of civil law and ethics. And I say that to you Christians who will often be cowed, or the world will try to cow you to, to make you toe the line here. And they say, now wait a minute, you're bringing your personal ethical system to bear here. We're talking about public morality. And what I'm pointing out is you can't help but do that. No one can help but do that. It's not a question of whether you'll appeal to a moral code. It's only a question of which moral code you're going to use. And from a Christian standpoint, that's not negotiable. When the Lord lays down his commands, we don't say, well, maybe, or well, you know, there are other gods that have said something to say and we're going to negotiate with them. Now, what does Psalm 2 say? To the kings and judges of the earth, kiss the sun, serve Jehovah with fear, or you will perish in the way his wrath will soon be kindled. And so, without apology, we say to all the magistrates and judges of the earth, your civil obligation is to obey Jehovah, the King of kings. You must bow to his son and obey his word. It's impossible to avoid bringing morality into the question of civil criminality or civil rights. Civil justice, there's an interdependence of civil law and ethics. Now let's look at this category of non discrimination rights again. Christians have good reason to oppose making homosexuality a non discrimination right. While Christians feel that discrimination based on involuntary factors like heredity or physical conditions would be immoral, we take a much different attitude toward actions that are sinful, that is to say, willful transgressions of the law of God. And in the case of some sins, in some situations, Christians will want to discriminate against those guilty of the sin. And that's why we don't usually hire an unrepentant gambler to be the company treasurer that governs how it treats us. Moreover, people who think that way will create a favored class of people who gain an unfair position in the job market because by making your sexual perversion known, the homosexual is likely to be hired over other candidates, lest the employer be taken to court with a discrimination suit. He can justify taking Christian evangelists off the television and radio because they condemn homosexuality. He can sponsor federally funded programs that will advance through the public schools and libraries educational material exonerating homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. You know that is happening if you don't wake up and smell the coffee. We're way behind the ball on this one. He can present a different norm and example than that of heterosexual monogamy to school children, thus directing them toward ungodly attitudes and toward ungodly experimentation. He can insist that television programs which present homosexuality as natural or desirable not be precluded from public broadcast. He can utilize public money to make housing available to homosexual couples. On and on it goes. In short, by imposing his moral perspective on others and establishing homosexuality as a non discrimination right, such a person effectively discriminates against Christians, depriving them of their protections and freedoms and giving competitive advantage to homosexuals, impairing the standards and training of the Christian home. Now there must be a moral warrant for that kind of discrimination. A moral warrant which makes it illegal for a Christian to attempt to live consistently according to his moral standards in social relations. On the other hand, if the Christian discriminates against practicing homosexuals and deems their behavior criminal, then he will require an offer moral warrant for his attitude and approach. In one way or another, then someone's freedom is going to be curtailed and an appeal in curtailing freedom, an appeal will have to be made to the personal moral convictions of the person curtailing that freedom. Okay, it's something that is not popular today, but it's one of these things that you. It's just not going to be digested and go away. It's one of these hard kernel truths of social morality you need to know. Every social order must be established on common religious principles, some kind of commonality, which is to say some type of common lifestyle, or to use a more secular term, some kind of common morality. If you don't have a common religious or moral principle in your society, then you have chaos. That's true. What I've just said is true even for secular religion. For you see, secular religion will itself enforce its morality. It will enforce its morality on those who believe along with it and enforce it on those who do not believe the secular morality. Okay, so you'll find in the case of honest politicians in our day, that's a small group. But in the case of a few straightforward honest politicians, if you say I think homosexuals ought to be discriminated against, I have the right to do that, the answer is going to be we believe that's immoral for you to do. It's immoral for you to discriminate against homosexuals. Now that's a mistaken opinion. And I'm willing to publicly debate that and try to refute it and so forth. But all I want you to see tonight is that that opinion is imposed. Mistaken or not, it's an imposed opinion. And so if as Christians we believe homosexuals ought to be punished by the state for public behavior, then people will say, you're imposing your morality on us. But don't you see? The logic of this after analysis is such that the secular morality is going to be imposed on us. Imposition is not going to be put aside. It's only going to be a question of what you impose. And so now we have to ask the question, do homosexuals have freedom rights? Excuse me, non discrimination rights. Do they have the right to non discrimination? If they do have the right to non discrimination, my sense three, that presupposes that they have a freedom right, that is that they can engage in homosexual relations, they are free to do so, and no one has the duty to say anything or do anything about it. And then what does the Bible say about that? Not very popular today. But God has revealed in his holy law that the state has the right to punish the practice of homosexuality. I'm not talking about attitudes or desires or dispositions or any of that kind of psychological nonsense. I'm only talking about external behavior which is provable in a court of law. And the Bible says that magistrates are to punish those who engage in external homosexual relations. By the way, the penalty is death. Now we can get into a discussion, maybe an entire another lecture would be necessary to address the principles of whether it should be the death penalty for homosexuals or under what conditions it should be the death penalty. But I don't expect you to agree with me or disagree with me on that particular question. I just want you to see that the Bible says the state can punish homosexual behavior. The state is under obligation to do so. And you know what the apostle Paul tells us in Romans 1? That homosexuals know the ordinance of God. That those who commit such things are worthy of death. Paul says all men know that, whether they've read the Old Testament law or not. They know it in their heart of hearts. And in 1 Timothy 1, the apostle Paul tells us the law is good. We know that the law is good if it's used lawfully. And he goes on to give us his example of a lawful use of the law of God, that it's there to restrain certain kinds of criminal behavior. Murderers of fathers and mothers, perjurers and so forth. And he includes in that list the laws there to restrain perverts, homosexual perversion. And so the Bible in the Old and the New Testament tells us that the law of God has been given and it's universally binding. It's been given so that the state may punish and therefore restrain this kind of behavior. Now if the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a crime, external acts of homosexuals are a crime to be punished, then it's not a freedom right. No one has the right, no one is free to do what is criminal. You with me? But as I've taught you already and I hope convinced you, if it is a crime in a Christian perspective to engage in homosexual behavior, it cannot be a non discrimination right. What's our Christian answer to the hot potato of whether homosexuals have civil rights? Today? The answer is God teaches that they do not have civil rights to engage in that kind of behavior. That in fact it should be criminal and punished by the state. And nevertheless they do have the right to be treated as any other accused criminal does. They have all the rights that are guaranteed to citizens for a speedy trial, representation at the trial and so forth and so on. So I want to be careful not to say they don't have civil rights. What I do want to say is homosexuality is not a civil right. Thank you.

First question it dealt with the most of these are the topic by the way. If there's any other questions out there, please just bring them on up and drop them here. But starting with this one from the first lecture. When government exercises authority beyond biblical limits with the power of the sword and the church is denied the prerogative of the sword, then how is the state to be checked and in parentheses, or are you a peacenik?

The state is to be checked in the sense that we exercise our freedoms to one preach against its abuses and to educate our children and our churches so that they will exercise authority in society to change the abuses of the state. And the state may not take away our freedom to do that. As Christians we will not be silenced. However, I'm going to say equally with equal firmness I guess, that we as Christians do not bring about social reformation by appealing to violent principles or the use of the sword. I do not believe that Christians should be interested in fomenting rebellion or revolution, stockpiling weapons to that end and so forth. I have to say that because you'd be amazed how often when I go around the country people think, well that's what Dr. Bonson thinks, boy, we ought to be waiting for the day when we can take over. Well, I don't believe that for a minute. Unless you mean we're using the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, and with that the church will never be silenced. I also have confidence in the sovereignty of God, the church will never be stamped out.

On the issue of warfare. A little more particular question on the analogy of a person not having the right to interfere in the home of a neighbor. A nation doesn't have the right to interfere in the problems of another country. But what if the neighbor asks your help, in parentheses, if he's being burgled or attacked? And so with a nation, what if a nation asks for our help because it is being unjustly attacked?

Okay, let's remember that the attempt to use this analogy for whatever conclusion you want to draw is wrong because it's disanalogous. It's disanalogous because when my neighbor ask me to come over and help him, then I make the choice about my property, my well being, my blood, whatever it may be, and whether I'm going to use it. But when a state involves itself in a violent confrontation, the state is choosing for other people that they will give up their lives or give up their safety or give up their money or their property. What have you to do this. So the fact that Kuwait, to take a contemporary illustration, the fact that Kuwait requests the United States to step in in terms of Iraq suppression, that may not be historically accurate. We may have stepped in anyway. But let's just play it out, you know, in terms of a pure hypothetical example, the fact that Kuwait asked us to step in, you have to remember what they're asking is, to put it bluntly, George Bush, will you please send Dr. Bonson's sons over here to die in behalf of our, you know, getting Iraqi oppression off our backs? And God has not authorized George Bush to make the decision for my sons. Now let me tell you what Kuwait could do. Not that you'll see this practically. Kuwait could advertise in major magazines and newspapers in this country for American young men who want to come over and help them. And maybe one or more of my sons will decide he believes in that cause. But it's one thing for me to choose to go help my neighbor or my son to choose to go help Kuwait, and another thing for George Bush to tell me I have to or my son has to. And that's what I'm talking about.

Dr. Bonson, when sharing these principles with people many times regarding the welfare issue, that would be great if all Christians believe the way you do, but they don't, so the state has to take over.

What's your response? Well, the state doesn't have to do what's wrong ever. The fact that Christians and many non Christians disagree with me only shows that we have a big educational task ahead of us. We need to be changing the outlook of people. I didn't give this lecture tonight because I have some kind of vision, some kind of, you know, diluted grandiose notion that maybe next month all you people are going to go out and we're going to change and we're not going to have welfare anymore as we now know it. I presented this lecture because I don't know how many are here tonight, but if all of you will go home and you'll teach this to people that you know and to your children and they do likewise, that the day may come in some generations that we'll finally not just vote in a Republican majority to do a little fine tuning on the welfare state will actually vote for politicians who are principled enough to say this isn't the state's business at all, but it isn't going to happen for a while. On the other hand, if it never happens, we have to tell the truth. And tell the truth about justice and morality from a Christian perspective means we condemn the welfare state. It is a beast. And the fact that it's not going to happen right away doesn't mean that we shouldn't get started. And so that's why I gave this lecture. Now, the fact that a lot of Christians support the welfare state shows us how bad the preaching of our churches has become. Most pastors, to be very honest with you, and I don't say this self righteously, and I'm not trying to push myself up by pushing other people down, but most pastors are absolutely befuddled when it comes to thinking through social theory. You know, they think it's good enough, you know, to talk about kind of a fudge theology of salvation for people. And then they're in a position week by week in the pulpit to proclaim God's word when it touches on such issues, but they have no idea what they're talking about. So they fall back on really sloganized thinking about loving your neighbor and this, that and the other, without looking at how God defines loving your neighbor. And so I want to suggest this is not perhaps what the questioner was looking for, but I want to suggest to you that if we're ever going to see that day when our society is reformed along the lines I'm talking about, it's not going to happen until we see our churches reformed and the preaching of God's word becomes more cogent and more faithful. So now what's going to check the state? If Christians are Not preaching and not being effective and so forth. The answer is. Well, two answers. One, probably nothing in terms of what you're looking for or if God is gracious, he will judge the state. State. Sometimes societies get so immoral, so far gone when it comes to rebellion against God that he simply wipes them out. You didn't ask me here to become a prophet of doom, but I just asked you to consider God and his holy character and his impartiality. If God did not spare Sodom and Gomorrah, if God did not spare Hitler's Germany, why do you think he will spare us?

When does a Christian say the state is out of its jurisdiction? So I'm not going to work, I'm not going to pay my taxes.

The good news is I've got an oven mitt for these hot potatoes. So we have an answer. The bad news is we don't get to impose our answer without persuasion. So in the process of trying to bring reform in the state, we need to continue to pay our taxes. How do I know that? Jesus said so. Jesus said so about one of the most oppressive regimes imaginable in his day, the Roman Empire. And so Christians must not foment revolution. Christians must not become tax rebels. Christians need to be willing, and you're not going to like this, to be sheep for the slaughter. That's what John Calvin wrote to the King of France when he wrote the Institutes of the Christian Religion. He said, we appeal to you to be reasonable and understand that we're not troublemakers and you shouldn't be persecuting us. But if you decide to persecute us, we're going to be true to God and we'll take whatever you give us. And Christians need to have that kind of attitude. We need to be willing to be sheep for the slaughter if we have to. God will take care of, of bringing the results in his time. I do not believe in tax revolt. I do not believe in stockpiling guns and looking for the revolution. I don't believe that's the Christians manner of social reform. I do believe in having a voice that will not be silenced and cannot be refuted. Work on those skills and maybe we'll see some change in this day.

Dr. Bonson, related to the role of government, the proper role of government. And, and if you could do this briefly, we're not asking you to fit in another lecture here in a few minutes, but what is your view of drug laws from a biblical perspective?

All right, now some of you are going to be very unhappy with me. So let me just make it, you know, doubly as bad so we get all of it out there. You might as well ask about what? About laws, about pornography as well.

Okay?

Because I've taken a very hard line here that many people would say, well, that's, you know, kind of like conservative. You know, you're just baptizing your conservative prejudices. Well, you didn't listen to the lecture if you believe that. Because I argued my point from the Bible and biblical and theological principle, and I just happened to think on these points. Conservatives are right. I equally believe conservatives are wrong when it comes to having the state interfere with respect to drugs and pornography. Now, why would I say that? First of all, I don't say that because I think drugs and pornography are really okay and we shouldn't be all that upset. I think they're horrible. But what's the principle that I've been teaching you tonight? The state may interfere only where God has authorized it to. That leads to the state not being involved in welfare, not being involved in foreign intervention apart from self defense, and the state should discriminate against homosexuals and so forth. So it leads to a lot of conclusions that we as Christians may like. But if we're going to be faithful, if we're going to be disinterested in applying the teaching of scripture, as far as I can see, I'm open to be taught here. But I don't see that the Bible authorizes the state to regulate what anybody reads. And I don't believe the Bible authorizes the state to regulate what you ingest in your system to feel high. Now then somebody's going to say, what if a person gets high or drunk and goes out and does some terrible thing? And although I don't happen to believe this view of human psychology, some people say, what if somebody reads this pornography and goes out and rapes somebody? Well, the answer to that is rape is forbidden and should be punished. You know, and if you operate machinery that leads to the destruction of human life and you chose to do it in that way, then you have to be punished. So in other words, I don't believe that public drunkenness should be punished by the state. However, if you drive a car and you kill somebody, I believe you ought to be executed. So it may sound light on one hand, but it's very, very firm on the other. And so back to the point. With respect to drug laws, I don't see that the Bible authorizes that. I do believe in trying to oppose the use of drugs Recreational use of drugs. And I believe that the ordained authorities for that are the home, the church, the marketplace. That is. I believe that if I ran a factory and I had somebody working for me who was on drugs, I have the right to fire him. Say, if you don't get your life in order, you don't work here. I have the right to govern my children as a pastor. I have a right to discipline a member of my congregation who's on drugs, that sort of thing. So I certainly believe in opposing that. And pornography, you could put in the same position. It's just I don't believe the state has the right to do that. And by the state trying to regulate or actually interdict the use of drugs, what the state has done is made the drug culture what it is today. That's a very sad thing, but it's like welfare. Unintended consequences, but they're dreadful ones. You see, if drugs were freely available in the sense of legally available to people, then you wouldn't have people who are hooked on drugs having to break into your home or accost you in the supermarket parking lot for the change in your purse and so forth, because they would be able to afford the drugs. And people say, but they're destroying their lives. Yes, they are. There's no question about it. But God did not make the state the Messiah. There's only one person who's going to save a drug addict from destroying himself, and that's the Lord Jesus Christ. And when the state tries to do it, it just creates a culture of drugs and more violence for the rest of us. And so to answer your question, I really could lecture on this at length. On pornography or drugs. From a biblical standpoint, I hate recreational drugs, I hate pornography, I hate their effects. But I don't believe God has made the state the policeman in these two areas.

On to the second lecture here, at least for one question. God does not condemn ontological distinctions, I.e. born blind, white, Negro, lame blue eyes, whatever he does condemn ethical. Is this a sound argument when discussing.

The question of I was born a homosexual? Yes, I believe it is sound. And if you'll pick up my book on homosexuality, I have an entire chapter on this issue of dispositional analyses of homosexuality, where people will say, well, that's just the way I am. The fact that God condemns it shows that there is some sense in which it's a deliberate choice, okay? One for which you will be held responsible. If homosexuals were to get away with that argument, if we're going to be consistent in Our Christian theology and reasoning, then I want to protect my heterosexual rights to lust because, you know, I was born that way. Have you ever heard men talk like that? I just can't help it. It's in my blood. You know, I see a woman, I got to think those things. So what's the next step? Well, yeah, I realize I shouldn't be beating my children and so forth, but, you know, that just. That's just in. Forgive me, anybody out here, but I've heard this in my pastoral study. That's just in my Latin blood. That's just the way we are. You know what? If that's just the way you are, even if it were true, you know what the Bible says, Then you got to change. You got to change the way you are. Oh, I can't help it. That isn't a biblical response. But in the end, I think your logic is right. If God condemns it, it is not something that's just so built into you they can't help it. Last caveat. Somebody will say, well, we're all born constitutional sinners. The Bible says that. That's true. And so in one way or another, you're going to find. Let's just take sex as our example here. One way or another, you have been born with a person who has a disposition to sexual sin. But there's nothing in that that tells you that it's this specific kind of sin or that specific, specific kind of sin. Some people are going to respond by being rapists. Some will be engaged in pornography. Some will be engaged in homosexuality. Some will just be licentious adulterers and so forth. So, yeah, sexual sin and verbal sin and financial sins and all these kinds of rebellion are part of our lives. We come to this world, but no one can claim his or her specific form of sin as well. God made me that way.

Dr. Bonson, a closing question for tonight, and this actually comes in various parts, but I think the gist of it is one. At what point does warfare become justified? That is, is it only when there is an armed massive invasion?

How does terrorism fit in? That's a very good question. I don't know that I will give you as precise an answer or maybe even convincing an answer as you might like. But in much of life, we face these sorts of things, and that is, when has the line been crossed? Okay, I have lectures on Christian principles about war. In fact, if you get one of our catalogs. I'm not trying to be a commercial, but you might want to follow this up. I have A study booklet and three lectures to go over many of these things. And sometimes when I give that set of lectures, people will and I say we can only go to war when we are defending ourselves. And they'll say, oh, what you're saying is we can only go to war when we're fighting back. And therefore we can't go to war until the missiles of our opponent have actually crossed the international line and so they're now over our property and now we have the right to fight back. Well, I'm not saying anything so silly as that. We have the right to fight back at the point that we know that an act of aggression has taken place or even, although I'm very cautious about this, if we have good reason to believe it's about to take place. That is, my theory would allow very little but some slim place for a preemptive strike so that if you had virtually unassailable evidence that the rockets are going to be fired at 1 in the morning, at 11 o' clock at night, you have the right to take the first step to knock out those rockets. Okay, so I'm not saying anything so silly as that. We have to wait until their soldiers are on our property or their missiles have struck our cities before we can fight back. But the question raises an interesting difficulty and is, when has some group of people gone to war with us when what they're engaged in is guerrilla strikes. Okay, bottom line, best way to handle that is all guerrilla strikes are to be treated as criminal offenses by the individuals involved. So to the degree you can get to the guerrillas, and of course that's the big problem in any guerrilla war, right? But to the degree you can get to them, you treat them as criminals on your soil, okay? And by the way, that would call for execution, and you're very public about that and so forth, but somebody would say, okay, but now what if you were to find out I'm making this up, you execute 15 guerillas over a period of two months, whatever it would be, and it turns out each one of them finally confesses we were part of an organized conspiracy to try to take over this country and so forth. Well, let's say they point the finger to, well, nobody likes Iraq these days, so I'll use that in my illustration. They say, and it's Iraq that did it. Well, then of course, our ambassadors would go to the politicians in Iraq and we'd confront them with that evidence and would say, it appears that you are engaged in a covert war against us. What do you have to say about that now? What do you think they're going to say? Gee, we don't know those guys. What are they talking about then? What do you do? Well, I mean, if I were president. Let me be king for the day here. If I were president, then I'd say, well, we're really glad to hear that we've executed those 15 people. Because they're criminals on our soil. But we'd like you to know that if another person comes along who makes the same report. We'll not only execute him, but we'll be over here to deal with you. So you better make sure no one comes over telling those kind of stories to us anymore. I mean, you try to deal with terrorists on a terrorist basis. But I can't go much further than that. Because I can't tell you objectively. When the act of guerrillas against your country. Becomes, in fact, a declaration of war against you. But I think there is a point where you cross the line. You say, that's it. We won't put up with it anymore. 15 is the answer. Second. Second hesitation is 24.