America was established as a democratic republic and specifically founded upon biblical principles. It is a republic that is administered by politicians, but run by the citizens through elected representatives. Those who established the republic were mostly Christians, or at least believed in biblical worldview concepts as a foundational principle.
But things have dramatically changed in modern society, with many now rejecting a biblical worldview understanding of governing. In recent years, people who hold a naturalistic worldview have come to dominate virtually all of America’s societal institutions. Naturalism is the belief that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists, and primarily identify as Atheists, Agnostics, Secular Humanists, Marxists, or Progressives.
Since they don’t believe in a source for objective morality, they must make up morality based on their own personal preferences. The result is inevitably some expression of the law of the jungle. Those who are able to gain power get to make the rules, and the citizens are forced to obey. And since most societal institutions are now dominated by a naturalistic worldview, the beliefs and values dominating public policy are, increasingly, relativistic in nature.
As Christians, we are called to a higher moral standard than the law of the jungle – one that includes integrity, honesty, and selflessness. But specifically, how these two different worldviews contrast.
1. Binding Vs. Non-Binding Foundation
Biblical View – Binding Foundation
There is a law that exists above human law – the law of God. This is not merely a set of suggested moral values, it is a revelation of the character of God Himself. He has not merely given us a list of rules to follow, He has revealed what His character is like and commanded us to imitate Him. His character defines objectively real morality.
This revelation from God comes in the form of moral expectations that can be written as a set of rules and laws. Of course, God’s purpose is to promote relationship with Himself, not to merely provide a set of rules to follow. Still, we have these laws (ex. the Ten Commandments) that are the underlying foundation for objectively real moral understanding.
In American society, this concept has been taken as an organizing principle for our legal system. Our founders created a Constitution to be the foundation upon which all other laws would be based. As a human document, it is not unchangeable like God’s character. It is still, though, a binding foundation upon which all other laws are based.
Naturalistic View – Non-Binding Foundation
A naturalistic worldview does not acknowledge the existence of transcendent reality. As such, there is no one to reveal a set of absolute and unchangeable moral laws.
So, those who hold a naturalistic worldview do not see any compelling reason to look at the Constitution as an unchanging document. Instead, it is viewed as a “living and breathing” document that can be reinterpreted, at any point, by those who are in a position to do so.
2. Civil Disobedience Vs. Strict Obedience to the Law
Biblical View – Civil Disobedience (Focus on the Individual)
The concept of civil disobedience is based upon the presupposition that a higher law exists above human law. The Bible clearly teaches that human beings ought to obey human laws to promote order in society. That said, when civil law conflicts with God’s revealed law, God’s law takes precedent.
Making this a priority, however, could mean that an individual will receive punishment from the human authorities if they break the law. But allegiance to God is the Bible’s ultimate standard. Any law that forces people to disobey God is illegitimate.
Naturalistic View – Strict Obedience to the Rulers (Focus on the Collective)
In Naturalism, there is no higher law than civil law. Thus, civil disobedience is seen as illegitimate and cannot be not tolerated.
3. High Vs. Low Value of Individual Human Life
Biblical View – High Value of Human Life
Biblical worldview sees human beings as persons specially created in the image of God. We have spiritual qualities that are of a different order than other creatures that give us a capacity to participate in a personal relationship with God that is not possible for other material creatures.
Because of this, a biblical worldview has a high view of human life which prohibits the taking of innocent human life. As such, all laws and rules humans create should have a built-in bias toward not killing innocent human life by any means.
Naturalistic View – Low Value of Human Life
Naturalistic worldview beliefs view human beings as merely one form of natural animal that is no more special than any other. The only thing special about human beings is that they have a larger and more complex brain. Thus, all animals are understood to be equally valuable in an objective sense.
Naturalism asserts that every life form arrived at its current state by naturalistic evolution. That being the case, human life has no more intrinsic value than any other life form.
Thus, such things as abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, or any other form of taking life can only be good or bad based on the particular circumstances surrounding it. If it is deemed by society to be good for the collective, there is no moral wrong to be considered. So, when societal laws and rules are created, the life of any particular individual is secondary to the needs of the collective.
4. Equality of Opportunity Vs. Equality of Outcomes
Biblical View – Equality of Opportunity (Focus on the Individual)
It is possible to express the concept of equality in various ways. Looking at it from a biblical worldview, equality is based on the value of the individual. God created human individuals with special value and gifting. To achieve excellence and accomplish God’s purpose, the Bible teaches that each person is to be a good steward of their gifts by using them effectively.
The Bible reveals that ideally, individuals should have the freedom to pursue their lives based on God’s gifting. With that, everything everyone does in response to God’s leading is of value. Thus, everyone ought to be provided with an equal opportunity in life to pursue this leading from God.
Naturalistic View – Equality of Outcome (Focus on the Collective)
A naturalistic worldview is based on completely different underlying values. Rather than valuing the gifting of individuals, the focus of Naturalism is on promoting the survival and advancement of the collective. With this, individuals are should only pursue outcomes that enhance the collective. When it is deemed by society’s leaders that certain needs be promoted, individuals’ desires can be legitimately curtailed.
5. Individual Vs. Collective Liberty
Biblical View – Individual Liberty (Focus on the Individual & Freedom of Conscience)
Based on a biblical worldview, the individual has priority over the collective. Thus, all laws and societal rules should be crafted so as to promote the development of individuals. This does not mean that the collective is unimportatn, only that the individual has priority. Society’s priority is to create an environment that facilitates an individual’s willingness and ability to do things to benefit society, but the final decision must be left to the individual.
The reason for this order is that God created individual human beings specifically for relationship with Himself. For this to occur, each person must have freedom of choice. God created mankind with that ability and revealed that all should live life based on that principle.
Naturalistic View – Collective Liberty (Priority of and Focus on the Collective)
A naturalistic worldview is based on the belief that the highest human value is survival. Since it doesn’t acknowledge the existence of God, and it views human beings as merely one animal creature among many, individuals are only valuable as they contribute to the survival of the collective. If those in power conclude that the collective would be better served by prioritizing certain individuals or classes, that could be deemed acceptable.
6. Impartial Vs. Partial Judges
Biblical View – Impartial Judges
Most people have an innate sense that impartiality in the legal system is only fair. But where does the very concept of fairness come from? Based on biblical beliefs, it comes from the revelation of God Himself. Thus, fairness, as expressed in the Bible, is an absolute that cannot be violated. The Bible teaches that God, Himself, is impartial in his judgment of mankind, and using that principle should characterize human judgment of other humans.
Naturalistic View – Partial Judges (The Greater Good)
Naturalism, on the other hand, has no absolute moral foundation. Since Naturalism believes the natural universe is all that exists, moral principles can only take into account material reality. Concerning human life, survival by emphasizing the greater good of the collective becomes the default. This could include impartiality in the legal system, but not necessarily. A naturalistic approach could just as easily allow for partiality if it is believed to be better for the good of the collective. Nothing in Naturalism demands fairness.
7. Due Process Vs. Arbitrary Process
Biblical View – Due Process
The notion of due process is another biblical worldview concept based on God’s revelation. This principle deals with the importance of an individual having the opportunity tell his or her side of the story during a judicial proceeding. The idea is that life, liberty, or individual stewardship responsibility cannot be deprived, unless a person has the opportunity to tell their side of the story. Due process expresses the fairness and justice God exhibits, and expects society to follow.
Naturalistic View – Arbitrary Process (The Greater Good)
Proper due process is not necessarily seen a bad thing in Naturalism, but is also not an absolute. For there to be a moral absolute, there must also be a basis for its existence – which does not exists in Naturalism. There may be times in an environment where Naturalism dominates when due process is not judged to be in the best interest of the collective. The more appropriate standard in Naturalism is “the interests of the collective” – which is determined by those who hold power.
8. Equal Vs. Arbitrary Justice Under the Law
Biblical View – Equal Justice Under the Law
Another expression of a biblical worldview is equal justice under the law. This is the belief that no matter one’s station in life, justice should not be administered using the same guidelines. In this view, the law itself is the ultimate basis for judgment. The notion of equal justice under that law is based on the belief that God, Himself, judges this way, and has revealed that human beings should judge likewise.
Naturalistic View – Arbitrary Justice (The Greater Good)
Here again, equal justice under the law is not dismissed out of hand. However, there is nothing to establish it as an absolute standard, as that would require a transcendent law. If those in power feel that equal justice does not further the greater good in particular circumstances,
9. Formal Vs. Arbitrary Accusations
Biblical View – Formal Accusations
The reason for requiring formal accusations in a court setting is to promote justice based on truth. The alternative is advancing the personal desires of those who hold power. It is really easy to accuse someone of wrongdoing, but formal accusation establishes a way for the person being accused to understand and respond to the accusation.
This is concept that come from the Bible. It teaches that human beings are able to freely choose to do right or wrong, and that choosing against God is sin. To solve the sin problem, individuals must understand their sin so they can repent. So, in His revelation, God has explained specifically what sin looks like and why it is an offense against Him. That revelation is His formal accusation to which the individual is able to respond. This principle is then transferred into the legal system as a proper element of justice in the legal process.
Naturalistic View – Arbitrary Accusations (The Greater Good)
The naturalistic belief about formal accusations is based upon Naturalism’s relativistic beliefs. Naturalists don’t necessarily see providing formal accusations as a bad thing, but it is not absolute. When those in power believe that providing formal accusations is not be in the best interest of the collective, there is no compelling reason to provide one. The most compelling standard remains the greater good of the collective.
10. Legal Vs. Arbitrary Rules in Trials
Biblical View – Legal Rules in Trials
The purpose of a legal trial is to provide one accused of a crime a means to be fairly treated. A legal trial is one that is based on a standard set of rules that cannot be violated. Fairness demands that no individual, or group should be able to accuse or convict a person of a crime based on arbitrary rules.
This principle is another expression of biblical revelation. When God judges human beings for their sin, it is not arbitrary. The rules of judgment are firmly established based on spiritual laws that God has clearly revealed to mankind. He impartially judges humanity based on these unchanging principles, and has revealed that human society should also operate using this principle.
Naturalistic View – Arbitrary Rules in Trials (The Greater Good)
Most, Naturalists would probably agree that having “legal trials” is a good, and even proper, standard. However, Naturalism does not provide a basis for making that judgment. Naturalism, has no absolute standard for any moral claim. All moral expressions must be created and judged by those in society who have the power to do so. Legal trials can be seen as good in circumstances where it helps maintain order in society, but if the greater good is deemed to be served by shifting to a different set of rules, there is no reason why that can’t be done.
Conclusion – The Foundation of Values Matters
Biblical worldview beliefs are unquestionably the source of the values that guide American society. Even those who are not Christians generally acknowledge the “rightness” of these beliefs. But if that source is set aside, it will not be long before the beliefs themselves are eliminated. The source of values matters.
Reality exists in an objectively real way. God actually exists and has revealed that to mankind and given us guidance concerning right and wrong. To the degree follow His ways, we will thrive. To the degree we reject it, we will come to ruin.
© 2024 Freddy Davis