Crime and Sin – Legislating Morality
By Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
8/28/2023
The Bible condemns sexual sin and drug use[1] and prescribes death for both. (Note: In the Greek New Testament, the word Pharmakia is equated to the sin of witchcraft [2]. The Biblically prescribed penalty for witchcraft, adultery, homosexuality, murder, incorrigibly rebellious children, etc., is death.) Some governments prohibit some drugs [3]and sexual behaviors. There is a debate about whether the State should pass laws prohibiting sin as defined in the Bible. The common argument against such is (falsely) justified as the (non-existent) “separation of church and state” prohibition. As noted, libertarians oppose all such regulation, as they have crafted a set of principles that allows individuals to engage in sin if chosen by competent adults.
The problem with sin is that it changes/damages/destroys the moral compass and fiber of the sinner. Society cannot survive if its citizens do not have a self-regulated/internally embedded correctly pointed-at-God moral compass. Government allowing citizens to engage in personality-perverting/behavior-warping behaviors in the name of “individual liberty/freedom” or “personal sovereignty” is a foolish/self-destructive/morally blind accommodation to (or corrupting influence from) a flesh-hunger obsessed populace, or businesses that seek to profit from purveying sin. If a nation’s government endorses, profits from, or bends to pressure to allow sin, it is self-inflicting the removal of Heaven’s blessings. Such actions call down curses on a nation, and that by the hand of government which God installed and authorized to protect.
The debacle of the attempt to eradicate alcohol consumption during the prohibition era illustrates a notable example of a government strategy which will not eliminate the sin of sexual immorality and drug use. Prohibiting use, punishing users, suppliers, and manufacturers did not produce the desired results. The same will be true of child sex-slavery. The movie, “The Sound of Freedom” is gallant, illustrating the application of a pound of cure to a problem of epidemic proportions, with America being the largest consumer.
Restricting the supply, or punishing users, merely raises the prices and drives the economy underground. Organized crime supplies the demand, thus enriching and making more powerful the underworld merchants of sin.
Thus, the only strategy that will be successful is universal Godliness/holiness/moral rectitude. Society must decide to support health/internal strength/moral-self-eliminate sin must be personal decisions. The character of every American must be subject to scrutiny.
In January 2023, Pope Francis[4] supported the libertarian/permissivist[5] position when he advocated decriminalizing homosexual sin. This begs the question, “What should be the boundary between sin and crime?”
Before asking this question, we must define “sin” and “crime.” The word “crime” has many nuances, such as tort, infraction, misdemeanor, felony, policy violation, and ethical lapse. I define a crime as any act that the state legislates as punishable.
I define sin as any behavior that displeases God, causes Him to withdraw His affection from us, causes Him to look away, and places us at a distance from His holiness.
When Christ returns, His Law will be the Law. Our liberty in Christ allows all behavior that is not sin. Thus, man’s law should be God’s Law. We should live on earth as in Heaven, so man’s laws should reflect the order of Heaven.
Secular governments universally legislate against the sins of theft, perjury, murder, battery, etc. But should the government regulate sin private conduct between consenting adults? Regarding the principle of “separation of church and state,” each State has the right, under the Constitution, to pass any legislation that does not contradict the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration.
The domain of government authority is regulating individual and group behaviors. Government regulates individual behavior because individuals comprise the group and the group’s welfare. But libertarians argue that some private behavior (consenting adults) is outside of the purview of government.
Every government defines crimes by its legislation and uses a moral standard (from some source, secular or religious) as its basis. I believe the Bible is the only objective, revealed, and authoritative standard by which God reveals His heart. I believe Biblical principles are the foundation of our Founding Documents and reflect the moral standards of Heaven. Thus, all legislation should be consistent with Biblical principles.
The commands and revelation of God’s heart in the Bible define sin. I believe that each state should choose to legislate against sin. The laws of Heaven prohibit sin, and the Constitution does not restrict the States from legislating against sin. The Constitution’s First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting establishing a religion.” Therefore, the Constitution allows the States to regulate any activity defined as sin by the Bible.
But the question remains, “What is the appropriate/Godly boundary separating Church and State?” We see in Leviticus, the third book of the Torah, the first books of the Old Testament, the exposition of religious law and secular law. Leviticus contains laws and regulations regarding religious rituals, sacrifices, cleanliness, and ethical conduct. In the later books of the Old Testament, in the era of the Kings, the priests were tasked with the proper the conduct of rituals, sacrifices, and cleanliness, and the State was tasked with enforcing ethical conduct.
Thus, in our modern day, I believe the State should not legislate, enforce, or regulate the performance of religious practices (e.g., communion, baptism, and ceremonies…). Religious practices are a celebration of communing with God. Likewise, modern-day priests/pastorate/ecclesiocracy should not enforce the penalties for breaches of ethical conduct. In this way, there is, and should be, a separation of church and State.
As per the Constitution, there is no prohibition against the State using the moral principles of any religion. Each legislature should use its judgment to determine which behaviors disrupt the public welfare.
Christian libertarians advocate using Biblical standards to guide legislation in commerce, defense, and interpersonal relations while limiting government to protect the right of men to pursue life, liberty, property, and happiness.
The controversy between libertarians and Christian nationalists is largely over whether government should legislate sexuality and drug use. I believe every jurisdiction should decide which behaviors, public and private, they wish to legislate, as there is no behavior so private that it does not affect the group.
Government will legislate least when its citizens self-regulate according to Biblical standards. The government framed by the founders allows men to self-govern to the maximum extent in each region.
I believe the jurisdictions that adopt the Biblical principles of governing self, treating neighbors as self, and obeying the commands of God (largely about how to relate to others and regulate self) to love and include Him in our personal behavior.
The issues of government surveillance and regulation are central to defining and exercising of our liberty in Christ. Libertarians should embrace the Godly restrictions of behavior. Instead, Libertarians have crafted a set of ethical principles that allow for men to engage in any consensual sexual behaviors and drug use. In this way, the libertarians have fallen into league with the liberals, communists, and forces opposing God.
[1] What does the Bible say about doing drugs? | GotQuestions.org
[2] BIBLE VERSES ABOUT WITCHCRAFT (kingjamesbibleonline.org)
[3] The Biblical View of Drug Use – Pharmakia: The Biblical View of Drug Use
[4] Pope clarifies homosexuality and sin comments in note – ABC News (go.com)
[5] The term “permissivist” is a neologism not commonly used in mainstream language. Its intended interpretation is that of someone with permissive or tolerant views regarding a particular subject or issue. In a moral or ethical context, a permissivist may advocate for a more lenient or liberal stance on certain behaviors, actions, or choices. They might argue that individuals should be free to make their own decisions without significant restrictions or moral judgments from others or society.