Notes 139
What does all this mean in practice to us today? I must say, I really am not sure all that it means to us in practice at this moment. To begin, however, it certainly means this: We have been utterly foolish in our concentration on bits and pieces, and in our complete failure to face the total world view that is rooted in a false view of reality. And we have not understood that this view of reality inevitably brings forth totally different and wrong and inhuman results in all of life. This is nowhere more certain than in law and government-where law and government are used by this false view of reality as a tool to force this false view and its results on everyone.
It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's Law it abrogates its authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation to such a tyrannical usurping of power. I would emphasize at this point that Samuel Rutherford was not wrong, he was right; it was not only in the seventeenth century in Scotland where he was right; it was not only in 1776 where he was right: he is right in our century.
All we have been saying is relevant for the present moment, and especially in such areas as abortion. You will remember, however, that the primary consideration we have been dealing with is the possibility that the window which is now open might close. But the First Track is based on the window being open at the moment and our taking advantage of it. We must not be satisfied with mere words. With the window open we must try to roll back the results of the total world view which considers material-energy, shaped by chance, as the final reality. We must realize that this view will with inevitable certainty always bring forth results which are not only relativistic, and not only wrong, but which will be inhuman, not only for other people, but for our children and grandchildren, and our spiritual children. It will always bring forth what is inhuman, for with its false view of total reality it not only does not have a basis for the uniqueness and dignity of the individual person, but it is totally ignorant as to what, and who, Man is.
As we think about these things, we must think about one other factor: Those who have the responsi bility as Christians, as they live under Scripture, must not only take the necessary legal and political stands, but must practice all the possible Christian alternatives simultaneously with taking stands politically and legally. In Whatever Happened to the Human Race? we stress this in regard to abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia of the old-that Christians must not only speak and fight against these things, but then must show there are Christian alternatives. But it must not only be in regard to abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia that alternatives are practiced. They must be practiced in all areas. This is so, and especially so, even when it is extremely costly in money, time, and energy.
As a positive example, the Christian Legal Society has set up a service for mediating disputes. I would say that is a Christian alternative. In a number of places crisis pregnancy centers have been set up. That is a proper alternative. We should be practicing these alternatives in all areas even as we stand legally and politically against our present society's and government's wrong solutions for the ills of humanity. We indeed are to be humanitarians in living contrast to the inhumanity brought forth by materialistic humanism.
Now I must quickly say there are going to be people who say, "don't use the legal and political means, just show the Christian alternatives." That is absolutely utopian in a fallen world, and specifically in a world such as ours at the present moment. But while it is utopian to say, just use the Christian alternatives and do not use the political and legal means, on the other hand, it is also incomplete and wrong only to use the legal and political means without showing forth the Christian alternatives. It is incomplete in conviction and will be incomplete in results; and it is wrong to the reality of the God we say we are obeying.
If we do not practice the alternatives commanded in the Scripture we are not living under the Scripture. And if we do not practice the bottom line of civil disobedience on the appropriate level, when the state has abrogated its authority, we are equally not living under the Scripture.
I would conclude by summarizing this Manifesto as follows:
1.The Reformation in Northern Europe not only brought forth a clear preaching of the gospel, but also brought forth distinctive governmental and social results. Among these was a form-freedom balance in government with its series of checks and balances. There was great freedom without the freedom pounding the order of the society to pieces because it was contained by the Christian consensus.
2.In the middle of the last century, groups began to enter the United States in increasing number which did not have the Reformation base. These enjoyed the freedom, though their base would not have produced it.
3.The greatest shift came with the rise of the mate rial-energy, chance view of final reality. This view was completely contrary to that which had produced the form-freedom balance in the United States with its resulting great freedom. This mistaken view of what final reality is leaves no room for meaning, purpose, or values in the universe and it gives no base for law. This view brings forth its natural results in all fields, and these results are the opposite of the natural results of the final reality being the personal God.
The humanistically based view of final reality began to be influential in the United States about eighty years ago. Its control of the consensus has become overwhelmingly dominant in about the last forty years. The shift has affected all parts of society and culture, but most importantly it has come largely to control government and law. These, then, have become the vehicle for forcing this view (with its natural results) on the public. This has been true in many areas-including, especially, the way it has been forced on students in the schools. Media which almost entirely hold the same world view have added to all this.
4.The world view which produced the founding of the United States in the first place is increasingly now not allowed to exert its influence in government, in the schools, or in the public means of information.
The result of the original base in the United States gave the possibility of "liberty and justice for all." And while it was always far from perfect, it did result in liberty. This included liberty to those who hold other views-views which would not give the freedom. The material-energy, chance view has taken advantage of that liberty, supplanted the consensus, and resulted in an intolerance that gives less and less freedom in courts and schools for the view which originally gave the freedoms. Having no base for law, those who hold the humanist view make binding law whatever they personally think is good for society at the moment. This leads increasingly to arbitrary law and rulings which produce chaos in society and which then naturally and increasingly tend to lead to some form of authoritarianism. At that point what the country had in the first place is lost and dead.
5.What is now needed is to stand against that other total world view. We must see and make clear that it is not the truth of final reality; and we must understand and show that it is producing its own natural results which are opposite to those upon which the United States was founded. It is opposite to the great freedoms produced which everyone now enjoys. What is needed at this time is to take the steps necessary to break the authoritarian hold which the materialenergy, chance concept of final reality has on government and law.
6.The result would be freedom for all and especially freedom for all religion. That was the original purpose of the First Amendment.
7.With this freedom Reformation Christianity would compete in the free marketplace of ideas. It would no longer be subject to a hidden censorship as it is now. It can and would give out the clear preaching of God's "good news" for individuals, and simultaneously it is also the view which gives the consistent base for the form-freedom balance in government and society-the base which brought forth this country with its freedoms. It is the responsibility of those holding this view to show it to be unique (the truth of total reality) for individual salvation and for society-by teaching, by life, and by action.