Law

Been challenged to think about Paul's comments regarding civil authorities and the wider issue of the law (see Romans 13:1-7). The way we interpret these passsages leads us to very different positions in terms of those in authority and the role of the law. In one direction we end up with the 'Divine right of Kings' and a legal framework that seeks to impose types & standards of behaviour according to religious belief. In the other direction we end up with a legal framework which is entirely based on the pragmatic functioning of society. I suspect that Christians mostly default to a position nearer the former than the latter. Instinctively we look at the bible, read the old testament and presume that a religous framework for our laws is right. Then we look at the supposed halcyon days of Britain under it's 'Christian' laws and the assumptions are reinforced.

Yet surely the message Paul comes back to time and again is that law is powerless to actually change us? God gave the law, not in the hope that it would lead to a better world but as a means of reflecting how far away from that better world human behaviour takes us. Of course within the whole law there were purely civil regulations that were founded in the charatcer of God; cities of refuge, the welfare rules surrounding harvest etc. But in the New Testament, Jesus persistently points not at the external law, but at at the internal heart. Isn't it the case that the message is not about the external imposition of Godly behaviour, but the internal belief that transforms our behaviour? 

In which case, where does that leave the legal system? This is not academic or simply a philosophical nicety. Should the law be based on morality, on right and wrong as defined by religous values, or simply be an expression of what allows society to function as effectively as possible in a fallen world?

My personal view is strongly the latter. Such a position allows us to ask pragmatic questions such as whether society would be safer if we legalised drugs. If we start from a position that the law has to represent God's wisdom, then we will prohibit anything that is harmful to the individual or society. But in such a model all we can do is police, enforce and condemn....

I know too little about the underlying statistics and trends to know, but I would be very interested to hear from those who do... Would there be less crime, would more people be rehabiliated, would fewer people die, if we legalised and licenced the sale and use of drugs? Would some girls and women be safer if prostitution was regulated and licenced? In neither case am I suggesting that these are good things, but given the fallen world we in which we live, is it not at least appropriate to ask these questions?

It's a dilemma epitomised by the Catholic Church's response to the Aids crisis in Africa. By imposing a standard of behaviour that is unsustainable without redemption, thousands of people have lost their lives.. The message of abstention and the prohibition on the use of condoms simply do not work in a fallen world, yet the imposition of these standards led to far more people contracting HIV than would otherwise have been the case.

Surely a better approach is to allow the authorities to create a legal framework that facilitates civil cooperation within a safe structure and allow the church to get on with modelling a better way underpinned by the love of Christ?

What do you think? Am I being hopelessly liberal, or pragmatically relevant?