I didn’t read it all through, but maybe what the author is trying to get at is morality, which comes from “morals”
1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical moral judgments
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior a moral poem
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
d : sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment a moral obligation
e : capable of right and wrong action a moral agent
is a “judgments” based on a belief system but it acts through belief & persuasion that that moral judgment is right, whereas “the law” acts through its ability to compel adherence to it by legal force of the government behind it.
Maybe, he is trying to argue which method do we prefer, and that “we” being any certain group of listeners.
As Christians I think that poses a good question. Is it the law (secular law) most of all, or Christian morality that we think it is most important for our behavior to follow, and behavior we want to teach others? And if it is Christian morality as most important, and that it be followed because Christians see it as right, whether the law agrees or not, then how far is it really Christian to seek to get secular law to equal Christian morality? Is it “the law” in secular terms Christians should focus most on “reforming” or is it the choices people willingly make, law or no law?
Is it not His mission that He be followed because He is in our heart, not because we have tried make secular law mirror him?
I think of those questions when I remind myself that Yeshua did not come to reform this world, and held no beief that humans could reform the world, and He did not see the secular powers of this earth (”kingdoms” i.e. power systems) as part of His kingdom. Either the book of revelations is correct about where this world will lead, or it is wrong and we humans can and will reform the world to “Christian” precepts. The two positions seem mutually exclusive.
Which is better, a Libertarian legal position with a Christian morality, or a “Chritian” legal position with a statist morality (”we” will compel you how to behave)?
Just some thoughts I had on the topic.
Thank you!
IMHO,
It has always been a struggle between the individual’s free will & the will of others. Even in the closest of personal relationships, there are differences that constantly require an objective process for maintaining a peaceful, equally fulfilling experience.
Morality is a set of rules for the ‘game’ of relationships.
Laws are a codification of common-sense-rules that essentially describe, rather than prescribe, acceptable, standard behavior. Any force applied in the process of conforming to the ‘rules’ must be considered coercive in nature to be used at last resort to prevent unacceptable injury to anyone.
Respectfully offered.