Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Legislating Morality Biblical?
Christian Research Institute ^ | 08/31/2013 | Frank Turek

Posted on 09/01/2013 5:52:51 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Why Christians Must Legislate Morality

by Frank Turek

When I have just a minute to communicate the importance of Christians being involved in politics, I call up this satellite picture of the Korean peninsula on my iPhone.1 Here we see a homogenous population of mostly Koreans separated by a well-fortified border. South Korea is full of light, productivity, and the gospel. They are a free country and one of the most Christianized countries in the world. North Korea is a concentration camp. They have no freedom, very little food, and almost no Christianity.

I then ask, “What is the primary reason for the stark difference between these two countries?” The answer is politics. The South politically allows freedom, while the North does not.

Freedom is rare in countries around the world. America is the shining exception—hence the phrase “American exceptionalism.” It is not that Americans are somehow better than the rest of the world, but that our American system of individual freedom and limited government is better. Our Founding Fathers brilliantly grounded individual rights in God, without mandating a national religion, and put limits on government power, which created the conditions for a free and prosperous society.

Those conditions are eroding largely because Christians have ignored Jesus’ commands to be salt and light and to love our neighbors. Unless Christians begin to influence politics and the culture more significantly, we will lose the very freedoms that enable us to spread the gospel all over the world.

The question is, how much should Christians be involved in politics, and to what end? After all, we can’t legislate morality, can we?


News flash: all laws legislate morality. We go into great detail to support this point in our book Legislating Morality,2 but to be brief, morality is about right and wrong, and all laws declare one behavior right and the opposite behavior wrong.3 So the question is not whether or not we can legislate morality, but whose morality will we legislate?

Legislating morality is not only biblical, it is a necessary responsibility of government. When Paul writes in Romans 13:1–8 that the ruling authorities are put in place by God to punish evildoers, he is echoing Genesis 9:6, which established that the central responsibility of government is to protect the innocent from evil. That, of course, requires the legislation and enforcement of good laws.

Wayne Grudem makes an outstanding case for Christians influencing civil governments to legislate moral good in his comprehensive book Politics according to the Bible. Grudem cites many positive examples of biblical figures influencing civil governments—outside of the theocracy of Israel—to do good. They include Joseph, Moses, Daniel, Nehemiah, Mordecai, and Esther. “We also have as examples the written prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah,” writes Grudem. “In the New Testament we have the courageous examples of John the Baptist and the apostle Paul.…And we could add in several passages from Psalms and Proverbs that speak of good and evil rulers. Influencing government for good on the basis of wisdom found in God’s own words is a theme that runs through the entire Bible.”4 Even Jesus Himself got involved in politics when He chastised the Pharisees—the religious and political leaders of Israel—for their unjust leadership.5


If we are called to legislate morality, then whose morality should we legislate? The answer our Founding Fathers gave was the “self-evident” morality given to us by our Creator—the same moral law that the apostle Paul wrote was “written on their hearts” of all people (Rom. 2:14–15). In other words, not my morality or your morality, but the morality—the one we inherited, not the one we invented.6

Notice they did not have to establish a particular denomination or force religious practice in order to legislate a moral code. Our country justifies moral rights with theism, but does not require its citizens to acknowledge or practice theism. That is why charges that Christians are trying to impose a “theocracy” or violate the “separation of church and state” fail.

Such objections blur the distinction between religion and morality. Broadly defined, religion involves our duty to God while morality involves our duty to one another. Our lawmakers are not telling people that they need to be a member of a church—that would be legislating religion. But lawmakers cannot avoid telling people how they should treat one another —that is legislating morality, and that is what all laws do.

To illustrate the point, let us consider two prominent moral issues in our society: abortion and same-sex marriage. First, let me be clear that I do not want the state running the church or the church running the state. But even if one were to accept the court-invented claim that the Constitution requires a strict separation of church and state,7 opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage does not entail the establishment of a “theocracy.” Churches and the Bible also teach that murder, theft, and child abuse are wrong, but no one says laws prohibiting such acts establish a theocracy or are a violation of the separation of church and state. In fact, if the government could not pass laws consistent with biblical teachings, then all criminal laws would have to be overturned because they are all in some way consistent with at least one of the Ten Commandments. The truth is, Christians do not legislate the Bible as such, but we do legislate the moral law consistent with the Bible. We do not need to legislate religion, but we cannot avoid legislating morality.

Second, there are churches on both sides of these issues. In other words, some liberal churches actually support abortion and same-sex marriage. So if church-supported positions could not be put into law, then we could not have laws either way on abortion or same-sex marriage. Absurd.

Finally, most proponents of same-sex marriage argue as if they have some kind of moral right to having their relationships endorsed by the state. They claim that they don’t have “equal rights” or that they are being “discriminated” against. Likewise, abortion advocates claim they have a moral “right” to choose an abortion. None of these claims are true, as I have explained elsewhere.8 Nevertheless, their arguments, while flawed, expose the fact that independent of religion they seek to legislate their morality rather than the morality.

If you have a problem with the morality, do not blame me. I didn’t make it up. I didn’t make up the fact that abortion is wrong; that men are not made for other men; or that sex outside of natural marriage leads to destruction. Those truths are part of the “Laws of Nature,” as the Declaration of Independence puts it, and we only hurt others and ourselves by suppressing those truths and legislating immoral laws.


We often hear that Christian involvement in politics always fails. The people who say such things do not know much about history. Other than banning slavery, kidnapped brides, child labor, gladiatorial combat, death games, infanticide, child marriage, temple prostitution, child sexual abuse, child prostitution, wives as property, and promoting religious and political freedom and the equality of all mankind, Christians have accomplished nothing politically in Western civilization. Even recently in the United States, Christians and others have made progress in protecting life by passing hundreds of laws that restrict abortion at the state and local levels.

Yet even if Christian efforts to bring about good all failed politically, we are called to be salt and light, to love our neighbor, and to leave the results to God. Those commands require us to work for laws that will protect our neighbors whether they are Christians or not. In fact, if Christians don’t stand up for the weak, poor, and unborn, who will? Are you truly “loving your neighbors” if you do nothing to prevent them from being enslaved, abused, or aborted?

Having Christians involved in government is advantageous for all people, even non-Christians. How so? Only the Christian worldview secures the unalienable rights of the individual in God—rights that include the right to life, liberty, equal treatment under the law, and religious freedom. Islam does not. Islam means submission to Allah and Sharia law. It does not protect individual rights; neither does Hinduism (the caste system) or outright secularism, which offers no means to ground rights in anything other than the whims of a dictator. Only the Christian worldview secures the rights of all in God, not government, people, or a sectarian religion.


I often hear Christians claiming that we ought to just “preach the gospel” and not get involved in politics. This is not only a false dilemma (we are commanded to do both); ironically, such an attitude serves to stop the gospel. How so? Because politics and law affects your ability to preach the gospel! If you think otherwise, just visit some of the countries I have visited—Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China. You cannot legally “preach the gospel” in those countries—or practice other aspects of your religion freely—because politically they have ruled it out. You cannot publish the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL in North Korea; nor can you open a church; nor can you evangelize.

In fact, politics affects virtually every area of your life including your church, marriage, family, business, school, children, money, property, home, security, health, safety, and freedom. As Christians, should we let the atheists impose their morality on us in these areas? If we do, we will continue to lose the very freedoms that have empowered us to prosper and spread the gospel.

When we fail to legislate and protect liberty, others impose tyranny. Totalitarian political correctness is already the norm in states such as Massachusetts, where the implications of same-sex marriage are legally imposed on Christian businesses, Christian parents, and even on Christian charities. There you are not permitted to run your business, educate your children, or practice your religion in accord with your conscience.9 And soon, as is the case in Canada, you may not be able to speak biblically about homosexuality. That is because the people who say they are fighting for tolerance are often the most intolerant.

One final note: if you are a pastor who is worried about your tax-exempt status, please consider these three points: (1) you have more freedom than you think to speak on political and moral issues from the pulpit;10 (2) if you do not speak for liberty now, you may soon lose your freedom to speak for anything; and (3) most importantly, you are called to be salt and light, not tax-exempt.

Frank Turek is an author, speaker, and founder of He hosts “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist” on the NRB Network, Wednesday nights at 9 p.m. and 1 a.m., Eastern Time (DirecTV Ch. 378, Sky Angel ch. 126).


  2. Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, Legislating Morality (Eugene, OR,Wipf and Stock, 2003). For the common objection regarding prohibition, see chapter 2.
  3. Some laws do not address moral issues but conventional issues, such as how many representatives will be in Congress, or on which side of the street we should drive. Nevertheless, we all have a moral obligation to obey those laws, especially ones where disobedience could result in great harm (such as driving on the “wrong” side of the street). Moreover, I am not saying that all laws are good or moral; I am saying that all laws legislate someone’s moral position, which may actually be an immoral position. For example, legislating that a woman has a moral “right” to choose an abortion is actually an immoral position because a child is killed in the process. There is no moral right to kill an innocent human being. The right to life is the right to all other rights.
  4. Wayne Grudem, Politics according to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 61.
  5. See Matthew 22–23, and the fine book by Neil Mammen, Jesus Is Involved in Politics: Why Aren’t You? Why Isn’t Your Church? (San Jose, CA: Rational Free Press, 2009).
  6. This is not to suggest that every moral or political issue has clear right and wrong answers. It only means that violations of basic moral principles—such as murder, theft, and rape for example—are clearly wrong. Legislators often need to debate the level of government involvement in less obvious cases.
  7. To see where the “separation of church and state” language (which is not in the Constitution) originated, see Legislating Morality, chapter 5.
  8. For a moral law and social case against same-sex marriage, see my Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Charlotte: CrossExamined Press, 2008). For a Moral Law case against abortion, see my Legislating Morality, with Norman Geisler.
  9. See Brian Camenker, “What Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Has D one to Massachusetts,” Mass Resistance,
  10. While no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status, the Alliance Defense Fund is challenging the law. Go to for details about the law and their Pulpit Initiative.

TOPICS: Current Events; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: legislation; morality
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 09/01/2013 5:52:52 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Democrat Party legislates immorality. Good luck putting that horse back in the barn....

2 posted on 09/01/2013 5:59:37 PM PDT by freebilly (Creepy and the Ass Crackers....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We legislate morality all the time. It is immoral to steal and rape and murder and any number of things.

3 posted on 09/01/2013 6:03:09 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the people. T Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

New Novel ‘Terrifies’ Readers, Suggests ‘President Palin’ Could’ve Turned us Into Christian Nation

4 posted on 09/01/2013 6:04:54 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I aim to raise a million plus for Gov. Palin. What'll you do?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

So, outlawing blasphemy is constitutional?

5 posted on 09/01/2013 6:06:27 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I ignore stupid comments.

6 posted on 09/01/2013 6:15:31 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the people. T Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Government cannot legislate morality. Even God cannot legislate morality without removing freewill.

Government can legislate an environment for man that allows him to live morally.

7 posted on 09/01/2013 6:18:14 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

That wasn’t a comment, that was a question.

to make it more specific, what commandments of God should America legislate against and what should be legal (even if immoral)?

THAT is the question. Now, if after my clarification, you still call the question “stupid” I want you to justify the adjective.

8 posted on 09/01/2013 6:19:57 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

RE: Government cannot legislate morality.

But surely, SOME morality must be legislated without society degenerating to chaos.

9 posted on 09/01/2013 6:20:52 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Ya. Following the 10 Commandments is a pretty good thing. Murder — bad, adultery — bad, etc. etc.

Hopefully, they are suggesting that it should be okay to murder, etc.

10 posted on 09/01/2013 6:20:54 PM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

As I see it, you have four kinds of law in this regard.

Justice Law - any law pertaining to bringing justice to those who harm others through theft, murder, rape, assault etc.

Code Law - laws that give a code to functions of daily life, such as speed limits etc.

Civil Law - any law pertaining to the maintenance of a civil society, like bans on bestiality, indecent exposure, etc

Religious Law - Blasphemy laws would come under this

The problem arises when trying to sort laws into these categories. Things like blasphemy laws would be unconstitutional. Violation of free speech. There’s room to argue about what the 1st Amendment covers, but I take a Libertarian view of it, meaning very little can be banned in terms of speech (unless minors are involved, in which I think some action can be taken to protect them from things like sexual heckles and such). Fire in a movie theater is an obvious exception too.

11 posted on 09/01/2013 6:22:56 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Take some time to read my whole post. The answer to your query is there.

12 posted on 09/01/2013 6:23:02 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Starting from your principle, we must repeal laws against bank robbery. We should “allow” banks to operate, but we must not prohibit anyone from robbing them.

13 posted on 09/01/2013 6:27:07 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan (If you're FOR sticking scissors in a female's neck and sucking out her brains, you are PRO-WOMAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

You raise a very big question, and one that the Founders likely didn’t think about too much, because they never predicted a society in which shame did not exist. Why did the Founders not even mention a lot of issues we consider key in a ‘moral’ sense? Because people didn’t dare engage in such activities for fear of being ostracized by their neighbors. We don’t have a ‘civil society’ in the true sense anymore. We have a very post-modernist society in which it is heresy to be “judgmental”.

I can tell you this. Had the Founders witnessed Miley Cyrus’ display, they probably would have burned her. haha :)

14 posted on 09/01/2013 6:27:10 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Don’t you blaspheme in here! Don’t you blaspheme in here!!!” —The Blues Brothers

15 posted on 09/01/2013 6:28:52 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

That is one theory of government, that the government should allow private industry to operate, but that the industry should be responsible for defending itself from robbery. Such hardcore anarcho-libertarians find the idea of a police force to be too much of a threat to freedom.

16 posted on 09/01/2013 6:29:05 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’m chuckling as I type this. I thought morality was already legislated with the Ten Commandments.

Government needs to stay out of it.

17 posted on 09/01/2013 6:41:26 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

You can’t legislate morality and force people to live moral lives .

We are where we are at because people refuse to repent .

You can try to pass all the laws you want but until the people change their minds nothing will matter
Proof can be seen on the abortion issue alone and how many people who are members of the churches that scream the loudest about it have abortions and promote it

18 posted on 09/01/2013 6:44:47 PM PDT by Lera (Proverbs 29:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

My impression wasn’t so much that raycpa is a Libertarian, as that he was mindlessly repeating the slogan “You can’t legislate morality.”

It’s a stupid slogan. Every law legislates morality. It is either just or unjust.

19 posted on 09/01/2013 6:47:51 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan (If you're FOR sticking scissors in a female's neck and sucking out her brains, you are PRO-WOMAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
So, outlawing blasphemy is constitutional?

Of course it is. One man's blasphemy is another's free speech.

If society deems blasphemy unacceptable, then it must develop social sanctions to discourage it -- not criminal or civil sanctions.

20 posted on 09/01/2013 7:08:18 PM PDT by Maceman (Just say "NO" to tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson