BEYOND “CONSERVATIVE” & “LIBERAL”

NOTES ON DIVINE PRINCIPLES

OF GOVERNMENT

Part Three, Cont.

The 10 Indispensable Principles of Government

Garry D. Nation

c. 2008.  All rights reserved.

3. III. The Principle of Reverence (“You shall not take the name…in vain”)
   

God is the Reverend One.

1. •God is the Creator-Sustainer of the universe, Author of life and liberty, the Source of truth, and Providential Controller of the destiny of the nation and he world.
   

2. •It is irreverent to use his name as a means to achieving any end; to use his name to establish and endorse human plans and programs.
   

3. •It is always appropriate for those in government to beseech divine guidance and help in doing justice.
   

The name of God, in social terms, is composite and synecdoche for all that is held as sacred.

1. •A Universal Principle: Every society reveres something, whether it be the Supreme Being or only a superior one.
   

2. •Appropriate Public Expression: Reverence for God may be legitimately expressed and promoted in a free society by those who govern.
   

1. (1)The Founding Fathers expressed and encouraged public reverence for God, and did so without establishing a religion, so providing a precedent for every future generation.
   

2. (2)It is not desirable for governmental leaders to become preachers of religion, but neither is it at all necessary—this is a slander by those whose agenda demands the removal of reverence from the public square.
   

3. (3)Negatively, it means to communicate publicly without profanity or disrespect for the divine Name and without disparaging religious faith and sacred things; and to operate with tacit understanding that the “all seeing eye” depicted on our currency is watching us.
   

4. (4)Positively, those who govern may promote public reverence through their rhetoric and deeds in political campaigns; through the writing of legislation and legal opinions; through the establishment of the internal rules of government; and in all their work to influence public opinion. 
   

5. •Domino Theory: When society loses reverence for the Name, there is no longer any basis for trust—and even oath-taking loses meaning.
   

6. •The Sacred and the Profane: To discover what a society truly considers sacred, investigate what it considers profane.
   

1. (1)With the loss of reverence for the divine Name, common social scruples regarding religious profanity and blasphemy are lost.
   

2. (2)Religious epithets and imprecations lose their former potency for shock and insult and fade largely into slang.
   

3. (3)Old curses are replaced by base vulgarities related to excrement and sex.
   

4. (4)It is no accident that the “filthy speech” movement on college campuses in the 1960’s—a major influence in the unleashing of obscenity and profanity in American and Western society, was connected to a radical anti-authority, Marxist political agenda.
   

5. (5)By contrast, Islamic society retains intense devotion to the name of Allah, the person of the Prophet, and the letter of the Book; and the extreme nature of their reaction to Western casualness toward them is perplexing to secular people—and even to Christians who should understand but have surrendered to secularism in their own thinking.
   

Reverence for God and his name is the basis of reverence for human life and liberty.

1. •Beyond Religion: Reverence for the Creator transcends any particular religious point of view, and is the common currency of values for all mankind.
   

2. •The Influence of Biblical Religion: No other religious viewpoint has been as powerful to promote the reverence for humanness and the respect for human rights than the Judeo-Christian doctrine that God created man—male and female—in his image.
   

3. •Religious Devaluation: Modernity has progressively pressed the Creator into a merely religious concept; and with this devaluation has come the corresponding devaluation of life, and the cheapening of liberty to mere civil and economic rights.
   

Reverence for God and the Name is the basis of respect for law and government.

1. •The Supreme Being: Every state, every government, every society recognizes a supreme being, overtly or tacitly.
   

1. (1)God is the Creator-Sustainer of the universe, Author of life and liberty, Source of truth, and Providential Director of the destiny of the nation and the world.
   

2. (2)There is room for much variation among the specific religious and theological understanding of Deity in a pluralistic society.
   

3. (3)Yet a pluralistic society may yet hold to the ideal of the unity of truth though it does not presently agree on what that truth is.
   

4. (4)If Deity is not so recognized and revered by society and those who govern it, something lesser will fill the vacuum, either the individual or the state—and in a contest, the state inevitably wins.
   

A state that does not revere a transcendent Being will revere itself above all—and that leads to tyranny.

1. •The First Corollary: The Principle of Reverence is the first corollary of Principles I (Absolute Truth) and II (Morality over Materialism) combined.
   

2. •The First Casualty: The Principle of Reverence is likely to be the first visible casualty of the surrender or loss of Principles I and II to the secular state.
   

1. (1)Secular humanists push against shared reverence for the sacred as an establishment of religion.
   

2. (2)By surrendering this principle to the secularists, supporters of religious liberty deeply erode religious liberty in the name of religious liberty.
   

3. See Idols of History
   

3. III.The Principle of Rest (“Remember the Sabbath to keep it set apart.”)
   

The Sabbath is not just a religious observance, but also a universal necessity.

1. •A mark of Israel’s uniqueness: The cultic (specifically religious) aspects of the theocratic Sabbath are not authorized for any other nation outside of the covenant nation of Israel and should not be promoted under a secular constitution.  Those who wish to observe it for the worship of God should have that right, and those who do not should also have that right.
   

2. •A universal principle of rest: The universal principle of regulated rest has a basis in nature and human nature and must be recognized, just as the principle of cleanliness (which was also embedded in the cultus of the law).
   

3. •The exhaustible nature of man and creation:  Both man and nature (aka “the environment) are finite and can “run out” and “run down.”
   

4. •The rejuvenative nature of man and creation: Both man and creation may be rejuvenated and restored, even when exhausted, through proper use and rest.
   

The Principle of rest operates in the economy.

1. •The limits of human productivity:
   

1. (1)The Mosaic Sabbath was instituted after a deliverance from economic tyranny in which Pharaoh subjugated the Hebrews and exploited their labor without regard for their welfare.
   

2. (2)It is an appropriate role of government to give those who labor protection from abusive exploitation through the Sabbath principle.
   

3. (3)How has it been missed that laws which set aside one day of rest in seven are reasonable, and do not require government to become involved in over-regulation?  At least one fundamental mistake of the old “blue laws” that finally faded away in the Bible belt was that they attempted to regulate sales rather than work.
   

4. •Economic cycles: There is always an ebb and flow in the economy, and governments should resist the temptation to intervene either to stoke a constant flame or to prevent negative effects of overextension; rather it should be content to establish rules that insure that (1) the strong do not prey on the weak, and (2) that the weak do not thrive parasitically off the strong.
   

The principle of rest entails the guarantee for liberty of religion and conscience.

1. •The pursuit of divine interests by the population is at least as significant to the welfare of the nation as the pursuit of economic interests.
   

2. •True religious liberty is not the stifling of religious expression, but in fact fosters an atmosphere whereby material economics is balanced by spiritual nurture.
   

3. •Establishment of religion is neither the goal nor the means; government need only allow a free rein to the practice of religion by individuals and groups, and the free exchange of religious ideas in the public square.
   

It may mean relief from restrictive and arbitrary zoning restrictions, and it certainly includes freedom from taxation on the religious institutions and on the giving that supports them.  As Isaac Backus* pointed out, the power to tax implies the power to destroy.

*Isaac Backus was a Baptist minister in New England in the late 18th century, whose seminal thinking on religious liberty had a powerful influence on James Madison and the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Sabbath principle also applies to natural resources.

1. •An appropriate extension of government authority is to protect environment and shared resources that must be used by the society now living and by future generations.
   

1. (1)Mankind has gifts of rationality and resourcefulness that enable him both to make broad and deep use of the resources of creation, and to clean up the nasty messes that he makes in it.  His stewardship of dominion demands that he do both.
   

2. (2)It is irrationally wasteful and destructive of human life for individuals or society to abuse the creation for short-term benefit; and it is likewise irrational and destructive of human life to cut off the use of presently consumed resources for some speculative long-term benefit, particularly when there is no comparable substitute.
   

3. (3)Governments should permit reasonable use, promote rational conservation, prevent irrational waste and overuse, and punish excessive plundering or harmful abuse.
   

4. •The pattern of Mosaic Law: The law of Moses had strict requirements regarding the use of the land, which was regarded as God’s possession and Israel’s stewardship.
   

For example, it was commanded to let the farmland lay fallow every 7th year.  This was a religious law with an agricultural benefit, prohibiting the farming of soil to exhaustion.  Modern agricultural methods introduced in the 20th century gave no regard to the principle of rest, and a cyclical drought in mid-century brought not merely a temporary disruption but a continental catastrophe—the “Dust Bowl.”

1. •The Environmentalist Heresy
   

1. (1)In the postmodern era a new mysticism has emerged that treats the environment as a deity to be revered, and human prosperity as a blight upon “the planet.”
   

2. (2)Neo-Marxism has taken up environmentalism as the moral high ground from which to launch new attacks of propaganda and law upon capitalism.
   

3. (3)To protect the natural environment and its resources it is not necessary to give in to an idolatry of nature or the deification of earth, nor to make a claim of communal ownership of resources that effaces private property rights; and Christians should resist and not abet all efforts to do so.
   

4. See Idols of Nature, Idols of Religion
   

5. V. The Principle of Primary Social Authority (“Honor your father and your mother.”)
   

The primary structure for order and progress in society is the marriage-based family unit.

1. •The so-called “traditional” or “nuclear” family is built on the marital bond, including and especially the bond between parents and children, naturally through birth and volitionally through adoption; the latter having come into being to deal with the tragedies and misfortunes of a world under the reign of death.
   

2. •The “traditional” family is under assault, condemned by “progressive” innovators as backwardly patriarchal, and at best inadequate for the social challenges faced in the modern (or post-modern) world.
   

3. •The real issue is not whether the definition of “family” can stretch to accommodate a variety of familial circumstances, but what is the norm for the definition of a family.
   

4. •Our generation is not the first to deviate from the norm (Lamech redefined family in terms of polygamy)—but ours appears to be the first to make a full frontal assault on the family as the basic unit of society and to replace it with the individual.
   

5. •The marriage-based family unit is essential for the upbringing of children.  A society founded on the individual either favors the needs of adults at the expense of children, or empowers children beyond their capacity.  In either case disorder is introduced into society incrementally.
   

The primary responsibility for the rearing of children belongs to parents, not to “the village” (i.e., not to society nor to government).

1. •Children inherit the future of any society, thus the crucial question for the survival and prosperity of a nation is, “Who will raise the children?”
   

2. •The Bible establishes the priority of parental rights and authority to bring up children. It sees them not only as the primary care givers, but as primary educators in all areas of life.
   

3. •“Honor your father and your mother” also has a direct application in economics.  The care of the elderly is regarded—both in the law and the gospel—as a family matter, with adult children being given the primary responsibility for the care and welfare of their aged parents.
   

Parental authority, and respect for it, is basic to social order and progress.

1. •Respect for law and lawful authority is fostered in the home, inculcated through an order in which parents rule over the children.  In learning to respond to parental authority—and especially to that of their fathers—children learn to relate vertically to God, and horizontally to government.
   

2. •When parental authority breaks down or is undermined, or when parental responsibilities go unfulfilled, order in the society breaks down at the molecular level.  Social progress is reversed, and the end result is anarchy followed by tyranny.
   

The Bible recognizes the role of the local community in raising children, but it is a supportive role, not a primary one.

1. •The biblical pattern of the social support system begins with extended family structures and moves outward from there—and in the extreme case sees the community enforcing the commandment against rebellious youth whose delinquency is beyond reproof and correction.
   

2. •Government role in family life is sharply limited by this principle.  It is proper for government to compel parents through threat of sanction to fulfill their primary responsibilities.  It may be proper for government to assist parents in their primary responsibilities to a limited degree, although that is a slippery slope.  But for government on any level to assert primary authority for the provision, nurture, education, and rearing of children is usurpation.
   

3. •Government and law strengthens the family when it supports responsible parenthood and the responsibility of children to their parents.
   

1. (1)Laws and policies must make it easy for parents to accept their responsibilities to their children, and encourage them to do so.
   

2. (2)Government must resist the temptation to solve social problems by: intruding into homes with regulation; by tax policies that are hostile to families; by positioning itself (through education and day care programs, for example) as a surrogate for parents; or anything that discourages, disrupts, or gives a counter incentive to parents from rearing and educating their own children.
   

3. (3)Likewise government must make it rewarding, not discouraging for people to plan for their income after their working years, and for children to take responsibility for the care and welfare of elderly parents.
   

6. VI. The Principle of Human Worth (“You shall not murder.”)
   

A core principle of all Judeo-Christian theology: The life of any human being is more precious in God’s sight than all the rest of his creation.

1. •The fundamental point is that man is made in God’s image.  Human life has real value apart from economic considerations and apart from emotional or relational connections.
   

2. •The commandment addresses the unjust and unauthorized taking of life, not the taking of life per se.
   

3. •This principle requires those who govern to prohibit and punish the the taking of human life that is arbitrary, or deliberate, or reckless, or careless; whether it is for private interest, for profit or gain, or by irresponsible negligence.
   

The first principle of human government, together with its first law, was this principle (Genesis 9:6).

1. •The functional basis of social order is that no individual has the right to take the life of another—not because the other owns his life for himself, but because God alone is the owner of life.  No one has the personal authority to decide that someone else has lived long enough.
   

2. •The seemingly paradoxical “dark side” to the commandment is that retribution is demanded from anyone who treads upon the life of another. 
   

1. (1)There are reasons whereby society may demand a life or permit the taking of it, including retribution for murder, self-defense, or social/national defense.
   

2. (2)All these are seen biblically as supportive of and not destructive to the sanctity of life.
   

3. (3)Because capital punishment, self-defense, and (only for a specific time and purpose) holy war are sanctioned by God, the reverence for his sole authority to govern the length of life is preserved.
   

4. •The expansion of the principle entails also the prohibition of committing harm to another.
   

5. •The corollary principle of retribution (“eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life”) operates as a limitation upon vengeance; i.e., the punishment must fit the crime, and the retribution cannot exceed the real  (as opposed to economic) value of the loss.
   

Making exceptions to this principle of the sanctity of human life (e.g., for abortion, euthanasia, racial hatred, genocide) lead to degradation of society:

1. •In the reverence people should have toward human life in general—especially toward the lives of people who are members of a different group.
   

2. •In the respect people have for the law in general—for who can respect a law-order that reneges on its most basic function?  Modern humanists underestimate the depth and degree of anger that fills a society where wrongs are not justly redressed.
   

3. •In the peace of the society, as violence escalates and people increasingly feel the need to defend themselves and others from violence—even proactively—lest they too become victims.
   

The contemporary use of capital punishment is problematic, but not for the reasons most might think.

1. •It is not because of the non-retaliatory ethic of Jesus and the apostles exemplified in the Sermon on the Mount, because that ethic applies to disciples of Jesus and to the church (who have power from above), not to government authorities (who retain power below).  That is not just because the early church had no say in government; they regarded the “power of the sword” to be normative for government.
   

2. •It is rather because the justice system in the modern state has been divorced from biblical norms.
   

1. (1)In biblical law death is a community responsibility, and murder brings guilt on the community. Justice was an issue for which the community as a whole was responsible to God.  An unsolved murder constituted a sin of the community against God, and atonement was required.
   

2. A member of the family, the go’el (lit. “near kinsman”; in this context “avenger”; in other contexts “redeemer”) was appointed to prosecute the accused.  He was not expected to be impartial, but neither was he permitted to be the judge and jury.  The law required judges to be impartial and to judge without regard to the person or status of the one on trial.
   

3. The basic biblical principle of conviction is under the testimony of two or more witnesses.  No one was required to incriminate himself, but likewise no one could be exonerated on his own testimony alone if there were valid witnesses against him. 
   

4. If the accused was convicted of murder, executioners were chosen from the community.
   

2. (2)The Protestant Reformers, following the concept of Lex Rex, commended the concept of blind justice.  Though it was as much Humanist (ancient Roman) as biblical, they regarded it as a corrective of abuses such as arbitrariness class prejudice that arose during the feudal period.
   

3. (3)The industrial revolution applied insights from the machine age to judicial processes.  Here was the birth of our current judicial system, where the issue of primary importance in a trial is not whether the accused is guilty or innocent, but whether the rules were followed.  The system is run by experts—lawyers—and the community is virtually removed from the process altogether.  The last vestige of community involvement, the jury, is increasingly subject to sociological manipulation in efforts to “tilt” the system either toward the prosecution or the defense.
   

4. (4)The system has evolved so that justice is not only blind, but also completely impersonal.  When it is said the “the criminal justice system works,” it means that more times than not the guilty are convicted and punished and the innocent go free.  The system is based on rules and procedures that are under constant review and periodic revision.
   

5. •It is valid to inquire and debate whether capital punishment is biblically justifiable under our current system.
   

1. (1)The scripture teaches that it is an abomination to God both to acquit the guilty and to condemn the innocent.
   

2. (2)The question is not whether capital punishment it is an effective deterrent, or whether it is just per se. Modernity has not eradicated the elemental demand of blood-for-blood justice. Some crimes are so heinous to us that the call by society for the death penalty may seem mild.
   

3. (3)The question instead is whether capital punishment can be justly levied in a system based on probable outcomes.  The alarming number of capital (and other) convictions that have been overturned nationwide in recent years may or may not speak of racial prejudice in the system, but certainly does indicate a flaw in the system that may be irreparable.
   

4. (4)Yet the problem remains that only the death penalty protects the sanctity of life.  If the price for willfully taking a life is not life, then human life is devalued to nothing more than economics and emotion. The seeming paradox is that those who do not believe that those guilty of murder should be punished by death are almost invariably the same ones who argue in favor of rights to abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and suicide.
   

5. See Idols of Humanity
   

5. V.The Principle of Sexual Integrity (“You shall not commit adultery.”)
   

The primary relationship in the family is the marriage bond between one man and one woman.

1. •The marital bond is multifaceted: formal, emotional, physical, material, social, and legal.
   

2. •Government has a limited role: It may only (but must) concern itself with the legal bond for the sake of civic order.
   

3. •Definition of marriage non-optional: Whereas there is much room for variation in the validation of family patterns, there is less room for variation in what constitutes a valid marriage.
   

1. (1)The underpinnings of the marriage institution are moral, historical/cultural, and pragmatic; but if the moral basis fails, the others will not long stand before a tide of self-indulgence masquerading as a “civil rights” movement.
   

2. (2)Once a society decides the definition of marriage is up for debate, anything becomes possible: homosexual marriage, polygamy, incest, interspecies, and any other alternative the mind can conceive.
   

Sexual integrity is the basis for family integrity, which is in turn the basis for social stability.

1. •Sound marriages are fundamental to social stability: The family is the molecular unit of society, and marriage is the atomic nucleus of the family.  Trust is like the “strong force” that binds all things together.
   

2. •Healthy families are vital to a healthy society and nation.  It is in the interest of sound government to guard marriages from the encroachment of infidelity, which destroys marriages and multiplies the complications of divorce—especially in a democracy, which by nature needs healthy families in order to function well.
   

3. •Instead modern governments typically penalize strong, healthy marriages through taxation, and wound the legal protections of marriage through “no fault divorce” laws.
   

1. (1)The “marriage penalty” becomes an incentive for unmarried cohabitation.
   

2. (2)“No fault divorce,” besides being an oxymoron, provides a legal cover for adultery and other selfish behaviors that show no concern for the consequences of a broken home.
   

The first restraints people cast off on the way to social depravity are restraints on sexual behavior.

1. •Why did earlier societies suppress sex? “They tell you sex has become a mess because it was hushed up.  But for the last twenty years it has not been hushed up.  It has been chattered about all day long.  Yet it is still in a mess….  I think the human race originally hushed it up because it had become such a mess.” (C. S. Lewis)
   

2. •Until fairly recently the law recognized biblical morality.  Adultery, fornication, alienation of affection, and other sexual faults were not only grounds for divorce, but tort offenses in many jurisdictions, and in some states were still listed as felonies (though seldom enforced as such).
   

3. •The rise of a libertine society marked the beginning of the end of Bible-based marital laws.  With the second sexual revolution of the sixties (the first was in the 1920s) came growing resistance to the thought of government intruding people’s sexual lives, or “invading citizens’ bedrooms.”
   

4. •The right to “privacy”—which in the wake of the Roe v. Wade decision has become a new pillar of law—has eclipsed the right of married persons to require fidelity from their spouses.  The catch phrase “between consenting adults” ignores the fact that there may be adults (not to mention children) who do not consent and whose rightful wishes are not being considered.
   

5. •Even when constrained by rights to sexual privacy, there is still a place for law to protect families from corruptive sexual influences.
   

1. (1)The so-called right to privacy as a legal pillar and legislative principle, in the age of AIDS and the explosion of sexually transmitted diseases, appears to be a dubious if not ludicrous proposition.  Even so, there remain some approaches which, though they fall short of the standard, still may work as a levee to protect society from the most devastating effects of our current moral laxity.
   

2. (2)Prostitution, public displays of immorality and indecency, and other such exploits do not qualify for protection as private matters when they become public, nor for protection as free personal expression (since no one has a right to free expression that damages the life or reputation of another, likewise no one has a protected right to intrude on the sexual privacy of others.
   

3. (3)It is still an appropriate role for government to protect families from prostitution, pornography, child exploitation, sexual slavery, and incest; and also to refuse to grant legal recognition of abnormal and deviant sexual behavior.  The current battle in the U. S. for the definition of marriage is vital; if this is lost, there seems to be no limit as to what may be permitted.
   

4. See Idols of Humanity
   

4. IV.The Principle of Property (“You shall not steal.”)
   

The principle of property is an extension of the principle of human worth.  As a person’s life is his own possession for which he is accountable to God, so likewise is the time, labor, and product of his life.

1. •The law must allow and protect the freedom of an individual to his own property, both in the public marketplace and in his private consumption.
   

2. •Biblical law recognized two dark realities of economic life: poverty and debt.
   

1. (1)The law prohibited the oppression of the poor, and the prophets urged compassion; but there is never an exerted effort to eradicate poverty per se.  Rather there is a focus on setting common conditions in which the nation would be prosperous and all could have a share of that prosperity.  It was also recognized that God controlled the conditions—climate, war and peace, disease and health—but that he would bless the nation that keeps his commandments.
   

2. (2)The rich are encouraged by law to lend to the poor, but prohibited from lending to the poor or disadvantaged for profit—hence the laws against usury.  Still, the dignity of the person is upheld, and even the poorest are encouraged to work for their livelihood and are expected ultimately to pay their debts.  In the world of biblical law, “help” abounds for the needy, but not without conditions and expectations.
   

3. (3)Debt is regarded as conditional slavery, so that the debtor becomes servant to the creditor, who has limited rights to his possessions and labor until the debt is paid; yet there is a statute of limitations on all debt, so that no one can permanently enslave another even through legally assumed debt; and there are limitations on what may be taken as collateral, lest the poor be oppressed and his life be put in jeopardy because he cannot pay.
   

This principle grants government a mandate to make plain and clear laws that prohibit and punish thefts of all kinds, including robberies, frauds, cheatings, extortions, and unfair monopolies.

Laws should permit a free market that encourages honest dealings and rewards fair play, while placing sanctions on stealing and cheating.  Biblical applications of this principle included legal standardization of weights and measures, and prohibitions of moving landmarks in real estate.

Government economic policy must keep “the rules” simple and ensure that everyone in the marketplace is following them:

1. •Maintaining a stable currency, and tax structures that are just and equitable (not “fair and equal”).
   

2. •“Fairness and equality” are populist terms that imply the guarantee of a result.
   

1. (1)This implies that government can care for the people better than God; and that it is unfair and not right that some people should have more than others.
   

2. (2)Equality of results is attained through redistribution of wealth—that is, wealth that is earned by some taken from them and spread to others.
   

3. (3)Is it justice that the greater one’s wealth or income, the higher the percentage of it must be paid in taxes; or that a government should spend more than it takes in when there is not a national emergency; or that the government should seek to manage the results of economic exchanges in a free society?
   

4. (4)The inevitable outcome of the attempt to guarantee equality of results is a depression of productivity through the discouragement of private incentive.
   

Government must therefore avoid the temptation to become a “player” in the free marketplace.

1. •Rightful mistrust of power: With its powers both of coercion and control of the money supply it very directly becomes a monopolistic power of its own.
   

2. •Axiom: Every positive exertion of government power impacts the economy negatively.
   

3. •Axiom: Taxation alters economic behavior negatively.
   

4. •Axiom: Excessive taxation destroys its own source of income, either by depriving producers of any reason to continue producing, or by driving production and distribution underground and out of reach of tax authorities.
   

5. See Idols of Power, Idols of Mammon
   

9. IX. The Principle of Social Responsibility (“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”)
   

This principle is based on the above principles of Absolute Truth and of Reverence.

1. •Absolute Truth: Otherwise the “truth” of one person or group is as good as somebody else’s.
   

2. •Reverence: Otherwise there is no basis for honor, and no inherent penalty for false swearing—only if you get caught.
   

Contrary to popular opinion, the commandment does not require unconditional candor at all times and in every situation.

1. •Specifically it is a courtroom code that governs testimony and prohibits slander, false accusation, and perjury.
   

2. •On the level of personal morality, it condemns all untruthfulness that has either malignant intent or damaging effect.  It is to this end that the Bible mandates that we speak truth always to our neighbor.
   

3. •It does not require everyone to make full self-disclosure at all times to all persons.  Not all thoughts must be uttered, not all opinions expressed, not all information made public; thieves have no right to know how much money we truly have on hand, nor do police (unless they have cause and warrant).
   

Laws must be made, enforced, and adjudicated on the basis of true testimony, or justice will be perverted.

1. •An orderly society will stand on true witness, and likewise must fall by false witness.
   

2. •Those who would lie under oath are under the same jeopardy as the accused.
   

3. •In biblical application, the rule of “two or three” was established: That decisions and convictions in court must come on the testimony of “two or three” witnesses.
   

1. (1)I.e., all testimony and evidence must be corroborated in order to be valid.
   

2. (2)It is assumed that all who testify under oath will be telling the truth, but this rule acknowledges that they may be mistaken concerning what they have witnessed.
   

3. (3)The rule is also a safeguard against false testimony, that through cross-examination a lie may be uncovered.
   

The American principle that one is innocent until proven guilty is biblically derived.

1. •Everyone is entitled to a good name until convicted of wrongdoing.
   

2. •Conviction must come on the basis of true and conclusive testimony.
   

Those who are governed must also be able to trust the word of those who govern.

1. •Government must be scrupulous in all dealings, and take precautions against the loss of integrity.
   

2. •This does not require full disclosure regarding sensitive issues. 
   

National security, the practice of war, and the work of criminal investigation necessarily involve deceptive tactics.

10. X. The Principle of Limitation (“You shall not covet.”)
    

Definition: Coveting means to lay claim to or seek to acquire that to which one has no right, in particular something that belongs to another.

1. •All greed that aspires or conspires to take what rightfully belongs to another is both immoral and illegal.
   

2. •Any action which will depreciate the liberty or dignity of another—especially actions that disrupt his family life or deprive him of property—are by their nature unjust and illegal.
   

Roots of the Principle are twofold:

1. •Philosophically this principle is related to the 1st principle of Absolute Truth, and the 2nd principle of Morality vs. Materialism.
   

2. •Morally covetous is greed, a sin of the heart over which government has no jurisdiction.
   

In Civil Relationships it means there is a limit to personal liberty.

1. •This is only a prohibition of coveting “what is your neighbor’s, not a general prohibition against all coveting per se (i.e., desiring to have more than one presently has, or desiring a better life than one possesses).
   

2. •The point is that all freedom and every personal liberty is limited by the rights of our neighbor.
   

3. •Thus, every individual right, every civil right, is limited by the rights of others.
   

In Civics it means there is a limit to the authority of government.

1. •Government also is prohibited from coveting, just as the people are prohibited; thus it may exercise no more power than necessary to punish wrong and let good be rewarded.
   

1. (1)The law of God did not prohibit the formation of a monarchy, but limited the power of the king to govern under law.
   

2. (2)The Protestant Reformers recovered the biblical principle lex rex that became the foundation of a free society.
   

3. (3)Government is therefore under the law, not the author of law, and may not legitimately use law to increase its own power.
   

4. •The rights of individuals and families are not mere privileges bestowed by governments of men; they are vested in man by creation and are expounded through divine revelation.
   

1. (1)The government itself is under law, and may not legitimately use law to increase its own power or to aggrandize those who govern.
   

2. (2)Government may not take an individual’s life, liberty, property, or opportunity from him apart from a fair course of justice and judgment.
   

3. (3)Likewise, the use of law to show partiality to any individual or group at the expense of another; rather, every law-abiding person must be granted every benefit of liberty under law as under God.
   

4. •Free people should question whether benefits they receive from government are worth the trade off of liberty they receive.
   

1. (1)What is the moral warrant for the proliferation of bureaus and regulatory agencies that extend the reach of government throughout society?
   

2. (2)What is the warrant for the government to regulate (i.e., manage) well-doing to keep it from going bad, or wrong-doing to keep it from getting worse?  Should well-doing and wrong-doing both be permitted and regulated, or should the one be freely permitted while the other is punished?
   

No Respecter of Persons: For public policy this principle condemns partiality of  two kinds.

1. •Abuses
   

2. The politics of power: The exploitation through greed of the have-nots by the haves just because they are able is prohibited. and
   

3. The politics of envy:  The despoliation through envy of the haves by the have-nots because they have been able to turn the tables of power is no more admirable or moral than the politics of power and greed.
   

4. See Idols of Humanity, Idols of Power, Idols of Mammon
   

5. •The prohibition of partiality:
   

1. (1)The law must not show partiality either to the rich or the poor.
   

2. (2)The law must not be partial to give opportunity to anyone at the expense of another, but rather must allow every law-abiding person equal freedom under law as under God.