withallyourmind.net

This month, America has celebrated the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. Chuck Edwards, of Summit Ministries, in the latest edition of Truth & Consequences, discusses how Martin Luther King Jr.’s understanding of natural law served as the foundation for his ideas on individual liberty and civil justice.

Edwards reminds us that King’s …

… assumptions are grounded on considerations of what is morally right and, ultimately, on the nature of God.

But sadly, we have forgotten those principles. It’s like we are enjoying the fruit of someone else’s labor, an earlier generation who know how to plant and cultivate the tree of liberty, but we no longer know how to keep the tree alive. We are just living off the fruit as long as long as it will bear. But without constant cultivation, the tree slowly withers and eventually dies. And we no longer know how to plant more trees like it.

It does seem to be the case that America continues to function with certain assumptions for which the foundations are increasingly denied. King’s reform efforts derived their power and strength from natural law theory based on the belief that the Creator has made humans with certain purposes in mind. Only in the Creator can adequate foundations be found for human rights. America was founded on this foundation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.

Edwards concludes:

Liberty. Equality. Justice. Martin Luther King did not live to realize his dream, as he was gunned down on April 4th, 1968. But we remember his leadership in making that dream a reality for the next generation, our generation. And more importantly, what needs to be remembered is the worldview that propelled him to act against injustice; the idea that legitimate laws depend on natural law. The legacy that King left us is not just about civil rights, but the deeper understanding that human rights come from the hand of God.

John Mark Reynolds, at Scriptorium, has a series of posts called, “What My Nana Taught Me” examining the question of whether beauty is objective or subjective, that is, “Does beauty reside in the object itself?” or, “Is beauty merely in the eye of the beholder?” Most Christians readily embrace the concepts of objective truth and objective morality, but have not consistently applied that view to beauty. Reynolds argues that beauty is objective, as is truth and goodness. There are five posts at this time, and I’m not sure if he will be adding to these.

I think he a good argument that at least makes the objectivity of beauty reasonable. He presents two “suggestive facts” which argue for objective beauty. The first is the almost universal reaction to extreme ugliness and extreme beauty around us. The second is the teaching of Scripture on the subject. Scripture certainly does seem to imply that beauty is something more than a subjective sensation in the beholder.

Reynolds does concede that one major problem with holding to the objectivity of beauty is the difficultly one has in defining precisely what beauty is. He rightly notes, however, that there are many things which are difficult to define which we still hold to be objectively the case.

Here is an excerpt from one of the posts:

Christians should be careful. Our relativism about beauty and art is exactly like secular relativism about morality. When we tolerate cheesy religious art, because the message is good, then the message may be helping us while the art kills us.

When speaking at a secular college, the same reaction comes when I suggest that some moral standards are “absolute” and not just made up by people. Unlike their secular peers, Christian students have no problem with objective morality or with the existence of truth (at least in theory). These were good kids and serious Christians.

But beauty? Beauty was something they choose. It makes them mad to imagine losing this freedom in just the same way their secular peers are angered at the thought of losing moral autonomy.

The comparison should concern them, as it began to concern me. If I create my own morality, then it has no meaning outside of me. My moral standards cost nothing to create, but are worth nothing to others. In the same way, if I am totally free to choose what is beautiful, my choices will be meaningless to anyone but me. This feels wrong in both morality and aesthetics. Real morality cannot be just “about me and my needs.” I often act morally for the good of others. Beauty that only I can understand is lonely. Something beautiful that I can share, because of a common standard of beauty, makes another beautiful thing: the communion of two people looking at one beautiful thing.

Electoral Compass USA has a nifty little algorithm that purports to match your political views with those of the candidates who are running for president. It takes a few minutes to complete, but is sort of fun and, in my case at least, pretty accurate.

By the way, according to the compass, my views most closely align with those of Mitt Romney.

According to the Associated Press, Mike Huckabee had this to say while in Michigan:

I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God… And that’s what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards, rather than try to change God’s standards.

This raises a flag in the minds of many people, including mine. (By the way, I like Huckabee and have not yet firmly committed to any particular candidate.) I would not necessarily disagree with any of the above comments if properly framed. I am not, however, in favor of amending the Constitution to match everything in Scripture. On the other hand, I am in favor of the the Constitution squaring with God’s natural law and eternal principles which can be known by all men.

John Mark Reynolds has a nice post, here, expanding on these thoughts. In it he explains:

A Constitution may agree with Sacred Scripture, but it should not impose that specific revelation on the commonwealth. This takes matters of personal faith and the Church into the public square where they do not belong. These issues may be knowledge of a sort, the doctrine of the trinity is true, but it is not knowledge based on argument to which non-Christians have access.

Huckabee should press for the Constitution to conform to the law of Nature and of Nature’s God, but he should not press for the Constitution to enshrine any law that requires acceptance of any religious claim more specific than that.