Incidental Obedience

Any of my regular readers will know that... Okay, "Either" of my regular readers will know that...All right! So I'm the only regular reader of my blog (and sometimes even I don't read it) But as such, I'm aware that one of the things I've been wrestling with in my effort to decide how (or whether) to separate my politics from my spirituality, is the fact that you can't legislate morality. Any moral change that is going to have eternal significance has to come from the heart. But does that mean that legislation is necessarily insignificant?

Galatians 3:11 says, "Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, 'The righteous will live by faith'." But again, does that mean that legislation is necessarily insignificant? The question I'm getting at is, if no one is justified before God by the law (or, "works of the law") and justification is only achieved through faith, then what good does the law do? The law of God reveals sin, and our need for grace. But what about the laws of man, our civil laws? Do they do anything besides maintain order in our society?

Driving deeper, to the root of my question: Is someone who avoids say, stealing, any better off in the eyes of God if his reason for not stealing is only to stay out of jail? (Before you answer, read Galatians 3:11 again.) If that same person did steal, would they be worse off? Or is guilty guilty, so apart from faith he's condemned either way? Talk about damned if you do or damned if you don't!

If our civil laws have no bearing on righteousness, and their only purpose is to keep order in our society, then it's easy for me to separate politics from my religion. It's two different worlds. I want to say there's more to it than that. Stepping away from laws for a minute, and speaking more from a morality standpoint, I've said before that I appreciate the taboo that surrounds such things as abortion and homosexuality because it makes those things a harder choice. You have to think about whether you're willing to endure the pressures society will put on you if you choose that path. From this angle, I can say it makes it harder for someone to sin. Which is good- right? Yes, if my definition of sin is doing things that are immoral. But that brings us back to the question at hand: If the reason a girl takes her baby full term is only because she doesn't want to face the parental or religious or peer pressure associated with abortion, did she avoid sin by giving birth? Maybe this would be a good time to read the verse from Galatians again.

Let me remind you at this point that I'm fanatically prolife, and this question is only hypothetical. Obviously, there is a great benefit to her going full term. Namely, her child lives!

I keep going in circles in my mind with this question. The best we can hope for from legislation is to promote works-righteousness, which saves no one. But works-righteousness must at least be somewhat better than works-unrighteousness. And now we're talking self-righteousness. True righteousness comes from God, apart from works of the law (be they good works or bad works). So my highest priority has to be carrying the gospel, which can lead to true obedience, righteousness and life. But if God is my life, I can't say "Okay, now I'm going to turn off the religious part of my life and turn on the political part." The two really are components of me. The God part is always on, and it affects the political part. But what I'm learning from Greg Boyd is to not let that flip-flop to where politics starts directing my view of who God is.

I drifted. The question is, "Does obedience count for anything before God if it's not driven by faith?"