John Q. Adams, the Law, and Us

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

-- John Quincy Adams




A few days ago, Rush Limbaugh, referring to John Quincy Adams, made the point that our laws and Constitution were deliberately hard on immorality because the nation could only thrive through the living of moral and religious people. He went on to say that those who reject biblical or traditional morality find our constitution and laws restrictive and counter to their “freedom,” preferring instead to engage in unbridled hedonism. But as Adams said, we have no mechanism in place to deal with those who are fundamentally immoral or irreligious. Since, then, we have no such mechanism to deal with the current climate of unrestraint and rejection of traditional morality, it forces us to expect a future of either chaos or authoritarianism—chaos from the throwing off of morality, or authoritarianism (even totalitarianism) required to deal with lawlessness in our streets, homes and businesses. That’s a gloomy view, but it is the only logical outcome if there is no return to biblical morality (which is the foundation from which Adams clearly writes).

Adams’ quote assumes this: “religion” and “morality” are inextricably linked. He is absolutely correct. Without the instruction and correction of God’s word, we are lost in our selfishness, and consume ourselves in the process of consuming others.

The Bible puts it in clearer and simpler language:

Jeremiah wrote, “The heart is evil above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?”

Isaiah describes us as turning away from God and being loaded with sin and iniquity. He writes, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”

Paul, in his direct way, quotes the Psalmist saying, “There is none who does good, no, not one”, then goes on to say, “all have sinned…”

The condition of the human heart is right now as bad as Jeremiah described it centuries ago. Removing the bounds of morality from our laws simply gives it unrestrained opportunity to express its corrupt, wicked nature. But at the core of our present condition, and alluded to by Adams, is the fact that laws can only do so much. They can merely define acceptable behavior—not extract it. Living out morally acceptable behavior as defined by our founding laws is linked to, as Adams said, religion. Now the word religion has become, to some degree, a pejorative in our time—something that is associated with haughtiness, intolerance (whatever that means) or hypocrisy. But the religion of Adams’ time was that of a changed heart. The Great Awakening, out which the United States was born, had as its central tenet, the necessity of being converted. That is, a supernatural change in the character of man’s heart—a change that destroyed the original evil, corrupt nature and replaced it with one prone to morality, not immorality.

As the condition of the human heart is as bad now as it has ever been, so the remedy for that condition is as necessary and drastic as it has ever been: we need a supernatural “heart transplant.” We remain incapable of improving our moral character, which is naturally bent to selfish consumption resulting in death, and must rely on a fundamental conversion at our very core in order to live in freedom. Real freedom is marked not by decadent hedonism in the absence of legal restraint, but true selflessness and morality compelled by gratitude toward the Surgeon who accomplishes the spiritual transplant.

A so-called return to traditional values in terms of our laws and constitution is wholly inadequate. Laws cannot change the heart, and Adams correctly said we have no mechanism to deal with a corrupt heart. The only thing that will heal the disintegration of Western culture in general, and the fabric of America in specific, is the conversion of individual hearts, from which will spring morality, selflessness and charity. Any other goal or agenda falls fatally short and insures the continued disintegration of a nation and people.

This singular goal—conversion of the heart—should easily clarify the mission of God’s people in the United States and around the world. We must quickly jettison the worthless, heavy burden of political solutions for a sinful people and urgently and passionately pursue the dual blessable assignments of prayer and disciple-making through telling others about the Savior Jesus and urging them to follow Him. Failure here is failure everywhere.

It is not yet too late to see another Great Awakening in the United States. Indeed, it is our only hope.

Fighting for the Wheel

Can a free culture, nation, or society survive if there is no fundamental agreement on morality or ethics? Whose individual rights are going to win out over another's when they come in conflict based on conflicting values? Who is gonna drive the bus?

If we all operate from mutually held values system, then individuals, groups, bodies, or entities are better able to self-govern without the need of external government controls. To some degree, we deny our personal agendas for the advancement of the shared moral/values system. We know when we should advance our personal cause, and when we should restrain it. That may sound socialistic to a careless reader, but note the emphasis, indeed, the necessity of what I've suggested, is placed on the individual. Government has no involvement here. Government, in a society with mutually held core values, only protects those values from people who would destroy them. Government, then, is freeing individuals to pursue their goals in the larger context of shared values, not insisting on conformity to government sanctioned values, which is a building block of Socialism.

So again, I say, the greatest issue facing the US, which is unarguably divided at this time, is whether we can agree on a mutually held morality. If we cannot do this, we will be forced away from a Republic/Democracy, and forced toward some expression of government dominance of the society—-the opposite of individual rights.

At this point in our history, that journey is demonstrated by the deep division played out in abortion rights, entitlements, the re-definition of marriage and similar morality-based issues. In time past, moral fissures were played out through slavery and other issues. Those issues played out in colossal collisions of values at election times, and even in a war between the states. The question remains, when one individual’s rights come in conflict with another’s, how do we decide who wins, since, in 2007, we no longer hold the same core values?
Here are some things to ponder:

* Can we survive over the long term if we don’t have commonly held beliefs?

* If we don’t have commonly held beliefs, how do we acquire them?

* Can government cause us to share a common values system, or will it take something more powerful than government?

* Can individuals’ values be transformed by edict or force of either a person or system (external), or is the exchange of one values system for another something that occurs internally?

* How did the US survive for over 200 years, and can we survive, as we are, for another 200?

* Can individual rights be held as absolute in a society that has no agreement on foundational ethics or morality?

* What are the minimal core values necessary for a free society to survive?

* Can government provide answers to any or all of these questions, and if it can, how?

* What is the core internal issue in every person that causes us to insist on our own way, and how can conflict with others be resolved in light of that core internal challenge?