Episode Transcript
[00:00:06] Speaker A: Welcome to the Truth Exchange podcast. This is a weekly program with Doctor Jeffrey J. Ventrella where he answers questions from subscribers around the globe, answering questions about worldview, cultural apologetics, and other miscellaneous items. I'm your host, Joshua Guillotine, and this is another edition of the director's bag.
[00:00:31] Speaker B: On the Ambrose option of the dicta, Jeff from the United Kingdom writes, actually, first he quotes you, Jeff. He says, this christian conception of the public sphere provides a foundation for ordered liberty. That foundation establishes one no ruler is above God's law.
So Jeff writes, or questions, how does this play out in practice without arguing for a theonomic state or a virtuous society that leans, or is it a virtuous society that leans on general equity of the law?
[00:01:11] Speaker C: I really appreciate the question, because he's got the gist of what we're talking about. The idea is that, as I stated, no ruler is above the law. In other words, the ruler himself, as a person, is accountable. Get this from romans 13, which tells us that the magistrate is a minister, a servant of God, and enacts God's justice. So there needs to be a standard by which the minister can do that. We would claim that would be what is often called the moral law of God. Now, he uses a term there that I'm fine with, as it is put together, theonomic, meaning God's law. But unfortunately, there's been a lot of wars within the reformed branch of the church concerning what that term means. But I would point out that even St. John Paul II basically said that there needs to be a theonomy as opposed to autonomy, as did Doctor Cornelius van Tiel. The point being that mankind cannot live in a way pleasing to God by neglecting God's ethical standards. And so we don't want to get caught up in some of the decades old debates, but we would simply note that the consistent convictions throughout Christendom were that there's a reference point to the law of God. And we can talk about some of the details, but I think that the point we have to make is, and we'll cover this, I think, a little bit later in the podcast, is that when we structure society, there's not only processes that ensure fairness and equality, but there are substantive content to those processes and structures as well. And we would say that that must be derived from a normative standard that stands outside of reality. And I think that that can be. It's been done historically through things like natural law theory, but also through direct understanding of the revelation of God. When God placed Adam and Eve in the garden. He didn't say, okay, go look at the created order and figure out how you're to live. Rather, he gave them special revelation. And that's what we're saying here now that can be misunderstood. And so we want to, we do want to issue some caveats there, because we're not talking about coercing people into the faith. We're talking about moral standards that promote a liberty and structural pluralism that treats every person made in the image of likeness of God with dignity and equality.
[00:03:59] Speaker B: Right. Right. And I would, I would commend for our listeners for more of a deep dive on this. P. Andrew Sandlin has a book called Virtuous liberty, which, Jeff, you were a part of and contributing to. And we also had Sandlin on the program last week. You can go back and listen to that episode where we dive a little bit into that view of a virtuous libertarian, or not libertarian, but liberal society.
An anonymous writer on X writes, does a classic liberalism in theory allow for drag queen story hour, but abhor it in practice? It seems like you want the moral law of God, quote unquote, to be the plumb line with no actual steps to get there and a billion caveats.
[00:04:54] Speaker C: I appreciate the question because that's an area of culture. Of course, there was a big time debate as to the efficacy of classical liberalism, and a lot of the christian nationalists and some of the folks in that ilk, the integralists, are saying classical liberalism is inherently flawed. And one of the counter arguments to that was, look, I don't like drag queen story hour, but we have to allow it under classical liberal tenets. I don't agree with that. I think that that's a mistaken understanding of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism draws upon the christian tradition, and that means that the public square is a virtuous and moral public square. And so the questioner asks whether or not we should allow drag queen story hour, quote, in practice, quote, I'm going to ask a question like a lawyer now and say, what do you mean by that? Where is the practice and who's the audience? Because classical liberalism would say that in a private club among people who are adherents to drag queen story hour, if they do this thing in private and the audience is not minors, the future of citizens who could be impacted, classical liberals would probably allow that. However, if the venue is, as most of these things have been, a public library which is funded by the state, then the answer is no, we would not allow that, even with the First Amendment. Why? Because by the same reason, we wouldn't allow neo Nazis to come in in the public library and spew forth things that was anti semitic or anti black or calling black people not human, that sort of thing. Why? Because certain ideas, when expressed and sanctioned in a public platform, are so corrosive to the public ethos they ought not to be done. Which is why I also disagree with the Supreme Court that says that things like pornography are protected, quote, free expression. It is not, nor should it be, and it never has been under the common law. So the problem is that modern editions of what's called classical liberalism is really kind of a libertine idea that was promoted by very leftist groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and so forth.
[00:07:25] Speaker B: Very good. Yeah, I'm glad I corrected myself when I said liberty, because that is not what you and Sandlin were arguing for at all.
James, 13 year old says, doctor, dear Doctor Ventrella, I was listening to your podcast on the way to school on the bus.
It was one of the guests. It was one with a guest speaker. Excuse me. And you were talking about christian liberty. It made me think if all religions were allowed to practice at the same time, wouldn't that be bad for the nation? Because those religions are all lies and we want to exchange the lies for the truth. Thanks for taking my question. Thank you, James.
[00:08:10] Speaker C: Yes, James, I'm going to echo what Joshua said there. James, that's a very perceptive question. It shows that you're listening well and thinking well, and that really nourishes our hearts and helps us encourage us to keep going. Your question there includes a very important word, and that is practice their religion. So we want to distinguish the practice of religion or the exercise of religion from belief. A christian society would not demand certain beliefs. It wouldn't coerce the conscience of people made in God's image to believe certain things. And you'll note, notice this again. In the Garden of Eden, God did not. He gave commands, but he gave commands in the form of a proposal. He told them what they should do. He told them there would be consequences, and he allowed them to choose. Now, they chose poorly, as we've seen in the Indiana Jones movies, they have chosen poorly, and it's been a problem ever since. But of course, redemption ultimately redeems that situation. So the question would be, what sorts of practices? Well, there are religious practices that we would not tolerate, such as modern day mullock worship, child sacrifice, aztec native sacrifice, those kinds of things, practices that are injurious. We would not allow those. We would not allow sanctioning of polygamy anymore, although there's a push for polyamory now among the elite left. But we would not allow that. In the United States, Supreme Court condemned the practice of polygamy and said that in order for Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and a few other states that were territories to become states, they had to get rid of it. And they did. So it depends upon the nature of that practice. Now, would we say that we would not allow false religions to gather and to just stay among themselves? No, we wouldn't prohibit that. Why? Because MaN is created free and with a conscience, and so we don't coerce those kinds of things. However, that's not to stop the State from saying this. Religion is our tradition and it is true. That's why we say things like, in God we trust. That's why we sing things that contain references to the Christian God and not to muhammadism or any of those kinds of things. So it's a delicate idea, and you are correct. And so what we believe as christians, and that's exactly what we see the apostles doing in the acts of the apostles. They reasoned with them. They reasoned with them where? In the public square, among the philosophers and in the Synagogues? Right.
They said, okay, here's a smackdown. Let's go see who's actually can be rationally defended, what can be true, and so on and so forth. So we have a great opportunity to know our faith and then to tell people with gentleness and reference about that hope that is in us. And so this is why truth exchange and some other ministries are engaged in cultural apologetics. This is very important because it honors who God is and it honors mankind made in his image. We're not coercive in that sense. I hope that answers your question, James. If you'd like some follow up or clarification, please write again. We will not get tired of it.
[00:11:54] Speaker B: This concludes the recording of the director's bag. For more resources from Truth exchange, please visit us online at www.truthexchange.com. you can follow us on x as well as Facebook for more updates and content related to Truth exchange. Be sure to join us next week for more questions from the directors bag. I'm your host, Joshua Guillo, and this is the Truth Exchange podcast.
