Home  |  News & Events  |  Forum Apologetica  |  Church Ministries  |  Study Resources  | Pulpit Ministries

The following is a response to an article which is included after this response below:  

Dear Mr.Balko: Many of the points you make in your article are insightful, and need serious consideration by conservatives, of which I include myself. As a Calvinist; however, I would question you on two of the points you make in summarizing your own position. 

First, you make the statement that you believe "left to their own devices, people will generally make decisions that are in their own best interests. That clearly is not the case, even in the example of a brilliant, studied, and successful man like Bill Bennett. Acting according to his own desires, he has participated in that which has not been in his own best interest, something I understand even he admits to. The question we must all ask is: If a man so studied, so gifted, so blessed with resources that he can do anything he wants,... if even he does not do what is in his best interest, then can your statement be true?  Man is depraved, and if left to himself, will act in ways contrary to his own good. This is because man, apart from the regeneration and sanctification that comes through Jesus Christ is a "slave" to sin, and therefore will serve sin, not righteousness. Jesus says in John 8:34 "... I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin." The Apostle Paul describes this in Romans 7:18 ff saying "For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do - this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it." In addition, one must ask the question, if a man is generally doing that which he considers to be in his own best interests, is he or she ultimately serving his own best interest. I submit to you that that which is in a person's best interest is to deny himself and to live for God and for others. 

Second, I question the logic and integrity of your statement that we should "Let each pursue his own happiness, so long as he doesn't hurt anyone else." I used to believe this way as well. However, I came to understand I was wrong in holding such a belief. Here's why. The assumption is that it is okay to let each person pursue his own happiness (even if it is to his OWN harm) as long as it does not harm others. That is not okay. You see, there is both a moral and judicial side of this question, which I will address individually. 

Morally, if we love our brothers, we should not agree that it is okay to allow them to do what they want, if it is going to harm them or put them in a position of condemnation before God. Rather, even if they think a particular desire or practice is right, and even if their heart is set on doing it, if indeed it is wrong (and there is Absolute Truth along with Moral Absolutes) then we should not condone their actions. Paul speaks against such practice of condoning the unrighteousness of others in Romans 1:32 when he says "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. 

Judicially, if something is morally wrong, it is not okay for someone else to do it, even if they do it in private or if it does not harm someone else. For example, at one time I took the attitude that homosexuality was wrong, but if someone chose to participate in it, as long as I did not have to see it, it was okay. But I was wrong in thinking this way. This particular sin is wrong whether it is done in public and whether I have to see it is not. You see, whether I witness it or not, God, who is the ultimate law giver and judge sees it and is not pleased with it. Another example would be gluttony. On one level, it does not harm anyone else, but at the same time it is not good for a person to participate in such a practice. 

I acknowledge there is a distinction between whether something is "not good" and whether a person has "a right" to do it anyway. However, when one looks beyond the social "right" or the constitutional "right" to do something, and considers the dutiful obligation before our creator and Lord, then our "rights" are limited to that which God requires of us and that which is truly in our own best interest.

The following article is what was responded to by Rev. Muse:

Thursday, May 08, 2003 
By Radley Balko 

Ten years ago, the Wall Street Journal ran a now-famous unsigned editorial by Daniel Henninger (search) entitled "No Guardrails." The editorial iterated many of the worries and concerns cultural conservatives had had about our society's moral compass since the 1960s, but took the unique approach of relaying them through the story of Michael Frederick Griffin, the man who murdered abortion doctor David Gunn in Florida. "No Guardrails" basically blamed society's elite — and the leftist elite in particular — for adopting the ever-sliding mores, values and morals that cultural conservatives blame for most of modern society's maladies. Elitists can afford to lack values, "No Guardrails" thinking says, but the underclass can't. So single motherhood may be fine for Murphy Brown, who is wealthy, well-connected, and educated (not to mention fictional), but fatherless child rearing is a devastating example to set for low-income communities. Perhaps elites can afford to flirt with drugs, with indiscriminate sex, and with excess personal liberty, the editorial explained, "but for a lot of other people it hasn't been such an easy life to sustain. Not exceedingly sophisticated, neither thinkers nor leaders, never interviewed for their views, they're held together by faith, friends, fun and, at the margins, by fanaticism." "These weaker or more vulnerable people, who in different ways must try to live along life's margins, are among the reasons that a society erects rules. They're guardrails." "No Guardrails" was a blockbuster of an editorial. It inspired a torrent of mail to the Journal, and follow-up op-eds and commentaries throughout the chattering class. It has since become a buzz phrase in conservative circles. Culturally right-leaning pundits can insert "guardrails" phraseology into a commentary or magazine piece, and most fellow-traveling conservatives will pick up the reference. This brings me to two stories we've seen in the news of late — the controversy surrounding Sen. Rick Santorum's (search) remarks about privacy and sodomy laws, and the Washington Monthly article published last week about William Bennett's gambling habit. Both stories carry significant "No Guardrails" implications. Santorum of course intimated that a Supreme Court-created right to privacy that protects sodomy would open the door to all sorts of other deviant sexual behavior, such as incest, bestiality, and adultery. It wasn't an out and out "No Guardrails" argument, but the response to Santorum's remarks from notable conservatives was. Writing in National Review, Stanley Kurtz went to great lengths to explain how acceptance of gay and other non-traditional lifestyles at the elite level would, in the end, destroy the institutions of marriage and family Kurtz and others believe are vital to a healthy, functioning society. "Above all, marriage is protected by the ethos of monogamy — and by the associated taboo against adultery," Kurtz writes, "The real danger of gay marriage is that it will undermine the taboo on adultery, thereby destroying the final bastion protecting marriage: the ethos of monogamy." Kurtz's reaction to Santorum's comments is typical to responses from other cultural conservatives. It's also a to-the-letter "No Guardrails" approach to morality — tolerance for bad behavior at the elite levels will inevitably trickle down to the Joe Lunchbucket crowd, with calamitous results. "The married commune next door might invite the two of you over for some fun," Kurtz writes, "with potentially problematic results for your marriage." Now comes William Bennett (search). The Washington Monthly revealed last week that America's morals czar — a man who has written several best-selling books on virtue and vice — has wagered as much as $8 million on video poker and slot machines over the last 10 years. William Bennett is unquestionably an "elite." He's a former Drug Czar, a former secretary of education, a best-selling author, an A-list pundit, and a top-dollar draw on the lecture circuit. And he spent the kind of time and money at the casinos that would (and does) reap unquestionably devastating results were it imitated by people from society's not-so-elite. Here, it would seem, is the ultimate test for cultural conservatives to prove that "No Guardrails" isn't a partisan excuse to snipe at Hollywood and academic liberals, but rather is a serious commentary on the importance of elitist example-setting. They failed. With a few notable exceptions from religious right advocacy groups, conservative pundits generally rushed to Bennett's aid. Most, in fact, outright dismissed "No Guardrails" thinking as it applies to Bennett, and instead actually embraced the very type of "elites are allowed to sin, because they can afford to" excuses the Wall Street Journal was so critical of. National Review's Jonah Goldberg is a fine example, both because of the way he so articulately laid out this position, but also because of his unofficial position as a mouthpiece for younger conservatives. "Bennett can afford his sins, too," Goldberg writes. "But just as a glutton would be a moral fool to champion gluttony to someone with a heart condition, Bennett understands that a gambler would be a moral fool to champion gambling to people who cannot afford it." In other words, Bennett — as a rich man and an elite — is subject to a different set of rules than are the common folk. He can gamble all he likes, because he's rich, so long as he doesn't recommend the practice to those less fortunate. Contrast Goldberg's words to the original "No Guardrails" editorial. In criticizing the slide toward more personal freedom, the Wall Street Journal wrote: "...the personal virtue known as self-restraint was devalued ... [elitist demonstrations] were merely one part of a much deeper shift in American culture — away from community and family rules of conduct and more toward more autonomy, more personal independence. As to limits, you set your own." Seems to me that Goldberg's defense of Bennett is as thorough a repudiation of "No Guardrails" as you might find. As a libertarian, I really don't buy into the "No Guardrails" way of thinking. I don't believe in collective rights (affirmative action, for example), or in collective morality. I think that left to their own devices, people will generally make decisions that are in their own best interests. Let each pursue his own happiness, so long as he doesn't hurt anyone else. But if conservatives are going to toe the "No Guardrails" line, it seems to me that they ought to be consistent about it. It's preposterous to argue on the one hand that two adults engaging in nontraditional sex behind a closed door will lead to a breakdown in heterosexual marriages across the country, but that America's foremost spokesperson for virtue and morality spending millions at casinos across the country bears no influence on the 5.5 million people his own organization has identified as "problem gamblers." If the elites do indeed set the guardrails the rest of us need to stay the course, as conservatives often insist, then they ought to admit that William Bennett just tore one of those guardrails down.

Pulpit Ministry | Sermons - Chronological | Old Testament | New Testament | Subject Index