Friday, September 08, 2006

Purpose of the Law (13) - Highest Common Denominator

The key to a successful system of government to function, is finding the "highest common denominator", to twist a mathematical expression. The highest Common denominator is what most people will committed to, or at least not object to. The aim should be to find positions that most people can agree on.

In the past, when a Christian world view was more widespread, that highest common denominator was more Christian, but as pluralism increases, some of the things that were widely accepted in the past, are no longer part of the highest common denominator.

Culture and the media shape the highest common denominator, so it is not constant, but changes over time. Prayer in schools was once part of the highest common denominator, but now it is not. Likewise, abortion was once was, but now is not part of the highest common denominator.

The best common denominator is the second table of the law. It limits law to prohibiting crimes that will always be part of the highest common denominator. Almost everyone believes that murder, assault, theft and false witness are crimes. They are specified as crimes in most legal systems. Most people believe that adultery is wrong, but not everyone wants it to be a crime (Moses did not enforce the adultery laws). The second table of the law remains part of the highest common denominator, even in a wicked or pluralistic society.

The same applies to the biblical principles about the functioning of the law. Everyone accepts the principle of proportional restitution. Everyone accepts that just should be tempered by mercy.

A highest common denominator approach means that politics must remain humble. The problem is that most politicians want to do too much, so they end up going beyond the highest common denominator and start forcing significant groups of people to do things that they do not want to do, ie forcing a minority to do what the majority believe is good. God’s law is more humble.

Technorati Tags:

1 comment:

Ron McK said...

Testing