Do you agree?

[Mark Doble]

As Ravi Zacharias has noted, "If we succeed in making America more moral, then what we will have is more lost moral Americans." In The Pilgrim's Progress, Pilgrim gets sidetracked into a layover in the village of Morality, where all is morally correct. He finds, however, that morality without the cross cannot alleviate his burden of sin.

[Hans Deventer]

As Ravi Zacharias has noted, "If we succeed in making America more moral, then what we will have is more lost moral Americans." In The Pilgrim's Progress, Pilgrim gets sidetracked into a layover in the village of Morality, where all is morally correct. He finds, however, that morality without the cross cannot alleviate his burden of sin.

Yes and no. I agree with what is said, which is why I wrote before that you cannot legislate morality. It is all about a change of heart.

The cross, as important as it is, is merely a means to that goal. So I wasn't happy with the new NMI theme at all. Faith is not about the cross, it is about the resurrection and the new life. The apostles' proclamation was, "The Lord is truly risen!"

All that fixation on the cross leads to a fixation on payment and guilt, which I believe permeates way too much evangelical thinking and singing anyway. It is true, but only in a limited way. We should never forget that it was logical legal thinking brought the Calvinists to the dogma of double predestination, the "Horrible Decree" as Wesley called it.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." The "giving" is very important, but we should keep the goal in mind.

As Hebrews 12 has it

1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. 2 Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

[Sharon Isley]

If legislating morality could save people, the Pharisees would have all been Christians.

[Bruce Carriker]

I don't know what's to disagree with. What you've said is completely Biblical. The Pharisees were probably the foremost moralists of their day.

We have a tendency to see the Pharisees as the "heavies", or as evil. They weren't. They were the Pat Robertsons and Roy Moores of their day. But as Hans points out, it's very easy to put the outward expressions of morality ahead of the inward relationship with God that brings about true morality.

[Chris Baker]

While I agree with the quote, it raises more questions than answers for me. For instance, if this is true, then how can we make any laws about anything without first making every citizen a Christian? And is this to say that we need to make Americans Christian first before we can make any laws about moral issues?

While I obviously agree that "moral" people who are not Christians are not saved, I'm wondering what the purpose of the quote is. Is it to make us question legislating morality? Or is it to light a fire under us to evangelize? If it is the latter, then I agree wholeheartedly. If it is the former, though, I fear we would have no laws, because everything is a moral issue.