The Slippery Slope, Slopes Both Ways
I’ve often heard the slippery slope argument. If we allow such and such, such and such will follow as a matter of course. If we allow smoking, soon marijuana will be legalized. If we allow this, that will be a reality. If we allow moral decay, moral madness will follow. It seems to me those arguments have proven to be prophetic.
We should consider, however, whether the slippery slope slopes both ways. I am not here saying I know all facts or what happened in each of the following examples, but consider with me.
Here’s part of the transcript from Secrtary of War Pete Hegseth’s recent address to General and Flag Officers at Quantico, Virginia:
We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy… We also don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for warfighters.
What is a potential problem with “overwhelming and punishing violence” and demoralizing the enemy?[1] Is that one of the principles of The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) [2] or Just War Theory[3]? The answer is “No.” Instead, “Proportionality” is. “Overwhelming force” is more in the nuclear war vein. And what would we think if our enemies used that overwhelming force logic on us? Should we so quickly and easily disregard The Law of Armed Conflict and Just War Theory principles? What might that lead to?
Yes, getting illegal drugs and drug dealers off the streets is a good thing, but doing it legally is as well. Illegal drugs, drug dealing, and illegally killing drug dealers are illegal, and for good reason. If we celebrate and overlook the killing of noncombatants, what might we slip into? What might be allowed?
What slippery slope could we be on if we kill or murder noncombatants? At what other times and who throughout history has willy-nilly done this? What precedent does this set? What slippery course could we be setting out for?
What precedent does uncharitable and extreme speech coming from the highest office of leadership create? What’s the trickle-down effect? What are we saying is okay to our kids and the broader society? Where’s the Golden Rule? I realize the President is not the Pastor-in-Chief, but does that therefore mean that his demeanor doesn’t matter? Is that a precedent we want to set, let alone for a President?
I am not saying that masked authorities have apprehended people without legal justification. I have not followed everything with fine-toothed fervor. I do think we as a people should care about this question.
We should care that the law is followed, as people are detained who are in America unlawfully. The law must cut both ways. Further, we should care (Christians should especially care!) that these people (made in the image of God, whatever their crimes) be treated humanely. If we turn a blind eye and don’t care, have we considered what slippery slope we may be on? What about the sacredness of every human life? Could there be a slippery slope concern down the road?
Jesus said, “Take the plank out of your own eye so you can see clearly to help get the speck out of someone else’s eye.” We would be wise to do that. We would be wise to see where we might be missing slippery slopes.
The slippery slope, slopes both ways.
Notes
[1] Here’s an AI introduction and overview: “Starting in September 2025, the U.S. military, under the direction of the Trump administration, initiated a campaign of lethal strikes against boats suspected of trafficking drugs from Venezuela, often using “overwhelming force” to destroy vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. This campaign, part of “Operation Southern Spear,” escalated to over 100 people killed in more than 30 strikes by late 2025, with the U.S. justifying the actions as an “armed conflict” against cartel-operated vessels designated as terrorists…
These actions have faced intense scrutiny from international observers, human rights groups, and U.S. lawmakers, who questioned the lack of public evidence and argued that the strikes constitute extrajudicial killings rather than legal, intercepted maritime law enforcement.”
It remains to be seen what will happen with this. But we should care and not just look at the explosions of boats and celebrate. We should care what’s going on legally and what slippery slope we are on if we overlook the rule of law.
[2] Again, here’s an AI introduction and overview: The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), or International Humanitarian Law (IHL), is a set of international rules limiting the effects of war for humanitarian reasons. It binds all parties in an armed conflict to protect non-combatants and restrict methods of warfare based on principles of distinction, proportionality, necessity, and humanity.
Key Principles of LOAC
- Distinction: Parties must distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian objects.
- Proportionality: Attacks are prohibited if the expected incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects is excessive in relation to the anticipated direct military advantage.
- Military Necessity: Only measures necessary to achieve a legitimate military purpose and not prohibited by international law are permitted.
- Humanity (Unnecessary Suffering): Weapons or methods that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering to combatants are forbidden.
- Honor (Chivalry): Requires a degree of fairness and mutual respect between opposing forces.
[3] https://tjaglcs.army.mil/Portals/1003/SME/ETHICS/JWT%20Booklet1.pdf
*Photo by Donald Merrill
Should Christians Legislate Morality?
Christians Should Not Enforce “Vertical” Morality
In our modern, pluralistic, and heavily secularized society, John Warwick Montgomery points out that Christians should be particularly cautious not to jeopardize the spread of the gospel by insensitively imposing Christian morality on unbelievers. We must avoid any recurrence of the Puritan Commonwealth, where people are compelled to act externally as Christians regardless of their true faith. Unfortunately, these efforts often lead to the institutionalization of hypocrisy and a decline in respect for genuine Christian values.[1] It can also lead people to a false assurance of a right relationship with God.
Instead, Montgomery says Christians should recognize that Scripture presents two distinct types of moral commands. We see this in the first and second parts of the Ten Commandments.[2] In the first part, we see duties related to God. These commands cover the relationship between individuals and God (“vertical” morality). In the second part, we see duties related to neighbors. These commands cover the relationship between individuals and other people (“horizontal” morality).
Montgomery believes it is crucial not to impose the first part of the Ten Commandments on unbelievers. These commands are:
- “You must not have any other god but Me.”
- “You must not make for yourself an idol.”
- “You must not misuse the name of the Lord your God.”
- “Remember to observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.”
Even if Christians are in the majority in a country, they should not impose laws related to the above four commandments. “This is because the proper relationship with God can only be established through voluntary, personal decision and commitment.”[3]
1 Corinthians 5:10 is an important verse for us to consider on this subject as well. Paul argues that avoiding all sinful individuals in the world would mean that Christians would need to “leave the world” entirely, which is an impractical and unrealistic standard. Instead, the church’s primary responsibility is not to judge those outside the faith; it is their duty to judge those who claim to be believers but live in sin within the church.
The Quran says there is no compulsion in religion. Jesus demonstrated that principle. He never forced anyone to follow Him. That’s what we see throughout the New Testament. Christians are to be evangelistic and strive to compel people to see the goodness and glory of Jesus. Still, they are never commanded to command people to bow to Jesus.
Christians Should Work Towards A General “Horizontal” Morality
Christians should, however, encourage people towards general “horizontal” morality. Even while the focus in the New Testament is on the morality of Jesus’ followers, we do see warrant for the promotion of social order and general morality. I think of John the Baptizer and the Apostle Paul, for example (Mark 6:14-20; Matt. 14:1-12; Acts 16:35-39; 24:25; 1 Tim. 2:1-4 also see Rom. 13 and 1 Peter 2). But the letters of the New Testament were written to Christians, telling Christians how to live.
Here’s the second part of the Ten Commandments, which are good for every society to lovingly and practically apply.
- “Honor your father and your mother”
- “You shall not murder”
- “You shall not commit adultery”
- “You shall not steal”
- “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”
- “You shall not covet”
These commands are applied in various ways throughout the Bible. For example, the Bible talks about the importance of railings on the top of buildings to protect people from falling off and getting hurt or killed.
But even here, we don’t want to put our hope or emphasis on “horizontal” morality. Part of the point of the law is to point us to our need for Jesus. It is not an end in itself. So, we must remember that mere morality is not the solution.
The Problem of Secularism and Morality
Britannica says secularism is “a worldview or political principle that separates religion from other realms of human existence, often putting greater emphasis on nonreligious aspects of human life or, more specifically, separating religion from the political realm.”
One of the problems with secularism, though, is that it is not set up very well to give us a societal analysis. How is secularism going to provide us with:
- The Ideal of what’s healthy
- Observation of symptoms
- Diagnosis or analysis of the disease/disorder
- Prognosis or prediction of cure/remedy
- Prescription or instruction for treatment/action for a cure
Secularists believe Christians should not legislate morality. They say that religion has no place in government. Christian beliefs are not allowed, but their core beliefs are allowed. But, as Britannica aludes to, secularism is really an ultimate commitment—a whole world-and-life-view.
Even atheism has the markings of a religion. Atheists have a creed. Theirs is just that there is no god. Atheism addresses the ultimate concerns of life and existence and answers the questions of who people are and what they should value. A committed atheist is even unlikely to marry someone outside of their beliefs. Many atheists even belong to a group and may even attend occasional meetings (see e.g., atheists.org) and have their own literature they read that supports their beliefs.
A merely secular society cannot give a moral framework that transcends individual belief systems. We are left with a “might makes right morality.” It seems to me that secularism leaves us with the column on the left, whereas Christianity gives us the column on the right.
I believe we need and should want Christianity to help our nation work towards a general “horizontal” morality. Our Founding Fathers (along with Alexis de Tocqueville), many of whom were deists and not Christians, agree. Yet, Christians should realize that legislating morality is not the answer.
Legislating Morality is Not the Ultimate Solution
Christians both understand that sinners will sin and that morality is good for the nation. Righteousness exalts the land, as Proverbs says (Prov. 14:34). Yet, Christians are compassionate and humble. We realize that we all stumble in many ways, as the letter of James says, but if we can help people from stumbling, that’s good. But Christians don’t confuse the kingdom of man with the Kingdom of God. Christians know that here we have no lasting city, but we seek the City that is to come (Heb. 13:14).
Legislating morality is not the solution; Jesus is. As C.H. Spurgeon said, “Nothing but the Gospel can sweep away social evil… The Gospel is the great broom with which to cleanse the filthiness of the city; nothing else will avail.”
Paul David Tripp has wisely said that “We should be thankful for the wisdom of God’s law, but we should also be careful not to ask it to do what only grace can accomplish.” It is the Spirit of God that transforms, although it is true that He often works through law. We need our rocky hearts to become flesh through the work of the Spirit.
Conclusion
The question of whether Christians should legislate morality reveals the complexities of faith in a diverse and secular society. While Christians are called to embody and promote a morality rooted in their faith, imposing a “vertical” morality can hinder the spread of the gospel, foster hypocrisy, and promote a misunderstanding of genuine faith. Instead, the focus should be on humbly and lovingly encouraging “horizontal” morality—principles that promote societal well-being and can be embraced by individuals regardless of their faith.
As apprentices of Jesus, Christians are primarily called to lead by example and encourage ethical behavior rooted in love and respect for one another. The emphasis should be on exemplifying Jesus’ teachings and fostering relationships that draw others to the faith, rather than seeking to enforce morality. That’s what Jesus Himself did.
By fostering relationships and demonstrating the transformative love of Jesus, Christians can influence the moral fabric of society without simply relying on legislation. True change comes through the work of the Holy Spirit rather than external mandates. In this way, the Christian community can contribute to a more just and moral society while remaining faithful to the fundamental teachings of their faith.
Notes
[1] John Warwick Montgomery,Theology: Good, Bad, and Mysterious, 122.
[2] Often referred to as the First and Second Tables of the Decalogue. The “First Table” consists of commands 1-4 and has to do with people’s relationship with God (vertical relationship). The “Second Table” consists of commands 5-10 and has to do with people’s relationship with other humans (horizontal relationships). The First Table can be summed up by “love God,” and the Second Table can be summed up by “love others.”
[3] Montgomery, Theology: Good, Bad, and Mysterious, 123.
Can we have hope in the midst of Trump’s (or Obama’s or Clinton’s) “reign”?
How can we as Christians have hope in the midst of the “reign” of political leaders that we dislike or disagree with? We can have hope when we…
understand who is the King
As Christians, the king or President is not our ultimate King, Jesus is. Peter and Paul both lived under Roman rule, which was not the best of situations. Actually, we are told they were both beheaded under Roman rule. There are many other things that we could look at that happened under Roman rule (e.g. slavery, infanticide, public crucifixion, pornography, bisexuality). However, those things were not Peter and Paul’s main concern. Their main concern was Jesus and His gospel and they could find joy in the midst of adversity in the eschatological hope of Christ and His coming Kingdom.
Our hope is in no king here. Our hope is in the King that came and died. Our hope is in that King coming back and setting all things right. Until then, our job is to be faithful representatives of the King that came to serve and give His life as a ransom for many.
Christ is ultimately King! Not Clinton. Not Trump. Read More…
Politics?
Christians and politics?
How can we know as Christians if we should be involved in politics or even care about politics? Does the Bible teach us anything regarding this question? The Bible is our authority “for faith and practice.” So, yes, the Bible does address politics. Which I personally thank God for, because without God’s Word I’d be on the metaphorical back-roads of eastern Kentucky without a working GPS.
What does Scripture teach us? It teaches, “Significant Christian influence.”[1] The Bible does not tell us what exactly each individual must do. However, we can establish principals that help guide us through the maze that is politics. First, we must realize that we all have different callings, we are not all called to be a William Wilberforce. However, we are called to have significant Christian influence. Ok, you may ask, but where do we see this in Scripture. I am glad you asked.
We see many examples of this in both the New Testament (NT) and Old Testament (OT). Most of the prophets in the OT addressed the sin of Israel and even the sin of other nations. Daniel had a lot of influence in a secular government and used it well (Dan. 4:27). Jeremiah told the Jewish exiles to have a good influence on the city in which they lived. This would surly mean influencing laws and the government within that city (Jer. 29:7). Remember, also, the role that Joseph had? He had a huge influence on the government (Gen. 41:37-45; 42:6; 45:8-9, 26) and, of course, there’s Moses. We should also note Nehemiah (Neh. 1:1), Mordecai (Esther 10:3 and also 9:4), and Esther (Esther 5:1-8; 7:1-6; 8:3-13; 9:12-15, 20-32). Thus, we see a precedence for political involvement in the OT.
In the NT, we also see political involvement. I think of John the Baptizer and the Apostle Paul for example (Mark 6:14-20; Matt. 14:1-12; Acts 16:35-39; 24:25; 1 Tim. 2:1-4 also see Rom. 13 and 1 Peter 2). Wayne Grudem rightly says, “Influencing government for good on the basis of the wisdom found in God’s own word is a theme that runs throughout the entire Bible.”[2]
The overarching principle we see is that we are called to political involvement, though this is to varying degrees. We are not all called to be the President, congressmen (Excuses me, “congressional representatives,” I should be politically correct here!), or mayor, and I, for one, thank God for that! But that does not mean politics don’t have their place and importance, they do. We as Christian Americans have ample opportunity and thus responsibility to effect good change in this country. And we, unlike Daniel’s friends, won’t be thrown into a big furnace for it (yet!).
I, obviously, can’t tell you who or what to vote for on certain things but there is clear scriptural warrant for us to vote since we have the freedom to and to vote in a way that accords with the teachings of Scripture. May we be faithful with the stewardship that God has given to us as Americans who have such freedom, indeed a responsibility, to do good to God’s glory.
For further study I recommend Russel Moore’s book Onward and Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible.
________________________________________________________
[1] See Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010) esp. 58-62.
[2] Ibid., 61.
in X 