Because the sons of Issachar had an “understanding of the times,” they knew what Israel should do. But do the people who lead us in politics and in law, even the Christians, really understand the times, what historian Carl Becker called the “climate of opinion” that determines whether any argument—for law or otherwise—can even make sense? Today David uses Becker and the Scriptures to help us understand the times and whether our leaders understand them.

Today David explains why he ended last week’s program saying he was “giving up” on a Biblical worldview if it was not set in the context of a Cosmological worldview. He speaks to what the former led to in his political thinking and lays the foundation for putting a Biblical worldview inside a Cosmological worldview for the sake of reshaping the way Christians engage in politics and law.

Despite the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, and subsequent Christian policy and political organizations, Christian virtue in our society has waned. Some think that is a sign of the end times. David examines what this says about our knowledge of God and creation and offers a reason for hope found in the strangest of places.

Every year thousands of pieces of proposed legislation are filed by state legislators across the country, and hundreds become enacted law. Ever thought about what we expect those laws to do based on what the Bible says law does and how God uses law? David offers valuable insight on why the “good” laws we get enacted seem to do so little good.

David uses a quote from William Blackstone’s famous Commentaries about common law that explains the two foundations for human law and how they were applied to various kinds of social issues. He uses it to test the legal arguments being made in court by leading pro-family advocates in defense of laws involving children and medical procedures affecting their reproductive systems. The contrast may shock you.

Having eliminated all the alternatives for grounding an ethical legal system to that grounded in a “transcendent and immanent” God, law professor Arthur Leff turns us to the U.S. Constitution as a possible substitute. Both David and Leff find trust in an authoritative Constitution misplaced and unworkable. The evidence is found even in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision reversing Roe v. Wade.

Ever wonder why some policy positions or legal arguments are not simply a matter of logic or reason or common senses. For you they are plain as day. For instance, how could any educated person think a biological boy can become a girl? David will explain what changed over the centuries that led educated people to throw out reasoning based on “the facts” as basis for law and public policy.

Today, David disposes of a couple of popular theories for establishing an authoritative ground for law once the God of the Bible is banished. He uses an exchange between Justice Clarence Thomas and the attorney for the United States in last year’s oral arguments on abortion to demonstrate how those systems cannot produce a consistent and coherent system of law. No wonder God sits in the heavens and laughs (Psalm 2:4).

This week, David begins to examine the alternatives to a Christian based legal system that mankind has come up with and how the late Yale law professor Arthur Leff, an atheist, debunks them as non-authoritative and unworkable. Leff provides great insight into what he calls a search for the “metaphorical equivalent” to the God of the Bible.

Today David begins to take listeners through the question Yale law professor asked in 1971—on what basis can we have an authoritative legal system that can answer the equivalent of “sez who?” question of the playground bully. You will be surprised by Leff’s answer. Law professor Philip Johnson called it “the modernist impasse.” It is a guide to understanding what is going on in American law and the trouble law faces.