Dr Paul Allen

In recent years, it’s become commonplace for employers to put underperforming employees on a performance improvement plan (PIP). Though the employee often interprets them as a sign that termination is inevitable, PIPs crystallize job expectations and highlight how a worker is falling short. This covers the employer in the event of termination and removes cause for accusation on the employee’s part. I considered this modern practice when I read Old Testament scholar Stephen Dempster’s observation about God’s law in his book Dominion and Dynasty:  “Israel is treated differently after [receiving the Ten Commandments at] Sinai. Pre-Sinai violations lead to reprimand; post-Sinai trespass[es] lead to death.” Dempster wouldn’t call the law a PIP, but he observes one sense in which it functions similarly: it clearly reveals where Israel has fallen short of God’s standard. It shows them where they haven’t lived up to God's required performance. But we’re in trouble if that’s our entire pers

In 1992 Douglas Walker, who had been in prison twice before he turned 30, snatched the handbag of 18-year-old Kimber Reynolds, when she resisted, he shot her. Mike Reynolds, Kimber’s dad, held her hand as she died and he made a promise to ensure that no one else would fall victim to people like Walker. What followed was a campaign to initiate a law that would ensure that people who had committed three crimes would be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The repeat offender policy became known as the  three-strikes law.    Mr. Reynolds campaigned to get the law passed. The way it works in many states is that if an offender’s first two convictions are for violent or serious crimes including murder, rape, or armed robbery, then the third crime, no matter what it is, counts as the third strike. The idea is that if a person commits two serious crimes and then still isn’t a law-abiding citizen, they need to be in jail forever. In most cases, the judge has no discretion in the matte

Open Letter to an Atheist Loved One Dear Dan, I agree; any view that has God as the foundation of morality — like the Christian view I described in my last letter — will have further, serious issues to address. In fact, your two objections get at the most central ones. Let me respond to both. What Makes God’s Laws Good? Your first objection has a great pedigree and can be traced all the way back to Plato. Namely, what makes God’s moral laws — his moral values — good? Does he like these laws because they are good? Or are they good because he likes them? Either way seems to spell trouble for Christianity. Take the first option. Are God’s laws good because they meet some separate standard of good, one “outside” of God? If so, God has to defer to — is beholden to — some higher authority. And that’s impossible, according to Christianity. But the alternative seems just as bad. If God’s laws are good because he likes them, it makes morality seem arbitrary, dependent merely on his personal tas

God rules His universe by law. Nature itself operates under His providential government. The so-called laws of nature merely describe God’s normal way of ordering His universe. These “laws” are expressions of His sovereign will. God is not accountable to any laws outside of Himself.  There are no independent, cosmic rules that God is obligated to obey. Rather, God is a law unto Himself. This simply means that God acts according to His own moral character. His own character is not only morally perfect, it is the ultimate standard of perfection. His actions are perfect because His nature is perfect, and He always acts according to His nature. God is therefore never arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious. He always does what is right.  As God’s creatures, we are also required to do what is right. God demands that we live according to His moral law, which He has revealed to us in the Bible. God’s law is the ultimate standard of righteousness and the supreme norm for judging right