What Role Should Scripture Play in Society?

One of the most interesting conversations I've with students the past two years deals with the issue of using the Bible in public discourse.  In other words, should I use the Bible when I'm talking with non-Christians about issues like gay-marriage, legalization of marijuana, capital punishment, etc. Most of my students have felt like they should not use the Bible in these discussions. Why? Well, why would I use the Bible to support or defend my ideas when the other person rejects or doesn't believe the Bible--the Bible is not relevant because this isn't a religious conversation or because non-Christians do not find the Bible persuasive. What I think they are really saying is that we shouldn't bring our religious convictions into these kinds of discussions. I think this has two problems.

Mistake #1
One mistake I think my students make is believing that the other person is NOT bringing their personal religious or pseudo-religious convictions into the conversation. Well, I don't think this is possible. Everyone holds to beliefs that are not self-evident and cannot be proven empirically, and those underlying assumptions function constantly in our lives. Van Til used the illustration of the unobserved beams that hold up the floor on which we walk.  You can't see them but they are always there and always support you. And if I do use the Bible to support my ideas and I am told that the Bible doesn't belong in such discussions about what is best for society, isn't the other person just as "guilty" of using an exclusive claim on what is best for society, namely that in discussions about social issues religion has no relevance. In other words, both of us are using exclusive claims about what best determines the solution to the social issue. Neither of us is guilty of doing anything wrong. We simply are using what we think is best in determining the answer to the social problem. This leads to the second mistake.

Mistake #2
The second mistake I think my students make is believing neutral ground is possible.  They believe that Christians and muslims and atheists (and you name it) can come together around a social issue and find some common ground upon which we all agree and from that common ground (when we have set aside our personal biases or religious assumptions) we can engage is discourse and deal with social problems. What I think they really mean by common ground, by the way, is scientific reasoning which ultimately is rooted in naturalistic philosophies about the universe that puts man at the center and rebels against God as the ultimate authority of knowledge. But what this means and shows is that no neutral ground really exists. There is no neutral ground.

If my students can avoid these problems, I think they take a big step as Christians involving themselves in culture and society. Obviously I think Christians should appeal to facts to support their ideas outside of Scripture, but we certainly shouldn't avoid our presuppositions. In fact if we can live in line with the biblical worldview revealed in Scripture, that gives our arguments about what is best for society great credence and power and influence. This cannot be understated and must be understood, otherwise we can seriously undermine our ideas in these discussions about what is best for society.