The Supreme Court…Isn't: Part 1 of 2 Parts

Responding to the Court’s Ruling on Marriage
Part 1: Background—Six Things The Bible Tells Us About the State

The supreme contribution of the new world to the old is the contribution of religious liberty. This is the chiefest contribution that America has thus far made to civilization.
—George W. Truett, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, in a speech on religious liberty delivered on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, May 16, 1920¹—

Anticipating the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage months before it occurred, a group of well known Christian leaders came together to help the church and individual Christians prepare. The group included Dr. James Dobson of Family Talk, Mathew Staver of Liberty Council Action, Rick Scarborough of Vision America Action, James Robison of LIFE Outreach International, and Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association. They worked together on a statement affirming natural marriage and promising resistance to any ruling attempting to redefine it. To date, over 50,000 concerned citizens and leaders have signed the document.² The “Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage” states in part,

We stand together in defense of marriage and the family and society founded upon them.…

Marriage as existing solely between one man and one woman precedes civil government. Though affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by faith, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based on religion or revelation alone, but on the Natural Law, written on the human heart and discernible through the exercise of reason. It is part of the natural created order. The Natural Law is what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., referred to as a higher law or a just law in his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail.…

Our highest respect for the rule of law requires that we not respect an unjust law that directly conflicts with higher law. A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order. As people of faith we pledge obedience to our Creator when the State directly conflicts with higher law.

Then the pledge declares:

We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross this line.³

This statement is especially striking. Not only does it underscore the signers’ resolve not to comply with any mandates emanating from a decision redefining marriage; it also points to the Higher Authorities to which the drafters and signers are appealing. These men and women have the right to warn the Supreme Court because they know a Higher Court will have the last word, and its decision already is evident in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,”⁴ to borrow a phrase from America’s founders. In other words, through both natural and supernatural revelation, the Supreme Court of the Universe has spoken with unmistakable clarity regarding marriage. That Court has jurisdiction over even the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is helpful to remember that the United States Supreme Court has issued a number of terrible decisions in U.S. history. In addition to the marriage ruling, here are three.

In the Dred Scott decision of 1857, the court ruled by a 7-2 vote that African-Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be citizens of the United States.⁵
In an 8-1 ruling in Buck v. Bell in 1927, the court upheld a state law authorizing forced sterilization of individuals deemed unfit, including the mentally impaired. The ruling stated the law did not violate the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.⁶
Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton in 1973 legalized abortion in all 50 states at any time during a pregnancy. Both these rulings were determined by 7-2 votes. The debate over abortion continues to rage today, 42 years later.⁷^,⁸^,⁹^,¹⁰

These decisions demonstrate that our government is far from infallible—(just in case we need to be reminded). It even can be guilty of egregious decisions and actions, including partiality, injustice, and cruelty.

Someone may ask, “Despite government’s flaws, don’t Christians have a duty to obey the state? Yes, they do. In Romans 13, Paul directed the Roman Christians to be good citizens by obeying civil authorities. When he did so, however, he explained that civil leaders affirm those who do right and punish evildoers. “Do you want to be unafraid of the authority?” Paul asked. “Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same” (v. 3). Peter echoed this principle in 1 Peter 2:13-14. Neither Paul nor Peter indicated civic leaders have absolute authority; the power they have is God-given and God-directed.

Let’s examine carefully what Paul wrote in Romans 13. He said,

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’s sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Here are some of the principles we can derive from this passage.

First, everyone—“every soul” (v. 1)—is to obey the government and be a good citizen. This includes obeying the laws (v. 1) and paying taxes (v. 7).

Second, God has delegated authority to the state. We understand this from phrases like these: “the authorities that exist are appointed by God” (v. 1); “God’s minister” (twice in v. 4); “God’s ministers” (v. 6). Therefore, generally speaking, when we resist the state, we’re resisting God—“whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves” (v. 2). Paul’s reference to obeying civil authorities “for conscience’s sake” in verse 5 also is an allusion to the believer’s responsibility to God. We are not saying the state is God—not at all. What we are saying is that the state has God-given responsibilities and God-given authority. To buck the state’s authority is to resist the authority of God as administered by the state.

Third, the government’s primary job is to maintain order by rewarding those who do right and punishing those who do wrong (vv. 3-4). (Contrary to popular belief, it is not the government’s job to meet the needs of the people, but that’s another discussion altogether.)

Fourth, while the state has the authority to promote order through laws and public policy, it does not have the right to promote, through laws or in any other way, practices that are sinful or contrary to God’s moral law. How do we know this? Because the state’s authority is delegated by God (see the second point, above). God never would authorize any person or entity to promote anything contrary to His character or His law (the third point).

Let’s put it another way. There is an established standard of right and wrong apart from any laws the state enacts or does not enact. This transcendent standard is established by God, not the state. If government fulfills its God-given responsibility, its policies will be consistent with God’s will. Paul (and also Peter in 1 Peter 2:13-14) wrote of the state’s responsibility in terms of the way God designed government to operate; they did not discuss the many ways in which the state, particularly the Roman government of that day, failed to follow God’s design. Certainly they could have written about this. Consider that Peter was writing to persecuted believers. Despite government’s failures, however, the general principle still applies: Citizens, including believers, are to obey the government and honor civic leaders, doing their part to maintain order in society. Even so, it is abundantly clear that government’s authority is not absolute. What happens when the laws of man direct Christians to disobey God? Keep reading.

Fifth, when the state enacts laws and/or policies that are inconsistent with God’s law, it has violated its God-given responsibility. In this case, Christian people both as individuals and as the church have a duty to confront civic leaders in appropriate ways and to work to repeal bad policy. They always should stand for what’s objectively right, even to the point of disobeying the state if it directs them to do what God prohibits or tells them to refrain from doing what God commands.

Because of the “design language” in Paul’s and Peter’s writings about Christians’ responsibilities as citizens, some have concluded that Christians never should engage in civil disobedience. This is a mistaken conclusion, especially in light of several examples of civil disobedience recorded in Scripture (see Ex. 1:15-22; Dan. 3; 6; Acts 4:1-31; 5:17-32).

Preventing the enactment of laws that are morally wrong also is important, especially in a country like ours where we still can work for peaceful change. Christians are to be informed voters and are to vote according to godly values. Moreover, once the election is over, they need to stay touch with their leaders, working to influence them to do what’s right.

This fifth principle underscores a vitally important truth: Just because something’s legal does not mean it is right. In his insightful book When a Nation Forgets God: 7 Lessons We Must Learn from Nazi Germany, Erwin Lutzer devotes entire chapter to this very point. Lutzer writes,

Laws reflect a nation’s priority, agenda, and values. In Nazi Germany, where religion was privatized and God was separated from government, not even natural law was recognized as having validity. When Hitler got the Reichstag to give him the power to make the laws, the laws he made were arbitrary, drafted to fulfill the goals of a totalitarian state. The Nazis proclaimed, “Hitler is the law!” As Goering put it, “The law and the will of the Fuehrer are one.” Right and wrong was determined by Hitler and his cronies.…

After Hitler was defeated, war crime trials were held in Nuremberg to judge the guilt of Hitler’s henchmen. But a dispute arose as to what laws should be used to try the accused. After all, Hitler’s cronies argued, quite plausibly, that they had not broken any laws; their actions were carried out within the protection of their own legal system. They could not be accused of murder because personhood had been redefined to exclude Jews and other undesirables. These men were simply following the laws handed down by the courts of their day. As Eichmann protested before his execution, “I was simply following the laws of war and my flag!”¹¹

The laws Eichmann followed were divorced from any and all transcendent standards of right and wrong, and this was the problem. As Lutzer explains, “Nazism insisted that ‘it is impossible to measure the laws of the Fuhrer against a higher concept of law because his laws are a direct expression of…volkisch,’” a concept said law was based on “communal life in Germany.”¹²

This really is quite similar to the fluid and unstable basis for law on which the Supreme Court’s marriage decision relies.¹³ It reminds us of what we hear so often from the left: “The Constitution is a living, breathing document.” This is maneuvering by activist judges, lawmakers, and other leaders so they can get away with ignoring the Constitution altogether. They don’t like being bound by it, so they say this and then depart from the Constitution’s provisions and guidelines.¹⁴ Such actions are illegal, since public officials have a sworn duty to uphold our Constitution, the “Supreme Law of the Land.”

The state’s possession of “the sword” in verse 4 means government has the power to enforce its laws. Because the state bears the sword, it has the ability to use it in ways inconsistent with God’s purpose and plan. The sixth principle is that government’s misuse of the sword also constitutes a violation of its God-given responsibility. In an increasing number of situations Christian business owners are being prosecuted and punished for simply following their deeply-held religious convictions.¹⁵ Such actions on the part of the state constitute abuses of God-given power that must be resisted and opposed.

Next time we’ll use these six principles as a backdrop against which to examine the Supreme Court’s marriage decision. Stay tuned.

Part 2 is available here.

Notes:

¹http://www.reformedreader.org/baptistsandreligiousliberty.htm

²http://www.defendmarriage.org

³https://wordfoundations.com/pledge-in-solidarity-to-defend-marriage/; original link: http://defendmarriage.org/pledge-in-solidarity-to-defend-marriage

⁴https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

⁵https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

⁶https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

⁷http://www.conservapedia.com/Roe_v._wade

⁸http://www.conservapedia.com/Doe_v._Bolton

⁹https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton

¹⁰http://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005139

¹¹Erwin Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God: 7 Lessons We Must Learn from Nazi Germany, (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2010), Kindle edition, locations 606,633-638.

¹²Lutzer, location 638.

¹³http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/america-punked-on-gay-marriage/

¹⁴http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1370086/posts

¹⁵http://www.adflegal.org/issues/religious-freedom/conscience

Share this article on Facebook or Twitter.