Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages

Not yet anyway!

It could easily become a “civil rights” issue. Think Bob Jones University v. United States

Here’s guessing that the Roman Catholics and other religious groups that are in the midst of fighting the contraception mandate are skeptical of that pledge.

The audacity it takes to simply make that statement is beyond comprehension. Isn’t this the same guy who ran for office stating that he wasn’t for gay marriage? All he’ll need to do is “change his mind.”

Personally, I’m ready for them to take the tax exempt study so that churches can start their own Super Pacs in the future.

That headline should have “for the next thirty seconds anyway” attached to the end of it. I mean, if he was willing to call the woman that brought the case and congratulate her on the victory, then I’m fairly sure he’s got a strong opinion on what the churches should do.

What has occupied my mind today, more than anything else, has been how the church has historically reacted to persecution throughout the ages. We live in an open, extremely free society with a great deal of religious liberty - all those ridiculous FaceBook posts and forwards to the contrary. In the West, we generally don’t know what real persecution is.

The increasing secularization of society, and corresponding intolerance of God’s word, will force the lines to be drawn rather clearly. True Christians will do what they have always done - stand for the faith. Some will do so charitably. Others will do so belligerently. But the fact remains - true Christians will stand firm. False Christians will slink away, unwilling to stand, Their fruits will be made manifest.

A leavening process is coming. Real Christians will be marked by their willingness to stand for and proclaim God’s word in the face of persecution, whatever it’s form.

So his promise is empty. And so is the fear-mongering by the papists. Churches are not subject to rulings like this because they are not places of public accommodation as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That is why churches are still free to refuse membership to blacks (for example) and some rather prominent congregations (i.e. that of Jesse Helms in North Carolina) did precisely that until well into the 1980s. Raising the contraception mandate is nonsense and the writer knows it. When Catholic Churches and other religious institutions offer services beyond religious/worship and become employers, they become places of public accommodation just like everybody else. So parachurch ministries like hospitals, adoption agencies etc. become places of public accommodation, especially if they receive public funds. So all the criticism over that issue was really Roman Catholics wanting special considerations under the public accommodation statute that didn’t exist elsewhere. They had no more right to be shielded from having to offer the employees of their parachurch ministries contraception than would some Christian Identity outfit be able to get away with opening a retail store and refusing to hire Jews. That people believe that Obama did anything with that contraception mandate that was beyond the scope of existing law shows just how effective and deceptive the Roman Catholic public relations machine is, and how Roman Catholics are really the tail wagging the dog among social conservatives/the religious right. (When was the last time a conservative Protestant was a major candidate for the GOP nomination or got appointed to the Supreme Court or even to one of the plum federal appeals court spots? Exactly.) Now of course Catholics would love for you to believe that the government regulating their organizations - which receive TONS of tax dollars by the way and they want even more still - is the same as the government regulating the church itself because that keeps armies of conservative Protestants battling for their agenda - instead of tending to our affairs - but that isn’t the case.

Now getting churches declared to be places of public accommodation is practically impossible. First off, it would require a Supreme Court decision, and even this current Supreme Court would rule 9-0 against it. Second, churches aren’t required to meet in public or have public buildings in the first place. You can have a church in your house and the same private property rights would apply: no place of public accommodation. The way to change that would be to force churches to register with the state in some fashion, but the 1st amendment precludes that.

The one thing that could be done is to go after the 501c3 status of churches. That could be done by amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include homosexuality and then amending the tax code to deny 501c3 status to organizations that are not in compliance with the Civil Rights Act. Neither could be done by executive action. Both would require legislation, and both would require a favorable Supreme Court ruling that ignores the 1st amendment. But again, a church doesn’t need 501c3 status in the first place.

The biggest threat to the church on this issue is not the government. It will be whether churches compromise teaching what the Bible says about homosexuality in order to avoid ostracism and marginalization, and also to keep their membership rolls and financial coffers padded with the unconverted. In other words, the same threat that existed before.

A couple thoughts on the SCOTUS rulings today:

1 - I think it was a victory (in both cases) for equal treatment under the law.
2 - I think it was a victory for limited government.
3 - I think it was a victory (in both cases) for federalism and states’ rights.
4 - I think that a flat tax would have fixed much (not all) of the issues.
5 - I wish governments would get out of the marriage business completely.
6 - Fellow Christians, I agree with many of you that the traditional family is worth defending. So let’s agree to help each other put down that bottle of brandy. Let’s agree to control our anger so that we don’t mistreat our wives and children. Let’s agree to protect ourselves and our families from the sewage that is so pervasive on the internet and the TV. Let’s strengthen our families in our churches, and in private prayer and spiritual instruction. Let’s live as a light in the world. Instead of trying to use the blunt hammer of the law to force our fellow man to live the way we thing he should live, let’s be the kind of people that others want to be around, that others feel like seeking out in hard times. And then let’s always be ready to give an answer for the reason for the hope that lies within.

“1 - I think it was a victory (in both cases) for equal treatment under the law.”

The Bible does not teach or advocate this concept. Even if it did, the government is relying on its own, arbitrary, illogical definition of equality, one that outright rejects Genesis 2:23-24 (and for that matter all of Genesis 1 and 2) when it makes the ridiculous notion that men and women are 100% equal, and therefore homosexual couples are equal to heterosexual ones. Equality in value and worth does not equate to the sort of total equality which removes the basis for making distinctions. The Bible declared man and woman equal in worth but different in other areas where distinctions in the religious and legal codes recognized those differences, including but not limited to blessing heterosexual unions while declaring homosexual unions to be abomination.

“2 - I think it was a victory for limited government.”

The Bible does not teach or advocate this concept.

“3 - I think it was a victory (in both cases) for federalism and states’ rights.”

The Bible does not teach or advocate this concept.

“4 - I think that a flat tax would have fixed much (not all) of the issues.”

Wholly inconsistent with a Biblical mindset/theistic worldview.

“6 (Too long to repeat)” Utter balderdash. God saw fit to enshrine civil protections for marriage, family and children in the OT law. It was not left to private individuals to follow their own traditions and consciences but it was the law of the land under penalty of death. Do you honestly think that libertarianism and other humanistic ideas are superior to divine regulation?

This court decision was a victory for godlessness. Trying to put a happy face on it by exchanging one form of godlessness for another one is futile. Either way it is rejecting the rule of God over this nation. Look, the Bible explicitly states that the purpose of civil government is to restrain evil. So you want limited government that will restrain evil less? Why?

And none of this “government can’t legislate morality” nonsense. What do you call laws against murder, theft and perjury/slander/libel? Those laws exist solely because of the moral view that they are wrong, not because they constitute some immutable necessity in the rational created order. In some cultures it is perfectly fine for the strongest to do and say as they please so the goal of the culture is either to become as strong as possible or to join yourself to someone that is strong. So if the Bible declares homosexuality to be evil (it does) and if the Bible declares that the role of government as to restrain evil (it does in Romans 13:1-4) then how can government promotion and endorsement of this evil be a good thing? How can the government’s abdication of its God-given mandate to restrain evil based on some humanistic libertarianism be anything but what the Bible warns against in Colossians 2:8 and 2 Corinthians 10:5?

Look, I am not a covenant theology guy, but I really am beginning to think that the applied theology of Calvin’s Geneva or Puritan New England looks a whole lot better than what is being bandied about today. So long as you don’t base it and justify it on false claims about being a covenant nation akin to Israel and just state that you are making the best effort you can to base your laws on the Bible because that’s the best system of laws that we have, then fine with me. At least it would stop Christians from exalting the delusions of humanistic philosophers.

Just because this nation has rejected God’s rule in this case doesn’t mean that Christians have to assent to political ideas contrived by the dark fallen human hearts to claim that it is a good thing. Seriously, your #6 was unbelievable. Don’t you realize that the purpose of government is to restrain evil among the unconverted? It is the Holy Spirit that restrains evil among the regenerate. Christians going out and living right is not going to have the result that God intends for government to have on society because the purpose of our righteousness and good works was never for the benefit of society in the first place. The product of Christian observance and worship will never be to protect society because the goal of those things was never to protect society. The goal of those things was always and will always be to serve God because God created worship for that purpose. God created government for the purpose of protecting humans and societies. We cannot use our good morals to act as restraining agents on society because society is inherently immoral. That is why we need government - created and used by God - to accomplish this.

Honestly, libertarianism is as far from what the Bible actually contains as is communism. The reason is that both systems reject God’s reason for - and ultimate rule over - government and puts man and his interests in His place. The only difference is that communism accomplishes this through furthering the interests of the state and libertarianism does so through attempts to promote private property and human freedom. But in both cases, the servant and the end is humanity and his whims, not God and restraining evil.

Sean….might I suggest you read Eric Metaxes great work “Bonhoeffer” for a stellar reminder of why what you suggest is ineffective. The thought that this was a victory for limited government and states’ rights literally made me laugh out loud as multiple courts were affirmed in their decisions to ignore majority vote of the people as they personally carved out new rights for a minority solely based on chosen behavior.

Silence in the face of sin is the refuge of the cowardly. Pointing out other sins to justify ignoring another one is a lousy debate tactic and woeful way to justify a position. If that is to be the standard, then no sin should ever again be addressed publicly. Truly a stunningly naive list you’ve shared with us, IMHO.

JobK,

It sounds like you disagree with the founding principles of our nation. Equal protection under law, federalism, individual liberty, and limited Constitutional government are what the United States is founded on. I agree that these principles allow a great deal of vice and moral corruption. But they also allowed the church to grow wealth, send missionaries, speak freely, etc.

The point of my post is that God never promises to bless the church for bringing about a world that implements his laws in government. God does promise to bless the church for shining brightly in a dark world.

DLCreed,

The courts are intended to be a check on legislatures and majority rule when those legislatures and majorities violate the civil rights of others.

I do believe that homosexuality should be addressed publicly, but not in the sense of creating laws to try to stop it. I did not point out other sins in order to justify homosexuality. I pointed them out to demonstrate that the fight for the family starts in the home, then the church, and then to a free society. Many Christians seem to want to begin with government, rather than the church and home. We will probably never win this fight for society, but we can win individuals and families to Christ.

“How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that.”

Largest flaw in Obama’s reasoning is that we do not have separately recognized institutions of “civil marriage” and “religious marriage” like some countries do. Is there even a mechanism to protect religious organizations who resist this new legal understanding of marriage because in the US, a marriage (whether conducted at city hall or in a church) IS a marriage?

Think basics, boys and girls—there is one reason, and one reason only, that an institution of marriage exists in any culture during any generation. That reason is that God established it in Genesis 2, seven chapters and at least 1000 years prior to civil government. And the definition has not changed in the intervening 6 or so thousand years in any culture. This action to redefine marriage is sheer arrogance in the strain of the tribulation antichrist. Harbor no doubt, this is nothing less than these men setting themselves up as god.

[JobK]

“1 - I think it was a victory (in both cases) for equal treatment under the law.”

The Bible does not teach or advocate this concept. Even if it did, the government is relying on its own, arbitrary, illogical definition of equality, one that outright rejects Genesis 2:23-24 (and for that matter all of Genesis 1 and 2) when it makes the ridiculous notion that men and women are 100% equal, and therefore homosexual couples are equal to heterosexual ones. Equality in value and worth does not equate to the sort of total equality which removes the basis for making distinctions. The Bible declared man and woman equal in worth but different in other areas where distinctions in the religious and legal codes recognized those differences, including but not limited to blessing heterosexual unions while declaring homosexual unions to be abomination.

“2 - I think it was a victory for limited government.”

The Bible does not teach or advocate this concept.

“3 - I think it was a victory (in both cases) for federalism and states’ rights.”

The Bible does not teach or advocate this concept.

“4 - I think that a flat tax would have fixed much (not all) of the issues.”

Wholly inconsistent with a Biblical mindset/theistic worldview.

“6 (Too long to repeat)” Utter balderdash. God saw fit to enshrine civil protections for marriage, family and children in the OT law. It was not left to private individuals to follow their own traditions and consciences but it was the law of the land under penalty of death. Do you honestly think that libertarianism and other humanistic ideas are superior to divine regulation?

This court decision was a victory for godlessness. Trying to put a happy face on it by exchanging one form of godlessness for another one is futile. Either way it is rejecting the rule of God over this nation. Look, the Bible explicitly states that the purpose of civil government is to restrain evil. So you want limited government that will restrain evil less? Why?

And none of this “government can’t legislate morality” nonsense. What do you call laws against murder, theft and perjury/slander/libel? Those laws exist solely because of the moral view that they are wrong, not because they constitute some immutable necessity in the rational created order. In some cultures it is perfectly fine for the strongest to do and say as they please so the goal of the culture is either to become as strong as possible or to join yourself to someone that is strong. So if the Bible declares homosexuality to be evil (it does) and if the Bible declares that the role of government as to restrain evil (it does in Romans 13:1-4) then how can government promotion and endorsement of this evil be a good thing? How can the government’s abdication of its God-given mandate to restrain evil based on some humanistic libertarianism be anything but what the Bible warns against in Colossians 2:8 and 2 Corinthians 10:5?

Look, I am not a covenant theology guy, but I really am beginning to think that the applied theology of Calvin’s Geneva or Puritan New England looks a whole lot better than what is being bandied about today. So long as you don’t base it and justify it on false claims about being a covenant nation akin to Israel and just state that you are making the best effort you can to base your laws on the Bible because that’s the best system of laws that we have, then fine with me. At least it would stop Christians from exalting the delusions of humanistic philosophers.

Just because this nation has rejected God’s rule in this case doesn’t mean that Christians have to assent to political ideas contrived by the dark fallen human hearts to claim that it is a good thing. Seriously, your #6 was unbelievable. Don’t you realize that the purpose of government is to restrain evil among the unconverted? It is the Holy Spirit that restrains evil among the regenerate. Christians going out and living right is not going to have the result that God intends for government to have on society because the purpose of our righteousness and good works was never for the benefit of society in the first place. The product of Christian observance and worship will never be to protect society because the goal of those things was never to protect society. The goal of those things was always and will always be to serve God because God created worship for that purpose. God created government for the purpose of protecting humans and societies. We cannot use our good morals to act as restraining agents on society because society is inherently immoral. That is why we need government - created and used by God - to accomplish this.

Honestly, libertarianism is as far from what the Bible actually contains as is communism. The reason is that both systems reject God’s reason for - and ultimate rule over - government and puts man and his interests in His place. The only difference is that communism accomplishes this through furthering the interests of the state and libertarianism does so through attempts to promote private property and human freedom. But in both cases, the servant and the end is humanity and his whims, not God and restraining evil.

You apparently love the phrase “The Bible does not teach or advocate that concept.” Since a number of Sean’s statements refer only to governmental/socio-politcal concepts in America…I guess you would be right. But that doesn’t change that fact that those comments are correct within their purview. The DOMA act was specifically discriminatory against homosexuals. The SCOTUS decision does leave more decision-making power with the states.

Personally, I’m not convinced that the SCOTUS decision is a victory for limited government…by its very nature, the ruling has asserted his authority in a different way.

I’m not sure how his personal statement regarding a flat tax is “Wholly inconsistent with a Biblical mindset/theistic worldview.”

I believe that your response to his #6 is a gross over-reaction. His statements underscore the value of traditional marriage. Unless I am mis-reading your comments, I feel like you found a lot of meaning in Sean’s statements that I did not. I do not find anything in them about condoning homosexuality, promoting lawlessness or betraying biblical principles.

I feel that your response could have been both more charitable and more precise.

I must also confess that on a purely preferential basis, I regret your use of rhetorical questions to advance your arguments.

[Sean Fericks]

DLCreed,

The courts are intended to be a check on legislatures and majority rule when those legislatures and majorities violate the civil rights of others.

I do believe that homosexuality should be addressed publicly, but not in the sense of creating laws to try to stop it. I did not point out other sins in order to justify homosexuality. I pointed them out to demonstrate that the fight for the family starts in the home, then the church, and then to a free society. Many Christians seem to want to begin with government, rather than the church and home. We will probably never win this fight for society, but we can win individuals and families to Christ.

As one with a degree in history, I understand how the system works. However, what we have today are courts and jurists who see the Constitution as a document that changes (they would say “grow”) with the times as opposed to providing a foundation for interpretation. Jurists are as likely as not to consider European and World Courts for significant parts of their rulings as they are to use the Constitution (See Ruth B. Ginsburg). There is no suggestion of Civil Rights for sexual behavior anywhere in the Constitution and there is much evidence that if they thought, in their worst nightmares, that the Constitution would be used for the practices of immorality, they would have most likely delineated very clearly that it was not to be used for such, Indeed, Kennedy and his colleagues, are overthrowing centuries of legal precedent with a re-interpretation. The Constitutional freedoms we have were always to be tempered with moral self-governance if they were to work at all. Examine the writings of Adams, Jefferson and others if you doubt me.

Your argument that “the fight for the family starts in the home, then the church, and then to a free society” is a non sequitor. First, this is not an either/or scenario. Show me a credible conservative evangelical church that believe and think otherwise. But in a constitutional republic such as ours, we have the right and the responsibility to insist on moral leaders who will promote and enforce basic standards of moral order. We are not an absolutely libertarian society — we are a nation governed by laws — both natural and legislated. Yours is the argument being used by many a theological liberal and they simply do not hold water. Of course we are to win individuals and families to Christ. That is a “Captain Obvious” statement. But we are to be Salt and Light as well and we all know that bright lights and salty solutions will offend, spotlight and burn on occasion. Righteousness still exalts a nation. The responsibility of those who have a voice or authority in leadership is to promote righteousness. As a nation of citizen participants in the government of our civilization, we have every right AND responsibility to FIGHT for those values that invite God’s blessing and which lead to order and peace in our land. To neglect this sacred opportunity will lead to our loss of it.

I guess the bigger thing we have to remember is that Obama doesn’t have the power to make the church do anything. We are not held accountable to him and he is not the head of the church. Despite what is ruled and what is the law of the land, at the end Christ is still head of the Church and the Gospel is our foundation.