The Silencing of Naysayers

Hugh McCann linked to an interesting article on what is happening in Kentucky over the gay marriage decision. It apparently didn’t take long for some in the LGBT community deliberately to target Christians for what they believe. The ACLU’s response to the excellent argumentation in favor of Kim Davis’s position is that no one should be held to a different standard, now that gay marriage is the law of the land. Let’s test that response on a different law.

If abortion becoming legal is the law of the land, then should all naysayers against abortion be silenced? Are we requiring people to agree with laws nowadays? There are hundreds, if not thousands of laws that I would disagree with (if I even knew what half of them were: the federal law-code is ridiculously verbose) in this nation. No one has ever tried to silence completely the naysayers against abortion. That was because it was recognized that this is still a matter of free speech.

We need to remember an important distinction in the matter of law: if there is a ruling on the books that homosexuals may get married, then that means that the state cannot prosecute homosexuals who get a marriage license. That ruling cannot be made into a bludgeon to silence all dissent. If agreement with the ruling is the interpretation that the court goes with in the Kentucky case, then the court will make a fundamental error regarding what the law of the land is supposed to do.

Let’s take another example, one less controversial. If I disagree with a speed limit in a particular place, am I required verbally to agree that the speed limit in that zone should be what it is? In the case of a speed limit, the answer is no. I don’t have to agree that this is a good speed limit. But if I speed, then I make myself liable to the law. In the case of SSM, of course, there may quite conceivably come soon a time when we Christians are going to have to disobey laws of the land, because they contradict what God has commanded in His Word.

The ACLU might come back with this argument: “Ah, but Kim Davis is a government employee, and therefore she is required to uphold the law of the land.” To this, the response is quite simple, and two-fold: 1. Although it is now legal in the US to get a marriage license, that is not the same thing as saying that everyone is required to agree with it. 2. Government employees are not required to agree with the law regarding abortion in order to hold a public office. Why should they be required to agree with the SSM ruling in order to hold office? By their argument, the four justices who wrote dissents cannot be allowed to keep their office. If one reads the article, it becomes clear that the lawsuit had nothing to do with a gay couple being unable to get a licence in Kentucky. There were many other options available to them. The application for a marriage license was only sent Kim Davis’s way AFTER they learned of her stance on gay marriage. This is deliberate targeting. The ACLU argument is very weak indeed.

15 Comments

  1. Chris said,

    August 11, 2015 at 10:29 pm

    Kim Davis has been divorced three times, married four. Now, I don’t know the circumstances surrounding her life, but it seems like she is doing a bit of cherry-picking in regards to sin, and the church is too. There has been, as far as I know, no stance by any ministers on the State handing out licenses to adulterers or fornicators. So, where do we start; why draw the line here?

    Now, I am not suggesting that because of some hypocrisy that Christians have no right to say anything. This is the sodomite argument: “a ha! Now shut up!” On the contrary, I say that much of the hypocrisy exists because of the cherry picking (kind of like those, um, Pharisees, no?). It is obvious to the world that the church is in a terrible mess (Tullian’s recent confession is one more notch on the belt of the haters). And yeah, I know the arguments “the church is for sinners!” Yep, I’ll raise my hand to that one. But there is something about a loose view of sin that seems to keep everyone living in a kind of twilight of holiness. Like the law was a good idea that had it’s day in the past, and now we have to argue from that flaky old thing called the Constitution.

    The thing is, the encroachment of the sodomite agenda could have been stopped years ago, had theonomy had its way. But alas, too many Christians feared the disapproval of the world more than God’s warnings. Now, there is a sort of pietistic talk, comparing the church to Daniel in Babylon (saw a recent review of a new book on that very thing over at the Gospel Conflagration). What the church forgets is that the exile was punishment for forgetting His Word and making room for the Asherah poles.

    Now, using the open-ended (non-Canon) law system of the USA, the sodomites are tactically silencing any opposition. And it’s all “legal”. The tail is now effectively waving the dog (about 3% of the American public claims to be a sodomite). What now? More Common Law, or something better?

    In Christ,
    Chris

  2. greenbaggins said,

    August 12, 2015 at 8:47 am

    Chris, a couple of thoughts: are you certain that Kim doesn’t condemn her own sin? Secondly, when is the point at which any Christian can speak out against sin? When they are perfect? Obviously, that would eliminate all preaching. There’s hardly a Sunday that goes by that I don’t feel like a hypocrite climbing into the pulpit.

  3. Alexander said,

    August 12, 2015 at 12:42 pm

    Yeah, but as a preacher you, presumably, speak out against more than one sin. She’s a state employee who has decided to take a stand on so-called gay marriage. If issuing licenses to gay couples is endorsing sin, why is issuing licences to adulterers not a sin? Of course it’s usually not as bivouac that one is an adulterer as it is that one is a gay couple, but I’m sure there are cases where you would be able to tell.

  4. Chris said,

    August 13, 2015 at 12:38 pm

    Lane,
    I fully agree with you. I don’t believe that the knowledge of our own sin should keep us from speaking; truly that is what I was hoping to make as clear as I could and avoid even implying otherwise. It is a tactic of the world to silence the Christian. So, if I did not make that clear, I do apologise.

    But, I do think that there is some cherry-picking happening on the part of the lady involved, and as I said, in previous times I have not heard of Christians working for the State who were careful about handing out licenses to adulterers. It’s the inconsistency and the sudden righteous indignation that seems a little too late in the game. She has willingly become an employee of the State; the same State that has not had a problem with other types of marriages prior to this. She should just quit and find other employment; maybe take some time to think about her own life.

    But aside from all that, why the State has the authority to grant “licenses” is something I have not ever really understood. I cannot find Biblical justification for the State to possess that authority.

    Any way, all the best. I enjoy your blog. Always stimulating, if not antagonising! LOL.

  5. roberty bob said,

    August 13, 2015 at 4:36 pm

    in reply to #4 Chris

    ” . . . why the State has the authority to grant ‘licenses’ is something I have not ever really understood.” — Chris

    Consider the following declaration from a church’s synodically approved form for the celebration of marriage:

    We have come together before the face of God to join ________ and ________ in marriage. We seek to honor the will of God for marriage, the concern of the Christian church for its well-being, and the interest of the state in the orderly development of society.

    ….

    So, the State has an interest in establishing and maintaining an orderly society. Marriage is the bedrock for such a society, so the State takes lawful measures to regulate marriage practices. To my knowledge, wedding officiants must register in the state where they wish to perform weddings, and those men and women who wish to marry must obtain a license to do so. Jesus and the Apostles were accepting of the fact that civil governments exercise their rightful domain under the Lordship of Christ; all of the parameters of the State’s domain are not defined in Scripture, although their role seems to be far more limiting than that which the modern state has assumed.

  6. Chris said,

    August 13, 2015 at 9:36 pm

    Roberty,
    I appreciate your explanation, but the granting of licenses (i.e. permission) doesn’t follow from the synod’s declaration. I agree with it’s plain statement, that marriage is the foundation of an orderly society and so that state has an interest in it; but it doesn’t grant the authority to the State (capital S, as an institution) over marriage. And, I wonder at the intent of the Synod in not capitalising the word “state”. You may be taking away more from this than the Synod intended.

    Kind regards,
    Chris

  7. Reed Here said,

    August 15, 2015 at 1:51 pm

    Chris, if a correct cherry is picked, why complain against that action? Imperfection in one area of life certainly should not cause us to seek perfection in other areas, no?

  8. Chris said,

    August 16, 2015 at 9:11 pm

    “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” — Matthew 23:23

  9. roberty bob said,

    August 17, 2015 at 2:10 pm

    “There is hardly a Sunday that goes by that I don’t feel like a hypocrite when climbing into the pulpit.” — greenbaggins

    hypocrisy: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not.

    hypocrite: one who affects virtues or qualities one does not have.

    Under what conditions or circumstances would a genuine God-loving, covenant-keeping pastor feel like a hypocrite when climbing into the pulpit?

    I cannot think of any.

    Having shortcomings with regard to moral perfection does not make one a hypocrite. Pastors who acknowledge their shortcomings, confess their sins and repent of them, and receive the Lord’s forgiveness should never feel like hypocrites when climbing into the pulpit, nor need they ever shy away from admonishing their congregation to flee from all forms of ungodliness. Faithful congregants who follow their pastor’s godly example need never feel like hypocrites either.

    Only an actual hypocrite ought to feel like a hypocrite.

  10. Reed Here said,

    August 18, 2015 at 1:04 pm

    Chris, nah.

  11. Steve M said,

    August 18, 2015 at 7:42 pm

    For this reason ( because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God) God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

    Should anyone be allowed to believe what Paul wrote? Or should believing this be outlawed? These are the questions that must be answered. Paul declared these passions vile and shameful. Was he inspired by God or guilty of “hate speech”?

  12. Chris said,

    August 19, 2015 at 2:14 am

    Reed,
    I’m not getting your flippancy. Any way, this conversation is getting way off base. My initial comments were in regard to the government employee taking issue with the granting of licenses to homosexual couples, but having never seemingly had an issue with granting licenses to adulterers or fornicators.

    My posting of the quote from Jesus is pretty much the spirit of what I’m trying to say: we are not allowed to be against this, but not against that. That is exactly what the Pharisees were doing. So, instead of dumping the law, be consistent with it. That’s Jesus’ message.

    I would love to hear a comprehensive defence of cherry-picking morality. That could be interesting. Reed?

  13. Steve M said,

    August 19, 2015 at 1:09 pm

    Chris
    Granting a marriage license to someone who in the past has been an adulterer or fornicater is not endorsing adultery or fornication. Granting a marriage license to two atheists is not an endorsement of atheism. However, granting a marriage license to two members of the same gender amounts to an endorsement of the concept that their union is a “marriage”. Should endorsing that concept be a prerequisite for government employment? Should a government employee be fired for refusing to endorsing that concept?

  14. Steve M said,

    August 19, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    …refusing to endorse…

  15. Reed Here said,

    August 20, 2015 at 11:31 am

    Chris, no flippancy. Nah is a simple no thanks to straining at gnats?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: