UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES
The Newsletter of Contend for the Faith, Inc

1 Chronicles 12:32

JULY 2003

Culture in Decline, Church in Demand

CULTURE IN DECLINE

As I write this, my heart is heavy. I am saddened and angry at the latest action by the United States Supreme Court.

In case you did not hear about it, the Constitution has been changed yet again by a group of unelected robed rulers in Washington D.C. In a 6-3 ruling in a case called Lawrence v. Texas, the creative activist judges found a Constitutional “right” to engage in sodomy when they struck down a state law forbidding two persons of the same sex to take part in such behavior.

Those who engage in and advocate homosexuality are celebrating this ruling throughout the country. It has been called by the Wall Street Journal “a Roe v. Wade for gay rights.”

Like the Roe decision 30 years earlier which invalidated laws throughout the nation prohibiting abortion, the Lawrence decision struck down state sodomy laws across the country. Once again, part of the moral fabric of our society sewn by our Founding Fathers and based on biblical principles has been shredded by a group of justices whose job is supposed to be to apply the Constitution to the law, not amend it according to their whims.

Now, according to these inventive justices, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment not only allows women to have their babies killed for convenience, but it also enables people to engage in homosexual acts as “an exercise of their liberty.”

One of the things so maddening about this decision is that for more than 200 years since the birth of this nation laws prohibiting sodomy have been constitutional. The men who wrote the Constitution surely knew that all 13 original States had anti-sodomy laws when the Bill of Rights was ratified. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, 32 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. For a time all 50 States outlawed sodomy. Only 17 years ago the Supreme Court expressly upheld the constitutional-ity of anti-sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). But in 2003, four men and two women have discovered (decided, actually) that the last 135 years of history and jurisprudence have been completely wrong.

CHURCH IN DEMAND

What does this have to do with the church of Jesus Christ in America? Plenty.

As the practices and beliefs of our society become more dissolute, the church must become more resolute in proclaiming the truth of biblical morality.

If Christians do not teach their children, friends, and relatives the proper view of ethics, apparently no one else will. But as immoral behavior becomes illegitimately enshrined into law by activist courts, the church must do all it can to see that Christian principles of morality are proclaimed without compromise, for the benefit of our society.

This should be done both on the personal level and in the arena of public policy. I believe that the church, as Charles Finney, the 19th century revivalist preacher, said, “must take right ground in regards to politics.” Reflecting the sentiments of most of the Founding Fathers, Finney said, “God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, which we love and pray for, unless the Church will take right ground. Politics are a part of religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to their country as a part of their duty to God.”

Christians have a duty not only to lead others to Christ but also to feed others from the teachings of Christ (Matt. 28:19-20). Morality is indispensable to our quality of life.

SPEAKING SCHEDULE 2003

July 20

Homebuilders Sunday School Class, Calvary Church, Charlotte: “Islam, Part One”

July 27

Homebuilders Sunday School Class, Calvary Church, Charlotte: “Islam, Part Two”

August 3

Harold Hansen’s Sunday School Class, Hickory Grove Baptist Church North, Concord: “Is Jesus Really the Only Way to Heaven, Part One”

August 10

Harold Hansen’s Sunday School Class, Hickory Grove Baptist Church North, Concord: “Is Jesus Really the Only Way to Heaven, Part Two”

August 17

Homebuilders Sunday School Class, Calvary Church, Charlotte: “Roman Catholicism Part One”

August 24

Homebuilders Sunday School Class, Calvary Church, Charlotte: “Roman Catholicism Part Two”

CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH

UNDERSTANDING SUPREME COURT ERRORS: PART ONE

Call it the tyranny of bad ideas. Call it a conspiracy of faulty reasoning and bad arguments. Or call it judicial activism run amok. But whatever you call it, recognize that Lawrence v. Texas, the recent Supreme Court decision ruling anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional, is a bad precedent for both the moral framework of our society and for our republican form of government.

There are so many outrageous aspects to this 6-3 decision one hardly knows where to begin.

The moral aspect. Perhaps the most troubling part of this decision to Christians is what it will mean to the moral discernment of the society in which we live. In the same way that the apostle Paul said the law is a schoolmaster or tutor (Gal. 3:24), the laws of our cities, states, and nation teach us what is considered to be right and wrong in our culture. The things considered to be wrong are prohibited; the things that are considered right are allowed.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in this decision, declares that homosexual behavior prohibited by sodomy laws is protected activity under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: “The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” “Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.”

Therefore, Kennedy says, consenting adults in private can do virtually whatever they want to do concerning sexual activity as an “exercise of their liberty.” He goes on to write, “The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.”

Several things will almost inevitably follow from this decision:

Activists will use this case as a battering ram to force states to allow “gay marriage” since “homosexuals” are “entitled to respect” for their private lives and their behavior has just been decriminalized. Any day now the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will issue a ruling on a case in which same-sex “couples” want to “marry.” Look for them to allow it based on the Lawrence case.

Those who desire to engage in prostitution, polygamy, bigamy, and adult incest will likely challenge laws prohibiting these practices because they are done consensually and in private. According to the reasoning of Lawrence, these should also be protected “liberties.”

Those who uphold and defend traditional morality will be cast as bigots and will be scorned for their views. Activists will attempt to have laws passed that will make condemnation of homosexuality a crime (“hate speech”) as has already been done in Canada. Children in government schools will be taught engaging in homosexual acts is just as acceptable as heterosexual acts.

Ironically, Kennedy writes “this Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code.” Yet the justices are mandating their own moral code over that of the majority of Americans. It seems the only moral view that matters to most of them is their own.

The self-government aspect. America is supposed to be a nation of laws, not men. Our government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people” (Lincoln). Yet with every Court decision that effectively rewrites the Constitution, we become less of a representative republic and more of an oligarchy (rulership by a small group).

As Justice Antonin Scalia points out in his blistering dissent, “there is no right to ‘liberty’ under the Due Process Clause, though today's opinion repeatedly makes that claim.” The Fourteenth Amendment allows states to deprive citizens of liberty so long as “due process of law” is provided: “No state shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The state of Texas passed a law by the representatives duly elected by its citizens to prohibit homosexual acts, demonstrating the moral viewpoint of the majority. But the Court said that such a law “furthers no legitimate state interest.”

When the Court majority could not find a legitimate basis in the text of the Constitution for their approval of homosexuality, they ruled on their own opinions rather than the law.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who joined Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist in dissent, understands his duty. While he says that if he were a legislator he would vote to repeal the Texas law, he nevertheless writes, “My duty, rather, is to ‘decide cases “agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.”’ . . . And, just like Justice Stewart, I ‘can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy’ . . .”

As our society has generally abandoned the idea that there is absolute truth with God as its source, relativism has filled the vacuum. This is reflected in Supreme Court judges who ignore the text and the meaning of the Constitution in order to shape society according to their own liberal ideology. They seem to be saying, “Why follow the Constitution? It’s a lot faster (and more fun!) to just change it to suit ourselves.”

There is, however, absolute truth. There are moral precepts which will not change because God does not change. Homosexual behavior is immoral and will remain so, no matter how many courts rule to the contrary. Christians must be unwavering in proclaiming this.

The Constitution was written in ink and sealed by the blood of men committed to biblical principles of morality. Unfortunately many of the current justices seem to think it was written in pencil.