Marriage, Human Dignity, and Liberal Insecurity

Three essays I’ve read recently powerfully express – far better than I could – some thoughts I’ve been having lately on the nature of marriage, on the brouhaha over Clarence Thomas’s dissent in Obergefell vs. Hodges, and on liberal/progressive insecurity.

commons.wikimedia.org

commons.wikimedia.org

Writing at First Things, Joshua Schulz dismantles Justice Kennedy’s contentions that “the procreative potential once thought essential to marriage is in fact no more central to the institution than the race . . .,” and “that what is essential to marriage is the autonomy right of ‘self-definition’ in one’s intimate relationships . . .”

In his essay, Schulz thoughtfully articulates the problems with Kennedy’s contention and shows why the aspects of marriage essential to its nature are bound up in the procreative and unitive properties of human sexuality, and not, contra the Court, in the autonomous individual’s right to “self-definition.”

Also at First Things, Wesley J. Smith explains what Clarence Thomas was really saying about human dignity in his Obergefell vs. Hodges dissent. Only someone making a deliberate effort – or someone who no longer believes in inherent human worth – could have misunderstood Justice Thomas’s point. But for those few who may have honestly missed it, Smith’s essay provides an excellent corrective.

And over at Public Discourse, David Azerrad explores liberal insecurity. According to Azerrad, liberals believe that we “are all sovereign individuals, radically free to fashion and refashion ourselves into anything we so please at any point in our lives.” Oddly, however, these sovereign individuals seem unable to thrive unless others affirm and approve their self-defined choices.

“For all his purported god-like powers of self-creation,” Azerrad writes, “liberal promethean man is actually a weak, insecure, and isolated individual. It is not enough that he define and express his identity. He needs others to recognize it, embrace it, and celebrate it. He needs the state to confer dignity upon it.”

If you haven’t already read them, each of these essays is well worth your time.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

When Freedom Dies

Religious freedom and freedom of speech in America are both in their death throes. While the writhing may go on for a while, absent a miraculous healing of the American spirit, their ultimate deaths are assured – and likely to occur sooner than we ever imagined.

Thanks to the progressive agenda, in general, these two real “fundamental” rights have been ill for quite some time. But it took the trifecta of radical environmentalism, the Affordable Care Act, and the same-sex marriage movement to push them to the brink. Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling saving the ACA and – to a far greater extent – Friday’s ruling creating a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, sounded the death knell.

Despite being so strong that nothing can stand in its way, the “right side of history,” apparently, is, at the same time, so fragile that any dissent could upend the whole enterprise. Dissenters – Christians, in particular – must, therefore, be silenced and marginalized. Progressives no doubt are overjoyed that the Supreme Court has handed them the tools to make that happen.

As Os Guinness writes in A Free People’s Suicide: Sustainable Freedom and the American Future, “[f]reedom never lasts forever, because its very vitality is built on a combination of elements that are dynamic, difficult to hold together and easy to corrupt.” In a fallen world, it could be no other way. When religious freedom and freedom of speech die, America’s freedom will be dead, as well.

CCO Public Domain pixabay.com

CCO Public Domain pixabay.com

At the Northampton Seminar on the Patheos website, my friend Gerry McDermott offers reasons to take heart. While “[t]hese are dark days for orthodox believers and conservatives,” Gerry writes, “. . . these are also days when we should be reminded of bright hopes.” Quoting Luke 6:22-23, Gerry reminds us that Jesus said we should “leap for joy” when men hate and revile us on His account. Such treatment puts us right up there with the prophets.

I know Gerry is right, and I sure can’t argue with the words of our Lord, but I’m not quite there yet. As a new neighbor helpfully pointed out to me recently, I’m no spring chicken. Still, I had hoped not to live to see the day freedom died in America. I’ll pray that I can leap for joy very soon. For now, I’m just trying to stay upright and stake out a small stand on the wrong side of history.

–updated 6:31 pm EDT

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Cost of Our Convictions

The courage of our convictions is a phrase that means a willingness to stand up for what we believe in the face of opposition. Until recently, beyond a little ridicule, the cost of expressing our convictions hasn’t been too great for America’s Christians. But the ante on Christian courage is about to go up dramatically. The question then becomes, are we ready to pay that cost?

For Christians of my generation – the baby boomers – the cost may not be too onerous. Many of us are at or approaching the ends of our careers and so have less on the line. But for our children and grandchildren, the cost could betruth very great indeed. At Public Discourse, Ryan Shinkel lays out that cost in his excellent essay, “The Courage to Be on the Wrong Side of History: Lessons from Burke and Nietzsche.”

A senior studying philosophy and literature at the University of Michigan, Shinkel articulates well the challenges that his generation will likely face. But he doesn’t flinch from those challenges.

“Moral courage” Shinkel writes, “means placing more value upon the integrity of conscience over the stability of external events: being denied tenure, a plum internship, some job, friends who cannot tolerate “bigoted” opinions . . . prudence is necessary, yet those of my generation who stand for what the family is, what marriage is, and what the foundational institutions of civil society rooted in our rational and social natures are, make possible a new counter-revolution.”

I came of age during the sexual revolution of the ‘60s. Considered counter cultural at the time, that revolution – along with other misguided ideas regnant in those years – has wreaked unbelievable destruction on the well being of our nation and its citizens. If Shinkel can persuade others of his generation to grab hold of the moral courage to become the counterculture of today, to resist the so-called “right side of history,” and simply stand for what is right – whatever the cost – there may be hope for our nation yet.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Where There is No Vision

 (CC BY-SA 2.0)

(flickr.com CC BY-SA 2.0)

“Are you gonna exist or are you gonna live?” The question came from behind me as I browsed the reference book aisle at Barnes & Noble the other day. “Cause living means taking responsibility for your life and choices. Existing is just letting things happen to you.”

Those weren’t the speaker’s exact words,, but that’s the gist of what he was saying. After shamelessly eavesdropping for a few minutes, I discreetly glanced over my shoulder to see what was going on. The speaker was hidden from my view, but the listener – if he could be called that – was a young black teen who looked less than happy to be on the receiving end of the speaker’s words.

Curious, I prolonged my browsing, the better to hear the rest of the speaker’s monologue on the opportunities that were available to this young teen if he decided he wanted to live instead of exist.

“When I come to Barnes & Noble,” the speaker went on, “I come with a purpose. I ask about the section where the self-help books are that can help me change my life” (my paraphrase). The speaker continued on in this vein, trying to incite some response that would indicate his words were getting through to the sulky-faced teen.

Wanting to see who was trying so hard to make a difference in this young man’s life, I rounded the end of the aisle and glanced back once more. The speaker was leaning on the shelves, head bent toward the teenager, so I couldn’t get a clear look – at least without becoming a more obvious eavesdropper than I already had been. He was certainly older and wiser than the teen he was addressing – maybe an older brother – but most likely not his dad.

I left Barnes & Noble without purchasing any books, but the overheard entreaty stayed  in my mind.

In the KJV, Proverbs 29:18a is rendered, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” Other versions translate vision as prophetic vision or revelation, and perish as unrestrained or cast off restraints. Regardless of the version, the verse well describes the times in which we live. But though it probably isn’t the most accurate translation, I like the KJV version best. It seems to describe the lives of so many young men today – particularly, but certainly not only – those in the black community.

Because they’ve not been given a vision of what it means to be a real man, many young men today are perishing – both literally in cities like Ferguson, MO, and figuratively all around the country. With few fathers to guide them and a culture that often seems to despise them, they’ve lost a sense of purpose and a belief in their value to society. Consequently, many are languishing either in real prisons or in prisons created by addictions to pornography and video games, by their lack of education, and by a lack of jobs.

I applaud the speaker in Barnes & Noble for stepping into a young teen’s life and trying to show him that he has a choice about whether to live or to simply exist. The words he spoke contained much wisdom, and if the young man is smart, he’ll chew on those words. But curing the malaise that has afflicted our young men will require more than self-help books and more responsible choices. Ultimately, only embracing a prophetic vision of biblical manhood, and a willingness to accept the restraints thus entailed, will enable our young men – and by extension, our culture – to flourish and thrive.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

If We Win at the Supreme Court, Do We Still Lose Marriage?

After hearing the oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case and listening to a Heritage Foundation panel discussion on the Supreme Court justices’ questions and what they might mean, I’m slightly more hopeful that the justices will resist the urge to invent a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. That would be a good thing. But at the risk of sounding like a Jeremiah, I have to say I’m not sure what practical difference resisting that urge will make.

As Solicitor General Donald Verrilli noted in response to a comment from Chief Justice Roberts, even if the justices do rule against a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, “questions of accommodation [of religious liberty] are going to arise . . . in states where there is no same sex marriage [and in states] where there [is].”

Verrilli is right. Leaving it to the states to decide their own definition of marriage isn’t necessarily going to protect the religious freedom of their citizens. And by declining the Elane Photography case, the Court has already signaled its lack of interest in resolving these questions when they do arise.

As of now, 37 states have legal same-sex marriage. Only 11, however, decided the issue through the democratic process. The other 26 have had same-sex marriage imposed on them by the courts. The vast majority of those decisions have occurred since the Windsor decision in June 2013 – an outcome the justices most certainly anticipated.

In the unlikely event the Supreme Court fails to create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, my guess is that few if any of those 26 states will turn back the clock. The economic and other pressures to retain the status quo will be massive and unrelenting, and many governors and attorneys general won’t have the stomach for the fight. Others, like the governor and attorney general of Virginia, support same-sex marriage anyway and have no desire to fight.

In the 13 states that still define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, same-sex marriage advocates will wage intensive campaigns to pressure those states, first, to legally recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states (if the Court doesn’t require it in deciding Question 2 in Obergefell), and second, to legalize same-sex marriage, as well. The mauling Indiana took over its RFRA law offers an indication of what those campaigns will look like. Same-sex marriage advocates will give no quarter until every state falls into line.

The pressure will be equally intense on individuals, businesses, and institutions that refuse to get with the program. Those who oppose same-sex marriage for religious or any other reason will at the very least continue to be vilified, marginalized, and threatened with losing their jobs and businesses. Churches, religious schools, and other institutions and organizations will also be targeted. Resisting such pressure will become increasingly difficult, if not impossible.

So while I would certainly welcome a Supreme Court decision affirming the right of states to define marriage as they see fit, at best it will be nothing more than a bump in the road. The money and cultural influence of the same-sex marriage lobby will still drive us relentlessly on toward the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage even if it means the complete destruction of anyone who doesn’t get out of the way.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Universal Acid

Two months from now, the Supreme Court almost assuredly is going to rule that people in same-sex relationships have a constitutional right to marry each other. And just as assuredly, the Constitution – as written – guarantees no such right. But we’re long past the time when judges believed it was their job to interpret the Constitution as written.

The justices no doubt hope their decision will put the contentious same-sex marriage issue to rest. As happened with Roe v. Wade, however, their decision is more likely to trigger even greater conflict instead. Given that same-sex marriage advocates have been successful in framing same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue instead of the public policy issue that it actually is, the conflict could get ugly indeed.

We’re constantly reminded that public opinion has been shifting in favor of same-sex marriage, and so it has. But this shift has not come about because of a thoughtful weighing of the pros and cons or a thorough investigation of government’s historical role in regulating marriage. The shift has come about in large part due to a relentless propaganda campaign that has been waged in the entertainment media, the news media, and in academia.

The purpose of this propaganda campaign has been two-fold: to convince Americans that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic just like race such that any disapproval of homosexual behavior could arise from nothing more than bigotry or unfounded animus and that same-sex marriage is just like heterosexual marriage except, if anything, even better.

This clever bit of legerdemain – assisted by a scorched earth policy of publicly vilifying and threatening anyone with an opposing viewpoint, demanding that they lose their jobs, and destroying their businesses through lawsuits and legal fees – has, unsurprisingly, worked spectacularly well. Still, not everyone is falling in line. So once the Supreme Court decides in favor of same-sex marriage, the pressure on the recalcitrant is sure to increase.

Christians who believe in the biblical definition of marriage will be the most ardently targeted. And it won’t simply be Christian business owners in the crosshairs any longer. In his book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, atheist philosopher, Daniel Dennett, called Darwinism a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept.” Same-sex marriage, it’s safe to say, is a similar acid eating through the Constitution and the protections it guarantees us for our most basic freedoms.

Canada’s 10-year experiment with same-sex marriage provides a frightening preview of things to come.

In an essay posted at Public Discourse, Dawn Stefanowicz describes in chilling detail the loss of fundamental freedoms Canadians have endured since same-sex marriage became legal in 2005. Americans should “expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage,” Stefanowicz warns. “The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.”

Once the Supreme Court “finds” a right to marriage in the Constitution, as Al Mohler often notes in his daily podcast, no orthodox Christian will long be able to avoid taking a stand. “One of the earliest lessons Christians had to learn,” Mohler writes in his blog, “was that we cannot simultaneously bow the knee to Caesar [or even to the culture] and to Christ. We must choose one or the other.” Wise Christians should start thinking now about how they will respond when the test inevitably comes.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

In Philippians 4:8, Paul tells us to let our minds dwell on “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute” along with “any excellence and . . . anything worthy of praise” (NASB).

In a fallen world, that has never been an easy thing to do, but in our increasingly rude, crude, and lewd culture, finding the good and beautiful amongst the bad and ugly has become an immensely difficult task. This week, however, a Christianity Today article tipped me off to a recent song – a praiseworthy testament to God’s faithfulness – that stands out for its loveliness and beauty.

The song, “Alone Yet Not Alone” – title song for an obscure Christian movie with only a 21-day release, according to Paul Bonds of the Hollywood Reporter – has generated controversy for having been nominated for an Academy Award in the Best Original Song category, beating out well-known songs from highly successful movies sung by highly successful singers (think Taylor Swift). The singer of “Alone Yet Not Alone”?  Little known (outside of evangelical circles, at least) quadriplegic, Joni Eareckson Tada.

Tada’s singing itself is a testament to God’s faithfulness and is part of what makes the song so poignant. As a quadriplegic, Tada has limited lung capacity and, as Bond writes, needed her husband’s pushing on her diaphragm to help her hit the high notes. By God’s grace – as Tada would no doubt attest – and in answer to her opening prayer, listeners would never know such an effort was required.

To the musically trained, “Alone Yet Not Alone” may not seem like a great song. Even to my untrained ears, the song doesn’t appear highly original either in lyrics or instrumentation. Yet, when paired with scenes from the movie of the same name – a movie that tells the story of two young sisters captured by Indians during the French and Indian war and of the faith that sustained them – it has an undeniable power and grace that has kept me playing it over and over.

Will “Alone Yet Not Alone” win an Academy Award? It’s possible. Sometimes the good does beat out the bad and the ugly (not to say, of course, that the other nominated songs are either of those things). But probably not. Still, it’s the audience and not the award that really matters. Because regardless of whether or not the song captures the Oscar, we can always pray that it captures the imagination of at least a few of those who hear it and that, ultimately, its message captures their hearts.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment