SCOTUS and God’s Law: Not By THAT Standard!

same-sex-marriageDespite the hue and cry this past week over the most recent landmark Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriages, the harsh truth of it is this: the Supreme Court of the United States last week did not do anything differently from what it has been doing for the past 223 years (since its inception in 1790) — ruling and deciding on cases brought before it based on a homogenous, humanistic standard of interpretation that is deliberately and scrupulously compounded from sources NOT based on the biblical laws and precepts of the Old and New Testaments of Holy Scripture.

Were you surprised by the hubris of those five men and women in sober black robes who voted in favor of it?

You shouldn’t be.

Surprised by the fact that, of the nine men and women who sit on the Court, six are Roman Catholic and three are Jewish — even as both of these “traditional” religions ostensibly and officially denounce the practice of homosexuality?

You should be.

But, then again, maybe you shouldn’t be surprised.

It depends on three things: whether or not you believe a person’s religious faith and personal beliefs should influence his decisions and actions as a political, or in this case judicial, figure; whether or not you believe Supreme Court decisions are always legally (constitutionally) binding and therefore to be followed and enforced in any and all cases; and, whether or not you believe the Supreme Court indeed has the last word on deciding so-called constitutional issues such as this one, and is the supreme “law of the land.”

Whose Law Is It Anyway?

If you’re a theonomist, consistent Calvinist or, heaven forbid, a full-on Christian Reconstructionist, you appreciate ethical and moral dilemmas like this one, and you should find this brief, three-part quiz to be a cinch to answer.

First, should a political or judicial figure’s decisions and actions be influenced and informed by his personal beliefs and religious faith?

Of course!  Are they any different from the rest of us who live and work in God’s economy in various capacities of leadership and spheres of influence under the rule and dominion of Christ?  A Christian magistrate should rule first and foremost as a Christian.  A Christian judge should decide cases first and foremost as a Christian.  (We have a nice “church-word” for people who profess one thing and live out (or promote and defend) another: hypocrite!)

The problem is, unless your faith and personal beliefs tell you that, (a), there is no neutrality — it is never a question of law or no law, but rather whose law — and, (b), God’s law has continuing validity and authority in our lives today despite what antinomians, most evangelicals and, frankly, most Christians say to the contrary, then your faith is truncated and based on the shifting sands of an inconsistent, non-covenantal theology.

Two, are ALL Supreme Court decisions to be considered “binding” and thus enforced and obeyed and respected by citizens and presidents (who are also citizens) alike in all cases?

Not by a long shot!

American history is replete with examples of presidents and politicians (and civilians and military) who disregarded and ignored — or threatened to ignore — Supreme Court decisions which they did not agree with.  But there is a difference between disregarding and ignoring for political or expedient reasons and doing so for sound theological, moral and doctrinal reasons.

As theonomically-inclined, historically and biblically-informed Christians (who tend to be somewhat more “liberty-minded” and politically astute than others in the same demographic!), we are empowered and even duty-bound to disregard and ignore, or at least challenge, criticize and (publicly) denounce court decisions — or laws for that matter — that blatantly and explicitly VIOLATE SCRIPTURE and force Christians to do likewise by imposing either unbiblical requirements or unbiblical sanctions and restrictions.

That point should lead us to a lengthy discussion of “Christian resistance” and the proper interpretation of Romans 13… But not right now!

Third, does the Supreme Court have “the last word” on deciding constitutional issues and questions?

No, the Supreme Court does not have the last word on deciding constitutional issues and questions, despite all appearances to the contrary.

Not even the venerable U.S. Constitution says anywhere (including Article III) that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review (let alone the lofty position of “judicial supremacy”).  This is simply a “well-established precedent” (much like the well-established precedent of following and enforcing decisions of denominational assemblies on similar issues!) that we have all come to assume is, by virtue of custom and tradition, “the way things ought to be.”

Who’s In Charge?

So, we are back to the question originally posed by Rushdoony in his 1958 book, “By What Standard?”

We know the answer.  The biblical laws of the Old and New Testaments.

The problem is, most of the country does not believe this, most CHRISTIANS do not believe this.  Hardly anyone in Congress or on Capitol Hill and no one in the Oval Office believes it.  Certainly no one sitting on the bench of the Supreme Court believes it.  (They haven’t believed it for at least 225 years!)

Where does that leave us?

It leaves is with a political system that has been hijacked at the top, manipulated clear down to the bottom, and corrupted everywhere in between.  It leaves us with an executive branch that behaves less and less like the “servant-leadership” that Jesus and the Scriptures exemplify, and more and more like the tyranny, oligarchy and unbridled monarchy that Samuel warned Israel about.  It leaves us with a legislative branch that promotes an intransigent and intractable bureaucracy which exists to satisfy every whim of the electorate and take away all the “uncertainties” and exigencies of life, carefully placing its demands on the rest of us while carefully exempting and enriching the law-makers and their cronies.  It leaves us with a judicial branch that autonomously judges man-made laws by other man-made laws and seemingly acts with “no controlling legal (or moral) authority” other than itself.

Sadly, as long as the money machine of taxpayers (church-going, Bible-reading and otherwise) and their central bank masters keeps churning out financial and electoral support for this unbiblical system of political-messianic programs, unscriptural laws and unchristian policies and practices, we can continue to expect more of the same.

How Shall We Then Reform?

We have an enormous library and burgeoning body of literature, including online and offline resources and media at our disposal, including an “action manual” now that gives us clear direction and concrete, historically and biblically-validated steps to take.

This is good, because correcting more than two centuries of political and judicial apostasy is no short-term project and will not be an easy task.

So, Christians, let’s get busy.  We have a LOT of work to do!

Reconstructionism vs. Dispensationalism: 25 Years Later, the Debate Still Hinges on the Role and Responsibility of Christians, Not the Return of Jesus

88 Reasons

Younger Christians may not remember this, but 25 years ago, in 1988, millions of Bible-believing Christians all over the world were anxiously awaiting and breathlessly watching for that glorious event to take place, in which the hopes and dreams of generations of believers would be fully realized and instantly confirmed and consummated in the physical, earthly return of our Lord Jesus Christ at the moment of the “catching away” of His bride into the clouds of the air in a biblically predicted event known as “The Rapture.”

I was one of those anxiously awaiting, breathlessly watching Christians that year.

And when 1988 came and went, and I was still here — and Jesus wasn’t — I became even MORE anxious and breathless!

Talk about not getting what you wanted on Christmas morning.

Talk about disappointment and disillusionment.  Our Deliverer was a no-show.  And, here we all were — breathless, anxious and now demoralized Christians — still stuck in our day jobs, still stuck with the world’s problems to solve and Satan’s wickedness (and our own sinfulness) to contend with.

In other words, same old same old!

But the next 2-3 years were a time of transition and reexamination for me.  Reexamining my theology, my eschatology, and my underdeveloped biblical worldview.  Providentially, that was also the time during which I discovered R. J. Rushdoony, Dr. Gary North, Calvinism, the Reformed faith and Christian Reconstructionism.

The more I read and learned and developed my newly-emerging, Calvinist Christian Reconstructionist biblical worldview, the less relevant and less biblical I saw the doctrine of an imminent Rapture and imminent, literal, physical return of Jesus to set up his earthly, millennial Kingdom (with bureaucratic headquarters in Jerusalem) really was.

I moved on and left it behind.

Fast forward.  Yesterday, Gary North published an article asking the question: “Whatever Happened to the Rapture?”

It reminded me of the bigger question: whatever happened to Christians rebuilding and redeeming civilizations and cultures and preparing them for the return of their Savior-King, instead of abandoning civilization and preparing themselves for “stand-by” status on the next flight to heaven?

That article commemorates the 25th anniversary of a debate Gary had, along with Gary DeMar, against Dave Hunt and Tommy Ice — two well-known figures in the world of evangelical pop prophecy and Dispensationalism during the 1980s — on the subject of Christian Reconstruction.

Earlier this year, North and DeMar sat down for a followup video discussion of that debate and of the debate that is still going on about what Christians should be doing in this world while Jesus reigns from heaven and before His return.

Their discussion is not even about eschatology per se– the last days and end times — as you might expect.  It is more about, as they emphatically point out, ETHICS and ACTION.  How Christians can and should be applying their faith in the various areas of education, politics, economics, religion and the family, etc..  Eschatology may have been the “hook” that North and DeMar used to launch and frame the debate, but it was never the crux or essence of it.

Their concern is and has always been about the practical application and implementation of the Christian faith, not theoretical, hermeneutic speculation and rhetorical argument.

Watch the discussion here (opens a new window).

The original debate is here:

The hair has changed. The issues have not!