A President Who Refuses to Defend the Law

Today I was both shocked and saddened to learn that the President of the United States is refusing to allow the Department of Justice (DOJ) to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  The DOMA became the law of the land in 1996 when both houses of Congress approved it and President Clinton signed it.  Simply stated, the DOMA says that the federal government will only recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman.  It also grants each state the privilege of determining marriage laws for its own individual state.  As part of DOMA, no state is required to recognize the homosexual marriages that might be permitted in other states.

This law has been defended by the DOJ for the last 15 years, and rightfully so because it is the LAW of the land.  And yet, now we have a President who seems to think that the law of the land is no longer worthy of a defense by the DOJ.  While this is hard to believe, I found that the President's actions are not unprecedented.  There have been a few cases when the DOJ has declined to defend statutes.

Those rare cases can be broken down into three categories.  The first category include cases in which intervening Supreme Court decisions have rendered the defense of the statute untenable.  Clearly this first category does not apply in this case of the DOMA.  The second category involves statutes that in the DOJ's view infringe the constitutional powers of the President himself.  Again, that does not apply in this case of the DOMA.

The third and smallest category involves statutes that the President has publicly condemned as unconstitutional.  This third category actually does apply in this case because the President just recently said that he believes Section 3 of the DOMA is unconstitutional.  But even with that being said, that is only his opinion, and the last time I checked his opinion is not the law.

Think about this:  Each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In other words, it is the President's job to "defend the Constitution of the United States."  While I understand that the DOMA is not the Constitution, clearly the legislative branch of our government has determined the DOMA to be a law that is constitutional.  For this President to instruct the DOJ not to defend a law that has been deemed constitutional by both houses of Congress and a U.S. President is both irresponsible and incomprehensible.

Much of the info I gathered for this post came from a Georgetown Law Professor named Nan Hunter.  You can access her thoughts here.  She is by no means a "conservative" thinker.  And yet, she came to this conclusion in 2009:  "While it is not impossible for the DOJ to refuse to defend the DOMA, it would be an extraordinary act for them to do so" (emphasis mine).  Ms. Hunter, I couldn't agree with you more.

I hope all this grieves your heart just as much as it has mine.  More importantly, I hope this is yet another wake-up call to remind us to pray for our President and governing officials.  In this case, not only are they governing in a way that is irresponsible, but they're leading in a way that is unbiblical.  We know what God did in places like Sodom and Gomorrah, and Judah, and Rome when the powers that be decided to endorse the homosexual lifestyle - one that God consistently calls an abomination.

How can we hope to avoid the same fate they experienced if we open wide the door to homosexual marriage?  Clearly we won't, nor should we.  If God judged homosexuality back then, He will continue to do so today.  Let us pray that our leaders will learn a lesson from history (and the Scripture) and that they will change course immediately.  Revival is the only hope left for our land.  I'm praying that it will begin at the house of God and that it will touch both the houses of Congress and even the White House.

Why Did Jesus Come to Earth?

Today I had the privilege of visiting an institution of higher learning.  I went to listen to a speaker who came to talk about the ultimate purpose of Christ's coming to earth.  The speaker gave a passionate lecture for about 40 minutes.  He was very engaging and clearly he possesses a wonderful gift of communication.  The speaker concluded that Jesus came to this earth to establish the kingdom of God.  With that I heartily agree, but still it begs the question:  What is the kingdom of God and how did Christ instruct His followers to establish it?

According to the speaker, the kingdom of God is essentially the reign of Jesus Christ over all the earth.  He explained that Christ's kingdom is ultimately established through the means of social justice - feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc.  He said that "justice, and love, and changing the structures of the social order" are the reasons for which Christ laid down His life on Calvary's cross.  As the speaker brought his message to a conclusion, he urged the students and faculty to "change the world through social justice."

I found myself nodding in agreement with much of what the man said.  He said things that I wish every church could've heard.  But still, I found myself wondering, "Did Jesus really come to change the social order?  Was that His ultimate purpose for coming and dying on the cross?"

I'd like to submit that Christ did not come simply to change the social order.  His coming was not just about feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, and relieving the burdens of the afflicted.  While Jesus certainly did all those things (and much more), that was not His ultimate purpose for coming to earth.  Even Jesus acknowledged "the poor you have with you always" (John 12:8).  Now matter how much "social justice" we do, there will always be those who have a multitude of physical and material needs.

So why did Christ come?  Christ came to this earth to pay the penalty for our sins through His death on the cross.  By dying in our place, Jesus satisfied the wrath of His holy Heavenly Father.  His death on the cross has opened wide the gates of heaven to all those that will place their faith in Him.  Jesus also came to make disciples out of each one of us.  That means He has commissioned us not only to follow Jesus, but to teach others how to do the same.

Let me explain.  When Jesus met Saul on the road to Damascus, Saul was a murderer.  In fact, he was going to Damascus to kill Christians.  Saul was in a state of reprobation (rejected by God), but Jesus wanted to do a work of transformation in his life.  Jesus said it was for this purpose that He wanted to send Saul to the Gentiles:  "to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me" (Acts 26:18).

In other words, Jesus did not come merely to change the social order.  He came to transform human souls - to turn us from darkness to light!  Don't get me wrong.  There's nothing wrong with changing the natural order of things, but lasting change will never occur until sins have been forgiven and souls have been saved.  You can feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and relieve the afflicted all you want, but until Christ transforms human souls it's all for naught.

I've written this post for this reason:  We need to be careful that we don't change the Gospel of Christ from a life-transforming message into a humanitarian campaign, otherwise known as "the social gospel."  I'm convinced that Christ and his followers would not have even recognized such a perversion of the Gospel.  Remember, Paul challenged the Galatians with these words:  "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the Gospel of Christ.  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:6-8).

So what is the true Gospel?  Why did Jesus really come?  This same Paul provides us with the answer: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief" (1 Tim. 1:15).  May we never tire of sharing the Gospel of our Lord with both the rich and the poor - the blessed and the afflicted.  Then, and only then, will the social order be radically changed for the glory of God.

Does God's Word Direct Us to Accept Everyone?

My last blog post had to do with Belmont University.  If you read it, you know that the school just recently added "sexual orientation" to their non-discrimination policy - a move that basically paves the way for them to hire gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and trans-gendered individuals.  The school's trustee chairman indicated that the school would remain true to its Christian heritage when it relieved a lesbian soccer coach of her duties.  Yet, within a matter of days the school "changed its tune" when a wealthy music mogul made a $10,000,000 donation to the school.  Funny how that kind of money has a way of helping individuals and institutions to change their minds.

I learned about this story primarily through the writing of Lonnie Wilkey, editor of the Tennessee Baptist Convention's Baptist & Reflector.  He basically took Belmont University to task for compromising under the weight of the almighty dollar.  Since then, others have taken exception with what Lonnie had to write.  One such writer, Chris McCain of The Tennessean, published an article entitled "Following God's Word Means Accepting Everyone."

That brings me back to my original question:  Does God's Word really direct us to accept everyone?  The answer to that question depends on how one defines the word "accept."  If by "accept" someone means that we are to love everyone and seek their salvation and discipleship, clearly the answer to that question is yes.  If you read Mr. McCain's article, it's very clear he's not using that definition of "accept."  For him, acceptance means a complete endorsement of someone's lifestyle - in this case, the lifestyle of a homosexual.  He argues that "to label homosexuality as a sin places human limits on God's love."  In other words, unless you're willing to completely endorse the lifestyle of a homosexual, you're short-changing the love of God.

I'd like to respectfully disagree.  It is entirely possible for a Christian to love everyone without condoning their sinful behaviors.  Since Mr. McCain made reference to Jesus in his article, it will aid us to look at how Jesus dealt with similar situations of sin.  John 7:53-8:11 shares with us the story of the woman who was caught in adultery.  When given a chance to condemn her to death, Christ looked down at the adulterous woman and forgave her sins.  In doing so, he demonstrated the love of God.

It's at that point of the story where our liberal friends always seem to stop, but her story was not finished there.  What did Jesus say next?  "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (John 8:11).  The fact that Jesus loved the adulterous woman didn't stop Him from confronting her with her sin and calling her to repentance.  In doing so, he demonstrated the holiness of God.  So then, if we're going to be faithful to our Lord, we must also demonstrate God's love and holiness.  We can't do that if we start accepting every sinful lifestyle that comes down the pike.

And by the way, if "following God's Word means accepting everyone," I wonder if Mr. McCain would be in favor of Belmont "accepting" pedophiles under the school's non-discrimination policy?  What about polygamists?  Or perhaps even those who practice bestiality?  If following God's Word means accepting everyone, shouldn't those who practice such things also be considered for hiring by the school?

Obviously, Mr. McCain doesn't really mean everyone when he says everyone.  He wants to define who "everyone" is.  Here is Mr. McCain's dilemma:  The choice is not his to make.  The choice is God's to make and He settled it a long time ago when He gave us His precious, inerrant Word.  Rather than giving lip-service to God and distorting the truth of His Word, my prayer is that we will all continue to demonstrate both His love and holiness by "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15).  Our world needs Him now more than ever.