logo
  • Why the Kentucky magistrate is not a hero or martyr

Sep
3
Why the Kentucky magistrate is not a hero or martyr

Hi Dojo readers,

If you’ve been following the news or social media this week, you’ve probably seen that an elected official in Kentucky has refused multiple times to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because after becoming a Christian a few years ago, she has come to believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman only. Thus she cannot in good conscience sign her name on a marriage certificate that pronounces gay or lesbian couples as being married. She now faces jail time for her refusal to issue the licenses. 

Let me say two things right off the bat:

  1. Theologically, I believe she is correct that “marriage” in the New Testament sense of the term is only legitimately expressed by the union of one man and one woman in covenant faithfulness to one another.
  2. Her previous series of marriages and divorces, which the media has made much of in terms of charging her with hypocrisy, took place before she became a follower of Jesus. Thus it is wrong to say that someone who previously committed various sins is acting hypocritically when, after their conversion, they speak against semi-related sins.

However, despite these two points of clarification, I must say that her actions in this instance are not “heroic” and she is not a “martyr” for the faith. If you think she is, here’s a thought experiment that may help clarify why I say this:

Imagine a hunter in Kentucky goes to get a hunting license from the local government office. The government official in charge of issuing licenses in that county tells the hunter that she will not give him the license because she has converted to Buddhism and now believes that killing and eating animals is a sin and she cannot in good conscience sign her name on a license that promotes the killing of animals.

The hunter asks by what authority she is denying him his license to do what the law allows him to do and she responds “By the Lord Buddha’s authority.”

The courts eventually order her to grant the hunting license, but she refuses and says it’s infringing on her religious freedom and she will instead serve time in jail rather than grant the license.

Would this Buddhist official be a religious hero or martyr? Or would she simply be someone who should’ve resigned or sought to be transferred to another position which didn’t require her to violate her beliefs as part of her job?

Or imagine a Kentucky farmer goes to the State office to apply for a building permit to build a covered enclosure on his pig farm. The official in charge of granting the permits refuses because she as recently converted to Islam and says that she cannot in good faith sign a license granting the right to raise swine for food purposes because it is against her religion. The farmer asks her by what authority she is denying him the right to raise pigs and she replies “By the Prophet’s authority.”

The courts order her to issue the permit to the farmer, but she cites her Freedom of Religion rights in defense of her actions and ends up being taken into custody and facing jail time for denying the permit.

Would this Muslim official be a religious hero or martyr? Or would she be someone who was trying to enact her religious convictions upon those who did not share her faith and using the power of her office to do so?

These are of course somewhat far-fetched examples in modern America, but they serve to illustrate the point that in a pluralist society one cannot use one’s secular position to enforce religious conviction upon those who do not share those convictions. And as a follower of Jesus, I believe this is a GOOD thing, actually.  

You see, in far too many countries around the world, Christians are routinely denied basic legal rights by officials in positions of local authority simply because do not follow the religious (or irreligious!) convictions of those local officials.

  • Church building permits are withheld in parts of central and southeast Asia.
  • Investigations of assault, abuse, or other crimes are denied in parts of India.
  • Requests for travel permits are denied in Israel and the Middle East.
  • Legal claims are dismissed by judges in North Africa.
  • Colleges are denied accredidation in Europe and North America.
  • Christians are thrown in prison camps in North Korea.

In short, the State is often a hindrance and/or outright enemy to Christians around the world because of the religious views they are committed to.

Jesus said that His followers were to “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.” Therefore, we Christians should treat non-Christians with whom we often strongly disagree in the same way we ourselves would like to be treated.

I would not want to be denied a secular license or permit because I held different beliefs from the magistrate issuing it to me. Therefore, I cannot support a magistrate denying a secular license or permit to someone whose beliefs they themselves do not agree with or condone–even if I agree with them.

In short, if I receive a paycheck from the secular government that is funded by public taxes from all its citizens, I do not have the same religious freedoms that a private business or individual may have (and which I am a STRONG advocate for! See this series of posts for why I believe almost none of this applies in the private sphere). If I choose to work for the State–particularly in an elected capacity!–I am an agent of the State, and must submit to the State’s laws whether I agree with them or not. If the State enacts laws that I cannot participate in or communicate in good conscience for religious reasons, I must count the costs in rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars and decide whether or not I can remain faithful to Jesus while continuing in my secular State position of employment. If I cannot do both, then Jesus should come first and I should resign and trust Him to provide for my employment needs elsewhere.

What do you think, Dojo readers? Should a secular Government official have the right to hold non-Christians to a Christian ethic through the power of their position?

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Comments

  1. […] Take out Civil Rights Act and put in gay marriage. Same goes for the clerk in KY. She has no rights or no liberties to continue to practice her private held religious beliefs as a servant of the local government, which must uphold numerous federal laws. If she can’t in good faith and conscience continue to perform duties the government has decided then she needs to resign and be on her way. This is why I believe, as did the earliest Christians, that military and civil jobs shouldn’t be held by Christians. As my pal JMS says, she is no hero or martyr. […]

    Pingback by Why I Don’t Support the KY Clerk | Living the Daring Way on September 4, 2015 at 12:22 am

  2. bthomas

    She is a political prisoner. Period. There is no other way to sugar coat it. The legal system and process is being used as a weapon by which to damage, harm, penalize anyone who gets in the way of those who want to press a social/political agenda to normalize homosexuality. It is that simple. Talk to the contrary about human rights, etc. is at best disingenuous camouflage.

    [Reply]

    jm Reply:

    Would the Buddhist and Muslim clerks in the examples above also be considered Political prisoners?

    [Reply]

    bthomas Reply:

    When a buddist or muslim clerk acting according to their religious faith is imprisoned for refusing to grant a license for hunting, hog farming, etc., then your question will have merit. Until then your question reflects only and attempt to avoid the issue at hand… that Mrs. Davis is currently being held as a political prisoner due to her refusal to yield to the demands of this current administration and its justice system that seeks to normalize homosexuality by requiring that marriage licenses be issued to them. She is in fact only following the example of the chief executive who has routinely refused to follow the law as established by Congress. If this administration expects anyone to respect the law of the land, it is incumbent upon the administration that it first obey the law of the law. If the chief executive and his administration choose which laws they will enforce and which laws they will not enforce, it is entirely legitimate and in order that citizens in all walks of life follow that example and choose for themselves what laws they will recognize and what laws they will chose to disregard.

    [Reply]

    jm Reply:

    So your argument is that because some government officials have disobeyed laws Christian government officials are free to disobey laws?

    The examples I noted are not “avoiding the issue” they are illustrating the underlying principle by which we should judge the issue.

    I don’t believe she should be put in jail, by the way. That is a punishment that far exceeds the crime. This whole situation stinks, and is a solid example of why government shouldn’t be given the power to determine “marriage” to begin with.

    [Reply]

    Comment by bthomas on September 4, 2015 at 4:21 pm

  3. bthomas

    I read the post and replied. There was not an intention to argue. Disagreeing is not arguing. It is disagreeing.

    Mrs. Davis is being subjected to penalty by the federal judicary precisely because she is acting according to her own understanding of what it means to follow Christ. She is a political prisoner because the state takes issue with her practice of faith which is contrary to the COTUS as interpreted by the current majority of the Supreme Court. Mrs. Davis is in jail because the power of the state is being exercised in a heavy handed manner to send a message to anyone else who might also consider refusing a similar command.

    The chief executive has stated that he to follows Christ. He has chosen to disregard the law of the land. At present neither he nor his administration has been subjected to any judicial review or penalty for failure to comply with the law. It is not reasonable to object to the refusal of Mrs. Davis to comply with a mere interpretation made by the current Supreme Court when at present the chief executive persists in his failure to comply with the law of the land. Mrs. Davis principled refusal in conscience to comply with the law as now interpreted is in harmony with the teachings of Scripture as found in Daniel 3:1-18 and Acts 3:5-20. Of course her decision has to be informed by Romans 13 and I Peter 2, etc. The chief executive has not stated that his refusal to obey the law is based on the teachings of Scripture. Rather he grounds his failure to act in political convenience.

    No reasonable person would expect one who follows Christ to affirm the jailing of Mrs. Davis as right or appropriate. It is exceedingly unlikely that any who follow Christ would affirm such a heavy handed extreme misuse of judicial power to service a political agenda. The entire situation reflects the consequences of a legislative and judicial process that has not been informed by the teachings of Christ. Had that process been informed by the teachings of Christ, the matter of marriage as being between a man and a woman would never have been at issue.

    [Reply]

    Comment by bthomas on September 5, 2015 at 3:26 am

  4. […] necessarily endorse every view expressed by IRD. This blog originally appeared on James-Michael website, and is reposted here with his […]

    Pingback by James-Michael Smith: Why the Kentucky Magistrate Is Not a Hero or Martyr - Juicy Ecumenism on September 16, 2015 at 6:56 pm

Leave A Comment!