The Theology of the Supreme Court

With the naming of federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as his U.S. Supreme Court nominee to replace the resigning justice Thomas Souter,  President Barack Obama  has ended the widespread speculation of both the news media and the American public.  Other Supreme Court justices will probably be replaced during the present administration and the court will be hearing cases that have serious religious implications. Issues that involve your Christian beliefs will no doubt be affected.

You would probably be interested in the fact that the Supreme Court has a theology. I do not mean the personal faith of the justices themselves, although that can be consequential, but I refer to a precedent that has been set by decisions previously establishing the court’s position. The Supreme Court and its attitude toward your religion is nothing new. It was made clear thirty-seven years ago in a case you should be aware of, Wisconsin v Yoder 406 US 205, 32 L Ed 2d 15, 92 S Ct 1526. If you are ever arrested because of your Christian viewpoint or behavior the decision that resulted from this case could very well make the difference in whether the faith you claim will hold up in court. Are you interested now?

Jonas Yoder, an Amish man from Wisconsin withdrew his children from a public school in order to educate them at home. When he was informed that his actions were against the state law requiring his children to attend public school Mr. Yoder refused t0 comply and the state threatened to arrest him and take custody of his children. He appealed his case, the lower courts ruled against him, and the case wound up in the U.S. Supreme Court. While reaching a decision in the Wisconsin v Yoder case the Supreme Court came up with a test to determine whether a claim to religious faith was a lawful thus acceptable reason for a person’s actions. The court decided in Jonas Yoder’s favor because he passed the test. Are you still interested?

The first thing the court did in defining the test was to say this, "Every single religious belief is one of two types. It doesn't matter what your belief structure is, or who you are, every single religious belief you have is one of two types." They said it is either a conviction or a preference. That is all there is. We don't find that there is any other type of beliefs.”

 Let us define the two for you. Because, bear this in mind, in the United States of America only convictions are protected by the constitution. Preferences are not.

Here is what makes a belief a preference. It is a very strong belief but it is a belief that you will change. If peer pressure, family pressure, a threat of lawsuit or imprisonment for yourself or your wife and children will cause you to change your beliefs it is a preference. If it is a preference, I want to do it but I have the right not to do it if I don't want to do it. The Court says that is not protectable.

 The Court also said is this: "What if a man has to be prepared to die for his belief." Is that belief changeable? "Would you die for your beliefs?" The court said that a conviction is a belief that you will not change. Why? What creates a conviction? The justices said only one thing. A man believes that his God requires it of him. A belief that is God ordered is a conviction. It is a matter of believing with all of your heart that God requires something of you. The court said, "When you believe that your God has required something of you, you will withstand all of the tests about which we have spoken." The court said the first thing would be for you to decide if your belief is a conviction or a preference? Preferences are simply not protected by the constitution, only convictions will stand the test. If your interest will take you a bit further, read on.

The Court said a conviction is not something you discover, but something you purpose. It is not what you accidentally come across, but something you purpose in your heart as a fabric of your belief system. Convictions are not made by a crisis; never. The crisis simply exposes the man for what he already is and that is exactly what the court is looking at. The court said your convictions will be purposed.

     If you study the history of the three Hebrew children in the Book of Daniel you will find that they did a remarkable thing. When taken into captivity, Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego “purposed in their hearts not to defile themselves.” It was something about which they determined with resolve. The court said your convictions must be determined by you or they will not be acceptable. The three Hebrew children were telling the king, “We have resolved that we are not going to bow down to an idol and that is not going to change. This matter of our faith is nonnegotiable." The court said if you can discuss the negotiation of your faith, your faith is a matter of preference and not conviction because convictions are nonnegotiable.

A final point: The court declares that a conviction will always show up in a person's lifestyle. They said, "What is on the inside of a man is always going to show on the outside of a man. You do not have the right to say you have a conviction unless we can somehow see you live that conviction with some element of consistency.

There you have it, the theology of the Supreme Court. Interesting, isn’t it? And here is something just as fascinating. The highest court’s determination of whether your belief is real is the same as what the Bible says about the reality of faith. No wonder 2 Corinthians 13:5 says,

Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith;  examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test? (NASB)

~ Dr. Dan Light

Repair or Repeal: A Slippery Slope

Improvement is a term that has established itself in advertizing, health, and practically every human endeavor as an indispensible “have to”. Few among us can resist the appeal of “new and improved”. Who in his right mind would take the position that it is best to remain so conventional that you never need to improve any product or person?  Making a thing better, even it is already good but not good enough, by adding to it is one option. The other alternative open to us, besides doing zero, is to repair what is worn out or broken. There is undoubtedly something so irresistible about improvement that in order to keep our connection with the thoughts and actions of our current society and not be left behind and irrelevant in the archives file, we have to adjust. Of course the adjustment is not backward but forward and to the advantage of our cause or merchandise. This is the case concerning Christian doctrine, the issue on which we focus in this article.

The effectiveness with which Christians communicate our message to the multicultural, post-modern population near and far to us is a priority concern. We need to connect and stay connected so that we do not find ourselves explaining the directions on how to get to the post office to the guy who has already mailed his letter. Recently I have noticed a definite move on the part of several Christian denominations, especially evangelical groups, to improve their statements of faith. Such an endeavor is for the purpose of clarifying and applying their beliefs to the general public or at least that part of the public that may care to be enlightened. Who could reasonably object to that? Certainly not me…unless…the ways and means of intended improvement picks up a virus on its way to its destination.

Is a doctrinal statement, or any part of it, broken? If so, it needs to be taken to the repair shop. Is it deficient because it is outmoded? Then it needs a trip to the research and development department. A problem may arise, however, if the method of repair in order to improve the item consists of simply removing parts. When it is put back into service it is, granted, not the same as it was, but that version of repair begs the question, “Is the takeaway an actual improvement or is what is missing a real miss?” If an enhancement brings about the kind of change that distorts an article of belief then another question is in order, namely, “Are we violating the principle by adding too many amendments.”

My case in point turns out to be more than one case and involves several points. Recently, through no intention of my own, I have been exposed to the results of the efforts of three evangelical denominations and one para-church organization to revise their official articles of faith or their statements of faith. What stood out in all of them was an attempt to fix a perceived problem in the way this or that theological viewpoint had formerly been presented or to insert additional words to convert their position to a more palatable flavor. In order to do this, some consensus had to be reached among governing leaders and definite determination had to be made in regard to the wordsmithing. Just as consequential, it appears that the statements of their “fathers of the faith”, ancient or recent, would no longer do.

In some instances the agents of improvement finesse issues such as homosexuality or abortion. Verbal passes are freely awarded to lifestyles the Bible plainly prohibits. Other modifications appear to be merely an attempt to tweak the vernacular on subjects that seem to be less conspicuous in their significance, such as the necessity of sanctification or the inspiration of the Scriptures. All of this maneuvering is justified as an attempt to upgrade; to make the doctrine more appealing to the average consumer than the words of those who last adjusted the terminology.

The peril of such improvement may be illustrated by the analogy of the family Thanksgiving gathering where Granny’s gravy was simmering on the stove. Every time a different daughter or granddaughter would pass by the pot she would lift the lid and remove a spoonful of turkey giblets or add a dash of pepper or cup of water. To the amazed and disappointed diners, when the renowned gravy was finally served it was too spicy and too weak, to which Granny replied, “Land sakes, my gravy has been improved so much it ain’t gravy no more.”

The aim of more clearly communicating the truth of sound doctrine to our present generation is a necessity and may God bless all who take on that challenge. May our Lord not only bless them but may He keep them; keep them from the tempting tendency to repair or even repeal any word of truth that dilutes the real “gravy”.

~ Dr. Dan Light