# Southern Baptist ethicist says Alabama judges must uphold gay marriage law or resign



## Pergamum (Feb 13, 2015)

Southern Baptist ethicist says Alabama judges must uphold gay marriage law or resign | Christian Examiner Newspapers




> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (Christian Examiner) -- The head of the Southern Baptist Convention's public policy arm says Alabama judges who in good conscience cannot issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, should resign instead of fighting the laws while in office.



Maybe I am ready to become a theonomist now.


----------



## R Harris (Feb 13, 2015)

I really wish evangelicals would read the 16th and 17th reformed interpretations of Romans 13: 1-7.
A completely different view than what is believed today. 
Of course, reading Lex Rex by Rutherford and Messiah the Prince by Symington would rattle a few cages also!


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 14, 2015)

I hate to see this from Russell Moore. He was truly one of the finest preachers I've ever heard. Rather, we should rally behind Chief Justice Roy Moore who is the godly lesser magistrate


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 14, 2015)

Just the first of many steps which will move Evangelicalism to allow, if not straight up embrace, homosexuality. Just had a conversation with a local pastor who was lamenting nearly all of the youth at his church support homosexuality, and that, like it has always been (1 Kings 12 anyone?) will be the door the Devil uses to further draw the American church away from Christ. In other words "we'll lose the kids if we do not change" will be the clarion call.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 14, 2015)

I would like to point out that ten years ago I defended Roy Moore and all of the conservatives attacked him along the lines of "This is 'Merika. Bush is President. We can never have tyranny here. Move to China you communist."

So, who was right?

It reminds me of the Hank Williams Jr song, "Back then they called him crazy/Nowadays they call him a saint/and the one's that called him crazy/still riding on his name."


----------



## earl40 (Feb 14, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> Maybe I am ready to become a theonomist now.



I think the question is why take a vow of any office to uphold laws in a country which laws flatly are contradictory to the law given by God. Russell Moore is correct in that a judge is supposed to rule within the law of the country and if they can not do that in good conscience they ought to resign.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 14, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I am ready to become a theonomist now.
> ...



I think the Chief Justice's point is that gay sex isn't the rule of law in America (assuming that the rule of law isn't some fluid entity). The Chief Justice is standing for the rule of law. And in any case, as Reformed we have to acknowledge that Roy Moore is acting consistent with hundreds of years of Reformed teaching on the lesser magistrate. _That_ isn't up for debate.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 14, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



So far as a lesser magistrate defying the greater my point should be is to not take a vow to uphold unjust laws which every judge does in this country. You may assume correctly I am not a fan our US constitution which In my humble opinion did not honor God, in The Son, to which as scripture says "16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways."


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 14, 2015)

Reasoning by extension, Christians ought not to have opposed Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson because they were the law of the land


----------



## earl40 (Feb 14, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Reasoning by extension, Christians ought not to have opposed Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson because they were the law of the land



Christian Judges should not have taken a vow to uphold unjust laws is the point.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 14, 2015)

earl40 said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Reasoning by extension, Christians ought not to have opposed Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson because they were the law of the land
> ...



What if they have taken a vow to _previously_ uphold just laws? 
Unjust laws shouldn't be upheld, anyway.

Should Daniel have quit his Babylonian post?

Something had bothered me about Russell Moore's position that I couldn't put my finger on: he is espousing legal positivism. A law is right and just because someone says a law is right and just. This is grisly. No moral reformer in human history would have dared utter such asinine nonsense. He is a fine preacher and an okay theologian. I knew years ago that he was going to be a horrendous ethicist.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 14, 2015)

earl40 said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Reasoning by extension, Christians ought not to have opposed Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson because they were the law of the land
> ...



When he became a judge, weren't there anti-sodomy laws on the books? In his lifetime he saw these laws precisely turned on their head.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 14, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > ReformedReidian said:
> ...



I see your point, those laws that came after he took the job he still took an oath to uphold. In other words, I think one ought to take an oath, with the qualification, that the oath to any countries law will be subservient to God's law.


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 14, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



When I took the oath of attorney in the Federal District Court, Eastern District, of the State of Washington, promising to uphold the laws of the land, the last phrase was "So help me God." Same for Montana and for Idaho Federal Courts. 

I think that covers the issue pretty well.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 14, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



Which is what he did.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 14, 2015)

VictorBravo said:


> When I took the oath of attorney in the Federal District Court, Eastern District, of the State of Washington, promising to uphold the laws of the land, the last phrase was "So help me God." Same for Montana and for Idaho Federal Courts.
> 
> I think that covers the issue pretty well.



Of any lawyer I know I would love to have you on my side if I ever needed one. Now in saying that I understand that God does not help one defend what is unjust. This is the situation when one takes an oath to uphold laws in a country that are unjust. Once again I hope and trust you enough that if I was guilty of a crime, and you knew such, you would not represent me as guiltless of a crime you knew I committed. I understand we are indeed are blessed in this nation to have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but I say this right should not be used unjustly to get the guilty set free from crime.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 14, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



Judicial legislation from the bench is not the proper way to fight this. This is why I agree with the Southern Baptist ethicist.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 14, 2015)

earl40 said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



Moore isn't legislating from the bench. He is upholding prior law.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 14, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Moore isn't legislating from the bench. He is upholding prior law.



The prior law is "prior" and he was charged with upholding the current laws on the books while he serves.


----------



## Edward (Feb 14, 2015)

earl40 said:


> The prior law is "prior" and he was charged with upholding the current laws on the books while he serves.



Alabama law hasn't changed. A federal judge has discovered something in the federal constitution that folks haven't noticed in the prior couple of centuries.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 14, 2015)

Edward said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > The prior law is "prior" and he was charged with upholding the current laws on the books while he serves.
> ...



Thanks. That's what I was trying to say. And the other thing is that Russell Moore's position reduces to a rather crude form of legal positivism. What ticks me off is that Russ Moore has been VERY vocal over the past few years on how "racially just" and "racially integrated" he is and the direction the SBC is taking. The problem is, Russ Moore's political ethics necessarily justify Dred Scott.

A Solzhenitsyn he is certainly not.


----------



## Edward (Feb 14, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Russ Moore has been VERY vocal over the past few years on how "racially just" and "racially integrated" he is



When someone is espousing a politically correct position in a loud voice, that should be a warning sign.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 14, 2015)

Amen Jacob.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 14, 2015)

Edward said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > The prior law is "prior" and he was charged with upholding the current laws on the books while he serves.
> ...



Interesting in that I thought that is exactly what the civil war settled a while ago. I do recant of my previous stance and believe Judge Moore is in the right, though I wonder if a civil war would ensue over this issue in the society we live in today? Allow me to answer my own question....nope.


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 15, 2015)

I had a little more time to think about the article.



> any judge who "could not discharge the duties of his office required by law" because of objections of conscience "would need to resign and protest it as a citizen."



Not quite. In fact, a judge is allowed objections of conscience in several ways. Most Canons of Judicial Conduct allow for recusal in a given matter if the judge acknowledges a personal bias or prejudice. Our state's Supreme Court has applied first amendment protection to certain judicial acts, too (going so far as to acknowledge that the First Amendment protects freedom of conscience in discretionary rulings).

I've been working over these things in my head for a couple of years. I have been called upon to be a judge pro tem. Many in my adopted community have asked me if I would consider being a local judge when the current one retires in a couple of years. This concern is heavy on my mind.

My state, Washington, voted this sham into place two and a half years ago. Across the river in Idaho, a US magistrate judge (not even a real District Court Judge) ruled that Idaho's prohibition against same-sex "marriage" is unconstitutional and illegal. If I'm to act as a judge in either state, I'll be running into it.

I've pretty much resolved that should it come before me, I would simply tell the parties of my bias and prejudice in the matter (reminding them that, contrary to current opinion, sometimes bias and prejudice is a good thing). I'd explain the source of it and let the chips fall where they may. It will have to come to a head soon enough. I have enough confidence (maybe hubris too) that I could make a good argument to a higher court that the law justifies my position to the point I would not be disbarred, but I don't know about anything else.

But part of me relishes the thought of addressing a US District Court Judge by reminding him that my oath of attorney does place God above him (or her in the case of Idaho).

God provides. Hebrews 11 reminds us of much worse things that Christians have endured through faith.


----------



## mvdm (Feb 15, 2015)

Sad state of affairs when the NY Times has a better handle on the situation than the Southern Baptist ethicist:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/magazine/in-sort-of-defense-of-roy-moore.html?_r=0


----------



## aadebayo (Feb 15, 2015)

I suppose that any theologian left in the Southern Baptist will leave. It is just like the Evangelical Alliance here in the UK. I expect that they should be renamed to Ecumenical Compromise Alliance, because there is nothing evangelical about them any more.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 15, 2015)

Judge Moore has said that he will recuse himself in the event of this becoming actual law. He is being viciously attacked here in Alabama, and I'm sad that our churches don't seem to be praying for him and other leaders as we should.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 16, 2015)

As a Southern Baptist, I have seen this coming for quite some time. The so-called "Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission" seems to be the means by which the SBC is slowly moving away from a biblical view of homosexuality and towards a more culturally acceptable view. It will take some time yet, but I have always believed that the pragmatism of the SBC will ultimately be its downfall. When the numbers start to decline, something must change, and unfortunately that means capitulating on biblical truth. It is times like this where I am glad to be congregational in polity. If the SBC does finally go south, my church can disassociate itself by the end of the business day


----------



## mshingler (Feb 16, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> Maybe I am ready to become a theonomist now.



My reaction was similar.


----------

