The Evil of Anti-Lordship Teaching

The noun doulos occurs 127 times in the New Testament. The verb form douleuo is used 25 occasions. In the King James, those two words are almost exclusively translated "servant" and "to serve." Those are accurate translations. However, people often still miss what doulos and douleuo are about. As a result, they miss what is a relationship to Jesus Christ. The believer's relationship to Jesus is as a "slave." A doulos is a slave. It always means "slave."

Anyone hearing the word doulos in New Testament times, would have thought "slave." That's how people would have understood doulos who were hearing it in that day. If you were a slave, you were owned. You had a master, an owner. He owned you. You would have forfeited your own personal rights. You would have been expected to obey everything the owner said. The slave-owner relationship is what describes the relationship of the believer, the saved person, to Jesus Christ.

When Jesus said that no man can serve two masters, He was saying that no man can be a slave to two owners. The servant of "well done thou good and faithful servant" is a slave. That's easy to see in the context. His owner is who says "well done" to him. Jesus doesn't become owner at some point into someone's salvation, but at the point a person believes. He believes that Jesus is his new Owner. Everyone is a slave to something. People who are saved became slaves to Jesus the moment they believed on Him.

Saved people are slaves to Jesus because He bought them. 1 Corinthians 7:22-23:

For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

A person who is "called" is saved. "The called" are always saved people. They are all His slaves. "Servant" here is doulos. They "are bought with a price" (also see 1 Cor 6:19). What was the price? It was the "precious blood of Jesus" (1 Peter 1:18-19).

The companion word to doulos in the New Testament is kurios. If you have a slave, you have an owner or lord. The lord owns. Kurios is found 717 times in the New Testament. You get these two words together in the same verse 47 times. Consider these:

Matthew 10:24, "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord."
Matthew 24:45, "Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?"
Luke 12:37, "Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them."
John 13:16, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him."
Acts 4:29, "And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word."
2 Timothy 2:24, "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient."

Christians are called "slaves" all the way through the New Testament---apostles, pastors, and those with no office.

Jesus is Savior, no doubt. 37 times in the whole Bible do we have the word "Savior." The Greek word is soter. We have that word 23 times in the New Testament. How many times is the term "Savior" in Romans? Zero. It's once in John (4:42) and once in Acts (5:31). So Savior 23 times and Lord 717 times in the New Testament. How many times is kurios in Romans? 42 times. John? 53 times. The message written and preached by the Apostles is that "Jesus is Lord."

In the title, I said the anti-Lordship teaching is evil. And I mean anti-Lordship teaching regarding salvation. That's what Lordship teaching is about---salvation. If someone is to come to Christ, he must deny himself. He must relinquish self as Lord for Jesus as Lord. That means He must become a slave to Jesus. He recognizes that. Preachers shouldn't leave that out of the presentation.

No Lordship in "evangelistic" preaching is now standard fare, in part because of ant-Lordship teaching. It goes something like the following sample phraseology.

"If you ask Jesus to save you, He will."

"Ask Jesus to be your Savior and He will be."

"If you pray for Jesus to save you, He will."

"If you trust Jesus as your Savior, He'll save you."

"If you believe in Jesus as your Savior, He'll save you."

Those are now the norm in modern evangelistic methodology. You don't see Jesus or the Apostles do this at all. Nothing even remotely like it. It isn't a method derived from the Bible. It isn't of God. Try to find "as Savior" in Scripture---you won't find it; it isn't in there. Again, nothing even like it is in the Bible.

What's evil about the anti-Lordship teaching is that it is not at all in the Bible and yet it is presented like it is, totally misrepresenting God. It gives people a false presentation of salvation. It falls short of telling people Who Jesus is. It gives them a false impression about the relationship with Jesus that they are being invited to or are entering into. It offers salvation without revealing how to obtain that salvation.

Very often the incomplete and, therefore, false message exempt of Lordship perverts the teaching of Scripture even more so by also twisting the doctrine of sanctification. Professors of faith go on serving themselves, thinking they are saved, understanding that their disobedience is somehow justified by reality of some future date of dedication. They're saved, just not "dedicated." Jesus is Savior to them, but not quite Lord. At some later date, they might bump themselves up to that higher plateau of spiritual existence, perhaps when they get "revival." "Lordship" is just one of the steps of Christian growth. This too is evil.

Does the Bible Have a Play Button?

I've often said that what makes the music issue the most difficult is that the Bible doesn't come with a play button, so we can't push play to find the kind of music that God wanted. I've decided I'm wrong on that because of this post by Scott Aniol. There was enough instruction or information in the Bible to be the equivalent of play. See for yourself. Also notice that he provides a contrast with the wrong music in biblical times.

By the way, I think there are enough biblical principles for us to discern between wrong and right. However, it goes further than that as exemplified in the Aniol post that I linked to.

Pants and Bible Versions: Do They Matter?

If you took the total population of the United States and its relationship to the Bible, and 100% was right and literal belief and practice of the Bible, then Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder would be with me in the 97-100% column. I know we're more the same than different in comparison to everyone else. Even in the world of evangelicalism, there are many with far more differences than I have with them. And in a comparison within fundamentalism, we've got a lot in common. The two probably do represent the most conservative seminary presidents in historic fundamentalism. I'm sure that's why I'm mentioning them. If they are not the most conservative, I don't mind someone letting me know. Both of them often say or write things that I agree with. You're waiting for the "but...," aren't you? Well, you're sharp, because there is a "but..." coming. But I don't want to devalue that Doran and Bauder and myself are basically together when you are breaking down the people of America, let alone the whole population of the world.

Now, it is supposed to be people like myself who are going to bring up the topics of designed gender distinctions in dress (i. e., the pant-skirt issue) and Bible versions (i. e., the preservation of Scripture issue). Fundamentalism is supposed to be looking at those subjects in their rear-view mirror at this point. They really just deserve a little head wag, a snort, and move on. At least that's what I thought such "minor" issues deserved from them, really just to be ignored. But something does bug fundamentalists about these two issues. I hope it's because they are actually feeling conviction about their stands on these. I believe they are. I'm not planning on hearing that from them, but I know that our position is right on these two issues. I know we are following God's Word exactly, so I hope that is what I'm getting from their mentions of the subjects of pants and of versions.

This particular post has been composting in the back of my brain for a little while. I've known it was coming, but there were other things that I thought should come first, so I've put it off. There was another reason I waited. Dave Doran's post was one honoring his pastor, William Rice, who had just died. I didn't want this mistaken for something that would lack respect for him. And I don't either. Doran wrote nine paragraphs. Here are paragraphs five and six, right in the middle of the piece to honor the man who was his pastor and from whom he took the mantle of the church he presently serves:

There never was any debate around here about the KJV—it was great translation, but only that. Our bookstore, from its inception, sold other translations. Dr. Rice regularly cited other translations. We’ve had professors who have used other translations in their seminary classes from day one.

It wasn’t until I went off to college that I even knew that anybody thought there was something wrong with women wearing pants. I’d never even heard of men like Jack Hyles or Bill Gothard. I was shocked to find out that people thought the Bible prohibited inter-racial marriage (obviously, I knew people who opposed it out of prejudice, but none who defended it biblically).

So in a piece to recount what was great about his pastor, Doran includes that Rice used, cited, and sold other translations other than the KJV (a whole paragraph for that one), and that he said nothing was wrong about women wearing pants. These are two important traits with which Dr. Doran could leave us about Dr. Rice---not King James Only and not against women in pants. Doran said other things, but these were big enough to make a very short tribute.

As I read it, I asked, "Why that? How does that merit celebration or thanksgiving?" Why would anyone want to leave people with "his church used multiple versions and its women wore pants." Even if Doran doesn't believe Scripture teaches anything that would result in one Bible and women wearing skirts and dresses, for sure God's Word is silent on several versions and women wearing pants. There are no multiple version or women-in-pants verses in the Bible.

So obviously this was important to Dave Doran. It was what he thought was impressive about his pastor as he summed him up. That was on July 12, 2010.

The previous day (7/11/10), Kevin Bauder wrote the following in his series on the differences between evangelicals and fundamentalists:

Fundamentalists have sometimes failed to subject their second premises to careful examination. This failure has resulted in silly and sometimes scandalous applications of Scripture. This is the mechanism that some fundamentalists have used to prohibit slacks for women, ban interracial dating, and insist upon the mandatory use of a particular version of the Bible. One fundamentalist leader spent years denouncing the “demon of the AWANA circle.” No wonder some are skeptical of their judgments.

Bauder has done good work at helping fundamentalists understand the application of the Bible by explaining what he has coined "second premise arguments." You can read the above linked article to get an understanding of what he's talking about. I've dealt with the subject here and over at Jackhammer. Here, we see that Bauder, like Doran, attacks the prohibition of "slacks for women" and the "mandatory use of a particular version of the Bible." In his view, these are silly, scandalous, and uncareful. On the other hand, if you continue reading Bauder in this series, he spends a good portion of an article smacking down dancing. I liked what he had to say there, but he was heavily criticized as being silly and uncareful himself by many fundamentalists. Perhaps poetic justice.

On consecutive days online, leaders of the most conservative historic fundamentalist seminaries in the United States, where many pastors are and have been educated, targeted the single Bible and the women wearing skirts and dresses. The perfect preservation of Scripture, which leads to a one Bible position, is the belief of historic Christianity. Women wearing dresses and skirts is the belief and practice of historic Christianity.

When women started wearing pants in this country, all evangelical Christians opposed it. Even society in general rejected it in this culture. The perfect preservation position is found in many historic, orthodox Christian confessions. Christians have thought that both of these were taught in the Bible. They are not now popular positions. They have been the subject of decades of attack.

The perfect Bible position came from faith in several passages of Scripture that taught the preservation of every Word of God. The pant-skirt belief came from the application of Deuteronomy 22:5 and 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. Established Christian beliefs just cast by the wayside. We have arrived at a point where worldly society has become sovereign in the application of the Bible. And the most conservative seminary professors have codified popular culture into their pastoral training.

Were Moslems Practicing their Religion on 9/11?

As almost everyone reading knows, Moslems are preparing to build a mosque a few blocks away from Ground Zero of 9/11 so that they can practice their religion there. A lot of people don't think they should build their mosque there. Why not? Shouldn't all religions be able to practice their religion freely in this country? So we have a big discussion right now in which the POTUS too has gotten involved. It made me think of the question that titles this post. Was Ground Zero itself caused by Moslems practicing their religion? Other questions come to mind. How can you really know when a Moslem is a peace-loving one? It can't be because he says he is peace-loving. The non-peace-loving ones look exactly like the peace-loving ones until they push the detonator. Your last living thought is, "I guess he wasn't peace loving." By then, of course, it's too late. So Moslems have already been practicing their religion in lower Manhattan and it resulted in 3,000 people being killed and other chaos and mayem. And all the men practicing Islam that day with their box cutters were recognized as peace-loving very close to the point that they got busy practicing their religion, resulting in the deaths of all those people.

Some who claim to be peace-loving Islamics will plead, "But that's not what the Koran teaches!" What I've found is that people can easily make about any book mean almost anything they want it to mean, including the Bible. We can see this presently being done with the Constitution of the United States with Proposition 8 in California. A federal judge thinks he sees homosexuals in the fourteenth amendment. No one has before, but, voila, he says they're there now. And when it comes to the Koran, a lot of folks see "kill them!" written there. And then when you look at the "Moslem world," those countries where the Koran has the most influence, and you find a sad state of human affairs. Bombings. Killings. Pathetic mistreatment. Generally dire conditions. We're really sort of required to tuck our brains neatly in our drawers to believe that something bad isn't going to happen in this country with more mosque building.

And this is where we do reach a quandary for practice of the United States Constitution. I really do believe in the freedom of religion of the first amendment. I also am a big-time believer in property rights---which reminds me that the only thing harder than building a mosque in lower Manhattan would be to build a Walmart. I think we can already find eminent domain being practiced all over the United States to disallow people from using their property like they would please, including churches. To me, this is where the discussion is at. At what point can we say that a religion can't be practiced freely. Here's a paragraph from Wikipedia on "freedom of religion" on this:

Religious practice may also conflict with secular law creating debates on religious freedom. For instance, even though polygamy is permitted in Islam it is prohibited in secular law in many countries. Does prohibiting polygamy then curtail the religious freedom of Muslims? The USA and India, both constitutionally secular nations, have taken two different views of this. In India polygamy is permitted, but only for Muslims, under Muslim Personal Law. In the USA polygamy is prohibited for all. This was a major source of conflict between the early Mormon Church and the United States until the Church amended its position on polygamy.

We have already prohibited certain religious practices in this country, where the practice or religion clashed with what were really Judeo-Christian laws of established morality in the history of the United States. At some point, does a religion that has a record of violence in the practice of its religion become a threat to public safety? Even in the writing of a piece like this, unlike writing about any other subject, I am reminded of the threat of violence that exists against anyone who criticizes Islam at all. Would any other topic make me think about my own safety? You've probably yourself already heard the term fatwa. I don't want a fatwa pronounced against me like it was Salman Rushdie in 1989, requiring his death. I also have to believe that we think that we might have less violence done against traveling Americans if we do more to submit to the demands of Islamics. People think that way, something like: "Maybe they'll leave us alone if we say nice things about their mosque." I believe a religion has reached a certain tipping point when these are automatic thoughts.

Some might ask, "Well, then why haven't we seen more violence from Moslems in this country if they're violent?" I think the answer to that is easy. They're outnumbered here. If they get violent here, they're going to get treated very poorly. They'll be watched more closely, judged more harshly. And if that happens, well, it will be harder to make their bigger plans to kill even more people, something like the nuclear annihilation of a large U. S. city. Some might say, "That won't happen." Really? Is that what people think? I don't think so. I think most Americans, including myself, think that Islamics are right now making the biggest plans possible to kill the most Americans they can. Peace-loving, in many instances, are the conditions necessary to hide very violent intentions.

You do have your moderate Islamics. I'm sure of that. Some might even argue that the moderates are in the majority in the world. Even if that's true, that majority doesn't have the biggest influence for Islam, as seen in the horrible living conditions all over the Islamic world. And from what I see, the moderates are scared of the regulars, extremists, normal Moslems, whatever they should be called. They often wouldn't want to risk their own safety and that of their family to turn in the violent factions. So the places of so-called moderation become hide-outs for extreme violence. And then even the moderates get bitter. They become bitter because of how second-class they are treated, how disdainful people act toward them, which is mainly because of the actions of so many Islamics. And then deep-down, many of these don't mind that America gets hers, is humbled a bit, taught a lesson or two.

Like me, you've probably read about the practice of building a victory mosque on conquered ground (click on picture above to read easier). And it makes sense to me that Islam would have such a practice. Should that be legal? If the Japanese owned property in Hawaii, should they be able to build a memorial celebrating their victory there on December 7, 1941? Some might say that it isn't one of these "victory mosques," that's just right wing propaganda. If it were true, would anyone tell us that this is one of the purposes for the mosque, to celebrate the victory of dropping the twin towers? Probably not.

So I think this mosque issue is understandable. Being against the mosque doesn't mean you're against freedom of religion. You just don't want to be stupid about freedom of religion. Religious tolerance doesn't mean standing in front of a bomb explosion. Islam really is more than just a religion. It is also a political philosophy, much like Marxism isn't just a political philosophy, but a religion too. We're figuring that out and so some confusion exists here. It took us three planes, the Pentagon, the World Trade Centers, a few wars, and several people being killed in order to get it. It's an instinct to preserve life. We're sorting through it right now. We don't want to see ourselves or our loved ones killed before we get it figured out.
========
Here is a related article worth reading.

Was the Church Wrong about the Meaning of Verbs in Scripture?

Some readers might be discouraged by the content of this post. Please work your way through it. Don't be stopped by the use of some words that you don't know. Get the most out of it as possible.

Recent discussions here and elsewhere have brought to my attention a debate about the understanding of the verbs of Scripture. Several modern Greek grammarians are saying that we didn't understand the meaning of the Greek verbs until now and that standard grammarians had been fundamentally wrong for centuries until the recent work of certain men. There is a strong movement to lead toward a different understanding of the tenses of the Greek verb, led, as I see it, mainly by men such as D. A. Carson, Stanley Porter, and Rodney Decker. Some would call this the Porter-Fanning Debate, because of the argumentation between Stanley Porter and Buist Fanning in 1990 on the subject of Greek verbal aspect. Porter is President and Dean, Professor of New Testament, at McMaster Divinity College and Fanning is the Department Chair and Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Fanning takes a position that is closer to what we have read and studied from A. T. Robertson and Dana and Mantey. Porter introduces a new position on the tense of the Greek verbs. Fanning is backed by Daniel Wallace, among others. Porter is supported by D. A. Carson. Now when there is an argument over the tense of the Greek verbs, this debate, and these two sides, must be taken into consideration.

Porter and Fanning fundamentally disagree whether tense involves time. Fanning, and those who believe like he, are convinced that time is clearly involved in the meaning of the tenses. Porter, and his followers, which are all very much new, insist that the tenses present no information about time, but that all the temporal knowledge arises only from the context and certain deictic indicators.

Porter contends that the inherent meaning of the tenses of the Greek verbs show "aspect" rather than time, what has been called Aktionsart. Porter, with the agreement of Carson, and so now fashionable among even evangelical scholars, says that there is no objective understanding of time in verbs because the timing and action of a verb are understood based only upon the subjective choice of the speaker or writer's conception of what is occurring. This character of the verb has been called "aspect." The speaker or writer can view an activity however he wants, so nothing can be objectively deduced about the time of a verb. Porter says that tense itself is a complete misnomer. Of course, this flies in the face of how men for all written biblical or theological material has understood the Greek verb through all time. How men have understood the Greek verb was wrong. According to Porter and Carson, we now know better. And, of course, this new understanding must be reflected henceforth in all commentaries on the New Testament.

Fanning and Wallace argue, like have Greek grammars for a long time, that a temporal aspect (time) is found in the tense of the verbs in the indicative and in participles. Wallace answers Porter in his Greek Grammar in Appendix IV on pp. 504-512. He says that the basic, unaffected meaning of the present tense sees both aspect and time (pp. 514-516). So the existence of some exceptions as verbs relate to time does not mean that the tenses of the verbs in the indicative do not have an objective temporal meaning.

Is it possible that for centuries, students of Scripture were wrong on the meaning of the verbs of the New Testament? Would the Holy Spirit have allowed this? Did we really need Porter and Carson to come along to bring us the true understanding of the Bible that the church has missed these thousands of years? I have noticed that the nature of modern scholarship is the continued seeking for some new break through that will set apart one scholar from another. In the secular world, the new discovery certainly can exalt the scholar to a place of prominence in the scholar community or society. I see even evangelical scholars to take up this same kind of tact. There are so many smart guys with advanced degrees that one can hardly be noticed as significant or special without some new discovery or find on the resume.

Unfortunately, much of the new "science" of the modern scholars flies in the face of what has been believed and taught by believers for a long, long time. And, of course, that tends toward believers being dependent on the new sacral society of scholars instead of the teachers in the church. And it really does remove a certainty in the meaning of the Bible. How do we know that some other new "find" could in the future overturn what we have already switched to believing because of the last great discovery of scholarship?

This is a very fundamental disagreement, about which many would assume that we are to agree to disagree. Depending upon which side you take, Porter or Fanning, you will come to several different conclusions about what Scripture is saying. That will affect your practice. People have an affinity to be a part of some new and not before understood knowledge, especially young men going out to prove themselves or form some niche. They can always say, "Well, yes, that's what people were saying before, but now with Porter, well, things have changed---and, by the way, did you see what Carson said about that?" In the world of scholarship, these wranglings can often be something like a major league baseball game. Two teams pound it out for nine innings and then later that night go out and get together for a meal and beverage. Everyone sees each others' points and then they move on.

I have talked here and elsewhere about a temporal aspect in the use of the perfect tense in soteriological and bibliological contexts. The views of Porter and Carson and Decker would say that no temporal aspect should be seen in the perfect, that is, unless there is something to be seen in the context of the passage that would enlighten us to the perspective of the author. In other words, the verbs themselves have no objective temporal meaning from which we could ascertain any doctrine. This is new. We need to know that it is new.

Carson, of course, would call seeing time in the indicative to be an exegetical fallacy. But why? We need to know why. Just because Carson says it does not make it so. We need to see some of the back story to this kind of discussion. These men have been swayed by the arguments of Porter. That doesn't mean it's an exegetical fallacy. It means that Carson thinks it's one. His saying it is one doesn't make it one. I could quote several older sources in opposition and Carson and Porter would simply say that their scholarship had been overturned by new scholarship. So there we are. Actually there is a big debate on the tense of the verb among evangelicals. An argument that I, sadly, don't seem to hear is one that involves historic theology. God is at work through the church in the interpretation of Scripture. He's not going to wait until 1990 to open some interpretive key that we've never seen before. We should reject this new approach.

Thoughts on Single Federal Judge Overturning State Constitution on Marriage

Yesterday a federal judge ruled (full ruling) that an amendment to the California state constitution passed by the California voters, which defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman, was unconstitutional. Peculiar to the case is that the judge himself, Judge Walker, professes to be homosexual. Here are some key statements from his ruling:

“Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

“Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.”

“The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in the child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent.”

“Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions.”

“Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”

He Used Indistinguishable Roles as a Primary Basis of His Decision

I read the judges reasoning for the decision. Here's how he argued it. The fourteenth amendment requires equal rights for all Americans. At one time, people had different rights depending upon race. The fourteenth amendment corrected that violation of rights. All people have the right to get married. At one time states would not allow interracial marriage. That too was corrected. At one time, there were unequal roles in marriage, a husband and a wife. We too have corrected that. We now have the marriage of two equals with no distinguishable roles. Husband and wife have equal roles, so role has no role in marriage today. Since role doesn't matter, equals can marry---man with woman, man with man, woman with woman. All people's rights to marry the equal of their choice is protected by the constitution. Not protecting everyone's right to marry the equal of his choice violates the fourteenth amendment. California's constitutional amendment defining marriage is unconstitutional.

That's, in essence, Judge Walker's argument. I think it will be supported by the appeals court. It will be overturned in the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote. Kagan will replace another liberal judge. That won't affect the balance of the court. Justice Kennedy is now the swing vote, since O'Connor left the court.

How I Would Argue Legally Against Judge Walker's Ruling

The constitution limits the power of the federal government to those powers enumerated in the constitution. Marriage is not in the constitution, so it is a power delegated to the states. California has authority to define marriage. California has defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. There is long time precedent for marriage only between a man and a woman. Judge Walker has violated the separation of powers between the federal and state governments. The federal government has no power to intervene in the definition of marriage unless someone's constitutional rights have been violated. A federal judge has taken away the rights of the California voters to decide what marriage is. The federal government has overstepped its constitutional limitations by intervening in this case.

Restricting marriage to a man and a woman does not violate rights protected by the fourteenth amendment. The fourteenth amendment was adopted in 1868 shortly after the Civil War. Here's the part of section one with the applicable text:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Certain rights of individuals do not exist under due process of law. Thomas Jefferson wrote at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence that people are entitled certain rights according to "the laws of nature and nature's God." The constitution does not protect a right of polygamy because that right is not an inalienable right of an individual. Under law, young children do not have the right to marry. Marriage has also always been limited by gender. No right for men to marry men or women to marry women has ever even existed in any civilization.

As well, the rights of the many are violated by the few. If what Judge Walker has ruled is true, all people must recognize same-sex marriage. The legal recognition of same-sex marriage condemns the moral opposition to it. The courts would in essence be deciding for all men that same sex marriage is in fact marriage.

This ruling alters the scope of individual rights. Rights may no longer spring from moral concern. Judge Walker has delegitimized moral judgment as a basis for state law. Secular philosophy becomes the only acceptable basis for the limitation of rights. States have always been able and always should be able to use moral judgment as a basis for making and enforcing law.

Personal Observations

Homosexuality has escalated with the loss of distinctions between men and women, both in role and appearance. Churches are in part blame for this. Many churches have slid away from the biblical emphasis on male headship and the preservation of designed distinctions in dress between male and female. Roles have also been blurred with women in the workplace. Men are more effeminate than ever. President Obama won the female vote 56% to 43%. He won 49% of the male vote. Women outnumber the men. Woman's suffrage has turned the control of the country to women.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. It is Declaration language that we see in the fourteenth amendment with the terminology "life, liberty" and "equal protection." The fourteenth amendment recognized that the Creator endowed non-whites as well as whites "certain inalienable rights." Does natural law or God's law recognize same-sex marriage? Of course not. Natural law and God's law condemn homosexual relations, let alone marriage. But our culture no longer recognizes natural law or the law of God. We have become a lawless society. There is no wonder we kill our most helpless citizens, take away private property with the abuse of eminent domain, do not protect our own borders from illegal immigration, and now authorize homosexual marriage.

On the way home from church last night, I turned on the top rated local radio station and the talk show host was taking calls on the ruling by Judge Walker. A caller asked the host where we got our rights from. He clarified by asking where Thomas Jefferson and John Locke believed we got our rights from. The host said with disdain, "nature and God." This host is an atheist, by the way. The caller asked if Thomas Jefferson got that idea from the Bible. The host exploded. He screamed that Jefferson didn't even believe in the Bible, that he removed many of the verses from his Bible (which is true) and that he only followed the teachings of Jesus. And then the host said that Jesus didn't even say anything about marriage. The caller responded, "He did too," and then he proceeded to tell the host what Jesus said from Matthew 19, that Jesus went back to the original intention of marriage between a man and a woman. The host got more angry and yelled at the caller that Jesus did not say anything about that---He said nothing of the kind! Of course, the caller was right. But that was no big deal to the host. The caller was talking very calmly the whole time.

I tell you that story because I thought it was an interesting point from the caller. Thomas Jefferson respected the teachings of Jesus. He wrote the Declaration. The fourteenth amendment took in the thoughts of Jefferson into its text. No one should read "rights" contradicted by Jesus into the fourteenth amendment. No one who wrote the fourteenth amendment would see any right to same-sex marriage in what he wrote. Those who voted for the amendment to the constitution would never have said that it gave a right to same-sex marriage.

==============

Here's an article from the Witherspoon Institute, seeing this much the way I analyzed it above.

This Woman Is Running for Re-election In My State

Is this a person that we want in the Senate of the United States? She can't answer a simple question about an important issue. Notice that games she plays with language. Does anyone in the world want this kind of person to be in a position of power? Also witness the fact that she defines a baby born as one who is home from the hospital. I ask, "What about the health of a baby? Of a person who is outside of the mother, let alone conceived? You can read George Will's take on her here.