Engaging Culture

Why Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis Isn’t A Christian Hero

There have been tens of thousands of social media posts, as well as numerous Christian websites calling Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis a Christian “hero” or “martyr” for her refusal to obey the law and provide marriage licenses for same sex couples. Her refusal, after receiving multiple orders to do so, led to her arrest and she landed in the Carter County Detention Center where crowds have been standing outside chanting for her release. But is Kim Davis a Christian hero for standing on her convictions? Are people right in admiring her and calling her a martyr for her faith?

Like it or not, same-sex marriage is now legal, and as citizens of the United States, we don’t get to pick and choose which laws to obey. It’s worth noting however, that our current administration does that very thing. It’s been reported across the political spectrum that in recent years, President Obama’s Department of Justice refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called on state attorneys general to refuse constitutional amendments they believe are “discriminatory.”  It’s been a similar story with immigration.

And in this article, Leo Hohmann, reminds us back in 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco and Mayor John West of New Paltz, New York, both directed marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples long before it was legal.

Illegal acts like these anger me as well, but how does it help change the culture when we act the same way they do?  Stepping down to their level doesn’t create a higher standard or make them “marvel” (as Jesus did) by showing them a better way.

As a result, Kim Davis should have resigned her job.  Certainly she should have done it in protest, making sure the local government officials and community leaders understood her reasons. It would have been a great opportunity to raise the discussion of workplace accommodations which has worked very well in North Carolina.  In fact, a compelling campaign could have been mounted around stories like hers – good people, forced to resign from their jobs because of their principles. But by breaking the law, she gave up the moral high ground which in turn, undermined her point.

Then there’s that pesky fact that Kim Davis has been married four times.  She’s stated that the first three were before her conversion, but do we really want to make our “hero” on the sanctity of marriage issue someone who apparently has had that much difficulty with it? Only God knows her heart, and certainly there are legitimate reasons for divorce, but when it comes to our perception in the culture, positioning as our champion someone who’s had four times at bat, doesn’t create an inspiring story of the importance of a fruitful, long-term marriage. It’s not about judging, it’s the simple observation that the media has had a heyday with that issue alone.

The question is: What did Kim Davis’ actions accomplish?  If her goal was to change people’s thinking, or move the culture in a better direction, I haven’t seen any signs of success. She’s been vilified in the media, and held up as another example of ignorant, backwards Christians who refuse to see reality. Whether that’s right or wrong isn’t the point. It’s the story that has prevailed.

How has that helped?

There’s a long tradition of civil disobedience in this country, and I’m in agreement that there comes a time to take a stand. But this wasn’t that time.  There is plenty to discuss here about the constitutional and legal issues of how this came about, and as citizens, we should fight those battles.  But when it comes to Christian influence and witness today, the Church needs to understand that people who are committed to the gospel are a minority, and learn to act from that perspective. To move the dial for Christ in today’s world, we have to be more thoughtful about when and where we take a stand, lest our actions hurt more than they help.

I’m not worried, because nothing can derail God’s ultimate plan.  But if our goal is to share Jesus with unbelievers, Kim Davis’ actions have allowed the secular media to paint all Christians with her brush. Which means it will be that much harder to share our faith with nonbelievers, and it will be that much harder to get non-believers in the door of your church. After all, in their minds, we’re “all like Kim Davis” now.

That’s why she isn’t a hero.  Granted, she was standing against what she perceived was an immoral law. She may be well intentioned, and we can appreciate her commitment.  Her actions have given many Christians a morale boost, but the truth is, those actions haven’t helped the greater cause.  I’m not calling for anyone to compromise their message or go soft on principles.  But as Christians, if we really want to make an impact on today’s decaying culture, we need to be more strategic – certainly more thoughtful and strategic than we’ve been so far.

Tags

Related Articles

82 Comments

      1. This could absolutely be a strategic move *because* of the constitutional law at ola. I agree with Fred, the point *is* the constitutional perspective. The full spectrum of facts surrounding this story seem to be constantly, meticulously, and at this point what is coming across as maliciously avoided by the general media. I’m not accusing you personally, but we should ask ourselves about the spin of this story.

        The issue is not about personal religious freedom or an individual’s attempt to use government to “impose” her religious beliefs upon others. It is about an elected official’s duty and the power of the lower magistrates to stand for its State Constitution. It may not have been your intention, bu the above article fails to address this pertinent reality. And because these commonly neglected facts support most reader’s opinion of gay mirage, they don’t really care. But if nine unelected lawyers tyranized onto *their* territory, we’d hear all about it.

        “Constitutional Attorneys Herb Titus and William Olson echoed this crucial point as well: “this case is not a matter of her conscience or her personal religious scruples. It is about her civic duty as a civil government official. She resists illegality not because her conscience is offended, but rather it is her conscience and religious beliefs that gives her the courage to stand against lawlessness.”

        Further, “Clerk Davis is constrained by her civic duty as an elected official in Kentucky, sworn to uphold the [Kentucky] Constitution. As a lower civil magistrate, there is only one course of action—to refuse to issue the marriage license to the same-sex couple BECAUSE the federal court order requiring her to issue the license is based upon a wholly illegitimate decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to marry.”

        Every Christian involved and concerned to confront this tyranny needs to get this point very clear. The federal court did not put Kim Davis in jail for exercising personal First Amendment rights. She is in jail over a contest of government jurisdictions. She is in jail because the Supreme Court of the Federal government believes the Fourteenth Amendment trumps the State Constitution of Kentucky on the issue of marriage, and more importantly, because every single civil official between her and the Feds stood by idly and watched it happen, implicitly agreeing with the Supreme Court’s belief.”

        There is a difference between contempt of court and seeing that the courts have become contemptible. An umbrella of protection — provided by Kentucky’s Constitution — is a necessary stand for athe reversal of the national tyranny of the opinion of nine unelected lawyers. Whether or not this is a step towards decentralized government at the state level—one which is devoid of all the nineteenth century baggage of slavery, etc, we’ll have to wait and see. Depending on what Kentucky and states that follow (if they follow) decide to do, we’ll see if the concept of States’ Rights and separate jurisdictions is still perfectly valid and applicable in general, whether or not the Tenth amendment comes into play.

        But the point is that there is much more going on here — indeed *something else* going on here entirely — than the general media is portraying.

        http://americanvision.org/12412/kim-davis-is-doing-what-every-christian-magistrate-should/

      2. This could absolutely be a strategic move *because* of the constitutional law issues at play. I agree with Fred, the point *is* the constitutional perspective. The full spectrum of facts surrounding this story seem to be constantly, meticulously, and at this point what is coming across as maliciously avoided by the general media. I’m not accusing you personally, but we should ask ourselves about the spin of this story.

        The issue is not about personal religious freedom or an individual’s attempt to use government to “impose” her religious beliefs upon others. It is about an elected official’s duty and the power of the lower magistrates to stand for its State Constitution. It may not have been your intention, bu the above article fails to address this pertinent reality. And because these commonly neglected facts support most reader’s opinion of gay mirage, they don’t really care. But if nine unelected lawyers tyranized onto *their* territory, we’d hear all about it.

        “Constitutional Attorneys Herb Titus and William Olson echoed this crucial point as well: “this case is not a matter of her conscience or her personal religious scruples. It is about her civic duty as a civil government official. She resists illegality not because her conscience is offended, but rather it is her conscience and religious beliefs that gives her the courage to stand against lawlessness.”

        Further, “Clerk Davis is constrained by her civic duty as an elected official in Kentucky, sworn to uphold the [Kentucky] Constitution. As a lower civil magistrate, there is only one course of action—to refuse to issue the marriage license to the same-sex couple BECAUSE the federal court order requiring her to issue the license is based upon a wholly illegitimate decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to marry.”

        Every Christian involved and concerned to confront this tyranny needs to get this point very clear. The federal court did not put Kim Davis in jail for exercising personal First Amendment rights. She is in jail over a contest of government jurisdictions. She is in jail because the Supreme Court of the Federal government believes the Fourteenth Amendment trumps the State Constitution of Kentucky on the issue of marriage, and more importantly, because every single civil official between her and the Feds stood by idly and watched it happen, implicitly agreeing with the Supreme Court’s belief.”

        There is a difference between contempt of court and seeing that the courts have become contemptible. An umbrella of protection — provided by Kentucky’s Constitution — is a necessary stand for athe reversal of the national tyranny of the opinion of nine unelected lawyers. Whether or not this is a step towards decentralized government at the state level—one which is devoid of all the nineteenth century baggage of slavery, etc, we’ll have to wait and see. Depending on what Kentucky and states that follow (if they follow) decide to do, we’ll see if the concept of States’ Rights and separate jurisdictions is still perfectly valid and applicable in general, whether or not the Tenth amendment comes into play.

        But the point is that there is much more going on here — indeed *something else* going on here entirely — than the general media is portraying.

        http://americanvision.org/12412/kim-davis-is-doing-what-every-christian-magistrate-should/

        1. I’m with you here. There is much more at play. But her comments about the situation have centered on her Christian beliefs, and I think it’s critical to point out that this should be a legal issue. People are making her a Christian martyr, and she’s not.

          1. Christians say a lot of things. I thought martyrs had to die to be so. Christians often miss the boat. Mrs. Davis was probably not aware of the significance of her actions. Regardless of what we think, it took a lot of courage for her to do hat she did and I think we need to admire it.

            I wouldn’t call her a martyr but right, wrong or indifferent, I am proud of what she has done.

          2. Perhaps she should drop her appeal to the First Amendment. However, her Christian conviction *is* what gives her “…the courage to stand against lawlessness.” I don’t see why she would have to keep that secret, as if conflicting worldviews weren’t at play in SCOTUS’s ruling in the first place. In fact, the common belief that the rule of law is somehow “worldview neutral” needs to be constantly refuted. The law is certainly *fair* — in principle — but it is not worldview neutral. Davis’ highlight of her worldview may bring to light to this reality:

            “The “rule of law” is not some “pure neutrality,” an ethereal gas that enables a bunch of members of different faiths and religions to bond together in the same society. The rule of law is actually a codified expression of certain aspects of our Christian inheritance. It is part of our legacy and heritage for a reason. It came from somewhere. It grew and developed in some countries and not in others for profound religious reasons. The rule of law has no evident authority apart from the authority of a transcendent God.” – Douglas Wilson

            Davis shouldn’t be intimidated into silence, having to compromise her moral conviction for fear of churches losing their ability to be more seeker friendly. I think we’re jaded by all the facebook memes etc., which miss the point of this issue entirely, along with the media — which of course will muck-rake and slut-shame *anyone* to put another negative spin on Christianity.

            It seems to me Davis is doing the right thing.

        2. My sentiments exactly. Where do we draw the line? This is here she chose to draw the line. My wife’s cousin was a County Clerk in Long Island and saw this coming and resigned before he had to take a stand on this. That’s the choice he made and this is the choice she made and I think we should support it.

          Christians are never going to be portrayed in a favorable light no matter what we do or don’t do, in present evil age. Some day the Bible says no one will be able to buy or sell anything without a particular identifier. Who do you suppose might be the one to make that the law of the land? The Supreme Court maybe?

          We need to decide where we are going to draw the line, if at all.

  1. I agree that Mrs. Davis handled her protest poorly. As I understand it her office required an oath to obey the law. Providing marriage licenses for same-sex couples is now the law. She swore to obey the law. In Matt. 22 Christ gives us clear warrant to obey even laws we disagree with. If her conscience wouldn’t allow her to live up to her oath she should have resigned. Resignation would have been more easily defensible and had more impact on the culture we live in. I could have strongly supported her choice to resign. As it is I’m left trying to react to multiple wrongs and no right actions.

    1. No hypocrisy here. There is no alternative action. If she wants to battle the legal and constitutional issues surrounding this (and there are many), then say so and go for it. But she’s positioning this based on her “Christian beliefs” that in my view, that is a mistake. She should have simply resigned rather than disobeyed the law.

  2. Actually open and vocal resignation is the alternative position. She could have made her Christian point logically and bravely by resigning.

  3. When I hear about stories like this, I wonder just how the folks involved think they’re advancing the gospel with their actions. Of course I’m a fan of both truth and grace but I think they need to applied appropriately, depending on the audience. To me, Kim Davis is not a hero because in my understanding of the Bible, God isn’t asking any of us to judge the rest of the world (ie., people outside the church) by His standards. If she was a church official, responsible for performing marriage between two people IN the church, then that’s a different story. She’s a public official with a duty to perform under the law. She should either do it or resign.

        1. I advocate nothing of the sort. That’s exactly WHY I’m working in Hollywood. You make huge leaps here Stan. It’s difficult to have an adult conversation if you’re going to make up stuff… 🙂

          1. SHE should resign. Not WE should resign. You know how we got into this sorry situation Stan? The LGBT side was very smart, and very strategic. But us? Nope. We just get hysterical and react rather than create the agenda. Until that changes, you can expect a lot more defeat in the culture.

  4. Nothing was won here. Christians look like idiots… again. I don’t applaud Kim Davis’ actions. She should have resigned her position or allowed her deputies to distribute them for her, which was an option she chose not to implement. Those decisions would have made a greater impact in the big picture. Another opportunity was lost to win a battle in the war.

    1. Absolutely, Mary Jo! I would have resigned, if necessary, rather than go against my standards. On the job, you aren’t forced to do anything. There is always a choice…quit.

  5. She would have been better served to have resigned and then watched the movie “The War Room” and applied the principles of prayer demonstrated in the movie. We are not dealing with fleshly, carnal enemies in this nation, but spiritual entities that have a mission from our real enemy who seeks to steal, kill, and destroy. Fighting a spiritual battle through natural means and effort is fruitless and a big waste of time.

  6. I would agree that perhaps she could have handed things differently but I also commend to her for standing up for what she believed. She could have resigned in protest but then what would be accomplished? The story would have been dead after one news cycle. Why should she have to resign? Her superiors could have made a workaround anytime they wished, which I believe they did when they gave authorization for sub-clerks to handle licenses and/or have the clerks signature requirement removed. A doctor can refuse to give an abortion if they feel it compromises the oaths they took even though abortion is the “law of the land”, they don’t have to give up their position in doing so. You hear a lot about her supposedly incorrect behavior but we didn’t hear much about the threats she and her family received from the pro homosexual marriage groups. Like it not, attention to religious freedom and the right to stand up for your convictions got some buzz. The real question is how many of us would be willing to go the same lengths for our faith?

  7. I did just read someplace that she has been trying to get a judge to allow her to remove her name from the licenses that she is in protest of issuing and placing a deputy’s name on them instead. What I read stated that the judge denied that and forced her hand and thus she took the stand she did. I’m not sure why that is not a fair compromise and why a judge wouldn’t allow that – seems like a win/win. Your thoughts Phil?

    1. North Carolina is a good example of a state helping workers do the “work-around” on issues like this. It does seem the judge was a little strident on the issue. Either we figure out how to work across the aisle, or it’s going to get worse…. Thanks for posting Kevin!

  8. I disagree with this article. Kim Davis is a hero for standing up for her beliefs. It is outrageous that she was thrown into jail. Yes, the media spins the story to make Christians look foolish, but they do that on every story. At some point believers must stand for their convictions. She may be a tarnished candidate to stand for traditional marriage but yet she is standing. Perhaps if more Christians would stand with her we would stop looking foolish and be respected for our stance.

    1. A few thoughts: She’s an $80,000 a year county employee. No wonder she’s fighting to keep her job. That sort of undermines her stand. Martin Luther King practiced civil disobedience, but he wasn’t pulling down $80K in a government job. In her role as a county employee, was it her job to lecture people that came to her office about their behavior? 1 Corinthians 1:2: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?”

  9. I agree Barry, too many believers are too concerned with being absolutely right about everything that they don’t see the forest for the trees. The Supreme Court may someday issue an edict that in order to buy or sell anything, you will need a certain identifier. How many will obligingly obey then?!

  10. As Christ Followers we would be better off to approach the issue (Kim Davis) from a supernatural perspective. There are obvious demonic powers at play…as we know – their intent is to bring confusion to the world. It’s easy to fall into the logic of the issues – I myself enjoy such dialogue and enjoy defending my perspectives…however… Bottom line – Nothing Kim Davis could have/or have not said, or done would change the way the world perceives Christianity…they
    just can’t get the things of God! The demonic forces have clearly taken this issue and ran with it (once again!) in mankind’s history.

  11. I agree that it is a difficult position and that her resignation would have spoken louder. I am a Christian and always have been. I share Jesus with my tolerance and message. We all fall short…we will all be judged. I don’t compromise my beliefs with conformity but I separate Church and state. Think people…we can’t pledge our allegiance anymore because God has made is indivisible…but we cherish our money which declares” IN GOD WE TRUST”. It’s a hippocratic America at best. Let God worry about judgment. Speak the truth and take the planks out of your own eyes

  12. Can you imagine if Mary Magdalene tried to stand for righteousness? They could have destroyed her. I also think of a pastor’s wife at my church who was married literally 5 times before she was saved. She often spoke at events on how to be a godly wife…..because she was changed. That was then. This is now. I don’t know Kim Davis. But when I see her, I don’t see a hyper religious pharisee grandstanding. I see a simple woman, a new believer, trying to do what she believes is right. I see a woman who has now had her past sins, mistakes she made *before* she knew Christ, thrown in her face because she tried to enforce Kentucky’s law and did not want to compromise her convictions.

    I guess you
    could try to make the argument that now non Christians won’t come to
    church because of her actions, But there are also those gay activists like
    Madonna’s brother saying “Good for her!”
    And you could also make the argument that
    Christians that were on the fence are now motivated to stand for their
    faith because if she can do it so can we! Not sure how you measure the effect of this decision one way of the other, or if there is even a Biblical reason to do so.

    Sometimes it seems like we are awfully worried about how we look in front of the cool kids. And when a brother or sister in Christ embarrasses us, we distance ourselves from them, or make a point to announce that we don’t agree with them to try and save the “family” reputation.

    But that doesn’t seem to be Jesus concern in His prayer in John 17: “I do not
    pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through
    their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me,
    and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

    This is so powerful…..The Bible is saying that our unity actually proclaims Christ’s Deity…. and I believe the converse is true also.

    The Bible says that “They will know we are Christians by our LOVE”…..wait….that’s not it…although I see that all the time on Facebook.

    The verse actually says “They will know we are Christians by our love ……for one another ”

    This is my prayer. I can’t even imagine the impact we could have on the world if Jesus prayer was answered! But I hope to find out!

      1. I have yet to see anyone discuss the issue of other religious beliefs. Everyone praising her would be horrified if a muslim in her “official position” refused to comply with the law based on religious grounds. Freedom from religion means we obey the laws or as was once asked “why aren’t you in jail”. civil disobedience means we disobey the particular law but accept the consequences

        1. I couldn’t agree more Ray. As you say, I wonder how many who are idolizing Davis now, would do the same to a government employee who was Muslim, refusing to do her job because of her allegiance to Sharia Law?

          1. Not really the same. Kentucky’s law *IS* in accordance to God’s law, and then a judge told her not to obey it. Tell ya what, find a US law that’s based in Sharia law, find a Muslim clerk who was elected to uphold that already established Sharia law, find a judge that overruled that Koran Based state law, and then we can compare. Either way I don’t think she deserves such public censure from her brothers and sisters in Christ. And you better believe if you found a Muslim case like I described….the other Muslims would back her in a heartbeat. Every one. Just a thought.

          2. I think you’ve stretched the comparison a bit Lauren…. 🙂
            As long as you equate the laws of the United States with “God’s Law”, then I don’t think you’ll ever change your mind on this…

          3. Your a very smart man and a great writer, but there is a big difference between using the Bible to stand for a law that was based on the Bible, and just randomly deciding to follow sharia law. That was my point. Surely you see that.
            Also, I never equated US law with Gods law which is why I used words like “in accordance to”
            I have read lots of legal opinions, Christian opinions, and on and on, and I still think she deserves support, a sister to come along side her, etc, *not* saying I would have done the same thing, but with all the Chrisitan leaders drawing attention to the church with “moral failings,” maybe I’m not easily embarrassed by one willing to go to jail to try to try to stand by Gods word.

          4. Fair enough Lauren. And I do agree that we shouldn’t be embarrassed by someone willing to go to jail for their beliefs. I just don’t think this was the hill to die on… Thanks for your comments!

  13. Phil – I thought this was right on point until we castigated the woman for not being a great example of Christian marriage. Whatever dumb choices she may have made in the past are just that – in her past – and they have been washed clean in the blood of the Lamb. Jesus did not die to put our past sins in storage so we could pull them out and use them on each other when somebody displeases us…He said in HIs word that he ‘took away’ our sins, which means they are gone. Whatever your perspective on her views and her choices in doing her job, invoking her history was a low blow, unless of course we no longer believe that Jesus forgives. She might just be a shining example of how to screw it up for decades, change her life by faith and then get it right finally. Regardless, I will always admire her for the courage to act, even if in some degree of error, unlike the typical Christian who just wants to talk about his faith but is afraid to demonstrate it…

    1. I couldn’t agree with you more on the forgiveness issue here Vic, but that’s not what this post is about. WE can forgive her, but the rest of the culture doesn’t, and it’s why they’re making such fun of her. She may be a wonderful, Godly person, but my point is that if we’re really serious about changing culture, then we should be more careful and strategic about the people we choose to lead the charge.

      1. Agreed, but we clearly didn’t ‘choose’ her…lol. She just kinda stepped out and there she was…I do agree with some of the other posters out here about how much we concern ourselves about the approval of folks who even the Word says will never approve or understand. If we believe she’s forgiven we need to act like it, instead of allowing them to frame the dialogue by ridiculing her? What good are we as Believers if we cannot defend/explain what we believe? Be well…

        1. Good points all around Vic. I do think that we should be more concerned about how the world perceives us than some of my commenters think. Some people make it a badge of honor to be scorned. But those negative perceptions are what keeps people from wanting to hear the gospel, or attend a church. I think the scorn will come – no question. But let’s not make it so easy! I’m not interested in anything that would drive people away from Jesus…

  14. Very well put Oscar, and who knows? You may be right. And I agree that we can’t always know or control who the person is that sparks something like this. At this point it doesn’t look so good, and I worry that if your thinking doesn’t happen, it will be a real set back.
    One of my biggest push-backs is how her supporters would feel if that had been a Muslim government employee who refused to work because she has allegiance to Sharia Law. I don’t think we would be quite so supportive…

    1. While this particular case/plaintiff may not be ideal, the timing is right because it is now and a presidential election is imminent, bringing greater spotlight to our side of the story. As for the “Muslim government employee refusing to work because of her allegiance to Sharia Law” scenario, we could play the “what if” game all day long with various different scenarios. I feel it is much more profitable just to deal with the real scenario than to speculate on imaginary ones. Just my two cents. God bless!

  15. Wow, what a thoughtful response, Phil. So refreshing in an age in which the Religious Right jumps on bandwagons without much awareness of public perception. I feel bad she was incarcerated, and think she showed some courage, but I agree with you that preaching “one man for one woman for one lifetime” with your fourth husband in tow comes off as hypocritical and comical to a skeptical public. I appreciate you being a Christian leader who thinks for himself, Phil.

    1. I read your blog Stan, and some of your points are quite good. However, you undermine many of your arguments by making accusations and conclusions that have nothing to do with what I’ve written. We worship a big God Stan, so I don’t really understand your hysteria. Why can’t Christians with differing opinions have civil conversations about these issues?

      1. To reply to both. By you suggesting Kim Davis should resign you are telling all Christians they should resign. She represents all of us. By her resigning, the news story and the issues disappears over night. You don’t understand by “hysteria” because, I surmise, you don’t understand the Biblical principals involved. You want to be politically correct, non-confrontational to the point of Christians resigning their elected responsibilities to uphold Natural Law. If my “hysteria” has nothing to do with what you’ve written, you have not communicated well. So, what did you intend to say where I have misunderstood?

        1. “By you suggesting Kim Davis should resign you are telling all Christians they should resign.”
          Are you completely incapable of evaluating things on a case by case basis? Until you are, how can we hope to mount of defense of the gospel to today’s culture?

          1. Clearly we have evaluated this case on a different basis. I make the crass assumption that had SHE resigned the incident would have disappeared from the news and she would have been vilified by Christians as having not stood up for what was good, true, and beautiful. The case I’m imaging is the LBQT agenda winning again at pushing an influencing, elected Christian official with authority into the shadows…which is what you have suggested she do. You’ve reasoned that by her resigning others could have made a point about Christians being persecuted. But resigning is not persecution. There’s no sympathy in taking the easy way out. You probably don’t see the parallel, but Jesus didn’t resign. Paul and Peter went to jail, and kept on preaching. Etc. etc. Are you completely incapable of evaluating Biblical precept for our lives today, or is it all about getting good press from pagans? Kim Davis mounted a major defense of the Gospel that made national headlines with the truth.

  16. Couldn’t disagree with you more. How come our President is still in office? Shouldn’t he resign? How many laws has he blatantly not enforced because they go against his liberal faith.

      1. The hypocrisy in absurd. The left does something of what Kim Davis did then its civil disobedience or when Bill and Hillary break the law then its a bad law. When a Christian practices civil disobedience well then throw them in jail after all IT’S THE LAW.

      2. He should resign? I misspoke my fault. Our President should have been put in jail if we are to be consistent with what Kim Davis is enduring. The problem is that he wasn’t and therefore Kim Davis shouldn’t have been put in jail and the far left New York Times agrees with me as well.

  17. The reason this particular pear is so prickly for all of us is that we have been trying to blend and/or reconcile two similar but conflicting concepts. What we have here is a grammatical conundrum called a ‘homonym,’ defined as ‘two words that are spelled and pronounced the same but have different meanings.’ One such word would be ‘gay,’ which can mean ‘happy and joyous’ or ‘preferring the same gender as partners.’ In this case, the word in question is marriage…

    There are two distinct institutions, both commonly called marriage, that actually have different definitions and origins. One is a worldly legal authority, granted by a judge, a county, a justice of the peace or a ship captain for that matter, that allows two persons to be legally bound together for essentially transactional purposes – to buy property, make medical decisions, raise children, inherit wealth, have employee benefits and whatever else the ‘law’ allows.

    The other is a holy state of union established by the Word of God, executed in HIs presence and designed for a man and a woman to live together for life in a spiritual covenant. A spiritual marriage is typically also recognized by worldly legal authority, while the worldly kind does not give the participants any standing before God. For the Christian, ‘gay’ marriage is an oxymoron – unless it is happy and joyous – as there is no standing one can achieve before God while in diametrical opposition to His Word.

    For too long, we have tried to enforce the principles of our covenant concept of marriage onto the worldly version of ‘marriage’ and it just doesn’t work. I think the confusion stems from both being called by the same name, when in reality they are significantly different. It does not matter how many licenses some judge tries to force Christians to issue to gay couples, their relationship is another institution called by the same name. As long as the government does not think it can come into a church and force pastors to violate their beliefs and perform these ceremonies (most likely the next frontier), I really could care less what some legal beagle does down at the courthouse…

  18. I think you may have hit the jackpot vein. First, how dare any of us say what Kim Davis “should” have done. My God, she said she was standing for her conscience–not for all of you or me. Leave her be! Second, let’s not incriminate her for her past. The world does better with its own than that.

    1. When anyone makes a public stand or pronouncement, particularly one supposedly for the cause of the faith that millions of Americans hold dear, those actions are open for discussion. Your private life is yours, but your public actions open you up. May not be comfortable for everybody, but it’s the price for being a public figure.

  19. Folks, for goodness sake, please educate yourselves on the laws of this land. If anyone is disrupting “the rule of law”, in the Kentucky clerk, Kim Davis, fiasco, it is not Kim Davis. No matter how much of a hick and a hayseed the media attempts to make her out to be, she is one of the few people actually upholding the law.

    The U.S. Supreme Court can only render opinions. It can not write legislation, therefore it can not “legalize” same sex marriage.

    The 10th Amendment makes it crystal clear that anything not expressly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution is “reserved to the States respectively, or the people.” As such, the Supreme Court had no authority to even hear the Obergefell v. Hodges case, and the state of Kentucky, by over a 70 percent vote of the people, made the definition of marriage as legally existing solely between that of one man and one woman. That legislature of Kentucky has yet to change that law, and that is the very law which Kim Davis was carrying out her duties under, when she was jailed.

    I would also impress upon you, that even if the Supreme Court’s Obergefell opinion was binding on the states, Article III, sec. 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: “In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE. (my emphasis) People, Congress has the authority to say, “No, Supreme Court, you are wrong and have no constitutional authority in this matter.”

    We have three distinct branches of government and they are NOT equal. The constitution specifically made Congress the most powerful (writing laws, holding the purse strings, impeachment, etc.) because they are the ones held most directly accountable to us, the people.

    Don’t sit on your hands. Educate yourselves and hold them accountable! Whatever the issue.

      1. Well, with all due respect, if people are lifting her up as a “hero”, which is what your post is about, then I think it’s highly relevant that she IS following the laws of the State of Kentucky. If she did not have the law on her side, then I would agree that she should not be held up as a hero, Christian or otherwise. – Blessings.

  20. Hey, Phil. I have other things to do, too… (smile) but curious what your response would be to this post (on another blog about this same topic).
    Craig Doriot wrote:
    “5 reasons she (Kim Davis) could not resign:
    Shadrach
    Meshach
    Nebednego
    Daniel
    Mordecai…
    (he continues) These biblical figures were in higher positions than Kim Davis. The laws changed and forced them to either bow to the corruption or take the stand for the truth. ….

    1. Yes, they were in MUCH higher positions than Kim – it would be similar to being the our President’s cabinet – and therefore, their actions carried more weight and influence. That’s actually a good comparison when it comes to being strategic in our witness (which is the point of the article.) Obviously, you never know how God can work in these situations, but my position is that the gay community had a smart, well developed, and strategic plan to win Hollywood, universities, the media, the political sphere, and more. And look what has happened. On our side, we just have random people acting in places like rural Kentucky. No disrespect to Kim, but if we want to prevail, putting all our weight behind someone like Kim probably won’t make much impact. We have to think bigger.

        1. I totally get that. I think it’s good to operate on both levels when we can. Our compassion is important for individual people and situations, but like Joseph in Pharaoh’s court, we should always be thinking about how we can make a bigger impact.

  21. Phil, Thanks for this article. I have been thinking along the same lines for the past few weeks. Thank you for articulating it so well. Great job dealing graciously with those with differing views (even when they are less than gracious). You are a class act that I hold in high regard. Have a great day!

  22. I would note that homosexual marriage is not legal, at least not in Kentucky. The Supremes cannot make law, they can only interpret it. Their ruling like many before (cf. Dred Scott) is incorrect and thus does not necessarily need to be followed.

    It’s there. In the Constitution.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker