R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 382

The Briefing 12-19-13

1) We didn’t need to be told – Panel of leading journalists admit media has a liberal bias

Journalist Consensus: Media Leans Left, Politico (Dylan Byers)

Latest Coverage from the Church of the New York Times, Patheos.com (Terry Mattingly)

‘Far-flung’ Louisville may get help from Michael Bloomberg group, Courier Journal (Andrew Wolfson)

2) Why is a leading scholarly association boycotting Israel? — Antisemitism

Boycott by Academic Group is a Symbolic Sting to Israel, New York Times (Richard Perez-Pena and Jodi Rodoren)

A Vote Against Israel and Academic Freedom, Wall Street Journal (Jonathan Marks)

Shame of the Academy, Wall Street Journal (Editorial)

3) Christmas: “The national holiday that dares not speak its name”

The Christmas Pageant as a GapKids Ad, Wall Street Journal (Paul H. Tice)

You Have Been Warned—The “Duck Dynasty” Controversy

An interview can get you into big trouble. Remember General Stanley McChrystal? He was the commander of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan until he gave an interview to Rolling Stone magazine in 2010 and criticized his Commander in Chief. Soon thereafter, he was sacked. This time the interview controversy surrounds Phil Robertson, founder of the Duck Commander company and star of A&E’s Duck Dynasty. Robertson gave an interview to GQ (formerly known as Gentlemen’s Quarterly), and now he has been put on “indefinite suspension” from the program.

Why? Because of controversy over his comments on homosexuality.

Phil Robertson is the plainspoken patriarch of the Duck Dynasty clan. In the GQ interview, published in the January 2014 issue of the magazine, Robertson makes clear that his Christian faith is central to his identity and his life. He speaks of his life before Christ and actively seeks to convert the interviewer, Drew Magary, to faith in Christ. He tells Magary of the need for repentance from sin. Magary then asks Robertson to define sin. He responded:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Christians will recognize that Robertson was offering a rather accurate paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

To be fair, Robertson also offered some comments that were rather crude and graphically anatomical in making the same point. As Magary explained, “Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He’s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there’s no stopping them from rushing out.”

Phil Robertson would have served the cause of Christ more faithfully if some of those comments had not rushed out. This is not because what he said was wrong; he was making the argument that homosexual acts are against nature. The Apostle Paul makes the very same argument in Romans 1:26. The problem is the graphic nature of Robertson’s language and the context of his statements.

The Apostle Paul made the same arguments, but worshipers in the congregations of Rome and Corinth did not have to put hands over the ears of their children when Paul’s letter was read to their church.

The entire Duck Dynasty enterprise is a giant publicity operation, and a very lucrative enterprise at that. Entertainment and marketing machines run on publicity, and the Robertsons have used that publicity to offer winsome witness to their Christian faith. But GQ magazine? Seriously?

Not all publicity is good publicity, and Christians had better think long and hard about the publicity we seek or allow by our cooperation.

Just ask Gen. McChrystal. In the aftermath of his embarrassing debacle, the obvious question was this: why would a gifted and tested military commander allow a reporter for Rolling Stone such access and then speak so carelessly? Rolling Stone is a magazine of the cultural left. It was insanity for Gen. McChrystal to speak so carelessly to a reporter who should have been expected to present whatever the general said in the most unfavorable light.

Similarly, Phil Robertson would have served himself and his mission far better by declining to cooperate with GQ for a major interview. GQ is a “lifestyle” magazine for men, a rather sophisticated and worldly platform for the kind of writing Drew Magary produced in this interview. GQ is not looking for Sunday School material. Given the publicity the interview has now attracted, the magazine must be thrilled. Phil Robertson is likely less thrilled.

Another interesting parallel emerges with the timing of this controversy. The current issue of TIME magazine features Pope Francis I as “Person of the Year.” Within days of TIME’s declaration, Phil Robertson had been suspended from Duck Dynasty. Robertson’s suspension was caused by his statements that homosexual acts are sinful. But Pope Francis is riding a wave of glowing publicity, even as he has stated in public his agreement with all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, including its teachings on homosexual acts.

Francis has declared himself to be a “son of the church,” and his church teaches that all homosexual acts are inherently sinful and must be seen as “acts of grave depravity” that are “intrinsically disordered.”

But Pope Francis is on the cover of TIME magazine and Phil Robertson is on indefinite suspension. Such are the inconsistencies, confusions, and hypocrisies of our cultural moment.

Writing for TIME, television critic James Poniewozik argued that Robertson’s error was to speak so explicitly and openly, “to make the subtext text.” He wrote:

Now, you’ve got an issue with those of us who maybe just want to watch a family comedy about people outside a major city, but please without supporting somebody thumping gay people with their Bible. Or a problem with people with gay friends, or family, or, you know, actual gay A&E viewers.

By speaking so openly, Robertson crossed the line, Poniewozik explains.

A&E was running for cover. The network released a statement that attempted to put as much distance as possible between what the network described as Robertson’s personal beliefs and their own advocacy for gay rights:

We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.

So, even as most evangelical Christians will likely have concerns about the way Phil Robertson expressed himself in some of his comments and where he made the comments, the fact remains that it is the moral judgment he asserted, not the manner of his assertion, that caused such an uproar. A quick look at the protests from gay activist groups like GLAAD will confirm that judgment. They have protested the words Robertson drew from the Bible and labeled them as “far outside of the mainstream understanding of LGBT people.”

So the controversy over Duck Dynasty sends a clear signal to anyone who has anything to risk in public life: Say nothing about the sinfulness of homosexual acts or risk sure and certain destruction by the revolutionaries of the new morality. You have been warned.

In a statement released before his suspension, Phil Robertson told of his own sinful past and of his experience of salvation in Christ and said:

My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

Those are fighting words, Phil. They are also the gospel truth.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler.

Drew Magary, “What the Duck?,” GQ, January 2014. http://www.gq.com/entertainment/telev... [WARNING: explicit language used. Citation is here for the purpose of documentation.]

James Poniewozik, “Why Phil Robertson Got Suspended from Duck Dynasty,” TIME, Wednesday, December 18, 2014. http://entertainment.time.com/2013/12...

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 2357. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css...

Megan Townsend, “A&E Network Places Star on Indefinite Filming Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks,” GLAAD, Wednesday, December 18, 2013. http://www.glaad.org/blog/ae-network-...

AJ Marechal, “Duck Dynasty: Phil Robertson Suspended Indefinitely Following Anti-Gay Remarks,” Variety, Wednesday, December 18, 2013. http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/duck-...

Photo credit: A&E Network

 

The Briefing 12-18-13

1) Mass evacuation of Christians from Middle East: “Christians are finished here”

Iraq’s battle to save its Christian souls: ‘Christians are finished here‘ The Telegraph (Colin Freeman)

Syria war fuels Christian flight from Middle East, BBC (Kevin Connolly)

2) British Supreme Court says belief in God not necessary to qualify as a religion

Scientology is a religion, rules Supreme Court, The Telegraph (John Bingham)

3) North Korean dictator executes uncle in manner reminiscent of Joseph Stalin

Three Ways to Tell if Someone Is Plotting a Coup Against You, TIME (Michael Crowley)

The Execution of Comrade Jang, Wall Street Journal (Editorial)

4) Right-to-Die attempts to exclude morality in lieu of “individual rights”

Right-to-Die Challenge Reaches Supreme Court, BBC

Assisted Suicide Ruling Cannot Ignore Right and Wrong, Says Judge, The Telegraph (John Bingham)

TIME Chooses its “Person of the Year”—What Are We to Think?

TIME magazine has chosen its “Person of the Year” for 2013 and, to no real surprise, that person is Pope Francis I, the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. The papacy, stated TIME, “is mysterious and magical,” transforming “a septuagenarian into a superstar while revealing almost nothing about the man himself.”

And yet, in these polarized times, the Pope also “raises hopes in every corner of the world—hopes that can never be fulfilled.” Why? Because those hopes are as polarized as the times. Conservatives long for a Defender of the Catholic Faith while liberals hope for a radical transformer of church doctrine. No pope can deliver both of those hopes.

But make no mistake, TIME did not choose Pope Francis because the editors see him as a Defender of the Catholic Faith. That is how they saw the two immediate past popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Francis was chosen because he is already seen as a liberalizing force, working enthusiastically for change, even as he works within the constraints of Catholic tradition and the church’s magisterial authority.

TIME editor Nancy Gibbs, explaining the magazine’s choice, said that Francis, in just a few short months in office, “has not changed the words but he has changed the music.” TIME reporters Howard Chua-Eoan and Elizabeth Dias wrote of “the speed with which he has captured the imaginations of millions who had given up on hoping for the church at all.” The reporters went on to argue that Francis “may have found a way out of the 20th century culture wars.”

The enthusiasm for Pope Francis among progressives and liberals in the Roman Catholic Church is genuine. And TIME is accurate in noting the ecumenical enthusiasm that had drawn more liberal Protestants and even some avowed secularists into his band of admirers. Even some younger evangelicals have suggested that his approach just might be the way out of the cultural conflicts of the epoch.

TIME’s “Person of the Year” designation is no small signal of the cultural moment. Francis has truly attracted the avid interest of those who hope to see radical change in the Roman Catholic Church—changes such as the ordination of women to the priesthood, the acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual relationships, and a shift in the church’s teaching on abortion and on human sexuality in general.

No doubt, the Pope has sent some powerful messages of encouragement their way. Returning to the Vatican after a visit to Brazil, Francis told reporters, “If a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge.” In another interview, Francis included atheists among the redeemed. Writing to a group of homosexual activists, the Pope said, “To say that those with other sexual orientations are sinners is wrong.” In his first major papal statement, he indicted capitalism for many of the world’s ills.

On the other hand, not one word of official Catholic teaching has been modified, not to say reversed. This is why Nancy Gibbs spoke of the Pope changing the music but not the words. He has certainly shown the world a different style of being Pope, but he remains the pontiff of the church, and, in his words, “a son of the church.” And, as TIME itself recognizes, that means no changes to fundamental teachings on the very issues on which the Pope has sent signals of a new direction.

On the contentious issues of moral concern, Francis has simply observed, “it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.” The Pope never has to talk about anything he does not will to discuss. On issues like abortion and sexuality, Francis is certainly less likely to talk when compared to John Paul II, Benedict XVI, or even Paul VI. But, when he does talk about the teachings of his church, he defends the same teachings.

Even when he utters those words that have so caught the world’s attention, he speaks with a calculated cadence that conceals as much as it reveals. When he spoke of the “homosexual person who is of good will and in search of God,” he was speaking the language of a church that believes that homosexual acts are always sinful and that same-sex marriage is impossible, but defines being “of good will and in search of God” in terms of celibacy for those with a same-sex orientation. That is not how his statement was described as it made headlines around the world.

The Vatican is, among other things, one of the most professional and sophisticated public relations operations on earth. The Vatican has not only allowed, but even encouraged the kind of media attention that caught TIME’s eye. And yet, thus far TIME is right to point to a change in the tune, not the theology.

Will this strategy work? It is hard to imagine that it will. Writing from Britain for The New York Times, Kenan Malik expressed what the newspaper described as the modern Catholic “quandary.” He wrote:

Francis may be transforming the perception of the church and its mission, but not its core doctrines. He has called for a church more welcoming to gay people and women, but he will not challenge the idea that homosexual acts are sinful, refuses to embrace the possibility of same-sex marriage and insists that the ordination of women as priests is not “open to discussion.”

The previous day, another column in The New York Times had appeared, this time by staff columnist Frank Bruni, an openly gay man. Bruni described the “honeymoon” that Francis is currently enjoying with the cultural elites, but he protested the adulation. “Pope Francis has indeed been a revelation,” Bruni wrote, “his gentle tone and sustained humility more in touch with the heart of Catholicism than the bitter jeremiads of other Catholic leaders were. But it’s important to note that he hasn’t pledged to revisit doctrine, nor are such revisions likely to happen anytime soon.”

TIME described Francis as elevating his church “above the doctrinal police work so important to his recent predecessors.” Bruni pointed to two teachers in Catholic schools in the United States who were recently fired because they were in same-sex relationships and stated, “Well, they didn’t get the memo in the suburbs of Philadelphia.” Further, “The memo also didn’t make it to Little Rock, Arkansas.”

Remarkably enough, The Advocate, a major gay magazine, also chose Francis as its “Person of the Year.” The magazine’s editors recalled Francis’s “I am no one to judge” response and asserted, “The brevity of that statement and the outsized attention it got immediately are evidence of the pope’s sway. His posing a simple question with very Christian roots, when uttered in this context by this man, ‘Who am I to judge?’ became a signal to Catholics and the world that the new pope is not like the old pope.” But, is that even true . . . in substance? Time will tell.

To an evangelical Christian, this is all somewhat perplexing. It is interesting to note the particular quandary in which conservative Roman Catholics now find themselves. The Pope is giving them indigestion, sending mixed signals on the very issues on which they have invested a great deal of their lives and for which they have risked their own personal reputations. They have committed themselves to the doctrines of their church. They have defended them in public and they have defended them in private. Now they find themselves in a position in which their own moral authority is being undercut by Pope Francis, who has suggested that “it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

American church leaders and Catholic intellectuals do not talk about “those issues” because they choose to talk about them, but because they are the issues of the most fervent and intense cultural conversation. Silence would be cowardice. But the quandary comes down to this: the people who are most likely to be offended by the Pope’s message in this case are the people who as conservative Roman Catholics are the most committed to the authority of their church and to its structures. Therein lies their quandary. Liberal Catholics are always picking and choosing which authorities they will accept and what doctrinal messages they are going to endorse. Conservative Catholics are committed to the totality of the teaching of their church and to the teaching office of the church, which finds its pinnacle in the pope. And, thus, they find themselves in a very difficult position.

Looking at this from a different direction, evangelicals often get a kind of “magisterium envy” when we look at Roman Catholics. After all, there is an official mechanism for establishing the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Catholics have an official magisterium that is charged to establish the official teaching of the Church, to defend Catholic orthodoxy, and to speak with authority on what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and believes. Evangelicals lack any kind of magisterium. We certainly lack a pontiff—we have no pope. There is no evangelical who speaks with magisterial or monarchial authority. There is no one who can stipulate individually or hierarchically exactly what evangelicals are to believe and then define the boundaries of evangelical doctrine and teaching.

But any time evangelicals get magisterium envy, they need to look very closely at the quandary in which conservative Roman Catholics find themselves at this very moment.

Evangelicals believe that the papacy is itself an unbiblical office. For example, citing Matthew 23:8-10, The Second Helvetic Confession declares that Christ has “strictly forbidden his apostles and their successors to have any primacy and dominion in the Church.”

But, even in practical terms, it turns out that the only thing worse than not having a pope is . . . having one.

We might at times think that it would be operationally preferable to have a singular voice and a singular authority to speak for the church. That might seem optimal, if that singular authority were always right, always benevolent, and always true. But there is no such human authority, and the longing for such an authority is not true to the New Testament nor to the model of apostolic doctrine and apostolic structure we actually find in the early church.

In the early church, Paul once faced down Peter; he did not obey him or recognize him as a monarch. In the church, Christ alone is king. In the early church, there were issues that were decided amongst the apostles. There was no pope; there was no papacy; there was no magisterium. There was a spiritual authority, but that authority was the Holy Spirit speaking in Holy Scripture. That pattern remains true until Jesus comes.

Evangelicals committed to the sanctity of life and the integrity of marriage found much to appreciate in the stalwart affirmations of the last two popes on these questions. Likewise, we have found great ground for agreement with much of John Paul II’s theology of the body and Benedict XVI’s defense of the objectivity of truth. We can also appreciate many of the humble gestures and pastoral acts of Francis I. But in such situations we need to remind ourselves that we agree with those popes on these issues because they are right, not because they are the Pope.

TIME magazine has found its “Person of the Year,” but the honeymoon of Pope Francis may soon come to an end. In the meantime, this news should prompt evangelical Christians to understand our own challenges and responsibilities in the present age. Our duty is to make certain that we are indeed faithful to our own task and calling—and, to borrow the language of TIME, that we are putting the right words to the right music.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler.

Howard Chua-Eoan and Elizabeth Dias, “The People’s Pope,” TIME, December 23, 2013. http://poy.time.com/2013/12/11/person...

Frank Bruni, “The Catholics Still in Exile,” The New York Times, Sunday, December 15, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/opi...

Kenan Malik, “The British Catholics’ Quandary,” The New York Times, Monday, December 16, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/opi...

The Briefing 12-17-13

1) Pope Francis: TIME Person of the Year

Pope Francis, The People’s Pope, TIME (Howard Chua-Eoan and Elizabeth Dias)

2) Despite the “Francis Effect,” how much has really changed? 

The Catholics Still in Exile, New York Times (Frank Bruni)

British Catholics’ Quandary, New York Times (Kenan Malik)

3) Leading gay magazine also names Pope Francis person of the year

The Advocate’s Person of the Year: Pope Francis, Advocate (Lucas Grindley)

Another Shooting, But the Same Vexing Questions Remain

One day before the one-year anniversary of the killing of twenty-six in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, an 18-year-old young man entered the high school at which he was a student in suburban Denver on Friday and shot two students before killing himself. One of those students, Claire Davis, a 17-year-old senior, is now in very critical condition, described by USA Today this morning as “clinging to life.”

The story is shocking on its face for any number of reasons. As Carolyn Pesce of USA Today reports:

The gunman, who entered a Denver-area school on Friday and shot and critically wounded a student intended to harm a large number of individuals. Karl Pierson, age eighteen, who died of a self-inflicted gunshot, entered the north side of the high school armed with a shot gun he bought legally, with multiple rounds of ammunition strapped across his body, a machete and a backpack filled with three Molotov cocktails.

Pesce goes on to describe the tragedy: “In less than two minutes he fired five shots and ignited one of the Molotov cocktails before running to the back of the school library and killing himself.”

This is a story that simply defies the imagination when we ask a couple of very simple questions. The most direct question is unavoidable: why did this young man do this? It appears that behind this crime might be the simplest of human emotions: resentment and revenge. The student had targeted a teacher who had been working with him on the school’s debate team. The student was known to have been a very angry debater at times, but, nonetheless, was described as having his temper under control—at least until Friday. On that day he entered the school, calling out the teacher’s name and, amazingly enough, he entered the school carrying a shotgun he had bought legally as an 18-year-old in Colorado on the sixth of December.

That raises another immediate question: how in the world, given the contemporary concerns about school security, could an 18-year-old student enter a high school in the Denver area carrying, and not even trying to conceal, a shotgun with multiple rounds of ammunition strapped across his body, with a backpack filled with three Molotov cocktails, and also carrying a machete? He detonated one of the Molotov cocktails to little effect, but he shot two students, one of them with only a superficial wound and the other one, young Claire Davis, shot in the head.

This is a sad account in every dimension, but it drives us right back to the same basic questions as Columbine, as Aurora, as Newtown, Connecticut. The big question of why is a question that must be asked but cannot be adequately answered.

One especially haunting issue rises to the surface of this tragedy. Unlike so many recent school shooters, Karl Pierson was not suspected by his friends of being capable of such criminality and violence. How could his closest friends miss this part of Karl? We must note the inability of even his closest friends to describe what in the world happened between the relatively hot-headed-but-under-control young man they say they knew and the young man who entered the high school on Friday, intending to commit murder, setting off a Molotov cocktail, and shooting one student for no apparent reason whatsoever before taking his own life.

This transformation—of the Karl Pierson who entered that school with murderous intent on Friday as compared with the Karl Pierson that had been known for the previous eighteen years—raises one of the most basic questions that frustrates all human beings: how in the world can we understand someone like this? But then, of course, that drives us back to an even more basic question: How can we understand anyone? How can we get into the human heart and try to plumb its depths and disentangle its cobwebs? The reality is we can’t, even when it comes to our own heart. And, yet, we have to try.

That is why we put screening and security systems in place.  But why in the world wasn’t there some screening process in place that would have prevented someone walking in with an unconcealed shotgun? The directness of that question is raised by Jack Healy in The New York Times when he writes:

The student did not try to hide the shotgun he carried into Arapahoe High School at 12:30 p.m. Friday. He sought to confront a teacher, law enforcement officials said, and asked his classmates where he could find him. The teacher slipped away from the building, but officials said the gunman seriously wounded one student and then died, apparently of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado then called the episode an “all-too-familiar sequence” in his state. The memory of Columbine is ever present.

No doubt Governor Hickenlooper now faces the same questions as the rest of us.  And when you look at so many of the editorial pieces written over the weekend, so many seem to assume that there is an obvious answer to how to prevent this kind of tragedy. The truly vexing thing from the Christian worldview, the most deeply troubling truth, is that there is no way to prevent this—not fully, not adequately, not comprehensively. We fool ourselves if we think we can. On the other hand, we’re irresponsible if we do not try.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler.

This essay is based on the December 16, 2013 edition of The Briefing. Listen here: http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/12/1...

Jack Healy, “Assailant Dead After Shooting 2 Fellow Students at Colorado School,” The New York Times, Saturday, December 14, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/us/...

Carolyn Pesce, “Colorado Sheriff: School Shooter Bought Shotgun Locally,” credit USA Today in The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY), Sunday, December 15, 2013. http://www.courier-journal.com/usatod...

Moral Mayhem Multiplied—Now, It’s Polygamy’s Turn

As most Americans were thinking thoughts of Christmas cheer, a federal judge in Utah dropped a bomb on the institution of marriage, striking down the most crucial sections of the Utah statute outlawing polygamy. Last Friday, Judge Clark Waddoups of the United States District Court in Utah ruled that Utah’s anti-polygamy law is unconstitutional, violating the free exercise clause of the First Amendment as well as the guarantee of due process.

In one sense, the decision was almost inevitable, given the trajectory of both the culture and the federal courts. On the other hand, the sheer shock of the decision serves as an alarm: marriage is being utterly redefined before our eyes, and in the span of a single generation.

Judge Waddoups ruled that Utah’s law against consensual adult cohabitation among multiple partners violated the Constitution’s free exercise clause, but a main point was that opposition to polygamy did not advance a compelling state interest. In the background to that judgment was the argument asserted by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to the effect that the only real opposition to any form of consensual sexual arrangement among adults would be religiously based, and thus unconstitutional.

Kennedy made that assertion in his majority opinion in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas that struck down all state laws criminalizing homosexual behavior—and the Lawrence decision looms large over Judge Waddoups’s entire decision. In fact, he referred to a succession of court decisions that had vastly expanded the scope of sexual behaviors and noted: “To state the obvious, the intervening years have witnessed a significant strengthening of numerous provisions of the Bill of Rights.”

Yes, that is to state the obvious. Key to that line of legal reasoning is the declaration by Justice Kennedy in Lawrence that the U.S. Constitution recognizes “an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression and certain intimate conduct.” More than once, Kennedy had inserted a statement about the Constitution requiring acceptance of “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.” Justice Antonin Scalia acerbically dismissed this argument as the “sweet mystery of life passage,” but the damage was done. Judge Waddoups was working within Kennedy’s structure of thought, and Utah’s law against polygamy was found to violate that zone of privacy.

Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University professor who argued the case for the plaintiffs, did not try to force the State of Utah to extend legal recognition to the man and the four wives with whom he is related. Instead, he argued that the state had no right to prohibit their consensual cohabitation by force of law. Read narrowly, Utah’s law against bigamy—claiming legal marriage to more than one spouse—remains in effect, but to little effect. At this point, most polygamists are not seeking legal recognition for their multiple relationships. Stay tuned for that.

The case had attracted a lot of attention long before Judge Waddoups handed down his ruling. The case was brought by Cody Brown, who along with four wives and 17 children, stars in the “reality television show” known as “Sister Wives.” In a statement released after the ruling, Brown stated:

While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our beliefs. . . . Just as we respect the personal and religious choices of other families, we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs.

In terms of those “different faiths and beliefs,” Judge Waddoups ruled that polygamy, rightly understood, was just “religious cohabitation.” Polygamy had been outlawed throughout the United States since the late 19th century, when Utah was forced to adopt such laws in order to enter the Union. The Mormon church then disavowed polygamy. The Browns are part of a group described as a “fundamentalist offshoot” of the Latter Day Saints.

Jonathan Turley, the attorney who represented the Browns, has long been an ardent opponent of anti-polygamy laws. In an article he published shortly after the decision was handed down, Turley argued that the case was not really about polygamy, but privacy. “The decision affects a far greater range of such relationships than the form of polygamy practiced by the Browns. It is a victory not for polygamy but for privacy in America.”

At the same time, he also acknowledged the link between the legalization of homosexual relationships and the acceptance of polygamy. “Homosexuals and polygamists do have a common interest,” he said, “the right to be left alone as consenting adults.” He added: “There is no spectrum of private consensual relations—there is just a right of privacy that protects all people so long as they do not harm others.”

Of course, the moral revolution that has transformed marriage in our times did not start with the demand for legal same-sex marriage. It did not begin with homosexuality at all, but with the sexual libertinism that demanded (and achieved) a separation of marriage and sex, liberating sex from the confines of marriage. So sex was separated from marriage, and then sex was separated from the expectation of procreation and child-rearing. Marriage was separated from sex, sex was separated from reproduction, and the revolution was launched. Adding to the speed of this revolution, then, was the advent of no-fault divorce and the transformation of marriage into a tentative and often temporary contract.

Once that damage had been done, the demand to legalize same-sex marriage could not be far behind. And now polygamy is enjoying its moment of legal liberation. Once marriage was redefined in function, it was easy to redefine it in terms of permanence. Once that was done, it was easy enough to redefine it in terms of gender. Now, with the logic of moral revolution transforming marriage in all respects, polygamy follows same-sex marriage. If marriage can be redefined in terms of gender, it can easily be redefined in terms of number.

As legal scholar Jonathan S. Tobin has explained, “Waddoups’s ruling merely illustrates what follows from a legal trend in which longstanding definitions are thrown out. The inexorable logic of the end of traditional marriage laws leads us to legalized polygamy.”

But the central issue in Judge Waddoups’s decision is consent. He simply extended the argument that virtually anything to which consenting adults agree is covered by constitutional protection—anything. As Jonathan Turley stated clearly, “there is no spectrum of private consensual relations.”

And so both marriage and morality take another major blow. This one came even faster than was feared. The reverberations from this decision will be massive and far reaching. But that insight is merely, to quote Judge Waddoups, “to state the obvious.”

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler.

John Schwartz, “Utah Law Prohibiting Polygamy Is Weakened,” The New York Times, Saturday, December 14, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/...

Jonathan Turley, “Federal Court Strikes Down Criminalization of Polygamy in Utah,” JonathanTurley.org, Friday, December 13, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/...

Jim Dalrymple II, “Federal Judge Declares Utah Polygamy Law Unconstitutional,” The Salt Lake Tribune, Friday, December 13, 2013. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/568...

Jonathan S. Tobin, “‘Big Love’ Vindicated: Polygamy and Privacy,” Commentary, Sunday, December 15, 2013. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/201...

Moral Mayhem Multiplied — Now, it’s Polygamy’s Turn

As most Americans were thinking thoughts of Christmas cheer, a federal judge in Utah dropped a bomb on the institution of marriage, striking down the most crucial sections of the Utah statute outlawing polygamy. Last Friday, Judge Clark Waddoups of the United States District Court in Utah ruled that Utah’s anti-polygamy law is unconstitutional, violating the free exercise clause of the First Amendment as well as the guarantee of due process.

In one sense, the decision was almost inevitable, given the trajectory of both the culture and the federal courts. On the other hand, the sheer shock of the decision serves as an alarm — marriage is being utterly redefined before our eyes, and in the span of a single generation.

Judge Waddoups ruled that Utah’s law against consensual adult cohabitation among multiple partners violated the Constitution’s free exercise clause, but a main point was that opposition to polygamy did not advance a compelling state interest. In the background to that judgment was the argument asserted by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to the effect that the only real opposition to any form of consensual sexual arrangement among adults would be religiously based, and thus unconstitutional.

Kennedy made that assertion in his majority opinion in the 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas, that struck down all state laws criminalizing homosexual behavior — and the Lawrence decision looms large over Judge Waddoups’s entire decision. In fact, he referred to a succession of court decisions that had vastly expanded the scope of sexual behaviors and noted:

“To state the obvious, the intervening years have witnessed a significant strengthening of numerous provisions of the Bill of Rights.”

Yes, that is to state the obvious. Key to that line of legal reasoning is the declaration by Justice Kennedy in Lawrence that the U.S. Constitution recognizes “an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression and certain intimate conduct.” More than once, Kennedy had inserted a statement about the Constitution requiring acceptance of “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.” Justice Antonin Scalia acerbically dismissed this argument as the “sweet mystery of life passage,” but the damage was done. Judge Waddoups was working within Kennedy’s structure of thought, and Utah’s law against polygamy was found to violate that zone of privacy.

Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University professor who argued the case for the plaintiffs, did not try to force the State of Utah to extend legal recognition to the man and the four wives with whom he is related. Instead, he argued that the state had no right to prohibit their consensual cohabitation by force of law. Read narrowly, Utah’s law against bigamy — claiming legal marriage to more than one spouse — remains in effect, but to little effect. At this point, most polygamists are not seeking legal recognition for their multiple relationships. Stay tuned for that.

The case had attracted a lot of attention long before Judge Waddoups handed down his ruling. The case was brought by Cody Brown, who along with four wives and 17 children, stars in the “reality television show” known as “Sister Wives.” In a statement released after the ruling, Brown stated: ”While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our beliefs. . . .  Just as we respect the personal and religious choices of other families, we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs.”

In terms of those “different faiths and beliefs,” Judge Waddoups ruled that polygamy, rightly understood, was just “religious cohabitation.” Polygamy had been outlawed throughout the United States since the late 19th century, when Utah was forced to adopt such laws in order to enter the Union. The Mormon church then disavowed polygamy. The Browns are part of a group described as a “fundamentalist offshoot” of the Latter Day Saints.

Jonathan Turley, the attorney who represented the Browns, has long been an ardent opponent of anti-polygamy laws. In an article he published shortly after the decision was handed down, Turley argued that the case was not really about polygamy, but privacy. “The decision affects a far greater range of such relationships than the form of polygamy practiced by the Browns. It isn a victory not for polygamy but for privacy in America.”

At the same time, he also acknowledged the link between the legalization of homosexual relationships and the acceptance of polygamy: “Homosexuals and polygamists do have a common interest,” he said, “the right to be left alone as consenting adults.” He added: “There is no spectrum of private consensual relations — there is just a right of privacy that protects all people so long as they do not harm others.”

Of course, the moral revolution that has transformed marriage in our times did not start with the demand for legal same-sex marriage. It did not begin with homosexuality at all, but with the sexual libertinism that demanded (and achieved) a separation of marriage and sex, liberating sex from the confines of marriage. So sex was separated from marriage, and then marriage was separated from the expectation of procreation and child-rearing. Marriage was separated from sex, sex was separated from reproduction, and the revolution was launched. Add to this revolution the advent of no-fault divorce and the transformation of marriage into a tentative and often temporary contract.

Once that damage had been done, the demand to legalize same-sex marriage could not be far behind. And now, polygamy is enjoying its moment of legal liberation. Once marriage was refined in function, it was easy to redefine it in terms of permanence. Once that was done, it was easy enough to redefine it in terms of gender. Now, with the logic of moral revolution transforming marriage in all respects, polygamy follows same-sex marriage. If marriage can be redefined in terms of gender, it can easily be redefined in terms of number.

As legal scholar Jonathan S. Tobin explained, “Waddoups’s ruling merely illustrates what follows from a legal trend in which longstanding definitions are thrown out. The inexorable logic of the end of traditional marriage laws leads us to legalized polygamy.”

But the central issue in Judge Waddoups’s decision is consent. He simply extended the argument that virtually anything to which consenting adults agree is covered by constitutional protection. Anything. As Jonathan Turley stated clearly, “there is no spectrum of private consensual relations.”

And so both marriage and morality take another major blow. This one came even faster than was feared. The reverberations from this decision will be massive and far reaching. But that insight is merely, to quote Judge Waddoups, “to state the obvious.”

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler.

John Schwartz, “Utah Law Prohibiting Polygamy Is Weakened,” The New York Times, Saturday, December 14, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/...

Jonathan Turley, “Federal Court Strikes Down Criminalization of Polygamy in Utah,” JonathanTurley.org, Friday, December 13, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/...?

Jim Dalrymple II, “Federal Judge Declares Utah Polygamy Law Unconstitutional,” The Salt Lake Tribune, Friday, December 13, 2013. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/568...

Jonathan S. Tobin, “‘Big Love’ Vindicated: Polygamy and Privacy,” Commentary, Sunday, December 15, 2013. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/201...

The Briefing 12-16-13

1) Horror in Arapahoe: How do we understand the human heart?

Arapahoe High School shooting: Gunman intended to harm many at school, Denver Post (Kirk Mitchell, Jeremy Meyer and Sadie Gurman)

Colorado shooting victim described as sweet, smart, a horse lover, CNN (Steve Almasy)

Victim of Colorado school shooting clinging to life, USA Today (Meagan Fitzgerald, Laurie Cipriano and John Bacon)

Assailant Dead After Shooting at Colorado School, New York Times (Jack Healy)

2) Decision seemed inevitable, now here it is – Federal Judge strikes down criminalization of polygamy

Federal judge declares Utah polygamy law unconstitutional, Salt Lake Tribune (Jim Dalrymple II)

Federal Court Strikes Down Criminalization of Polygamy In Utah, JonathanTurley.org

Federal judge: Utah’s law criminalizing polygamy is unconstitutional, siding with ‘Sister Wives’ family, Religion News Services (Sarah Pulliam Bailey)

3) Does integrity matter? Heisman Trophy awarded to athlete investigated for sexual assault

Florida State’s Jameis Winston wins Heisman Trophy, USA Today (Dan Wolken)

Florida State quarterback Jameis Winston wins Heisman Trophy, CNN (Ray Sanchez and Chelsea J. Carter)

Winston Win Doesn’t End Heisman Character Debate, Washington Informer (Charles E Sutton)

Genesis 8:1-9:2