We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum. A.W. Tozer
Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. --Basil of Caesarea
Once you learn to discern, there's no going back. You will begin to spot the lie everywhere it appears.

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service. 1 Timothy 1:12

Friday, September 4, 2015

Kim Davis Is Wrong

It’s all over the news, so I shouldn’t have to tell you who Kim Davis is.  So I’m going to get right to the point.

Kim Davis was elected into her current occupation, and is being paid to do what her job requires of her to do.  If at any time she felt that whatever her job required caused her a conflict of conscience with her Christian faith, she has the right to ask for accommodation if it can be given.  I understand in her job no accommodation can be given, so therefore she has one option open in regards to standing on her Christian faith:  She can resign.


No one is forcing her to stay on her job, so therefore she cannot claim Acts 5:29.  She can walk off the job and leave it for someone else and have a clear conscience.  Instead, she decided to defy a governor’s order and judge’s order and claim persecution for her faith, but her faith wasn’t being challenged. SHE was always wrong to say she can’t issue fake marriage licenses because of God, because she wasn’t being forced to issue them as long as she had the option to resign.  Instead, her actions have brought shame upon the name of Christ.  I think Jonathan Miles has an excellent article summing up the issue in this regard.

Now, let’s look at this from another angle and see the proper route she should have taken in defense of her actions.

When Kim Davis was elected to her office, my understanding from many news sources is that she took an oath to defend her state’s constitution and all other appropriate laws.  This does not include any judge’s opinions, because those are not laws; only legislatures can make laws, while judges can only issue opinions as to whether a law is proper; a problem with Americans is that they too often accept a court decision as a law and it isn’t!  


Kentucky’s constitution says that marriage is only valid between a man and a woman, and that same-sex unions are not to be recognized as marriage.  Therefore all Kim Davis had to say from the very beginning was that she took an oath to uphold the Kentucky law and that as long as that law is in effect, she would be violating the law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  Read and contemplate this article and understand the lawbreakers are the judges.

Kim Davis elected instead to make an issue of her faith, while at the same time violating Romans 13 by refusing to obey the governor and judges rather than resigning, and then everyone is misrepresenting the case by claiming she is being jailed for her Christian beliefs.

The proper defense would have been to use the law which supports her, but that wouldn’t give her publicity and it wouldn’t have been in the news, would it?

Kim Davis is NOT a martyr for her faith.

27 comments:

Joe said...

"... she has one option open in regards to standing on her Christian faith: She can resign." Exactly.

Stan said...

When the Supreme Court redefined marriage, they deleted all States' rules to the contrary. (Indeed, all but I think 11 states were forced by judicial rulings to change their definition.) When the Supreme Court made its ruling on the subject, Kentucky (and every other state) had their law changed for them. She didn't have the option to stand on defending the State constitution.

I wonder at what point "You can just resign" encompasses every job a Christian could hold that is obligated to violate God's commands. I don't, for instance, think it's far away when pastors will be required to perform such marriages ... or quit. Is that different?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Stan, you are in error, like most americans. Judicial opinions are not laws. The problem is that we have been treating them as such. Our legislatures have the right to say the courts are wrong and refuses to change the laws. No judge has the right to make a law - all they can do is say what they think about it and leave it to the legislatures to fix the problem. As long as the law is still on the books, it is still the law.

The jobs in question are usually government jobs. But any job can be an issue at some point. And no one is forced to remain on the job. Therefore, resignation is always a way to remain with a clear conscience before God. Can one try to fix it first? Sure, and that's the best course, but if you can't change it, to refuse to resign is the wrong position to take, because then you are saying they are forcing you to go against your conscience and that is a lie because you can quit at any time.

If a pastor is told to perform such stuff, he can't resign his pastoral authority, which in reality comes from God and not the state. He is not working for the state. Therefore he can refuse based on Acts 5:29 and suffer the penally,, as did many pastors in Nazi Germany.

Marshall Art said...

While I agree with your point regarding judicial rulings not being law, I do not agree that Davis' best course as a Christian is to resign. Not if the point is to draw attention to the problem of judicial overreach and 1st Amendment protections. You cited another story of via the link to Miles' post, of another clerk who resigned. Had not Davis "made a stink", as he puts it, I would never have heard of either her or the other clerk who resigned her position.

The point here is that while resigning might have satisfied her desire to remain true to God, it would have done nothing to highlight the conflict of imaginary "rights" of the sexually immoral with the already Constitutionally enumerated rights of religious expression.

Resigning is a more selfish response. It does nothing to impact the culture as long as there exist too many others to fill the void and go on spreading the wickedness of the LGBT agenda through legal enabling. To make any real change in the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens, especially those elected to public office and appointed to posts like the judiciary, "making a stink" is exactly what needs to be done. Quietly recusing ourselves is useless unless there is no one to replace us.

However, I do agree that while citing her religious convictions is a legitimate reason to refuse to obey this order from the morally bankrupt courts, equal attention should have been given by her regarding her duties as regards upholding the laws of her state, laws that the courts have no power to alter.

Elizabeth Prata said...

Great Post Brother Glenn. I liked your point on judicial opinions not being the law. I also believe that people overlook the oath clerks must take, it is sworn in the name of God, which are considered binding. An oath is not a small thing and not to be overlooked in the matter. I agree with your assessment.

Anonymous said...

Excellent, Glenn. Thanks for speaking up.
Jennifer

Anonymous said...

This is an interesting 'take' on the subject of persecution, one that I have not read on other discernment sites. In our state, the topic of same sex marriage was beginning to become heated when same sex partners where demanding the exact same benefits as heterosexual couples while in the job force. When this became an 'acceptance' issue, many of us non 501c. 3 churched folks understood the signs of the times we were encroaching and decided to contact our state legislators in asking them to sign into law, mandating that marriage was between only one man and one woman.

Our local state senator was a Lutheran pastor (ELCA) at that particular time all of this was coming to the forefront. I felt that as a 'pastor', this man would be approachable and understand, from a Biblical perspective, what was godly and what was evil in the sight of our LORD. I chose to write a letter, in the most careful and loving way, explaining why a law was needed in our state to protect marriage so as to not offend him, his office, nor the people of our state.

Needless to say, this pastor did not receive the counsel of our LORD, nor my lowly counsel, well at all. His response to me consisted of a three page typed letter, complete in reprimanding me by saying that our state already has within its wording, a definition of marriage consisting only between a man and a woman, and that homosexual marriage was NOT even an issue within our state. He sent a copy of our state's marriage form that is filed at each country's courthouse to me, with the words 'this marriage is between a man and a woman," highlighted on the form. He also copied a picture from one the major published newspapers in our state, located in the largest city, that consisted of people holding picketing signs with the words "I hate gays" and "Gays are going to hell." This pastor then insinuated that I belonged with this group pictured in the newspaper and that I was the one having "issues."

continued.

Anonymous said...

The Lutheran pastor senator made it clear in his letter, that there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that same sex marriage would be legalized in our state because the 'state constitution' only defined marriage as between one man and one woman and that those of us who were concerned, were hate mongers.

Glen, this senator was a pastor. His response was accusatory and abusive as far as I was concerned. And no, I am not a hate monger, but I do read, study, and meditate upon God's Word for myself in understanding these times in which we live. This pastor refused to heed others as well as my warning about what was to come for what ever reason, his eyes were blinded and his ears chose not to hear the truth.

In May, of 3013, our governor signed into law, the marriage between same sex people and now it is official. Even more devastating, is that our nation's supreme court, the court that made abortion/the murder of children, legal in the 1970's. The supreme court's ruling overrides any state's ruling as they are the law of the land, or appear to be.

Perhaps there need to be an acknowledgement that many of the churched pastors as well have been given over to the depravity of the enemy for they have become pawns of the state/government.

We sure do live in interesting times, and I still believe the greatest missionary field is in the U.S. amongst the state (501c. 3) churches. Time to bring the missionaries back home.

Pamela Couvrette said...

Excellent point!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Two-part Anonymous:

Well, the man was an ELCA "pastor," so it doesn't surprise me at all. The ELCA as a denomination is 100% behind the homosexual agenda. They are apostate.

Drew said...

It's ridiculous to say that she's "wrong" when you actually support her position, just under a different rationale.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Drew,

The point is that she was wrong to use her faith as the excuse. She was claiming essentially that she had to obey her faith and not issue the licenses, but if she used ONLY that excuse, which was what she used in every video I saw, then she had the out of resigning.

She could use her faith as that God holds her accountable to oaths she takes, and the oath she took was to uphold the Constitution and laws of Kentucky which haven't changed by the judge's decision.

The problem is now that everyone is claiming she is being persecuted for her faith, but she isn't being persecuted for her faith, rather she is being charged with not following the judges' orders. If her lawyers throw it back as the judge's orders don't supersede the law, then she has the legs to stand on legally.

But claiming she is being forced to issue licenses against her Christian faith is wrong - she can resign, which proves she has an out.

Anonymous said...

The following was posted by Dan Trabue, but his name linked to his blogs which are full of heresy and false teaching so I had to remove his link, but give him his say (GEC):

Hey, I agree with you on this one!

Dan Trabue

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Marshall, 

Sorry for the delay in posting your comment - for some reason it didn’t arrive in my email and I just found it with Trabue’s comment in the blogger dashboard. Weird.

Anyway, I disagree. Every other Christian in the same position who resigned did indeed draw attention to the overreach.

Notice I didn’t say she shouldn’t have made a “stink,” my point about her being wrong was about her reasoning, and I noted that she had a proper reasoning.

If you claim, as she did in all the videos I saw, that she was being forced to issue the licenses and her faith didn’t allow it, then on that claim and that claim only, her only recourse would be to resign — and that wouldn’t be selfish. The reason is that she had a way out of being forced because God doesn’t require her to stay in that job.

Let me give an example. Several years ago there was a group handing out candy canes with a gospel message during the Christmas season, and they were doing so on school sidewalks in front of the school. When they were told to leave the school property because of specific rules, they claimed Acts 5:29. But they weren’t being forced to stop what they were doing, only move across the street because where they were was violating local statutes for trespassing. They had no Biblical stand and yet it was all over the news, Christians defended them, etc.. But they were wrong!

Just like Kim Davis. She wasn’t being forced to not follow her faith because she could just “cross the street” (resign) and be out from under that authority.

Now, as I note to Drew below, IF she had used her faith in regards to honoring the oath she took to defend the Kentucky laws, THEN it isn’t a matter of Acts 5:29 so much as the law now being on her side against the judges who can’t change the law! Still go to jail, still demonstrate the problems with the judicial decisions, and honoring God by keeping an oath as the biblical standard.


But claiming God keeps her from issuing the licenses was wrong, because she wasn’t being force to issue them unless she wanted to keep her job.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Thank you Dan!

Doug Evans said...

A point that a lot of people have missed is that not only did she refuse to issue licenses (to which I say "fine" and to which she must answer to her superiors for her own actions) but she also ordered her deputies not to order licenses. As stated by Breitbart News - "Her personal right to religiously object probably does not extend to using her public-office power to order other government workers to conform to her personal faith-based beliefs."

Probably does not? I'm sure an assistant States Attorney will have a definite answer for that.

Anonymous said...

Glen, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thank you for so eloquently putting into words what I have been mulling over in my mind since this situation erupted.

Anonymous said...

My husband & I appreciate your comments & thoughts about Kim Davis & her response to the judge. She should have resigned.

Anonymous said...

Jesse Johnson over at Worldview Weekend with Brannon Howse has an interesting article regarding Kim Davis from a different perspective.

There are so many Christian perspectives being discussed on discernment sites.

And yet, still in prayer for the homosexual community, and still sharing the life saving Gospel with those who visit my home....for Jesus came to save the sinners.

StevenAndDaniel Long said...

Actually, Davis didn't refuse to issue licenses. She just refused to issue same-sex licenses with her name on it. She stated several times she would issue them without her name, and under the RFRA the State can grant that so long as it doesn't impose an undue burden on the State. I don't believe it would have. According to the Eugene Volokh, UCLA professor of Religious & Free Speech Law, he states,
"Relatedly, some commenters argue that asking to be excused from the state law requiring the clerk’s signatures would be trying to violate the law. I agree that just refusing to issue licenses is a violation of state law. But asking for an exemption from a state statute under the state RFRA would be asking for something that state law itself provides, because state law includes the state RFRA."


I have to stand with Davis on this one. I honestly don't think it was right out rebellion, considering that she searched for an alternative to accommodate her duties as a clerk.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Anonymous 9/7/15 8:10 AM

Do you have a link for that?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Steven and Daniel,

Actually, my point is that she was wrong in refusing to issue the licenses after she was denied accommodation when her defense was ONLY her faith rather than the legal issues involved. Because using ONLY her faith, she had an out to avoid compromising with God's law, and that was resignation. God nowhere says we have to stay in the situation, and by refusing to resign she was wrong because that made her remaining in the situation voluntarily. My point is that this violated Rom 13 and 2 Peter.

I stand behind her decision, just not her initial reasoning because by her initial reasoning (what was in all the media, including statements on video) left her with the option of resigning.

HOWEVER, I don't think she thought though the process when she made the statements. She has all the legal recourse in the world, as I noted, by using her faith as the main reason she was unable to issue such licenses because she was upholding the KY law which never changed regardless of some judicial order! As the days have passed, this seems to be the course being taken now, and is the proper course.

The problem is technical, and it is very important that we stay on the technical line in order to win. Even the secular world has been citing Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13ff against her - even though they don't understand our out with Acts 5:29. But if we claim that out, we must not stay under the situation voluntarily and then demand that we be accepted. IT is only when we have no option open (such as resigning) to remove us from the forcing of man's law, that we have a leg to stand on.

Davis just needed to start with the correct technical point and a lot of this nonsense wouldn't have taken place. Can you imaging how much stronger her case would have been, and how much more media attention to the actual problem of the judicial decisions, if she had said from the beginning, "I'm sorry, by I took an oath to uphold Kentucky law, and if I violate that oath, I am sinning against my God and my conscience. The Kentucky law says marriage is between a man and a woman and no same-sex marriage is not valid in the state of Kentucky. A judicial opinion or decision is not law; the legislature is responsible for making and changing laws. As long as that law is on the books, I have to honor my oath before God and not issue such licenses." And then she could have continued issuing real marriage licenses and not be "discriminating."

Anonymous said...

Glen,

If you are interested in Jesse Johnson's article, go to Worldview Weekend with Brannon Howse and click on "News." Johnson's article "Rise Up, O County Clerks" will be displayed at the top of the page, just click on it. It is interesting, not that I personally agree with everything in it, but it does offer another perspective.

I do not believe Kim Davis is in that "Daniel situation," for she was publicly elected into her office and is a ward of "the government."

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Anon,

Okay, thanks -- I found the article:
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/news/article/rise-o-county-clerks

I think there is still too much confusion, even with him, as to what would be right or wrong with the actions taken, and which actions would be appropriate. I think I need to do another article with some clarification as to what a Christian's duty is when faith conflicts with the law: mostly it depends on the options available and which stance to take.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Glen,

I am not a great computer techquie; glad you found the article, not that I am in agreement with it. Jesse's article offers a difference of opinion.

I liken Kim Davis's situation with other life examples. For example, we farmers sign up with the "farm program" with our government. We are required to abide by their rules and regulations, and should we choose to "deviate" from such standards due to our Christian faith beliefs, we would be kicked out of the program and required to pay stiff fines for doing what we believe is right. Likewise, when churches sign on as a 501c. 3 with our government, they too, are required to abide be certain rules and regulations according to what our government mandates, and should the church system deviate from such rules, their 501c. 3 status would be taken away with the possibility of fines.

Anytime an individual, social or economic institution joins hands with the government, they become subjects to that government, no matter how ungodly that government it. Psalm 118:8-9 tells us beautifully, with whom we are to actually put our Hope in as believers and followers of Jesus, the Christ. THE LORD.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Anonymous,

Did you see my new article? She's still taking the wrong road.

Anonymous said...

No, not yet Glen, but I will tomorrow morning with my coffee. I do respect your blog and the issues post as I grow in my faith in Jesus. Thanks for all of your work and we praise our LORD for you and your family.