Religious Liberty in Our Culture of Moral Relativism

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, sided with Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker and evangelical Christian who refused to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriage.   The High Court in effect ruled that states must retain the right to protect same-sex couples from discrimination, but that religious liberty must also be considered and protected.

Jack Phillips, "the baker"

Although the 7-2 decision looks like a resounding victory for religious liberty, the Supreme Court decision is regarded as “narrow.”  As Adam Liptak writes in The New York Times:

The court’s decision was narrow, and it left open the larger question of whether a business can discriminate against gay men and lesbians based on rights protected by the First Amendment. 

My friend and former colleague, Dr. Mark Caleb Smith, Associate Professor of Political Science and the Director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville University cautions that while the Court did side with “the baker,” it “did so only in a limited fashion.”  Smith, who teaches courses including “American Politics” and “Constitutional Law” at Cedarville, writes as follows in his blog article, Much Ado About Something? SCOTUS sides with Evangelical Baker:

Kennedy's ruling does NOT deal with the nature of the Colorado law, nor does it touch on similarly situated business owners within the industry. So, you can argue, I think reasonably, that the Court did not address the major issues surrounding the basic conflict between religious liberty and same-sex marriage or LGBTQ rights. The Court did not examine the nature of the religious liberty claim per se, at least outside of the sincerity of Phillips' beliefs. The Court did not establish the extent to which religious liberty is a legitimate foundation for Phillips' decision. And, when the Court did look at some hypotheticals, it did not get too specific. Kennedy notes that surely pastors would have protection against being forced to conduct ceremonies, but beyond that Kennedy does not tread.

This Supreme Court decision is important to all who are concerned with First Amendment rights.  But in today’s culture of moral relativism, it is not easy to strike a balance between protections of religious liberties and same-sex marriage rights without making government the chief moral conscience of America.  After all, submission to righteous moral convictions based God’s standards cannot come from court rulings or congressional legislation any more than one can be made right (i.e. righteous) with God by trying to obey the Ten Commandments. 

What then is the answer to the challenge of protecting religious liberty in a culture in which moral practices like same-sex marriage are perceived as being in violation of Judeo-Christian religious teachings?  I believe the answer is not more government or better Supreme Court decisions.  Instead, the answer is to build stronger families, churches, schools, and communities.

Many people today are searching for their own personal identity without the benefit of a stable home life in the presence of both biological parents.  Even with two loving parents, many children do not receive moral teachings at home or from dedicated teachers, a church family, or a stable community.  For this reason, many pre-adolescents remain confused about who they are or their origin, purpose, and destination.  Not surprising, many also have difficulty finding their own gender identity. 

It is essential and right that adults pay more attention to children, both in our own families and beyond; to find ways to show love to them that they often do not find in their own homes.  There are ways for adults such as myself who are retired to do this in a safe setting.  For example, hundreds of children here in Wayne County are now given exposure to Christian education through so-called “breakaway” programs.  These programs are set up with school administrations to allow students the option of using released-time or after-school time to receive biblical instruction.  Those who work in breakaway programs have many stories of how “hungry” many of the children are for Bible teaching in a setting in which they are appreciated and loved.

There is much hope for our nation in spite of the difficulty we face in protecting First Amendment rights in a moral relativistic culture.  That hope rests in spiritual revival in our individual lives and in our homes and churches which will then influence our schools, communities, and government.  On this day of fasting and prayer in our church, I pray that my life will direct a few others around me to find that personal encounter with the Risen Christ who came as He declared in Luke 4: 18-19, to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, and to proclaim the favorable year of the lord.”

For More Information:
For those who wish to read in more detail Dr. Smith’s expert analysis of the Supreme Court’s ruling, I recommend that you read his complete analysis.  If you would like to know more about how you can find true meaning and purpose through faith in Jesus Christ, you will find a short presentation of the Gospel (“Good News”) summarized in an outline from the Billy Graham Association called “Steps to Peace with God.” The outline explains God’s love, our predicament (sin and separation from God), what Jesus has done to address our predicament, and what you can do by faith to receive God’s righteousness (right standing with God).  If you have additional questions or comments, I’d love to hear from you.  Just post a “Comment” below or e-mail me at silviusj@cedarville.edu