WTE: Don’t Divide the Human Family

It’s not every day that the Bible becomes the top trending topic on Twitter, but it did last week. From 5-8 p.m. on June 14, biblegateway.com, a popular Bible site, experienced a spike in traffic while Twitter was trending “Romans 13.”

Jeff Sessions gave a speech in Fort Wayne, Indiana, that set off this Bible frenzy. In it, he cited St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, which says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Rom. 13:1).

Some religious figures attacked Sessions. Johnnie Moore, spokesman of President Trump’s evangelical advisory board, said, “While Sessions may take the Bible seriously, in this situation he has demonstrated he is no theologian.” But he offered no alternate interpretation of the passage. Neither did anyone else.

It’s not that Sessions misinterpreted the passage from Romans 13. He didn’t claim that the Scriptures dictate current U.S. immigration policy. He only claimed that the authority of government comes from God and ought to be respected while we work together for better policy.

On that he’s right. Anarchy is evil. Government is from God. It’s a simple proposition that we can recognize even while striving against unjust laws. Pro-life people do this every day in their struggle to protect families and their unborn children.

In reality, the Twitter storm was engineered to shame Sessions for citing Scripture at all. The unfortunate thing, in this case, is that many religious people—both conservative and liberal—jumped on the dogpile. It is worth stepping back to see what unfolded and to learn from it.

In the days before Sessions’ remarks, Franklin Graham, the Southern Baptists and a gathering of Roman Catholic bishops, all expressed concerns about the separation of families when second-offenders are arrested at the border.

After Sessions’ speech, however, these statements were reported as though they were spoken after Sessions’ remarks. That’s fake news, but it gave many people the confused impression that conservative Christian leaders were attacking Sessions when they weren’t.

Then the misinformation got worse. Family separations that happened under previous administrations were re-reported as though they were brand new developments resulting from Sessions’ policy. Then, a staged photograph of a child-protester was strategically cropped to look like it was a real jail. Finally, the cover of Time Magazine airbrushed a child’s mother out of the picture and replaced her with a picture of President Trump.

All this fake news had its intended effect. It pitted religious people against religious people and friends against friends. Some wanted to be consistent in their compassion for families through an unqualified condemnation of President Trump. Others, pushing back against the fake news, vilified previous administrations while giving Trump a pass. Both were unwise.

Now that the fog is clearing, let’s take a moment to reaffirm friendships and learn some lessons.

First, while unmovable principles are the foundation for every policy, we must be wise enough to distinguish between the principle and its application.

In this case, the principle is that God Himself creates families through a mother and a father. These are the fundamental units of society, and “what … God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:6). Neither the government from outside, nor the parents and children from inside, should do anything to break up families.

As individuals, we should do absolutely everything in our power to hold our own families together. As a society, we should never give government power to break families apart—whether through immigration policies, welfare policies, unjust divorce laws, surrogacy or abortion policies.

But when a family is broken by abuse or abandonment, society must step in to protect individuals who are put at risk. This requires great wisdom, restraint and reverence. It is never an ideal situation. It should not be seen as the natural state of affairs, but as a terrible and temporary exception.

Second, your enemy is Satan, not your fellow citizen. Disagreements are never an excuse to attack others personally. We should treat our neighbors as family—whether it be a stranger commenting on your page, a president making policy or anyone in between.

Civil discourse means resisting the temptation either to make personal attacks, or to interpret opposing ideas as personal attacks. Screaming harshness only breaks up the human family further.

Third, government is indeed established by God. That doesn’t mean that it is always right, but it does mean that every government official must answer to a higher authority. The same is true of every citizen who speaks and votes. This requires humility, not hubris. To be one nation means to be “under God,” because good and evil—the bedrock principles that govern our lives—are divine realities, not human constructions.

As we reason together in the public square, let us all humble ourselves before the One who created all things and all people. In this way we will gain both the wisdom of serpents and the gentleness of doves.

Dividing Families

It’s not every day that the Bible becomes the top trending topic on Twitter, but it did last Thursday (June 14) from 6-9 p.m. CDT. During that time, a popular Bible site, biblegateway.com, experienced a spike in traffic.

What set off this frenzy of Bible reading? And what part of the Bible were people reading? It was a speech that Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave in the hometown of my alma mater, Fort Wayne, Indiana. He said, “I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes.”

Sessions’ interpretation of Paul is the plain, uncontested meaning of the following passage:

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience” (Rom. 13:1-5 ESV).

Johnnie Moore

Nevertheless, some religious figures attacked Sessions. The Washington Post reported that Johnnie Moore, spokesman of President Trump’s evangelical advisory board, said, “While Sessions may take the Bible seriously, in this situation he has demonstrated he is no theologian.” But neither Moore nor any other critic offered an alternate interpretation of the passage.

If Sessions is judged as a substandard theologian for merely summarizing the words of Holy Scripture, what standard outside of Scripture is being used? The reality is that Sessions’ real “sin” is in using the Scriptures at all.

It’s not that he misinterpreted or misapplied the passage from Romans 13. After all, he didn’t claim that the Scriptures dictate current U.S. policy at the border. Others are doing that, not Sessions. All he claimed from Scripture is that the authority of governments comes from God and therefore merits some respect and deference while we work together to make policy better.

Anarchy is evil. Government is from God. It’s a simple proposition that any decent theologian ought to recognize even while striving against unjust laws. Pro-life people recognize this every day while striving to reinstate protections for human beings that have been stripped by activist courts. 

The Twitter storm was not brought on by a poor interpretation of Scripture. It was, rather, a reaction against the use of Scripture at all. What happened to Sessions is no different from what happened to Russell Vought a year ago when Bernie Sanders took him to task for paraphrasing John 3:18 and believing it to be true.

Franklin Graham

The unfortunate thing, in this case, is that many religious people—both conservative and liberal—jumped on the dogpile. It is worth stepping back to see what unfolded and to learn from it.

In the days before Sessions’ remarks, the Rev. Franklin Graham, the Southern Baptist Convention in Texas and a gathering of Roman Catholic bishops in Florida, all expressed concerns about the separation of families in the process of enforcing immigration laws on our southern border. However, after Sessions’ speech, these same statements were woven into media reports as though they were direct attacks on Sessions’ remarks.

For instance, Bob Smietana wrote in Trends & Facts, “Few religious groups or leaders seemed to agree with Sessions’ use of Romans 13—or with separating children from their parents at the border. ‘It’s disgraceful,’ Franklin Graham, head of Samaritan’s Purse, told CBN. ‘It’s terrible to see families ripped apart and I don’t support that one bit.’”

But Graham had spoken these words on the Tuesday before Sessions spoke, and he had spoken them in rebuke of Congress, not the executive branch. Smietana’s wordsmithing is just one of numerous articles that left many with the confused impression that conservative Christian leaders were piling onto Sessions.

This fake news was mixed with more confusion still. Family separations that happened under previous administrations were re-reported as though they were brand new developments resulting from Sessions’ policy. We saw a photograph strategically cropped to tell a false story, and the cover of Time Magazine airbrushed a child’s mother out of the picture.

All this fake news created a Facebook firestorm that pitted religious people against religious people and friends against friends. Some wanted to be consistent in their compassion for families through an unmitigated denunciation of the Trump administration. Others, desiring to push back against the fake news, vilified previous administrations while giving Trump’s administration a pass. Both were unwise.

Now that the fog of war is clearing, let’s take a moment to reaffirm friendships and learn some lessons.

Lesson No. 1: While every discussion of public policy involves bedrock principles that relate to the very reality of God Himself, we must always be wise enough to see the difference between the unbendable principles themselves, and how other bedrock principles also come into play.

God Himself creates families through a mother and a father. These are the fundamental units of society and, “what … God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:6). Neither the government from outside, nor the parents and children from inside, should do anything that breaks up the family. That’s the bedrock principle.

Our responsibility as individuals and as a society is to protect families. As individuals, we should do absolutely everything in our power to hold our own families together. As a society, we should never let government be an incentive for family breakup—whether through immigration policies, welfare policies, unjust divorce and surrogacy laws or abortion policies.

But when a family member threatens other family members with harm (like substance abuse, physical abuse, etc.) governments and neighborhoods must sometimes step in to protect individuals who are put at risk. This requires great wisdom, restraint and reverence. It is never an ideal situation. It should not be seen as the natural state of affairs, but as a terrible and temporary exception.

Lesson No. 2: “Be wise as serpents and gentle as doves” (Matt. 10:16). Wisdom means understanding your real enemy. Your enemy is Satan, not your fellow citizen. When there is a disagreement in understanding, it is never okay to attack others personally. We should treat our neighbors as family—whether it be a stranger commenting on your page, a president making policy or anyone in between.

By dove-like gentleness we can come to understand one another. By screaming harshness, we only break up the human family further. Understand that Satan’s purpose is to use falsehood and distortion of reality to breed hate and distrust. He cares less about public policy than he does about fomenting public strife. If we keep this firmly in mind, we will all be better for it.

Lesson No. 3: Government is indeed established by God. That doesn’t mean that it is always right, but it does mean that every government official must answer to a higher authority. The same is true of every citizen who speaks and votes. This requires humility, not hubris. To be one nation means to be “under God,” because good and evil—the bedrock principles that govern our lives—are divine realities, not human constructions.

As we reason together in the public square, let us all humble ourselves before the One who created all things and all people. In this way we will gain both the wisdom of serpents and the gentleness of doves.

Seven Takeaways from the Masterpiece Decision

The Supreme Court of the United States has vindicated Jack Phillips, proprietor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, nearly six years after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission subjected him to re-indoctrination and restrictions that cost him some 40 percent of his business.

His crime, according to the Colorado Court of Appeals, is that he declined to “design and create a cake to celebrate [a] same sex wedding.” This is a far cry from the false accusation that “he refused to serve gays.” As the Court’s ruling details, Phillips was one of four different Colorado bakers who declined to bake cakes conveying a message that was objectionable to the baker. Nevertheless, he was the only one who was punished for it. He was also the only Christian.

On Monday the Court ruled that “[t]he Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."

Phillips contested both his right to free speech and his right to free exercise of religion, but the Court declined to address his free speech claim. It limited the ruling only to the free exercise of religion. Some were disappointed by the “narrowness” of this ruling.

I understand their point, but I also think this limitation is helpful. Deferring the free-speech question to another day allowed the Court’s wide and bipartisan majority (7-2) to nail down the free exercise of religion in seven important ways.

First, the Court declares plainly: “religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” This principle is not contradictory to the “general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services.”

At last, the Court has put an end to the false narrative that advocacy for a complementary view of marriage is inherently discriminatory. There is discrimination against persons and there is the rejection of an idea. The two are not the same thing. The first is wrong and the second is not, and the Court has plainly recognized this in a watershed decision.

By settling this issue, the Court is able to focus on making sure that public accommodations law is “neutral and generally applicable” (9). With any luck, this will calm the debate. Only if we can express and hear disagreeable opinions without the threat of personal-claims court can we learn to reason and compromise like adults.

Second, Kennedy wrote on page 10, “When it comes to weddings, it can be assumed that a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral or religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony." Public accommodations laws and ordinances are not “neutral or generally applicable” if they threaten anybody for declining to perform a wedding on moral or religious grounds.

If Kennedy had written this decision two summers ago, the Wyoming Supreme Court could not have ruled that the state of Wyoming can compel a judge to perform a wedding ceremony. Of course, "clergy" could be restricted to its narrowest sense to exclude judges and magistrates, but that would also exclude L.D.S. bishops and other plainly religious marriage officiants, obviously contrary to the Court's intent.

Third, the court scolded the Colorado civil rights commissioners who argued that a person can believe "whatever he wants to believe," but cannot live by those beliefs “if he decides to do business in the state." They responded unambiguously, "the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain" is an unconstitutional "hostility” toward religion (12). Free exercise is not just for clergy and private citizens but for businesses as well.

Fourth, Kennedy singled out one commissioner’s statement as especially hostile, saying, "To describe a man's faith as 'one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use' is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways." He added that "this sentiment is inappropriate for a [government] commission."


I hope that Wyoming’s Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics takes note and apologizes for its own statement about Judge Ruth Neely. It stated in the public record that Neely’s belief in the Scriptural definition of marriage is “repugnant,” and that “somebody with that attitude really should not be on the bench.”

This is exactly what the Court said, “is inappropriate for a [government] commission.” Neil Gorsuch spelled out the consequences of such governmental hostility: "No bureaucratic judgment condemning a sincerely held religious belief as 'irrational' or 'offensive' will ever survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment" (Gorsuch, concurrence 7).

Fifth, Kennedy also explained that it is impermissible for the government to characterize a man’s “sincerely held religious beliefs” as “merely rhetorical—something insubstantial, and even insincere.” This is to “disparage his religion,” he wrote (14). As one who has been on the receiving end of such libelous language, I especially appreciate the Court’s respect for the personal integrity of those whose religion is consistent, historical, and deeply held.

Sixth, going back to the question of what is a “neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law,” the Court noted that the Civil Rights Commission applied differing standards to four different bakeries who declined to make specific cakes. In the case of the three that refused scriptural quotations about marriage, the Commission ruled that since the baker was personally offended by the message, he was free to decline without legal consequence. In Phillips’ case, however, they ruled that his personal offence was irrelevant.

On this point, the split was 5-4 with Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan arguing against the majority. But after weighing their arguments, the majority rejected them. It ruled that there must be a uniform standard of judgment. "The [state] cannot ... apply a more generous legal test to secular objections than religious ones" (Gorsuch 6).

Seventh, the Court reaffirmed long-standing case law that it is never the place of the government to decide matters of religion. Citing cases from 1943 and 2017 it said, “Just as ‘no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,’ …it is not …the role of the State to prescribe what shall be offensive” (16).

Whatever else the state of Colorado did to Phillips, it “elevate[d] one view of what is offensive over another and sen[t] a signal of official disapproval of Phillips’ religious beliefs” (16). This is a clear violation of the free exercise of religion. It should never have gotten this far. Now that an overwhelming majority of the Court has struck it down, America are reassured that the government has no place in deciding matters of faith.

These seven takeaways put to rest many unconstitutional arguments that have been made in Wyoming over the past several years. For this alone we should be grateful. The Court’s ruling is guidance for all public servants from the school board to the president. It clarifies that the government simply cannot run roughshod over the full and free exercise of religion in laws, ordinances, or policies.

We Must Restore Confidence in Our Justice System

Last week in Only Human I referred to the slow-motion chase of O.J. Simpson’s white Bronco on June 17, 1994. I talked of that surrealistic coverage as a watershed event in the story of network news. But, for me, it has another significance as well.

The trial of O.J. Simpson for the murders of Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman marks the year when my confidence in America’s legal system was shaken to the core. All of America watched the overwhelming evidence unfold while high-dollar lawyers tied the legal system in knots. The trial became a circus with each American applauding his favorite performer.

It’s not that Simpson had no supporters. Millions of people were rooting for him to beat the rap. But the conversation was less about his actual guilt or innocence. It was, rather, about who would win the game. Could Johnnie Cochrane pull off a successful defense in such an open-and-shut case?

O.J.’s acquittal in October of 1995 was one of the most divisive rulings in modern memory. When, in February 1997, another jury unanimously found O.J. guilty in the wrongful death of Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, these divisions were underscored. How could the same man, for the same crime, both be acquitted and be found guilty?

Gobs of money made the difference: money from huge N.F.L. contracts, money from endorsements and money from acting gigs. All this money, multiplied in the stock market, enabled Simpson to buy a dozen of the best lawyers that money could buy. They simply overwhelmed prosecutor Marcia Clark. America learned that the justice system can be manipulated if you can buy enough legal power.

At least that’s what I learned. It was a sad realization. I began to wonder whether it was possible any longer to be certain that justice is available to those who cannot lawyer up as well as their opponent at law. I had visions of other rich people getting away with murder while poor people were wrongly convicted.

That is still a concern. When money runs the legal system, the poor are run over. But that is only the start of the problem.

Differences in legal power between two citizens can be vast, but that can never compare to the differences in legal power between any single citizen and the U.S. government. The government has access to the money of 323 million people. If the legal system can be manipulated by money, government itself can manipulate it most of all.

I didn’t notice this in the O.J. Simpson case. There, it was a beleaguered public prosecutor who was overwhelmed by private money. But since the O.J. trial, we have seen the tables turned.

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of cases I could point to as examples of private citizens steam-rolled by out-of-control public prosecutors. I will pick only one.

Dinesh D’Souza is an immigrant from India who came to America on a Rotary scholarship as an exchange student. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth college and quickly rose to prominence publishing a half-dozen influential books. He loves America for her principles and for her freedoms and is an articulate defender of these principles in the public square.


D'Souza in the Reagan White House

This speaking and writing led him to produce two political documentary films that criticized the White House directly—an honored American tradition. But this is where his troubles began. After being personally attacked on the president’s web site, he was charged by the president’s Department of Justice with campaign finance violations.

When a college friend, Wendy Long, ran for New York’s senate seat in 2012, he had legally donated $5,000 to her unsuccessful campaign. He also donated $5,000 to her campaign in his wife’s name, and asked two other friends to donate the same, giving them $5,000 each.

These last three donations violated campaign finance laws. At a speaking engagement in Michigan D’Souza said, “I broke the law. I didn’t mean to. I didn’t realize I was breaking the law. But I did.”

Still, he believed that a jury of his peers would see it as an honest mistake. After all, when Hillary Clinton broke federal law by sharing classified documents she was declared immune from prosecution because James Comey didn’t think he could prove intent.

However, even though no one had ever been sent to prison for doing what D’Souza did, he was told that if he lost the trial, he could go to jail for two years. Then the DOJ added a second charge: “knowingly causing false information to be submitted to the federal government.”

This violation was not D’Souza’s doing. It happened without his knowing it. Nevertheless, the new charge carried the additional threat of five years in prison. Consider his situation.

He could take his chances at trial proving that he had knowingly done no such thing. He might even have 75% chance of acquittal. But on the off chance that the jury decided against him, he now faced five years in prison. That would effectively wipe out a successful career, destroy his family life, and put him out of business permanently.

Or, he could plead guilty to the first charge--which required him to say that he knew he was breaking the law (the very fact that he would have contested in a jury trial). What would you do?

With the stakes so high, and the government’s limitless legal resources, no reasonable person would chance a trial. So, on May 19, 2014 he pled guilty to violating campaign finance laws.

But the story doesn’t end there. Even though no one had ever spent time in prison for his crime, the Department of Justice asked for a sentence of 10 to 16 months in federal prison. The DOJ legal team cobbled together a sentencing memorandum that cited numerous federal cases where jail time was given, but they withheld crucial facts about every one of these cases, which would have revealed their dishonesty in applying them.

In the end, D’Souza was spared jail—sort-of. He was sentenced to 8 months away from his home, in a “community confinement center.” He was placed on five years of probation and fined $30,000. Compare this to the $84 million in campaign finance violations that have been documented in the 2016 Clinton campaign. Then, ask yourself if this is equal justice or politically motivated prosecution.

Trump pardons boxing great Jack Johnson

On Thursday May 31, 2018, President Trump gave Dinesh D’Souza a full presidential pardon. I think you can see why. The disparity in treatment between D’Souza and every other violator of campaign finance law is blindingly obvious. We must regain parity and the assurance of non-partisan application of the law.

We must restore confidence in America’s legal system that crimes are prosecuted justly and reasonably. We must work together to see that all people are treated equitably and fairly. We must not let access to unlimited legal resources be the only determining factor of who gets convicted and who gets acquitted.

Our health as a nation depends on it.