Is Religious Belief Losing Out to Justice?

Is Religious Belief Losing Out to Justice?

Even to suggest that religious belief and justice are on opposite sides of an issue is unthinkable, at least from the standpoint of the Christian faith.

The Bible teaches that God is the source of justice. Deuteronomy 32:4 declares, “He (God) is the Rock, His works are perfect and all His ways are just.” Psalm 99:4 describes God as loving justice, establishing equity and doing what is just and right. The prophet Jeremiah quoted God as saying, “I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth for in these I delight” (Jer. 9:24). 

As Creator of the universe, God’s justice reaches out to all mankind. Proverbs 29:26 teaches, “It is from the Lord that man gets justice.” None is beyond God’s desire for justice as expressed in the Old Testament.

The Bible condemns as oppression one’s use of power for personal advantage in depriving others of their basic rights. Justice is to correct such abuses and meet the needs of those in want. The prophet Isaiah made this clear when he wrote, “Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.”

In the Old Testament, justice was always based on the concept of community and designed to make everyone a contributing participant in the ongoing corporate life. That is why Christian faith has always championed social justice.

Today the situation is changing. In some venues, the church is described as the chief obstacle to one group obtaining what members call justice. That group is the gay and lesbian community. And increasingly, the courts of our nation are siding with gay advocates against traditional religious faith.

Few people argue about the biblical teaching concerning homosexuality. The practice is condemned in both the Old Testament (Lev. 18, 20; 1 Kings 14; 2 Kings 23) and the New Testament (Rom. 1; 1 Cor. 6; 1 Tim. 1). For nearly 2,000 years, Western culture has reflected this value in its community structure.

Today the trend is to discard that historic value as if the Christian teaching about homosexuality was nothing more than pure bigotry. Even for some in the church, the traditional teaching is abandoned for an “enlightened” sense of justice. Recall the Christian denominations in the United States that have approved appointing active gays and lesbians as clergy — the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and United Church of Christ, among others.

On July 8, a U.S. district court in Massachusetts struck down the definition of marriage contained in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act adopted by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. That act said for the purpose of federal law, marriage “means only a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” In the recent ruling, the judge, appointed by President Nixon, said Congress adopted the definition for one reason: to disadvantage a group of which it disapproved.

In other words, Congress was oppressive in following the prevailing view of marriage in the nation and the court ruling is an attempt at justice. Again the judge ruled that government cannot constitutionally distinguish between traditional marriage and same-sex “marriage.” To do so is oppression of a minority.

Ten days earlier, June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in a case involving the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. The law school’s chapter of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) asked for an exemption from the prohibition against recognized organizations discriminating on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. CLS requires its members to be Christians and holds to the traditional view of homosexuality.

In a closely watched 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the school could refuse to recognize the CLS chapter. The court ruled that the state has the right to act against anyone who challenges its value structure. Again justice is protecting gays and lesbians from perceived discrimination by those holding to traditional Christian values on the issue. Stated simply, religious beliefs lose and a skewed definition of justice wins.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the CLS could believe what it wished. It just could not act on its beliefs. She also said the organization could exist off campus but did not have university validation or support. Although not stated, what Ginsburg implied is that those who differ with government’s definition of justice have no right to exist in an environment that government controls. Thus CLS is banned from the public university law school. That is a dangerous precedent.

It seems the courts and society in general are becoming harsher toward Christians who differ with this new sense of justice than major Christian groups are toward gays and lesbians. A Southern Baptist Convention resolution dealing with homosexuality says, in part, “We call on Southern Baptists not only to stand against same-sex unions, but to demonstrate our love for those practicing homosexuality by sharing with them the forgiving and transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Alabama and 28 other states have passed laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Now all of those actions are in jeopardy as courts side with a secular understanding of justice and against those who hold to the traditional Christian understanding regarding homosexuality.

Like our Baptist forefathers, those of us who understand that homosexuality is contrary to the perfect will of God for humanity soon may have to endure the wrath of government in order to practice our biblical faith.