Among the many amicus briefs offered to the Supreme Court, likely the best at answering the claim of stigma mitigation against the constitutional right to free speech was offered by Robert George, professor of law at Princeton University. George compellingly shows that principles established by the Supreme Court recognize the constitutional right to free speech cannot be curtailed in the interest of hurt feelings, however strong the hurt is.

The 303 Creative vs. Elenis case, which will presumably be announced near the end of June, is one of the most crucial, perhaps the most crucial case to be decided by the Supreme Court in the war between sexual liberation and religious liberty. It is being analyzed by the court as a free speech case, although freedom of religion and conscience really lie behind it, and was reviewed by this writer in two articles late last year, one before, and one after oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
As noted particularly in the second article, the free speech claim against requiring the proprietor of 303 Creative, Lori Smith, to provide web design for same-sex weddings is strong. Providing web design for same-sex weddings is now required by common court interpretation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). But free speech for what is obviously expressive behavior seemed to be strongly defended by a majority of justices at the December 5 oral arguments.
As the secular and religious left has attacked the Judeo-Christian tradition in recent years, both in law and in society, with antidiscrimination laws and (where possible) speech restrictions, the Supreme Court has defended both, although free speech is much stronger in current jurisprudence. While the Left has condemned this as favoritism to the Right, it is actually simply the straightforward application of the law, as was noted more than a year ago by Mark Rienzi of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and allows Americans with sharply different opinions to live together.
Using Social Stigma Claims to Overcome Free Speech
Faced with a court intent on protecting freedom of religion and speech, the Left has turned to the claim that civil rights law, and behind it, the Fourteenth Amendment, mandates pro-active government measures to remove social stigma. This is really a very blatant effort to gain what social conservatives have complained about for years, the claim of a right not to be offended. It was recently discussed by well-known researcher in sexual behavior and the family, Mark Regnerus, of the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture in a Public Discourse article.
The challenge to defenders of free speech in the wider society is daunting. The majority of Americans now accept both homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and as Regnerus notes, “All of the major American medical, sociological, and psychological professional organizations endorse LGBTQ claims, including gender medicine for minors, an industry now buttressed by over 400 clinics.” When one considers that ten or twenty years ago, many of these very intelligent people would never have thought of endorsing the sexual mutilation of minors, and their professional associations (if not the majority of practitioners) advance it today as “science,” the extent of cultural conquest is staggering. To be against LGBT claims from the standpoint of common sense (and certainly religious belief) is to be against science. The American Psychological Association presented an amicus brief in support of the State of Colorado’s claims of a right to compel speech in requiring Lori Smith use her artistic talents to provide same-sex wedding web design.
Regnerus pointed out that this situation proves Chief Justice John Roberts was correct in his doubt, expressed in his dissent from the same-sex marriage decision, Obergefell vs. Hodges (2015), that the promise in the decision of free speech protection for opponents of same-sex marriage would be honored. Roberts said the majority decision “graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach’ their views of marriage.” However, the APA claims that social stigma adversely affects the health of LGBT identifying persons. It proposes denying free speech to Lori Smith by requiring compelled speech. When this bridgehead is established, speech against homosexuality (or silence in place of approval), could become illegal in many situations, as is the case in Canada and other Western countries.
Read More
Related Posts:

The unified God has united believers to himself, the church ought now walk worthy of its calling by pursuing a full-orbed unity. This unity does not require uniformity, but it presumes a diversity of opinions, personalities, social roles, and people groups. Because diversity naturally produces friction, the church ought to give particular attention to humble and patient purity, love, wisdom, and spiritual warfare in its pursuit of unity. This is the sort of walk worthy of the calling of the one God, who is Father, Son, and Spirit.

The first half of Ephesians lays out God’s plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth (Eph 1:10). Paul’s doctrine of unity can be summarized in the shape of a capital “I” (in a font with bars across top and bottom). The top horizontal bar represents the unity God has with himself, among the persons of the Trinity. The vertical bar represents the unity between God and his people, brought about by grace through faith. The bottom horizontal bar represents the unity among God’s people that ought to result.
Having followed Paul’s argument in Ephesians 1-3 in the previous post, let’s now walk through Paul’s application of the doctrine of unity within the life of the church.
Diversity Shouldn’t Divide the Church
Paul transitions to application with the urging to walk in a manner worthy of the calling described in the first three chapters (Eph 4:1). And what exactly is a manner of life worthy of the call to unity, in light of God’s plan to unite all things in Christ? It requires humble, gentle, and patient forbearance toward fellow church members (Eph 4:2). Such character arises only from an eager commitment to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:3).
Paul roots the unity of the church, explicitly, to the unity of the Trinity (Eph 4:4-6), which includes a victorious Christ ascending to take his throne while dishing out good gifts to his people. Psalm 68, quoted in Eph 4:8, likens the ascension of the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem to the arrival of God’s glory-cloud on Sinai. And Paul capitalizes on the image to explain how Jesus, the true ark, has entered heaven, the true sanctuary. This king cares enough about the unity of his body that he provides the church with leaders tasked with equipping members to serve one another—all so the community can grow together to maturity, according to the image of Jesus himself (Eph 4:9-14). That theological truth plays out in real life as people speak the truth to one another with love and build up one another in love (Eph 4:15-16).
In short, Eph 4:1-16 teaches that every church member is not required to be the same thing, do the same thing, or think the same thing. It assumes that there are differences among people, requiring patience and loving speech toward one another. In other words, diversity shouldn’t divide the church. But sadly, it often does, so the rest of the letter tells us what to do about that. We must give attention to four key areas, each marked with a renewed exhortation to walk (or, in the last case, to stand — Eph 4:17, 5:1, 5:15, 6:10-13).
Four Areas With Potential for Divisive Behaviors
The first area that requires attention in pursuit of unity is purity (Eph 4:17-32). However, notice that the chief problem of impurity is that it makes people like those who are alienated from—not unified with—God (Eph 4:18). The opposite of building up others in love is to serve oneself in sensuality and greed (Eph 4:19). This is not how you learned Christ! (Eph 4:20). A pure life according to the truth in Jesus requires each church member to do three things with their divisive behaviors:

Put off the old self, with its divisive and selfish desires (Eph 4:22).
Get a new way of thinking about how the calling to unity ought to drive your behavior (Eph 4:23).
Put on the new self, which is like God—fully unified with himself and with his body (Eph 4:24).

Read More
Related Posts:

The proponents for female pastors by and large do not ground their arguments in scripture, but the conservatives do. This is no small point. Two of the messengers speaking against the motion took their stand on scripture. They quoted specific verses about pastoral qualifications and encouraged messengers not to question God’s word. Given the context, these two men showed great boldness and conviction. What a contrast to messengers who argued for female pastors and who made broad appeals to justice and equality. They talked about how women will be traumatized and damaged if they aren’t allowed to serve as pastors. But there was very little appeal to scripture.

Here is an interesting development in the debate over female pastors among Baptists. At last week’s annual meeting of the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT), messengers considered a motion that calls the BGCT to…
Affirm women in all ministry and pastoral roles, and that the BGCT Executive Board be instructed to have staff create programs, resources and advocacy initiatives to assist churches in affirming appointing and employing women in ministerial and pastoral roles.
This motion is no surprise in the context of the BGCT. While the BGCT still has theologically conservative churches in its ranks, it also has a good number of progressive churches as well. It is the progressive wing of Texas Baptists that has historically opposed the SBC’s position on pastoral qualifications and that has kept the BGCT open and welcoming to churches with female pastors.
Nevertheless, the motion did not pass as submitted. After some debate, messengers approved an amended motion that removes the affirmation of women serving as “pastors.” The amended motion reads as follows:
Request the BGCT Executive Board to resource BGCT staff to continue developing more strategies, resources, and advocacy initiatives to assist churches in affirming, appointing, and employing women in ministry and leadership roles.
So what happened here? Why was a female-pastor-welcoming convention unable to pass a formal affirmation of women serving as pastors? I was able to listen to a recording of the entire debate, which lasted just over 30 minutes. You can listen to the entire debate here: Texas Baptists Debate Motion about Female Pastors: [Download Audio Here]
The bottom line is that some of the progressive messengers wished for the BGCT to go on the record affirming women serving as pastors. Conservative messengers spoke against this and argued that such a view is directly at odds with Scripture. Other messengers struck a moderate tone and argued that the BGCT shouldn’t make this a point of division and should accept both views among their cooperating churches. One of the “moderates” even suggested that the BGCT will eventually get to full affirmation, but it is too soon to do that now. Give it some time, and Texas Baptists will get there. But not right now. Progressives strongly opposed the watered-down amendment. They wanted the formal affirmation of female pastors. But in the end they lost, and the moderates carried the day.
The debate is illuminating in more ways than one. And I think there may be some lessons in it for the Southern Baptist Convention as we continue our own debate concerning female pastors.
1. The doctrinal dividing line concerns the office of pastor, and the progressives understand this. They made this very clear during the debate. Another progressive made it clear after the vote in an editorial for the Baptist Standard:
Texas Baptists’ denial of unilaterally affirming women as pastors reveals something deeply troubling about their lack of precise language… A woman’s calling by God will not change if we, Texas Baptists, choose to call her something else. However, our inability to call a woman what she is demonstrates our disregard for precise language… Why is this inaccuracy allowed to continue within Texas Baptist life?
Read More
Related Posts: