The Supreme Court’s Recent Decision on Gay Marriage: Yet Another Vital Reason to Refocus on Jesus
by Valery Loumber, July 30, 2015: Several months prior to the Supreme Court’s June 26, 2015, decision on gay marriage, I attended the investiture of a federal judge. An investiture is the ceremony at which the judge is introduced to the local public and community of attorneys, and it is when the judge formally takes his or her oath of office. This is the oath the judge took:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (5 U.S.C. § 3331).
I had heard this oath taken before, but it was not until this time that I realized the oath has serious implications for Bible-believing Christians in the final scenes of the great controversy between good and evil.
Here is the question that began to trouble me: How can any Christian take this oath, while disagreeing with the Supreme Court’s recent decision on gay marriage?
On one hand, if a person disagrees with the now recognized constitutional right of gay marriage, but he or she takes this oath, the person would be lying to those before whom and to whom the oath is given, i.e., God and the general public, in this case.
Taking an oath to “support and defend the Constitution[,] . . . bear true faith and allegiance to the [Constitution,] [and representing to] take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion” (5 U.S.C. § 3331), while actually rejecting gay marriage, is a misrepresentation of intentions in the fulfillment of the oath. The Supreme Court’s decision unequivocally holds that gay marriage is within the cluster of fundamental rights under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. This right is now fully integrated in the Constitution.
On the other hand, if a person claims to reject gay marriage – even privately, but nevertheless takes the above oath with the intention of performing it, that person then is lying to those before whom and to whom the rejection of gay marriage was professed, i.e., God and/or other persons. We often forget that God holds us accountable for every word we utter, regardless of how or to whom we are speaking, God or people. That is, in our every word we represent God. We do not only represent our intentions or beliefs. We represent also the One with Whose name we identify ourselves. Thus, in our words, we either honor or dishonor Him.
Notice the absence of qualifiers from the following verses. “But I say to you that for every idle [or careless] word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. 37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matt. 12:36-37, NKJV). “Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth . . .” (Eph. 4:29a).
A story from the Old Testament tells about God’s perspective on our taking of oaths. Consider Israel’s obligation to keep its covenant to the inhabitants of Gibeon (and few other nearby cities), who tricked Israel to enter into the covenant by disguising themselves as ambassadors from an afar country. (See Josh. 9). Notice why Israel honored their covenant: “But the children of Israel did not attack them, because the rulers of the congregation had sworn to them by the Lord God of Israel. And all the congregation complained against the rulers” (Josh. 9:18).
Israel was clearly looking for a way to get out of keeping their promise. The verse implies that if Israel had not promised before God not to attack Gibeon, they would have, at the least, considered breaking that promise.
However, when God’s people speak – as God’s people – it is as if God Himself speaks. And, “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent [or change His mind, NIV]. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” (Num. 23:19). “If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim. 2:13). Israel was aware of this, and they did not dare break their covenant with Gibeon.
In other words, when we – who claim the prerogative of being God’s people – make promises to others, we are not to be held accountable only by those to whom we are making the promises. We are to be held accountable by God as well. God holds us accountable for every word we utter, regardless of how or to whom we are speaking, God or people, given that we represent Him here on earth.
This brings us to the next question, namely, whether a Christian disagreeing with the recent decision on gay marriage can any longer hold a public office in our country, without violating his or her conscience? It is a critical question because the oath quoted above is the oath taken by all federal civil service employees, all officers of the United States uniformed services, and it is the oath taken by all members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate, at the start of each new Congress.
More, the above oath is not far from the oath taken by the President of the United States, which also includes a promise to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
“I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1.
Now that the recent decision on gay marriage has become “the law of the land,” as some Bible-believing politicians have stated, can any such politician take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, without any mental reservation?
Laws impacting religious beliefs and freedoms are created and changed at a frequency never before seen in the history of our country. Yet, on some level, we think of overturning the tide of religious oppression by increasing our political action efforts, i.e., lobbying the right people, voting the right people into office, or voting even some of our own people into office.
But, while God still has faithful people in public office doing His will, it is undeniable that the above oaths and the rejection of gay marriage are irreconcilable without the violation of one’s conscience. The United States Constitution is mutating before our very eyes. It is changing to accommodate new trends in culture. And, it is not a document that can be accepted, rejected or defended in part. Defending the Constitution includes defending everything it stands for, including gay marriage. Thus, when taking an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, this includes protecting and defending the right to gay marriage.
According to the Spirit of Prophecy, political action to overturn the tide of religious oppression on our part would be futile, as our country will repudiate even its own existing laws in propagating falsehood. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near (Testimonies for the Church, vol 5:451).
In other words, the time will come – and it has already come, when human laws will no longer hold back the tide of religious persecution. It is what the recent decision on gay marriage does. The decision repudiates both Protestant and republican principles of our government. As a Protestant country, we have the freedom of religious practice and expression. As a republic, our government’s power resides in elected – and not selected – individuals who represent the citizens of our country.
In one stroke, the Supreme Court’s recent gay marriage decision has irreparably damaged both of these principles underlying our government. By disregarding the unfettered religious oppression the constitutional legalization of gay marriage is to unleash, the Supreme Court has grossly undermined the Protestant principles of religious freedom this country was established upon.
By ignoring the fact that new laws in our country are enacted by elected government officials, representing the country’s citizens – as opposed to a group of selected judicial officials, the Supreme Court has subverted our government’s focal republican principle. As Chief Justice John Roberts put it: “If you are among the many Americans . . . who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. . . . But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 2626 (2015)).
Stated differently, the Court’s majority decision on gay marriage did something that was reserved for another branch of government, Congress, or that was reserved to another sovereign government altogether, the states.
Our country then is well on its way of doing what was predicted by Ellen White. Where does that leave you and me? Instead of focusing on what we can do to overturn the coming tide of religious persecution, let us focus on God’s work of preparing us for the trying time we know to be ahead of us. Let us focus on what God is doing in our hearts and minds. Let us focus on cooperating with God in the transformation of our characters. Let us focus on prayer. Let us focus on going to the cross daily. Let us focus on beholding our lifted-up Savior. Let us focus on the forgiveness He desires to bestow. Let us focus on seeking the merits of His blood for the washing of our sins. Let us focus on being baptized by the Holy Spirit, daily. Let us focus on putting on the mind of Christ. Let us focus on what God has done for us in Jesus and on what He wants to do in us by Jesus, so we are able to stand on the last day of God Almighty. Amen!
Val (full first name is Valery) Loumber lives in Northern California with his wife. Originally from Europe, he was born and grew up in an Adventist home (3rd generation SDA). He is passionate about ministry. For many years, he has been involved in various ministry work, including personal ministries, church planting, lay preaching, radio programming and, more recently, writing. He is an attorney and has been an extensive legal writer for over 11 years. Val also has tremendous interest in science, as he holds degrees in Biology and Chemistry.
Val,
Amen and hallelujah! At last, a voice calling for us to focus on Jesus first and foremost!
It is only by upholding before a sin-bound world the wondrous love and forgiveness of God who promises to transform and empower us that we can expect them to become believers in Him instead of just hoping to convince them about some favorite doctrine that we love to argue about. Rev. 12:11 says the righteous overcame the dragon “by the word of the Lord and the power of their testimony.” The power of God is not found in argument about doctrines, but in focusing our attention on Jesus, the builder and finisher of our faith and the One about whom scripture testifies. It is our testimony of our experience with God that shows others the transformative love and power they can enjoy if they will follow Jesus. May those who argue about doctrines be drowned-out by the thunderous voices of those who are testifying about the redeeming love God!
Yes, Indeed, William!
Val: I’ve always read the Testimonies quote you use as the religious people doing the persecuting. Under the same-sex marriage ruling, religious people are claiming that secular people are doing the persecuting. I think your reading of the quote is slightly off target with traditional church understanding.
On the other hand, I can also envision a scenario where the religious people rise up to take back what the secular side has taken from them, thus leading to the persecution written about by Sister White. . . . Just a thought.
Amireh, I think you are right on. What the article does not say is that the precedent being set by the secular establishment will be most likely utilized by the religious establishment to persecute God’s people later. In my mind, a precedent is a precedent that it can be used by anyone in power to their advantage.
In other words, if the civil power of our country is willing to repudiate its own laws to further a secular agenda, it will do so to further a religious agenda as well. Satan’s work is truly subtle.
Amireh,
Why do you look for the persecution to come from one particular direction and not all directions? Is not Satan working in every way possible to oppose God and prevent people from following Him?
It is easy to become so obsessed about seeing prophecy fulfilled, as many in the church have done, that we lose sight of the power of God and the loving ministries to which He has called us. So it is ironic that some of the most vicious attacks yet seen on those who advocate for ministering as Jesus did come from those in the church whose primary spiritual purpose has become particular doctrines, including warning others about the persecution to come.
He is fully off target, not slightly.
It’s these very same dominionist Protestants that see the Constitution as defending the primacy of their religious beliefs who will be clamouring for religion to be law. (Sunday sacredness)
Most SDAs seen to have bought this deception wholesale seeing that they share prejudices with these people.
Ellen White’s visions provided the little scattered group and later adherents with a sense that what had happened to the little group in the “Great Disappointment” was not a “mistake.” (It was a mistake, but who wants to think their religious ardor is all wrong when it comes to the real world). If one is interested in the dynamic of how that works, please read “When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World” by Festinger, Riecken and Schachter (No, it’s not about Adventism)
Her visions about prophecy and the role of the United States in prophecy reflected a 19th century American religious context with a little paranoia thrown in. Her followers such as Uriah Smith expanded on her view and worked out a whole world view based, in part, on assumptions about “the United States in Prophecy” To get an informed view of Smith, one now has Gary Land’s excellent “Uriah Smith: Apologist and biblical Commentator”
The 21st Century American political and cultural world constitutes a totally changed landscape from the world that Ellen White grew up in and lived in for most of her life. American and Western culture generally is highly secularized. The idea that some religious system can become dominant again is pure fantasy. But traditional Adventists can’t bring themselves to face reality as it is on the ground today. Perhaps it is time to do that.
Erv, I am so glad that I do not have to rely on what you or others – including EGW – think about EGW’s writings. For instance, as to her quote in the article, Daniel 2 and Rev. 12 & 13 are sufficient for me. This means that our disagreement is not about what EGW wrote but about how we interpret Bible prophecy. If Daniel 2 and Rev. 12 & 13 do not apply to the current political and cultural climate, perhaps we should turn to preterism or futurism for an explanation of those prophecies!? If we do not have a relevant and reliable prophecy for our time – with the convergence of all global storms – we should write out Bible prophecy altogether as reliable. Sadly, your reasoning inescapably leads us to an inept God Who keeps messing up along the way of His interaction with humanity. Your comments about EGW can be easily applied to John the Baptist, for example. And, it is precisely this view of God that has elicited and even justified much of the secular perspective on God. Frankly, if this is our God indeed, I would want to have nothing to do with Him, as it reduces my existence to one big cosmic experiment.
Val certainly presents an interesting alternative view. It is suggest that the perspective presented “inescapably leads us to an inept God Who keeps messing up along the say of His interaction with humanity.” That would certainly be true, if one blames the “messing up” with the posited communication of God with humans. May it be suggested that the biblical narratives themselves strongly hint that it is humans who are the problem and that, for some reason, God does not override human stupidity. Of course the stories that present God breaking into the human realm and doing “miracles” creates some problems for that view, unless one does not expect the biblical accounts to be literal recordings of what actually happened. Rather they are what humans in their time and place thought was happening. Do we not notice that God’s purported “miracles” seems to occur with less and less frequency as we enter the modern period. Hmm.
Irv,
I understand that you do not take seriously these predictions. You will be surprised to learn that you may be partially right. The Pharisees knew exactly how the Messiah would come and what he would do. They were wrong. Our church came about in an era where the RCC was hated and I have read some of those books of that era. Their history made them a threat to those immigrants coming from countries with church-state ties. Sunday laws were a threat then.
Now we look at some OT predictions and have taken the stand that prophecy is conditional, yet cannot even consider this one could be as well. I am not saying it is, but we must be open to the possibility. I was taught that the antiChrist (and there have been more than one according to Paul) is a state church beast. There are state religions all over the world and in each place they persecute and kill. Is there more than one antiChrist out there? The antichrist of the NT was Gnosticism, and it’s still a threat in churches. The threat of spiritualism is certainly real, and it’s in most religions.
It is the papal system of the RCC we oppose and that authoritarian system is alive in most all world religions as is salvation by works. It can be in our religion. If the papal system is a symbol, it can be pervasive.
Erv. True, with additional input yet to come. Firstly politics world wide is totally corrupt.
The power in every case is power in the hands of “the OLD BOYS CLUB”. This actually begins in the local towns, and grows ever stronger as it moves upward through the county, parish, state, and reigns supreme in the total Federal System. Absolute rotten, stinking corruption. Why is this?? Because it is predicated on self
aggrandizement, regardless of the circumstances
of all others. “To be continued”.
The SCOTUS ruled in the Civil Rights Act that equality is written in the U.S. The Declaration of Independence, before the Constitution was signed also states that “all men are created equal.” Denying a right to any one that is enjoyed by others is now against the law.
No one, to repeat: no one is being denied a right of choice for their choice of spouse. Nor has anyone shown to the SCOTUS that they have a standing to deny others the same rights they enjoy. For religious believers to claim that they cannot agree with the Constitution is a stretch too far, as they have failed to show that they have been denied anything. They simply wish to deny others the same rights they enjoy.
If someone feels they cannot, in all good conscience uphold the Constitution which grants equality to all citizens, perhaps he is not happy to live in such a persecuted nation.
Replace gay marriage with interracial marriage and the light will come on.
You are indeed correct.
The author has yet to show how Christians have been violated or how the ruling destroys the Constitution–other than to say that Christians don’t like gay marriage and so there…
Val and Elaine:
I tend to agree with you Elaine. We cannot force others, by law, to believe as we do about marriage. That is a religious stand we take, and we have the freedom to control it in our church, but not in the nation. These people do not believe their partnership is a sin–it’s as plain as that. We can’t force them to believe it is a sin!
Keeping them from the exercise of their rights is no different than forcing Sunday laws on the whole nation. Think about it, Val.
This is so clear I’m always surprised when I see otherwise very intelligent people sink on this point.
I’ve seen much muddling of logic when it comes to this issue.
The only explanation I can see for this inconsistency is bigotry and prejudice.
Doesn’t admission to the bar require all lawyers to swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? Defending OTHER’S rights is why we are not a dictatorship.
Just as a defense attorney may disagree greatly are believe his client has is guilty, but he also takes an oath to defend the most egregious murderers, fulfilling the 6Th Amendment?
Elaine, the attorney oath, at least in California, does not say “to protect and defend.”
But, while you are on defending the rights of others, how do you do it when you have two conflicting rights? When you have allowed the private right of belief in and expression of religious principles, you cannot take it away by coercing conduct that is in contravention to such principles, merely on the basis of equality (someone else feels they are not being treated equally by another). How do you uphold their so-called equality without infringing on my religious convictions about how I should live my life.
Notice that rights to religious expression do not impact others to the extent equality rights do, as you can either take or leave their religious expression. On the other hand, my right to be treated equally (which is becoming as subjective as my religious beliefs are) by other private individuals, requires others to alter their lives, even when going against conscience. The problem with the equality argument is that reading equality this far in the Constitution opens the door to other much less desirable rights. If the right to marry is so fundamental to the Constitution, what about those who wish to practice polygamy? Are we not discriminating against them as well?
You have failed to demonstrate how your rights are being denied, unless your right to be offended at knowing that same sex marriages are being performed. If the SCOTUS has rejected the standing of those who object to gays marrying, do you have a better case to present that might be presented to them? Your rights to not participate in such marriages is not harmed, and everyone has a right to personally reject such ideas, but there is no right to restrict others who are legally complying with the law.
Do you agree that others should restrict your right to worship in your church and how you wish? Be careful of wanting to restrict others’ legal rights as you could be next. Your freedom to act within the law is only as safe as that granted to others.
You have failed to demonstrate that your freedom of conduct is being denied. You can dislike and disapprove of laws, but only make changes by filing charges against them. How do you propose doing that?
But this is not adding up.
Are Christians violated by having to perform divorces at the county office?
Or giving marriage licenses to adulterers?
Are they forced to act against private beliefs?
What about people who have racist views? Are the forced as well under public accommodations law?
“Uphold the constitution” has been interpreted with such large and increasing amounts of elastic in recent years that the oath of office is little more than a formality marking the assumption of a public office.
The oath was taken on the BIBLE and what it stands for. We have the right to redress Government; have you taken that right? “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” We are Caesar and therefore hold responsibility to GOD.
One should probably understand the Constitution, freedoms in Speech, Religion and Civil Rights before removing such (in commenting) or in making such decisions (SCOTUS). We raised spoilt children; it lives to haunt us. We are the results of the fall. Time belongs to prophesy and HIM now.
As Christians we need to understand that Love can never be forced. The foundation of Gods law/principles is Love. And for Love to be Love it must be freely given. God will not force or coerce us to choose and to act
We have that Freedom of choice and that is the Heart of Religious liberty I believe.
The gay agenda movement have for the most part totally conflate the issue of Freedom and righteousness. The bible is clear about homosexuality Leviticus describe the act as an abomination, I believe this is because homosexuality misrepresent the truth about relationship in away that is damaging to understanding relationships and oneness in marriage.
I personally support the freedom for individuals to choose who they want to be with however all choices are not healthy or right.
Persons advocating for “gay marriage” will ultimately use coercion and force to persecute and pressure others to go against their conscience and the word of God our creator and sustainer of mankind. This is persecution and one of the battle ground where freedoms will be violated.
I don’t think “gay” advocates wants the privileges of marriage (which no court can give that is a blessing capable of being given only by God)”gay advocates” want everyone to agree with them and if you don’t they will sue you and persecute you.
Gays want the same legal rights given by marriage: inheritance, the spousal rights for a dying partner, and many more than only legal marriage provides.
The same could be asked of opposite sex couples: why legally marry, people can still live together and procreate? But in both cases there are no property rights, retirement benefits, and tax benefits allowed. Marriage offers many benefits that cannot be ignored.
What is the “gay agenda movement”?
While your ideas about love not being forced are correct, no one who puts gay marriage or the word gay in scare quotes or talks about “gay agenda” has any love for gays and lesbians…by any definition of the word.
And they should not convince themselves thusly.
Marriage is ONLY a blessing when given by a priest or clergy. In all states it is a civil document granted by the state and the church has absolutely no voice unless it is forced to perform a marriage. It is the personal choice of the partners if they want the church’s blessing.
In the U.S. we allow people to make life choices when they have no impact on others. No one has proved that gay marriages harm them in any way; they are neither forced to approve or disapprove. Trying to force others to live by a code that is not their own is not allowed.
Those against same sex marriages have failed to show they have standing in the SCOTUS. It has been settled.
There were also similar arguments against women’s suffrage and civil rights. We have grown past such discrimination. Religion is fast losing members and still fight to have a voice against what they do not wish for themselves.
Trying to force others to live by a code that is not their own is not allowed.
——————
Correct.
Why is this so difficult for many Christians to understand? And SDAs of all people should see this with clarity.
I think this is one area where prejudice absolutely smokes out all values previously or simultaneously held.
“CONTINUED”
WOW, you people have added a lot to respond to.
The U.S. Constitution, up until approx 1990, was
generally adhered to, but since all POTUS’ES have started to make “command decisions”, with ever greater damage to freedoms and the inequity of all Americans. The Government was supposed to have “checks and balances”, by division of power
between the POTUS, CONGRESS, and the SCOTUS. But where the total houses of government is totally corrupt, the Constitution is null and void. The current POTUS has overstepped his mandate time and time again, relative to the Constitution, without the other Branches of Authority challenging him. As a result, we are in the beginning of a “police state”, with the premise that the public must be protected, and the only thing preventing the USA from having a Dictatorial government is the POTUS declaring “martial law”, under any pretext he decides to declare. The U.S Congress has passed legislation
a couple years back, giving the POTUS that authority, alone!! Who will challenge him, especially when he declares it mandatory for the “good of the people”. Who will have the power to deny him?? The military must follow his orders, he is the “COMMANDER in CHIEF”.
“TO BE CONTINUED, PART 3”.
Do you deny that constitutional right of the SCOTUS to interpret the law? I strongly disagree with some of their rulings, i.e., Corporations are persons. But until Congress changes or amends laws, it stands.
Remember, there was wide disagreement over many previous laws and rulings, but until amended or changed, they are the law.
SCOTUS must be influenced by God. U.S. was founded on principle of Christianity. Does God actually support same sex marriage? why is US leading the whole world
into disregard of the Bible?
Whose God?
We were founded on the separation of church and state and cannot force religious beliefs on others. The US cannot make the Bible the standard for the nation. The whole nation does not believe in the Christian Bible.
This is correct and very plain.
Some of these comments reflect the same ideology that the church has warned about for years: That civil forces, prompted by ecclesiastical authority will attempt to make all citizens abide by their religious beliefs.
But to think that several here are duplicating the exact same ideology they warn against: religious beliefs forced on all! There are none so blind as cannot see the identical attitude, but the SDA members are openly expressing it first.
We have fought to protect your right of opinion; here and in any forum. As individuals we Love all; but cannot love their actions. But in wisdom and as the body of the Church we are to separate ourselves from such; 2 Timothy 3: 5 “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”
The Church did not sue these folks; we did file briefs to protect our right of religion and the definition of marriage. Is that wrong? We owned it long before this Country was formed. Do we still not have those rights? We constantly see the same problem; very small sets of spoilt children, wishing voice (without paying for it, financial gain and inserting their individual ideologies upon others.
Article III, Section 2:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
There is no contractual equity involved here.
Val, If you knew nothing of what Ellen White wrote, would the court ruling we are discussing be of much interest to us as Christians?
This ruling addresses nothing about the Gospel of Jesus, the Jesus who created the world, the Jesus who redeemed the world, and the Jesus who has promised to return to personally claim the world and all of his creation who have ever lived on the world.
Today we are a world church, not a general conference of congregations scattered across the midlands of the United States preaching salvation dependent on keeping the law of God as it was when Ellen White wrote the first edition of The Great Controversy. The metaphor of Roman Europe congregating with Protestant United States to threaten Seventh-day Adventists because they respect God’s Law by keeping the Sabbath has no sense of relevance for the 85% of the world’s population and 95% of Seventh-day Adventists who now live beyond the borders of Europe and the United States.
Becoming the attention of the world’s largest Christian church is a testimony to the importance with which God embraces Seventh-day Adventists. All prophecy is conditional, as Jonah illustrates, and today the relevance of Seventh-day Adventism cannot be supported by mere relentless affirmation of a predicted scene unrecognizable in the face of a changing world and a changing church.
Ellen White after 1888 declared the Three Angels’ Message was Righteousness by Faith, not the Sabbath. Imagine where this will…
What about Romans 13:1-7? Or is our faith so small and are our conspiracy theories so vast that we have lost faith in God’s authority?
Valery Loumber asks: “How can any Christian take this oath, while disagreeing with the Supreme Court’s recent decision on gay marriage?”
The oath does not insist that the judge agree with the law – unless you believe that to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” and to “ bear true faith and allegiance to the same” is the same as being in personal agreement with the laws. The judge is to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.” Judges are supposed to interpret existing laws, not make new laws. Unfortunately, judges, especially the supreme court judges, seem to think they have a right to also make new laws by the way they craft their decisions. And if anyone, including congress, thinks the supreme court judges have overstepped their authority, to whom do they appeal their case? You get the point.
I personally see no problem at all with being a judge. After all, a judge can recuse (excuse) himself/herself if there is a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality. What the oath is all about is not allowing one’s personal opinions and prejudices to take the place of what is written in the law. If someone has a problem with that, and does not want to recuse, then that person should definitely not be a judge. I believe that Valery might be reading a little too much in the oath; possibly even too much between the lines? Just my opinion.
However, I do think Valery’s article is well written and thought stimulating; she makes many…
My apologies to Valery: He, not she!
The “oath of allegiance” is/was routinely required for many different government jobs in California. Erv Taylor must have taken the oath when he went to work at UC Riverside. Any SDA working in a civil service job or for a government educational institution is/was also required to take the oath, as are those in law enforcement and corrections. The writer, if a lawyer, was likely required to affirm some kind of “oath of allegiance”.
Some forms of the oath also include an affirmation of willingness to bear arms in the face of foreign or domestic enemies. At UCLA, I was told that the oath was established during the McCarthy era to keep communists out of the educational field.
A Filipina SDA acquaintance of mine often sang the Philippine’s national anthem. In response to a question about the oath of allegiance when she became a naturalized U.S. citizen, she said, “Yes, we take the oath but we don’t mean it.”
I refused the oath for at least 3 jobs and am now happily employed by an entity which doesn’t require asinine oaths or affirmations i.e., the atheist government of China.