Should You Do Your Job or Obey Your Conscience?
Should Christians ever disobey their government? Some say no. But Kim Davis sides with Martin Luther King and thinks civil disobedience is justified. Ms. Davis is the Rowan County Kentucky clerk who spent five days in jail for refusing to put her name on same sex marriage licenses. Claiming to be a new Christian, Ms. Davis is also a long-time Democrat.
In court last week, Judge David Bunning told Davis: “The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order.” He said that “if you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”
Judge Bunning is absolutely right. This is the kind of chaos that results when people do not respect the law. But I’m not referring to Kim Davis—I’m referring to the United States Supreme Court. As I’ve written before, and the multiple dissents state more eloquently, there is no justification in the Constitution for judicially imposing genderless marriage on every state in the union. Five unelected justices simply imposed their own law on 330 million people.
But does that justify civil disobedience? Where do you draw the line?
Certainly, there is a line somewhere. After all, we laud those behind the Underground Railroad who freed slaves and those who protected Jews in Nazi Germany. While bad marriage laws are obviously not as serious, consider a more equivalent scenario: Suppose the Supreme Court decided to drop the age of consent in every state to twelve years old (a position Ruth Bader Ginsberg supported before she became a Supreme Court Justice). Would you think that Kim Davis should be forced to endorse the marriage of a 75 year-old man who brought a twelve year-old girl into her office? I hope you can see that there is a line and it’s not far from Kim Davis.
Liberals believe in civil disobedience—when it suits their causes. Despite chanting, “Do your job!” outside Kim Davis’s office, liberals were rejoicing when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom ordered clerks to violate California law and issue marriage licenses to same sex couples in 2004. They certainly were not chanting “Do your job” outside of Attorney General Eric Holder’s office when he told the states last year to ignore their own laws that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. And liberals were not asking a federal judge to throw President Obama in jail when he refused to do his job by defending the Defense of Marriage Act in Court.
So just ten minutes ago liberals believed that defying marriage laws was heroic! Now their blatant double standard is all too obvious—they laud civil disobedience when it’s used to advance the religion of sex and denounce it when it’s used to protect Christian or natural law beliefs.
But on what authority does one defy the government? One man who wanted a same-sex marriage license asked Kim Davis on “what authority” was she not issuing licenses. She cited God.
Yet, the question needs to be asked of both sides. By what authority did Newsom, Holder, Obama and other liberal politicians defy the law? They certainly weren’t citing God or the Creator cited in our Declaration of Independence who gives us unalienable rights. But without an authority beyond man’s law, there is no authority for their actions nor is there any objective standard to ground unalienable rights. Without God, every right claim is merely a human opinion. At least Kim Davis, agree with her or not, is citing an authority beyond herself.
Civil disobedience has rich precedent in the United States. In fact, our country was founded on it largely to secure religious freedom. Civil disobedience also has precedent in the Bible. When Pharaoh ordered Hebrew midwives to murder all Hebrew boys, they disobeyed and even lied to the authorities (Exodus 1). And Daniel and his friends peacefully defied laws that contracted God’s commands. Likewise, when the Jewish authorities told John and Peter to stop telling people the good news that Jesus paid for your sins and rose from the dead, they disobeyed saying that they would obey God rather than men (Acts 4).
Therefore, the principle for Christians is this: civil disobedience is necessary when a government compels you to sin or prevents you from doing something God commands you to do. You don’t disobey the government merely because it permits others to sin—only when it compels you to do so. Kim Davis thinks that line has been crossed.
It’s actually not hard to avoid crossing the line. Both parties can be accommodated as Judge Bunning finally figured out when he released Davis yesterday. In North Carolina, we passed a law to allow people like Kim Davis to opt out of endorsing relationships that violated their religious or moral beliefs. Since other government employees are more than happy to issue licenses, no one is inconvenienced or forced to violate conscience. We do this for far more serious issues than weddings. For example, even during a time of war when we draft people to defend the country, we allow for conscientious objectors to opt out. If we can allow exemptions for government employees involved in protecting the very existence of our nation, we can certainly allow exemptions for government employees involved in weddings!
Will the Kentucky legislature act when it returns in January to pass such a law? Unfortunately, I doubt the activists who are always demanding tolerance will tolerate such reasonableness. It seems that some people just can’t live and let live. They will not rest until all opposition is crushed and everyone is forced to celebrate what they are doing.
If that’s your position, I have a question for you: Why would you want anyone who disagrees with your wedding to have anything to do with it? Go to another clerk, another florist, another photographer. Why force people to violate their conscience when there are so many other people willing to help you and celebrate with you? After all, isn’t this supposed to be a time when “love wins?”
Apparently not. For some liberals “love wins” as long as everyone agrees with them. Those that disagree will not like the kind of “love” some liberals dish out. Are the same people who are chanting “love wins” some of the same people who issued death threats to Kim Davis? It’s certainly wasn’t the Christians.
The truth is Kim Davis and other victims of “tolerance” don’t want a holy war. Davis just doesn’t want her signature on the license. She suggested other government officials sign, and Judge Bunning finally agreed. But a law needs to be passed to prevent future problems.
North Carolina has led the way. It remains to be seen if liberals in Kentucky will accept that way. If their recent history is a guide, I’m afraid they will demand that every knee bow and every tongue confess the dogma of their secular religion.
(This column also appears at Townhall.com) and Stream.org
Free CrossExamined.org Resource
Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.
Kentucky should have invoked its own resolutions of 1798 and declared the SCOTUS decision to be without authority. The states never delegated to the federal government the power to regulate marriage within their borders.
“The truth is Kim Davis and other victims of “tolerance” don’t want a holy war. Davis just doesn’t want her signature on the license. She suggested other government officials sign, and Judge Bunning finally agreed.”
Are you sure it’s that way round? All the reports I’ve read said that previously she was STOPPING her deputies signing, and that she only got released AFTER she relented and promised not to interfere with them signing:
“Davis was jailed over the Labor Day weekend for defying a court order to issue marriage licenses and has held she would not allow her staff to issue marriage licenses either”
So it seems she didn’t just want to obey her own conscience, she had wanted everyone ELSE to obey her conscience too.
“Where do you draw the line?”
Where do YOU draw the line? Would you support a Christian who refused to grant marriage licences to divorcees (to people like Davis herself, who’s on husband number four), or to inter-racial couples?
Would you support a Quaker who refused to grant gun licences?
Would you support a Muslims who refused marriage licences to Christians?
Leave aside whether or not your agree with their particular religious views (and please don’t simply reply that ‘no true Christian would refuse that’).
“Liberals were rejoicing when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom ordered clerks to violate California law and issue marriage licenses to same sex couples in 2004.”
Frank, there is a clear difference between the two – when the California Supreme Court ordered the City and County of San Francisco to stop issuing licenses to same-sex couples, they complied with that order immediately and didn’t issue a single extra licence.
“For some liberals “love wins” as long as everyone agrees with them.”
Kim Davis could disagree as much as she wanted. But she still had to do her job or quit and let someone else do it.
The reason she ordered others not to give out the marriage license is because her name would be on the licenses. Seems that many people have not heard/found that news. Being head of the office her name is on all and she pleaded even before court to have her name taken off. I assume they did and that is why she is out. If not it will be the same go round I assume.
Sigh…you make some interesting counter arguments but as with most dogmatic argumentation you refuse to acknowledge any valid points made in the article because there is little interest in actually loving and discovering truth but only the relentless pursuit and defense of one’s own ideology. It’s wearisome; like watching Dems and Reps throwing the same rhetoric to the other side every time Bush or Clinton gets mentioned.
Hi Andy,
I found your response to be thought-provoking, and I had a few questions/comments.
If Kim changed her original position, I’m not sure it is edifying to the conversation to bring up her previous position. After all, she changed her mind (and agreed that her staff could issue licenses) so it shouldn’t matter what she said previously. Said another way, perhaps she initially thought everybody should obey her conscience, but she moved on that point, so maybe we should applaud that instead of using a prior (and no longer valid) position against her.
There is no biblical opposition to marrying a second (or beyond) time nor to interracial marriages. So your comment about where to draw the line doesn’t make sense to me.
As for a Quaker who refused to grant gun licenses, as long as I could still get a gun license, (or a marriage license if there was a Muslim involved as per your example) then I wouldn’t care.
Do you have data to support your assertion that “they complied with that order immediately and didn’t issue a single extra licence”? I’m fairly certain they complied quickly, but are you able to certify that they didn’t issue “a single extra licence [sic]”? In other words, in the Davis case, there has been fairly quick response (a few days) on the part of Ms. Davis to comply with the court order and to reach (what should be) an acceptable outcome.
Also, your last statement (that she had to do her job or quit and let somebody else do it) seems to have been proved wrong (unless she did quit–I’m not aware of her current employment status). She’s still in her job, and licenses are being issued, but she is not affixing her signature to the licenses. Ultimately much ado about nothing.
Finally, I think Frank’s comment that for *some* liberals “love wins” so long as everybody agrees with them is true. There’s a video on BuzzFeed about what Christians are/are not and I find it amusing that such a video would show people saying both of the following:
“But at its [Christianity’s] core, it’s really about love and acceptance and being a good neighbor.”
“Just because we [liberal Christians] prescribe [sic] to a faith that has some really terrible people in it doesn’t make all of us terrible.”
I’m not sure calling terrible people with whom we disagree is embodying love and acceptance. But that’s just me 🙂
Peace,
Mark
God is very much against divorce (Matthew 19), but by the blood of Jesus we are forgiven. I am sadly divorced and did everything I could to save my marriage. My then husband I found was a cocaine addict and dealer after we were married. I had no idea and offered for us to go to counseling which he refused. He was not a believer and chose divorce.
In Kim’s experience with divorce, etc. she was not yet a born again Christian.
Andy Ryan,
Just wanted to share my thoughts with you.
What most people do not know is that when you are given a government authority position you sign every document that requires approval. Of course in her level she can’t physically sign every document. So she delegates her authority to sign on her behalf.(Clerks that work under her) That is why she ordered to stop all licenses to be issued out. She simply does not want to be a part of it.
She is sincere about her not trying to get in the way of same-sex couples marrying. Everyone has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. She just refuses to be a part of the same-sex marriages. And really this law violates her 1st amendmetnt right. (Let me explain)
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The new law is “prohibiting the free exercise” of her religion. This is why many are going crazy over this new law. It conflicts with rights of both parties. Now if you say religion should not get involve with politics, then who will represent those who are religiously driven with their lives day to day? Sure no law should endorse any religion but must respect every citizen’s religious values. To be fair to everyone, the government should not hesitate to accomodate to its citizens needs.
We share this country, it is ours. We have to respect each other to live neighborly. If a Muslim needs accommodations for his belief, the we shall accommodate. This is what makes this country so great, we are different but take care of each other. At least that is the mindset we need get back again. No one should compromise their faith or do things against their will. That is injustice. When the judge jailed Ms. Davis, for a brief moment, it appeared that freedom was lost just simply because one disagreed with the government and only wanted an audience. The sad part, most liberals praised for the injustice actions that occured that day. Irony is, the the Democrate was jailed and the Republican was the judge. (Categorizing is people is bad, I am guilty of this. We should stop doing that.) This issue needs to be resolved.
If only you understand what being a Christian is, maybe you can understand what her motives were, and maybe understand God loves the sinner not the sin. Be humble about the situation, and maybe we can move forward to more important issues and resolve them. Humility is tough to grasp for both parties. But we are trying. Especially when this is personal to all of us. We should not let this get the best of us. If not, we will become more divided and we will fall. It is not in any of our interest to be stump on religion versus the world. We have to cooperate. No one is perfect but it doesn’t mean we should not try to better ourselves. Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Z
Allowing others to sin is not a sin. This simple principle will allow everyone to live together in peace. Nobody is forcing Muslim flight attendants to drink alcohol. But it’s OK for Muslims to serve alcohol. Nobody is forcing Kim Davis to marry a woman. But it’s OK for her to sign documents allowing other women to do so. Their sin doesn’t rub off. It’s not your sin. You aren’t responsible for making sinners conform to God’s law.
This simple principle is the very essence of religious freedom. If you don’t allow others to sin, then you’re denying them their religious freedom. And without religious freedom, we’re back in the 17th century with the disaster of the Thirty Years War and burning at the stake and all that. This is what people like Kim Davis and Mike Huckabee are aiming for.
Again, it’s not a sin when you allow others to sin. The responsibility is entirely on them. God will deal with it. You must let sinners be sinners.
Whatever is not from faith is sin. God has not granted her faith to sign the marriage license. For her, but not necessarily for other Christians, it would be sin.
Re: Ryan, sigh, you make some interesting counter arguments but as with most dogmatic argumentation you refuse to acknowledge any valid points made in the article because there is little interest in actually loving and discovering truth but only the relentless pursuit and defense of one’s own ideology.
I appreciate John Moore’s analysis and rationale; I find it helpful. But even this rationale will have its limitations given the situation. Ugh!
I feel Kim Davis is right not to endorse or sign her name to what she and the scriptures say is sinful . Isn’t The Law’ and Government ‘ essentially supposed to be based on the word of God , and don’t we say on our dollar bill , “In God We Trust” ? How hypocritical when we punish the righteous,and approve of what God despises – homosexuality !
The Bible tells us that peace between God and man is impossible unless it is through Jesus. Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law and to turn son against father and brother against brother. Their will always be conflict between those who want to sin and those who are redeemed. Kim Davis has no power to stop anyone else’s sin but she does have a responsibility to obey God. The voters will decide if they want her in that job when it is time for reelection or if she faces recall. Until then, I’m praying she keeps doing her job as ‘unto the Lord’, as all of those who claim the righteousness of Jesus should.
If her name was not on the license, there would be no issue. Biblically based Christians know that approval of a sin is seen by God as committing that sin, thus her name and signature on that license is a violation of Romans 1:32.
Isn’t approval in the (metaphorical) heart, rather than in the ink one has never even touched?
“Whatever is not from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23b). God has apparently not granted her faith to sign the marriage license. For her, but not necessarily for other Christians, it would be sin.
Actually, the Spirit teaches us through the prophet Haggai that holiness is NOT contagious, but uncleanness IS contagious. (See Haggai 2:11-13)
Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,
If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.
Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.
Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the Lord; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean.
Liberals, this, Liberals that, if it wasn’t for the liberals doing this or that…. You make it sound like there are no liberal minded Christians. My theology and my politics don’t always mix. Quakers believe in non-violence and are very conservative, if they stood their ground to not issue gun permits would you still support them I wonder?
Whatever is not from faith is sin. God has not granted her faith to sign the marriage license. For her, but not necessarily for other Christians, it would be sin.
Re: Ryan, sigh, you make some interesting counter arguments but as with most dogmatic argumentation you refuse to acknowledge any valid points made in the article because there is little interest in actually loving and discovering truth but only the relentless pursuit and defense of one’s own ideology.
John I really like your reply… It seemed to make a lot of sense and I was about to copy/paste/save it… But then I asked myself “wait- if it’s ‘not a sin to allow others to sin’, then what is it called if I issue that marriage license to the above mentioned 75 year old that’s trying to marry the 12 year old? Or if we’re asked to sit back and watch as unborn babies are massacred daily- or a holocast scenario?
The other commenter asked “where do YOU draw the line?”
And that seems to be a difficult question- especially if you consider Frank’s question about morality if we’re not drawing upon a higher source (God)… And only going along with pop culture.
I’m really asking, not trying to stump you. There are a lot of difficult questions with the goings- on of today.
Too bad there was no “devout Christian” around to deny Kim Davis her second, third and fourth marriage license. If some loving Jesus follower had been there to stand in her way she might not be a triple adulterer today. All it took to make Kim a strong believer was for some of them “queers” to show up at the courthouse wanting to get married. Surely y’all can find a better poster child.
I’m consider myself a serious Christian. I argue against atheism on forums. I love God with all my heart and soul. But I think Ms. Davis is misguided and in the wrong.
To tell you the truth, it’s hard for me to understand how&why some people are homosexual, but even though I don’t understand it, I must treat them with love, respect, and equality.
Many anti-gay Christians claim that they’re standing up for what the Bible says. But if so, then don’t they have to be against divorce as well? (except in the case of sexual immorality…)
Would Ms. Davis stand up for Matthew 5:31-32? 1 Corinthians 7:10-15?
Why don’t we hear a strong outcry for banning divorce from the same Christian crowd? (I am neither anti-gay nor anti-divorce, since I don’t believe in biblical inerrancy.)
What if a devout Catholic holds the same job as Ms. Davis and not only refuses to issue a divorce certificate but also instructs everyone else in his/her office not to issue it … would that be okay?
If I get to impose my beliefs on others, strip clubs shouldn’t exist. Should I be able to not grant business licenses to those types of places, if I was a city/county clerk?
I pondered that question myself. Aren’t we called to love them? So I asked my Pastor and his response was of course we love them, but loving doesn’t mean giving someone everything they want. I love my son with all of my heart, but will not give him everything he wants. He’d ask me for ice cream for breakfast, lunch and dinner but that’s not good for him.
Thank you for your reply. But I don’t think you really answered my question …
By your reasoning, we should not allow divorce or remarriage either… am I wrong?
This woman voluntarily ran for office. She sought the position to be a public servant. As such she effectively became the government. As her role as a public government official it became her job to issue licenses for people to marry. She can have all of the free speech and religion she wants . . . when she is not at work. When she’s at work she cannot discriminate against anyone in the name of her religion.
They want a theocracy. They may deny it here, but they’d be pleased as punch to see the ten commandments everywhere and pictures of jesus on the money and a government with the authority to violate everyone’s free will in order to force them to behave as the bible says (which is so open to interpretation that it would be impossible). In fact they’d be abdicating your will to the interpretation of the bible by men—which is what they do now. Written by men, interpreted by men, followed based on those interpretations. Just such a con game to me.
I disagree. By that rationale, if her job scope changed to include assisting in performing abortions, she should shut up and do that as well. I don’t think so. I do feel bad for her, since this was a job scope alteration that she had no control over. Tough to quit a job these days, since you may not find another one.
They may deny it here, but they’d be pleased as punch to see the ten commandments everywhere
Not everywhere, but neither should they be banned from public life. Is there seriously any one of the Ten Commandments that you would object to someone doing?
But we’re no longer under the Mosaic law anyway…
…pictures of [J]esus on the money…
Nope. Jesus didn’t come to set up a human government. This is not necessary.
…a government with the authority to violate everyone’s free will…
But didn’t you just say, “She can have all of the free speech and religion she wants . . . when she is not at work.” Our Constitution protects the free exercise of religion; that protects our rights to actually follow the tenets of our faith, not just worship privately.
The way I understood Ms. Davis’ scenario, her signature would be affixed to every license issued, whether she personally issued it or not, because of her role. She found this unacceptable, so she directed her office to suspend all issuance.
…in order to force them to behave as the bible says
We have no desire to force others to violate their own conscience. We do believe that a moral standard exists that defines how all men should behave willingly. How is that different from you et. al. insisting that Ms. Davis “at work… cannot discriminate against anyone in the name of her religion”? Arent you saying just as well that there is a way that Ms. Davis should behave?
But Toby, don’t you claim that moral standards do not truly exist? What do you cite to justify your insistance that Ms. Davis behave in a certain manner?
(which is so open to interpretation that it would be impossible).
Perhaps if you’re a post-modernist. Neither the Bible nor the Constitution are difficult to understand. They are difficult to accept when their plain precepts interfere with what we want to believe. Unfortunately the tendency to twist the meaning of plain language is found in both theist and atheist, Republican and Democrate, men and women… in short… EVERYONE!
In fact they’d be abdicating your will to the interpretation of the bible by men
To what or whom would you have Ms. Davis abdicate her will?
Written by men, interpreted by men, followed based on those interpretations.
If you reject anything on this basis, then you have no reason at all to accept the recent Supreme Court decision permitting homosexual marriage. For this describes that ruling… written by 5 liberal men, interpreted by the rest of the nation, and then followed based on that interpretation.
It also describes the Constitution itself… written by our founding fathers, (mis)interpreted by the supreme court (or more appropriately in this case, ignored), and then followed based on that mangled interpretation.
In fact, your post was written by a man (you), interpreted by a man (me), and then responded to, based on that interpretation. What are you trying to say?
Oddly enough, with all due respect, you seem to have no trouble understanding the written word when it agrees with your position!
Just such a con game to me.
Here’s the real con game: what law did Ms. Davis break? What law of the United States or of Kentucky gave her the ability to issue license to homosexual weddings? In no way should a Supreme Court decision be interpreted in a way to create law. When a law is struck down, that doesn’t instantly codify the converse of that law.
For instance; if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, would that instantly mean all abortions in the United States would be illegal? No! And the left would NEVER allow such a decision to be interpreted that way. Instead, it would return the issue to the states.
If I recall correctly, eleven states have approved homosexual marriage–I don’t recall Kentucky being one of those. In these states, she would have had a law permitting her to issue such a license. In other states, the decision (even flawed as it was) should have removed laws banning homosexual marriage; not created a law permitting it. Until the state or federal legislature enacted such a law, she, as an employee of the state, had no define means by which to issue such a license… just as Gavin Newsom had no legal means to do so. She followed the law; he broke the law. She ends up in jail! Go figure….
Trying to straighten out my thoughts so that I can coherently post here. This article title alludes to only two choices; do your job, or obey your conscious. There is a third alternative, however, that needs to be considered:
Should you resign your position rather than act contrarily to your conscious?
The fact is she did swear an oath when taking a state job. However, those rules she swore an oath to uphold, changed. That said she could no longer fulfill her part of the contract and should have resigned. There are certain times we can do that but certain times that we can’t. In this particular case, she can. Nothing Godly is holding her to the position.
i wonder how dems would be today – Supreme Court rules in Dred Scott case
I’d be obliged if anyone could give me an answer to my question.
I don’t criticize Ms. Davis for her past. We all make mistakes. We all sin, especially she didn’t realize divorce and remarriage were sins before her conversion, but she does recognize it now, am I right? I understand that, after her conversion, she cannot in good conscience facilitate others commit what the Bible says a sin (such as giving a license to homosexual marriage)… But then if so, now that she does know the Bible says divorce and remarriage are also sins, she should not be able to in good conscience facilitate divorcees yet commit another sin, as Jesus said “But if she does [divorces], she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.” (1 Cor. 7:11) … Am I wrong?
I am not really talking about the law, rather, I’m talking about Christian principles of not being a hypocrite. After all, we all know Jesus taught us not to be a hypocrite.
Thank you very much,
Irene
By the way, I’ve seen it pointed out that Davis’ job is simply to confirm that a person fulfils the legal criteria for marriage. In other words, that they’re not brother and sister, are not under-age etc. That’s all. She doesn’t have to approve of their pairing at all, she just needs to tell the truth and affirm whether or not they meet the legal criteria. Whether she AGREES with that criteria or not is a completely separate question.. In refusing to confirm that they fulfil the legal criteria she’s in effect lying – bearing false witness.