Whether to Obey God or Man - How Kim Davis Got it Wrong

I am a Christ Follower who believes the Genesis account of Biblical Marriage repeated by Jesus and affirmed by Paul to be the only Biblically correct, acceptable marriage. But I am troubled by these proceedings.

Scripture is clear that we are to obey those who have authority over us to the point that we are forced to choose between disobeying civil Authority or God. Peter's example was choose God, although the context is radically different. Peter was preaching the Word of God and was commanded to stop. Kim, on the other hand, was doing a job she agreed to do when elected to her office with full beforehand awareness that this circumstance could arise. That single point distinguishes this from Peter's circumstances. Preaching the Word and performing a civil servant's task you were elected to perform, agreed to perform without caveat, and accepted payment for performing the job.

If this circumstance was sprung on Ms. Davis with no forewarning, her Faith defense choices are really only (1) have a subordinate issue the license or (2) resign from her position. Option (3), the one she chose, forbid anyone in her staff to issue a license, is not really a genuine faith option. Ms. Davis's Personal Faith convictions are not the de facto convictions of the county office the represents. In fact, the same first amendment rights that protect Ms. Davis's right to have and stand up to those convictions also protects her staff from having them imposed upon them against their will.

And therein do it lie, the problem. It really doesn't matter that the Supreme court ruling has absolutely no status because is not based on and existing constitutional law or pending congressional legislation, and the fact that in a constitutional republic with a three part government of checks and balances (LEGISLATIVE creates law, EXECUTIVE signs law into effect or veto it sending it back to LEGISLATIVE to either rewrite or OVERTURN EXECUTIVE'S VETO and JUDICIAL interprets Law, either affirming ir, ruling it unconstitutional, or returning it to the lower court from which it originated for further work at that level. JUDICIAL does NOT have constitutional authority to create law, as they have in this issue). What is really at the heart of this case is that Ms. Davis took an oath of office to do her job with no mutually agreed upon exclusions or caveats, and has been accepting payment for the execution of said service.

Implied in all of these proceedings is the possibility that Ms. Davis accepted the position fully intending to make the first same sex marriage license request a test case, and by mandating her staff to be subject to her faith convictions, makes it even more readily apparent that this is not an issue of first amendment rights or personal faith, but well planned and neatly executed grandstanding in the name of Christian faith. It is the Westborough Church mentality gift wrapped in one individual with a martyr complex.

Jesus said Judge not lest you be judged. He was speaking to the 12 men, 11 of whom would become the Apostles, in a lengthy message scholars call the Sermon on the Mount. The broad context of this three chapter passage at the beginning of Matthew was to teach the men who would teach the Church that would come that believers may in fact judge other believers ONLY on the basis of their behavior, which the Bible refers to as fruit, for the sole purpose of helping one who has strayed from Biblical truth see the error of their sin, help them, in love, to confess, repent, and be restored to the good fellowship of the community of believers.  Christians are NEVER given either permission or authority to judge the contents of the heart, either of other believers or unbelievers. That right is reserved for God. There is nothing that indicates love in the actions Ms. Davis is taking.  What is indicated is a well-planned, patient set of actions to put into motion exactly what has happened. There is no persecution. There is no denial if rights. There is, on the surface, only the actions of an individual breaking her oath of office, hiding behind her faith to defend it, cramming that faith on those who do not share it, and grandstanding the event into an act of martyrdom. There is no humility in such a brash, attention grabbing lack of Christian integrity. Surely this is not what Jesus meant by "Take up your cross and follow me.”

The law may very well be questionable, as I believe it to be. It may be unconstitutional, again, as I believe it to be. I am a layman, not a constitutional professor, so I'm not an authority. I have only my school studies to reflect on. I do, however, know something about what Jesus said on the subject of honoring Him through honoring those who have authority over us, and where and how that line is crossed. This isn't it.