0:03

Thank you for joining us for another

0:05

episode of God, Law, and Liberty with

0:07

David Fowler, president of the

0:09

Family Action Council of Tennessee. Every

0:12

week, we are putting culture, politics, and law

0:14

on a collision course with the truth of

0:16

God's Word. And now,

0:18

here's David. Welcome

0:24

to today's episode of God, Law, and

0:27

Liberty. And today, I'll be coming to

0:29

the last of what really

0:31

turned into a little series from the

0:33

episode back on April 11th that

0:36

was entitled with the question, Nation Saving or

0:38

Nation Building. And if you didn't catch that

0:40

episode, you might want to go back and

0:42

pick it up sometime, as

0:44

I do think it'll help you better understand

0:46

where I'll be going today. And

0:50

then last week, in the second

0:53

installment, I guess you could say of

0:55

this little series, I offered

0:57

the following proposition that today

0:59

I want to address

1:01

briefly, just as a matter of review.

1:04

And then I'm going to tell you about something

1:07

I recently did in my effort to

1:09

work this proposition out. And

1:12

I hope it'll be helpful to what

1:15

you're doing, or at least helpful to

1:17

the way you think about how close

1:19

your legislators and favorite organizations are doing

1:22

with respect to the kind of thing I'm doing.

1:25

Assuming, of course, you think what I'm doing is

1:27

getting closer to the mark myself. But

1:30

anyway, here's last week's proposition with just

1:32

a little improvement in the language. Anything

1:36

not evaluated in light of,

1:39

or done by faith

1:41

in relation to, the

1:44

person of Christ and

1:46

in a covenant relation to his

1:49

covenantal purposes is

1:51

a dead work, a

1:53

righteous deed that is

1:55

a filthy rag. And

1:59

I also offered this edition. propositional proposition,

2:01

namely that

2:04

living by faith is believing in

2:06

the covenant promises of God, and

2:09

living by faith in

2:12

such a way as God,

2:15

by the Holy Spirit, would

2:17

bless that work to bring more of

2:20

those promises into the present as

2:23

we look to the consummation

2:25

of all God's covenant promises.

2:31

And that proposition about faith,

2:33

let me add what I again said

2:35

last week, to work towards

2:38

something God has not promised as part

2:40

of His covenant with His people as

2:42

the main goal, such

2:44

as saving America perhaps, is

2:47

not living by faith, but presumption,

2:50

and presumption sin, as we read in

2:52

Psalm 19.13 where David

2:55

says, Keep back thy servant also

2:57

from presumptuous sins. Let

3:00

them not have dominion over me. Then

3:03

shall I be upright, and I

3:06

shall be innocent from the great transgression.

3:09

So we have to be careful about what we presume

3:14

in relation to God and think we are doing

3:16

by faith that is actually

3:22

foolish, or vain, or

3:25

a righteous deed that's a filthy rag.

3:28

So with all that being said, what

3:30

we do have promised to us is

3:33

that God wants His people to disciple

3:35

the nations. And

3:37

this theme of nations with godly kings goes

3:40

back to the covenant with Abraham. And

3:43

God revealed more of that covenant relation

3:46

by changing His name to Abraham, meaning

3:49

the father of a multitude. So we see

3:52

progression from what God tells Abraham to

3:54

do in Genesis 12 to

3:57

the covenant made in 15th chapter. The

4:00

and and then seventy. And

4:03

then of course there's a covenant

4:05

language, I believe. Also, and against

4:07

is twenty two. So anyway, so

4:09

what what would it look like

4:11

is the question if Christians were

4:14

disciple christians in the sphere of

4:16

law and government And notice I

4:18

said disabling. Christians. We

4:20

wanted disciple the nation's But we

4:22

don't disciple those who are not

4:24

among the people of God. We

4:26

speak to them, We preach to

4:29

them, louis, herald to them the

4:31

truth about God. But we're not

4:33

really in a disciple ship relationship

4:35

with in the sense of that

4:37

word script Shirley. So. The.

4:40

So we need to disciple christians in

4:42

the sphere of long government. Well the

4:44

first thing I think we would know.

4:47

Aren't do realize is that

4:49

it would not entail silence.

4:52

With. An institutional church. It's. As

4:54

if disciple ship could continue to be

4:56

framed. Or

4:59

farmed out I should say to

5:01

non church or organizations. Like

5:04

the One era or to past

5:06

casters like me and Podcast is

5:08

great but it's not relational disciple

5:10

ships and can't take place really

5:13

survive. Guess. And

5:15

I believe this lack of disciple

5:17

ship in the sphere is an

5:19

abdication by the local church. Particularly.

5:22

If is not host at least

5:24

at least hosting disciples if training

5:27

opportunities or at least encouraging their

5:29

members. To. Go to such training.

5:32

But. Also tell you from experience

5:35

institutional church is either hosting

5:37

a promoting such opportunities is

5:39

really. Rare. The

5:42

second thing I believe we know

5:44

is that living in God's cosmos

5:46

as if there is no god.

5:49

Is the recipe for death. By.

5:52

Their sense of the individual ultimately or

5:54

of a nation. and

5:57

right now as best i can tell

6:00

Christians don't realize that they've really

6:02

embraced the closed cosmology of the

6:04

atheist. And even

6:07

Christian legal and policy organizations don't, for

6:09

the most part, realize they're operating within

6:11

this closed system where God's

6:13

either dead or not permitted to exist.

6:18

Of course, I've talked about that or hinted

6:20

about it for quite some time now. And

6:23

what do I mean by that? That they

6:26

act as atheists? Well,

6:30

I mean that Christians have

6:32

embraced the legal positivism of

6:34

atheist Oliver Wendell Holmes. It's

6:37

rampant in politics and

6:40

among legal and policy advocacy organizations. But

6:42

I don't think

6:47

that's intentional. It's just that we're

6:49

surrounded at every turn by the

6:51

evolutionary worldview of a closed cosmos

6:54

that we don't even realize we've

6:56

become legal positives. Now,

6:58

let me give you an example of

7:01

what I mean that took place this week when

7:03

Tennessee enacted a current rights bill being pushed

7:06

around the nation by a number of groups.

7:08

But in Tennessee, the primary advocate was Alliance

7:11

Defending Freedom. And the

7:13

organization has done some good things over the years.

7:16

But when it comes to drafting

7:18

legislation and advocacy in the courtroom

7:21

in support of the legislation, it

7:24

seems to me, along with many

7:27

others, it takes a pretty much positivistic

7:29

approach to law. And

7:31

that's just not my approach, okay? Because

7:35

it assumes a closed cosmos. And

7:38

it's that difference that puts me out of

7:40

sorts with most organizations in my field, to

7:42

be honest. So

7:45

to put some flesh on what I've just

7:47

said here, let me share an audio clip

7:49

from the sponsor of the parental rights legislation

7:51

in the Tennessee House as

7:53

he introduced the legislation. Now,

7:58

the person you'll hear professes Christ

8:00

is his savior. I'm not calling into

8:02

question his Christianity, but

8:04

he's influential because he's the majority caucus chair

8:06

in the House. And

8:09

listen to how he opened his statement on

8:11

the House floor in support of this parental

8:13

rights bill. This

8:15

bill, Mr. Representative, is

8:18

a bill that puts into law that parents

8:20

truly have the right or

8:22

the direction of their children and for their life. Now

8:25

I don't want to be hypercritical of what he

8:27

said, but did you notice that

8:29

he said the bill puts into

8:31

law parental rights? Now

8:34

immediately we should say, what?

8:37

He did no such thing. But

8:41

I wonder how many Christians would think I was

8:43

crazy for saying that. But

8:46

I hope you know what his

8:48

statement means and why I would say it. His

8:51

statement means there apparently isn't any

8:53

law on the subject. And

8:55

so it needs to be put into law. And

8:59

we should have Christian legislators saying

9:02

to him, wait a minute, you

9:04

mean there isn't any law proceeding

9:07

anything a judge or legislator might say

9:10

that addresses the nature of the

9:12

parent-child relationship and the

9:14

duties and tell therein that give rise to the

9:16

nature and scope of the rights

9:19

that they already have? Is that what you're

9:21

saying? There isn't any law

9:24

that we should recognize, that

9:26

courts should recognize

9:28

and apply? Now

9:33

I'm going to tell you, I think

9:35

this legislator believes there are pre-existing rights,

9:39

but whether they're already law, you

9:41

see, well that's a whole different

9:44

question. Legal

9:46

positive is thinking you need to pass a law to

9:48

enact a statute or for a judge to issue a ruling

9:51

for law to exist, for

9:54

those rights to be exercisable, to be

9:56

asserted. You see, that's the

9:59

legal. positivists. But

10:02

the Christian should understand and believe

10:05

and assert that the

10:07

rights of parents are already in law. But

10:11

that kind of assertion on the floor

10:13

of a legislature is only going to

10:16

happen if that legislator appreciates the older

10:18

understanding of common law and they're not

10:20

legal positivists. You see, Blackstone and

10:22

others would say the civil government was created

10:24

to protect the rights the law already affords

10:26

us. The

10:29

rights of common law recognized

10:31

before the formation of civil

10:33

government, before the enactment of

10:36

any statute. But sadly, I think

10:39

we could hold a conference of the

10:41

leaders of Christian policy organizations and legal

10:44

advocacy organizations. They want

10:46

to understand the common law and let

10:48

alone use it. I mean, we could hold it

10:50

in my guest bedroom. I'm

10:53

not saying there aren't institutions like the

10:55

Hale Institute that are thinking through these things, but

10:57

I'm talking about those who are the actual advocates

11:00

in the court rooms or advocates

11:02

in the legislative classes. I mean, the

11:04

number of those that I think I

11:06

could call and today want to

11:08

get together, yeah, we could pretty much fit in my

11:10

guest bedroom. And

11:13

you see what legal positivists do is

11:16

they leave out of their legislation

11:18

any attempt to articulate

11:20

a given

11:22

nature of the human person and

11:25

the nature of the parent-child relationship

11:27

upon which any

11:30

existing parental rights are predicated. Because

11:33

that kind of articulation requires

11:36

a clear metaphysical,

11:38

ethical kind of statement. And it's

11:40

just easier to use

11:43

a bunch of words to spell out what

11:45

some of those rights are, you see, than

11:47

to make these metaphysical, ethical claims. In

11:50

fact, the Supreme Court avoided

11:52

that issue like the plague in the Dobbs

11:55

decision, reversing Roe. It says profound

11:57

moral question, but we don't know. So Let's just throw it back to

11:59

the states and let everybody know. The around it

12:01

is a it and that's

12:03

highlights the problem with Legal

12:05

Positivist that they overlook. That.

12:08

We have a United States Supreme Court

12:10

is already read defined what marriages and

12:13

two years later they held it states

12:15

can't refuse to put two mothers on

12:17

a newborns birth certificate. Is

12:20

abolishing in the law? the

12:22

mother, father relationship to a

12:24

child that anchored parental rights

12:26

that anchors God that natural.

12:28

All that common law has

12:30

essentially been overruled by the

12:32

United States Supreme Court. So.

12:36

The rights of parents are now tethered Only

12:39

do a positively enacted law. Less

12:42

we want to give a nod to

12:44

history, which say where, that's what we've

12:46

always done. Which. Is for we

12:48

do about. Prayers. In the

12:50

For Government Meetings Wales not that he by

12:53

beliefs is a god or a deity or

12:55

prayer that Maisie they met with historically done

12:57

it so it's okay Then then let's just

12:59

be honest. No

13:01

longer his history make sense because it's

13:04

just as meaningless as everything else, right?

13:06

Surely. Surely with these

13:09

new constitutionally mandated birth certificates

13:11

giving new born two mothers

13:13

or two fathers, you can

13:15

see that the parent child

13:18

relationship. Has also

13:20

been redefined not marriage. Or

13:22

not just marriage I should say. But

13:26

I don't think legislators and supporters of

13:28

bills like this and those who advocate

13:30

for them address and they. I don't

13:32

think they really understand this new understanding.

13:35

Of. What it means to be human. And

13:37

that's what's gonna be implied to interpret all

13:39

the words they put no statute. Know

13:42

where. That was all that being said. Let

13:44

me share. A

13:46

portion of the remarks I gave it

13:49

a gathering of a handful of policy

13:51

legal leaders from around the country couple

13:53

of weeks ago. and

13:56

they wanted me to com explain the

13:58

marital contract recording it that I've

14:00

talked about multiple times on this show.

14:03

But because of this

14:06

growing interest of saying it's not about

14:08

how do we draft a bill or

14:10

get a bill passed, how do we

14:12

create a campaign to create

14:16

enough force to get legislators to pass

14:18

it, I decided to

14:20

take an opportunity to do what I

14:22

might call some preaching or some discipling,

14:24

I guess. So this is

14:26

what I said, and I'm just going

14:29

to recreate a portion of that speech

14:31

right here so you can hear what

14:34

it was I did that I

14:37

hope you will agree was pointed

14:39

toward discipling Christians

14:44

so that the

14:47

result might be they

14:50

behave differently, they think differently.

14:53

So here it is. Even

14:56

that we're gathering as Christians in response

14:58

to the United States Supreme Court's decision

15:00

in Obergefell versus Hodges, I'd like to

15:02

open my remarks about what I've dubbed

15:04

the Marital Contract Recording Act with

15:07

this thought. Obergefell

15:10

is not just about the

15:12

definition of a marital relationship,

15:15

but is the greatest affront to

15:18

the final revelation of God's anthropology

15:20

made in the person of his

15:22

son, Jesus Christ, in the

15:25

annals of our nation's legal history, which

15:28

rest on common law precepts

15:30

that date back centuries. I

15:32

recognize that's a loaded statement, and later

15:35

I will speak briefly to what common

15:37

law is. But let

15:39

me briefly review what I think

15:42

my assessment about

15:45

this affront to God's anthropology

15:47

is true so that

15:50

the significance of our time today might

15:53

fully settle upon us. The

15:55

first great affront to biblical

15:57

anthropology was the pre-Civil War.

16:00

Dred Scott case. The

16:02

court treated African-born slaves and

16:04

their descendants as inferior beings

16:06

compared to those of European

16:08

descent, and therefore

16:10

held that they did not and could

16:12

not rise to the level of a

16:15

United States citizen. But

16:17

at least the human fruitfulness of

16:19

Mr. Scott was

16:21

not denied. Navarro

16:24

versus Wade attacked the principle of

16:26

human fruitfulness that pertains to

16:29

all of us regardless of national origin.

16:32

And it did so by denying that

16:34

a principle glory of every man and woman

16:37

is that they, by their sexual

16:40

union, could be the means

16:42

by which God brings into existence another human

16:44

being made in the image of God. But

16:48

Obergefell took all of us regardless

16:51

of national origin and

16:53

sex and took

16:55

the principle of human fruitfulness that

16:58

Roe repudiated and effectively

17:02

redefined humanity as an androgynous

17:04

clump of cells awaiting

17:07

self-identification and self-fulfillment. In

17:10

fact, the court opened its decision with

17:13

these abominable words. This Genesis 1-1 type of

17:15

statement that are an affront to the glory

17:18

of God revealed in man and woman is

17:20

made in his image. And here's what they

17:22

said, the Constitution promises

17:25

liberty to all within

17:27

its reach to certain rights within a

17:29

lawful realm to define

17:31

and express their

17:34

identity. Obergefell

17:37

was the abolition

17:39

of mankind as created

17:41

in the image of God. Now

17:44

that was my introduction. And

17:47

after speaking about another earlier use, US

17:50

Supreme Court decision employing

17:52

justice homes, atheistic and strictly

17:54

positivist view of law, I

17:57

said this, the transcendent God of

17:59

the Bible. Who's. Been informed

18:01

the common law. From.

18:03

The days of Kenya average code in the

18:06

nine hundred. To. And

18:08

beyond the founding of our nation, Was.

18:10

Banished from our law.

18:13

Man descend into the place

18:15

of God In a suit

18:18

Cs Lewis anticipated, Man finally

18:20

abolished himself. In Oberg

18:22

of Fail. And

18:25

and then as I got to explain

18:27

the Merrill Contract act itself said this

18:30

to those who were gathered. The.

18:33

Legal precepts set forth in

18:35

the Axe Legislative findings, but

18:37

a hole in the prevailing

18:39

assumption they we live in

18:42

a closed cosmological system in

18:44

which all things are determined

18:46

by naturalistic evolutionary laws and

18:49

principles. Subject. Only

18:51

to manipulation. By. Us.

18:56

Well. I'm this stop with

18:58

that speech right there. But I hope you

19:00

can see what I was trying to do

19:02

as trying to help the christians their think

19:04

of a burger fell cosmological. Not.

19:06

Just as a legal issue. Because.

19:10

That's how the other side sees it. They

19:13

see it cosmological. A. And

19:16

and that's why I'm berserk. A Because she's. And.

19:19

I was trying to help them see

19:21

that they'd been taken in by closed

19:23

Cosmos. And in

19:25

wise or Burger fell demonstrative the vote: Living

19:27

in a closed cosmos Because that's the only

19:30

way you can think that you have the

19:32

power and authority to redefine what it means

19:34

to be humans and thereby redefine marriage. A

19:38

sauna or job or the falcon only

19:41

make sense in a closed cosmos. But

19:43

but here's what I was trying to

19:45

say politely. when christians can get along

19:47

with or accommodate themselves to a bird

19:49

of. They. Have

19:51

to see they've accepted

19:54

a closed cosmos. They've

19:57

become practical. Atheists,

20:02

And Prince I'll tell you. I. Think the

20:04

only way back to any kind of Christian

20:06

leverage. That. Would we we seek

20:08

so I can make a cake through? I

20:10

want to make a cake for not for

20:12

others or whatever it might be. I don't

20:15

care how many Positivist Dick, Religious Liberty statue

20:17

to enact. The way

20:19

back. To real.

20:22

Christian Liberty and Liberty of

20:24

Conscience is defined. Some way

20:26

to penetrate that closed cosmos.

20:30

And to bring into

20:32

this. Naturalistic

20:34

evolutionary close cosmos view of

20:36

law we we live in

20:38

move in have being in

20:40

his. Is to bring in

20:43

these precepts of human nature and human

20:45

relationships that may and. By.

20:47

His law, don't create. And

20:50

begin to reassert them. And

20:53

I would submit to use it

20:55

any kind of proche other than

20:57

that to drafting laws and doing

20:59

law. Is. Not disabling.

21:03

Anyone. And. Therefore,

21:06

Is known. Approach is going to

21:08

have any long term positive effects

21:10

and mean pragmatism can only hold you

21:12

over to the next closed Cosmos

21:14

problem. When. It arises. Does

21:18

have indicated before. To.

21:20

Go to thing I've just been saying people

21:23

say to me but can you win. If.

21:26

You take this approach. To

21:28

which I think our now say this look.

21:31

I'm just trying to live by faith in

21:33

a way that points to what God said

21:35

he will do. And.

21:37

What He said: the zeal of the

21:39

Lord will accomplish in my confidence in

21:41

him and his government promises regardless of

21:44

the outcome in the present. Moment.

21:48

But. Ask you in that what Christians are called to

21:50

do. In that the

21:52

way of living in the which Christians should be

21:54

disciples. you

21:58

know at least that's the kind of disciple I'm

22:00

trying to do and want to do and I

22:03

believe that over time and in God's timing it

22:05

will produce the kind of fruit God is

22:08

looking for. And

22:11

if that's of interest to you, well, let me know. I

22:13

might convince my wife to let me hold a conference for

22:15

us there in I guess Bedroom. And

22:17

with that, I'll sign off for

22:19

today and hope you'll join me next week on

22:22

the next episode of God, Law, and Liberty. If

22:26

you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to the

22:28

podcast. And if you want to help

22:30

spread the word, please give us a five star review

22:32

and tell your friends to subscribe to God,

22:35

Law, and Liberty is available on Apple

22:37

Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever you listen to

22:39

podcasts. For

22:41

more information, please visit

22:44

us at www.backtennessee.org. That's

22:47

backtennessee.org. And

22:49

please follow us on Facebook, Twitter,

22:51

and Instagram at Back Tennessee.