Why Christian Legal Concepts Get Used Against Christians
Jun 29, 2023 by David Fowler
Six weeks ago, I wrote a commentary about how a major Christian legal advocacy organization’s understanding of law was killing real parental rights in the name of defending parental rights. In less than a week, federal district court judges in Arkansas and Tennessee held that the laws in their state prohibiting health care providers from altering the bodies of minor children for the sake of gender transitioning were an unconstitutional violation of parental rights. That the Judge used the Christian’s legal argument to neuter children is very instructive.
In my previous commentary, I noted that the Christian organization had filed a brief in a federal circuit court arguing that parents had a constitutional right to participate in gender-identity conversations between their child and public school educators.
I applauded the effort, but after reading the Christian organization’s brief, I wrote the following:
As you will see in the graphic below, that is exactly what happened: the federal judge in the Arkansas decision used the same cases and legal principles articulated by the Christian organization to justify the right of parents to consent to having their child’s healthy reproductive organs destroyed.
Notice that quotations from U.S. Supreme Court opinions on the left (the Christian organization’s brief) match up with quotes on the right (federal judge). Read it, and I’ll explain further.
The judge who held Tennessee’s law unconstitutional also relied heavily on Troxel v. Granville but had the added benefit the Arkansas judge did not have of relying on a 6th Circuit decision, Kanuszewski, that controls Tennessee’s federal judges because they are in that circuit. You will notice above that the Arkansas judge cited Kanuszewski, even though it was not controlling for him.
In sum, the principles undergirding the Christian legal argument were used in a way the Christian organization would never have intended.
How Did the Christians Get Hoisted on their Own Petard?
You will notice that the Christian brief contained a limiting principle: Parents should make decisions for their children “absent a finding of neglect or abuse.” Sounds good and reasonable.
It also included a guiding principle: Parents are presumed to act in their child’s best interest. Again, sounds good and reasonable.
So how did it turn out that parents can consent to medical treatments for their child that destroy a healthy reproductive system developing toward its proper end? How could it be presumed that doing this is in the best interest of the child?
The answer is that the Christian organization wrongly assumed that we still live under a Christian conception of the cosmos, and we don’t. Everywhere, including in the sphere of jurisprudence, we live in a cosmos defined and understood in terms of evolution.
What Has Evolution to Do With It?
Evolution is not just about biological development– it is a worldview. Once its cosmological principles worked their way into the scientific mainstream in the early 1900s, it was bound to infiltrate and influence every other sphere of knowledge.
What is its cosmological principle? “‘The distinctive element’ in Darwinism is not natural selection but the denial of design or purpose. And, ‘the denial of design in nature is virtually the denial of God.’”
When creational design is denied, creational purpose must also be denied as a matter of logic. In other words, under an evolutionary cosmology, we don’t know who we are or what we are for.
That Judge Moody was able to use the parental rights argument presented by the Christian organization in a way that denies any given human design, i.e., human nature, and purpose, i.e., procreative fruitfulness, is a tell-tale sign that the organization’s legal argument could be seen as consistent with an evolutionary worldview.
Unless Christian legal and policy organizations begin to work toward restoring to law the kind of cosmos from which the rights they espouse were derived, they will continue to lose them as a matter of logical necessity. A cosmos created ex nihilo by the God revealed in the Bible produces far different “rights” and an application of those rights than would be true under from any other conception of the cosmos.
If you would like to read a pdf of the chapter explaining a Christian cosmology in my new book, Transgenderism—Raising Ancient Issues Only the Ancient of Days Can Answer, send an email to info@factn.org.
Want to Learn More?
I have learned that far too much of my own thinking over the years was inconsistent with what I doctrinally confessed to be true as a Christian. And that is easy to do when those around you think the same way. There is no one pushing back against you.
If you would like to have a better understanding of what is going wrong in law today that legal rights derived over the centuries from a Christian cosmology are now being used to support a non-Christian ethic, I hope you will join me for a new podcast series that starts today, called “Law and Cosmology.”
1 Nancy Pearcy, Total Truth-Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity, 309. Quoting 19 th century theologian Charles Hodge.
In my previous commentary, I noted that the Christian organization had filed a brief in a federal circuit court arguing that parents had a constitutional right to participate in gender-identity conversations between their child and public school educators.
I applauded the effort, but after reading the Christian organization’s brief, I wrote the following:
If you ask me, the [Christian organization’s brief] reads exactly like I would expect the A.C.L.U.’s brief to read in support of its constitutional claim against the transgender legislation.
Moreover, it reads like the opinion of a federal appellate court that agrees with the A.C.L.U.’s position and acknowledges that it is bound to follow Supreme Court precedents.
Moreover, it reads like the opinion of a federal appellate court that agrees with the A.C.L.U.’s position and acknowledges that it is bound to follow Supreme Court precedents.
As you will see in the graphic below, that is exactly what happened: the federal judge in the Arkansas decision used the same cases and legal principles articulated by the Christian organization to justify the right of parents to consent to having their child’s healthy reproductive organs destroyed.
Notice that quotations from U.S. Supreme Court opinions on the left (the Christian organization’s brief) match up with quotes on the right (federal judge). Read it, and I’ll explain further.
The judge who held Tennessee’s law unconstitutional also relied heavily on Troxel v. Granville but had the added benefit the Arkansas judge did not have of relying on a 6th Circuit decision, Kanuszewski, that controls Tennessee’s federal judges because they are in that circuit. You will notice above that the Arkansas judge cited Kanuszewski, even though it was not controlling for him.
In sum, the principles undergirding the Christian legal argument were used in a way the Christian organization would never have intended.
How Did the Christians Get Hoisted on their Own Petard?
You will notice that the Christian brief contained a limiting principle: Parents should make decisions for their children “absent a finding of neglect or abuse.” Sounds good and reasonable.
It also included a guiding principle: Parents are presumed to act in their child’s best interest. Again, sounds good and reasonable.
So how did it turn out that parents can consent to medical treatments for their child that destroy a healthy reproductive system developing toward its proper end? How could it be presumed that doing this is in the best interest of the child?
The answer is that the Christian organization wrongly assumed that we still live under a Christian conception of the cosmos, and we don’t. Everywhere, including in the sphere of jurisprudence, we live in a cosmos defined and understood in terms of evolution.
What Has Evolution to Do With It?
Evolution is not just about biological development– it is a worldview. Once its cosmological principles worked their way into the scientific mainstream in the early 1900s, it was bound to infiltrate and influence every other sphere of knowledge.
What is its cosmological principle? “‘The distinctive element’ in Darwinism is not natural selection but the denial of design or purpose. And, ‘the denial of design in nature is virtually the denial of God.’”
When creational design is denied, creational purpose must also be denied as a matter of logic. In other words, under an evolutionary cosmology, we don’t know who we are or what we are for.
That Judge Moody was able to use the parental rights argument presented by the Christian organization in a way that denies any given human design, i.e., human nature, and purpose, i.e., procreative fruitfulness, is a tell-tale sign that the organization’s legal argument could be seen as consistent with an evolutionary worldview.
Unless Christian legal and policy organizations begin to work toward restoring to law the kind of cosmos from which the rights they espouse were derived, they will continue to lose them as a matter of logical necessity. A cosmos created ex nihilo by the God revealed in the Bible produces far different “rights” and an application of those rights than would be true under from any other conception of the cosmos.
If you would like to read a pdf of the chapter explaining a Christian cosmology in my new book, Transgenderism—Raising Ancient Issues Only the Ancient of Days Can Answer, send an email to info@factn.org.
Want to Learn More?
I have learned that far too much of my own thinking over the years was inconsistent with what I doctrinally confessed to be true as a Christian. And that is easy to do when those around you think the same way. There is no one pushing back against you.
If you would like to have a better understanding of what is going wrong in law today that legal rights derived over the centuries from a Christian cosmology are now being used to support a non-Christian ethic, I hope you will join me for a new podcast series that starts today, called “Law and Cosmology.”
1 Nancy Pearcy, Total Truth-Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity, 309. Quoting 19 th century theologian Charles Hodge.
