Today David examines Tennessee’s attorney general's defense before the U.S. Supreme Court of the state’s law prohibiting medical treatments for a minor’s gender dysphoria. It’s important to understand because it’s the same argument Christian legal and policy advocates are using around the country. Are the arguments based on a nihilistic or biblical cosmology? Listen to find out.

Today David takes quotes from the arguments made last week by the U.S. Department of Justice to the United States Supreme Court explaining why it thinks the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause is violated by Tennessee's law prohibiting the use of medicine to treat a minor's gender dysphoria. His analysis of them will show why Christians must take the prevailing nihilistic cosmology and its application to law seriously.

Today, David looks at the Incarnation through the lens of excerpts from John Owen’s Christologia and Isaiah 61 to show its application to law and its relation to how Tennessee’s law prohibiting medical interventions to “treat” a minor’s gender dysphoria is being defended before the United States Supreme Court.

When Christians lose the metaphysic and cosmology of Colossians 1:15-20, we fall prey to the “empty traditions and philosophies of men.” David uses John Owen’s exposition of Hebrews 11:1, legislative testimony from the most prominent pro-life lawyer in America, and what the founder of a Christian law school said he teaches his students to show how a wrong metaphysic and cosmology turns making the argument of law into counting votes on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Two weeks ago, David argued there were Fifth Commandment problems with the legal arguments submitted by Christians to the U.S. Supreme Court in defense of Tennessee’s law prohibiting the use of medicine to address a minor’s gender dysphoria. Today David looks at the briefs submitted on behalf of four Christian organizations to explain why he thinks there are problems with the first three commandments, too.

Having explored the ways in which the arguments of a leading Christian legal advocate conform to the way the godless think about the world we live in, David raises two objections that might be made against his analysis. He answers them with the help of William Blackstone and a conversation between his friends at Choc Knox Unplugged. Getting a free copy of David’s short monograph, Toward Christian Nihilism-A Short Study in Contrasting Policy Approaches, will make clearer what’s going on.

Is it a “legal strategy” or a Fifth Commandment problem when Christian legal advocates eschew common law and its application to current legal issues involving human sexuality? David uses an amicus brief recently filed by a leading Christian legal advocacy organization with the U.S. Supreme Court and William Blackstone to answer that question and shows how its rights-based legal argument conforms to the way the ungodly think about rights.

A question about natural law from a lawyer-lobbyist about Christians embracing natural law provides a foundation for today’s look at the arguments made by Christian legal advocates to SCOTUS in defense of Tennessee’s law prohibiting medical interventions to treat a minor’s gender dysphoria. David explains how their arguments unwittingly embrace a subjective-oriented, relativistic understanding of law, not a Christian one.

This week friend of the court briefs were filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on a case out of Tennessee that is of civilization defining importance—whether bodies are essential to human meaning. David briefly explains the brief he submitted and compares it to one filed by the scholarly Ethics and Public Policy Council with its Judeo-Christian ethic. He explains why the latter’s brief seems to call for a return to good old bad days of the Enlightenment that undermined biblical Christianity and ushered in nihilism.

Today David begins to look at a third group he now sees involved in politics, those he calls neo-Theonomists. The prophet Isaiah as well as the person who prepared the soil for Abraham Kuyper’s political engagement, Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer, speak wisely to those who with a Benthamite view of the Bible run to the Capitol to press for enactment of certain laws of God.