Thousands of abortion-rights activists gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court after the Court announced a ruling in the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization case on June 24, 2022 in Washington, DC. The Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health overturns the landmark 50-year-old Roe v Wade case and erases a federal right to an abortion. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) (Chip Somodevilla, 2022 Getty Images)
With the release of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision on Friday, June 24, 2022, the reign of the Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in all 50 states was overturned.
This was a decision Christians have long hoped for but one that at times seems far from ever coming to pass.
A great deal has been written on this topic over the past two days, and it is not my intention here to recap all of it. But despite the volume of commentary about abortion, there are, I think, some important topics that are touched on but rarely, if they are discussed at all. It is to these topics that I now turn.
Dobbs v. Jackson Does Not Outlaw Abortion
The Supreme Court’s decision does not outlaw abortion in America. What it does is remove the Constitutionally guaranteed right to abortion, a right not found in the Constitution at all, but one invented by the Court in 1973.
When the Constitution was written, the intention of the framers was to establish a federal government of enumerated powers. That is, the Constitution spelled out in detail the powers of the federal government. Apart from these enumerated powers, the federal government had no authority. The 10th Amendment puts it this way, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
The logic here is the same as the logic behind the Regulative Principle of Worship. God alone tells us in his Word how he is to be worshipped. If the Bible does not specifically sanction a worship activity, that activity is prohibited. In like fashion, if the Constitution does not specifically spell out a governmental function as belonging to the federal government, that function is prohibited to it, and is, “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Following this line of thinking, we need to ask ourselves, does the Constitution have anything to say about abortion? This answer is, no it does not. Writing in Liberty Defined, Ron Paul noted,
[T]he Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. There are only four crimes listed in the Constitution: counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.
Paul, Liberty Defined, 2
Those who believe the Supreme Court should ban all abortion in America likely are disappointed by the Dobbs ruling. For example, a tweet from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) read, “Following the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a patchwork of state laws means abortion access will vary widely depending on where someone lives.” But what some would call a “patchwork” is simply the result of our federal system of government. As much as Christians would like to see abortion banned in all 50 states, that is probably not a possibility at this time. Some areas of the nation take a more biblical view of abortion, and some will be less Christian in their thinking.
While Christians can pray and work for the day when abortion is banned in all 50 states, we can receive with thanks the Court’s ruling that holds out the promise that abortions will now be banned or severely restricted in some parts of the nation.
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell faces reporters at a press conference in Washington, DC., on June 15, 2022. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, but the simple pass on and are punished.
Proverbs 22:3
For most of us, few things are more boring than central banks and monetary policy. Those who run our monetary system know this and are more than happy to make sure this situation persists, for it very much works to their advantage.
Take, for example, Friday’s announcement of a digital dollar by Jay Powell, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Jay Powell. According to Powell, a U.S. digital dollar, “could…potentially help maintain the dollar’s international standing.”
All this sounds innocent enough. Even downright boring. But there’s a lot going on here that is far more profound than a quick glance may suggest, and it’s worth taking a little time to unpack it. In short, Powell is proposing a new form of the US dollar he’s calling, “A U.S. CBDC (central bank digital currency).
So, who is Jay Powell? As mentioned earlier, he’s the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States. This is an extraordinarily powerful position. Some people argue that it’s the second most powerful position in America, following only that of the President.
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve heads up an institution that essentially runs the entire US financial system via its control over the US dollar. Set up in 1913, the Federal Reserve System is in charge of the issuance of the dollar, controlling how many dollars – i.e. currency units – are in existence. And since the US dollar is not merely the currency of the United States, but functions as the world’s reserve currency, one could argue that the Federal Reserve System (hereafter “the Fed”), though its ability to issue dollars, oversees the financial system of the entire world.
When I was in first grade it was “see spot run.” In 2022, a different message is being given to students.
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Romans 1:27
It wasn’t my intention to write on Pride Month again this week. But sometimes the need to speak out on an issue is such that to remain silent is impossible.
Homosexuality is a sin, both the acts and the desires. In the not-too-distant past, this was understood by nearly everyone. Even those who weren’t Christians by and large understood that sodomy was unnatural and not something to be proud of.
As recently as 1973, homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, an organization that could hardly be considered Christian.
Yet here we are, forty-nine years later, being told by corporations, government officials of all levels, teachers, schools, healthcare professionals, churches, colleges and universities, athletes, and entertainers that one must not only tolerate sodomy but actually celebrate it.
I personally know someone in the medical field, a Christian, who told me that the organization he works for, a large healthcare provider specializing in children, was actively soliciting doctors to lobby the Ohio legislature in opposition to a bill that would ban puberty blockers, hormone treatments and gender-change surgery for minors in the state.
Representation of the Netherlands destroyed by water and fire, while allegories of Truth and Virtue uncover a group of sodomites, 1730.
And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abomination of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.
1 Kings 14:24
If you pressed me asking which parts of Scripture I find most interesting, I would include in that list the books of 1 and 2 Kings. That may seem like an odd choice to some. But as someone who’s always had a fascination with history and political philosophy, I can’t help but be drawn to these books, for they provide a wealth of insight on these subjects. They are God’s official commentary on these matters.
These books also are remarkably applicable to our own time, for in many ways America of the 21st century is wrestling with many of the same sins that plagued Judah and Israel.
One such sin that we share with ancient Israel is sodomy.
Under the leadership of David and his son Solomon, Israel hit its peak of wealth, power, and influence. David the warrior king conquered all Israel’s foes and Solomon consolidated these gains. It was under Solomon’s reign that the first temple was dedicated, which one could argue marked the high point of the Israelite kingdom.
But while Solomon’s reign began impressively, over time Solomon’s heart was turned away from God to idolatry by his many foreign wives. “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father (1 Kings 11:4).
Although the writer of 1 Kings does not make explicit the connection between Solomon’s turning to idolatry with the presence of sodomites in the land, that seems to be his intent. 1 Kings 11:5 tells us that Solomon, “went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.” And while the presence of sodomites in Judah is not reported until the reign of Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, the close connection between pagan worship of the sort brought in by Solomon and sexual perversion raises the possibility that the origin of such persons in Israel can be traced to Solomon’s reign.
I mentioned above that 1 and 2 Kings provide a wealth of information about history and the mind of God applicable to our time. One of the takeaways from this portion of 1 Kings is that God hates sodomy and will punish those nations that practice it. In the books of the Law, sodomy, or what is more commonly today called homosexuality, is referred to as an “abomination.”
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination (Leviticus 18:22).
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them (Leviticus 20:13).
Not only is sodomy referred to as an “abomination,” but strikingly it is also considered a capital crime in the Law of Moses. This is likely the origin of sodomy laws in the United States. According to one article from a pro-sodomy website, there are still 16 US states that have sodomy laws on the books, although it seems that they are no longer enforced.
But it wasn’t just homosexual acts that were prohibited in the law. Cross dressing, although there were no civil penalties attached to it, likewise also was banned. We read, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God” (Deuteronomy 22:5).
John Gill comments on this prohibition of cross-dressing:
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man…It being very unseemly and impudent, and contrary to the modesty of her sex; or there shall not be upon her any “instrument of a man” (f), any utensil of his which he makes use of in his trade and business; as if she was employed in it, when her business was not to do the work of men, but to take care of her house and family….
Neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; which would betray effeminacy and softness unbecoming men, and would lead the way to many impurities, by giving an opportunity of mixing with women, and so to commit fornication and adultery with them….
Gill’s commentary on this passage is a strong condemnation of both feminism and transgenderism. His remarks on the prohibition of women wearing men’s apparel extends to their wearing items that would be associated with male professions. By implication, women were not to do the work of men, an idea completely foreign and offensive to our time which holds, contrary to God’s design for the human race, that one’s sex ought to have no bearing on what one does. The feminists’ denial of sex roles implies, whether the feminists want to accept it or not, homosexuality as well as transgenderism. Suppose one’s sex has no bearing on one’s behavior. In that case, there is no reason why this concept should not be extended from one’s professional behavior- why shouldn’t a woman have a right to a career as much as a man – to one’s sexuality – gay or straight – and even to one’s sexual identification – of course, a man can identify as a woman.
Currently, there is a great deal of controversy among feminists as to whether trans-women – by “trans-woman” is meant a person who is biologically male but identifies as a woman – are, in fact, women. So-called TERFs – Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists – reject the concept of trans-women while feminist transgender activists support the concept. In the opinion of this author, the transgender activists are the more consistent of the two groups. As feminism is a philosophical attempt to erase the distinctions between men and women, the feminist transgender activists have simply taken the concept to its absurd and logical conclusion by declaring that anatomical men can in fact be women. TERFs, on the other hand, inconsistently cling to the notion that, although men and women are essentially interchangeable and that sex ought to have no impact on one’s behavior, while at the same time they deny biological males who identify as women are truly women. If one’s sex doesn’t matter, as the TERFs claim, then it doesn’t matter. Therefore, there is no reason why trans-women should not be considered real women.
There has been a great deal of howling from feminists about the increasing participation of trans-women in women’s sports, but the feminists have only themselves to blame as they are the ones who set this process in motion by denying the distinctions God made between male and female. One could argue that Lia Thomas, the University of Pennsylvania trans-woman swimmer who dominated the world of college woman’s swimming this past year, is a feminist “own goal.” Rather than seeking to pass legislation banning trans-women from participating in women’s sports, Christians ought to focus on rooting out the feminist philosophical poison that is killing our civilization and that led to absurd outcomes such as Lia Thomas dominating college women’s swimming.
Gill shows himself prescient when he remarked on the results of men wearing woman’s attire, one of which was that it would, “lead to many impurities, by giving an opportunity of mixing with women, and so to commit fornication and adultery with them.” The many news stories of women being sexually assaulted in restrooms and locker rooms by cross-dressing, so-called trans-women attest to Gill’s insightfulness.
Sodomy Invites God’s Judgment
Given the Lord’s strong condemnation of sodomy, it should come as no surprise that this sin invites God’s judgment. The account of God’s overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 stands as a dramatic illustration of how offensive this sin is in his sight.
Another example of God’s pouring out his wrath on civilizations that practice this sin is found in a passage already mentioned, 1 Kings chapter 14. Verse 24 of this chapter notes that, “there were also sodomites in the land” during the rule of Solomon’s son Rehoboam. Immediately following this observation, verses 25 and 26 note that, “And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem: And he took away the treasures of the king’s house; he even took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made.”
Although the author of 1 Kings does not explicitly make a connection between there being Sodomites in the land and the military defeat of Judah and the plundering of Jerusalem, the fact that the plundering of Jerusalem by Shishak followed immediately upon the note that there were sodomites in the land implied a connection between them.
This should be a concern to all Americans and citizens of other Western nations. If God did not spare Israel from humiliating and destructive military defeat, why would he spare us from similar treatment?
Worth noting in this regard is a tweet sent out by Richard Moore, Chief of MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service in which he wrote, “With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights.” Not exactly Churchillian level rhetoric, is it? The British, and the West generally, have devolved from, “We shall fight them on the beaches,” to “we’re better than the Russians because we think LGBTQ+ rights are awesome but that bad man Vladimir Putin denies same-sex marriage.” Inspired yet?
Whatever one may think of Putin, he is objectively closer to Biblical teaching on the issue of sodomy than is the apostate and degenerate West. Could it be that the West’s support of sexual perversion is a reason why the war in Ukraine is going badly for Western forces? There are reports of the Biden Regime seeking an “off-ramp in Ukraine.” If the war were going so well, why is Biden looking for a way out?
Turning Back the Clock
It is sometimes assumed that once homosexuals have gained control of an institution, there is no going back. But another lesson we can take from Israel’s experience with sodomites is that their gains can be reversed.
Although Solomon brought in pagan worship that likely led to the flourishing of sodomites during Rehoboam’s reign, they were eventually removed from Israel by the godly kings Asa and Jehoshaphat.
In 1 Kings 15:11-12, we read, “And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.” Here we see Asa moving decisively against both sodomy and the false religious system that supported sodomy in Judah. Worth noting is that Asa was, unlike his predecessor Rehoboam, successful in defending Judah from foreign enemies.
Likewise, Asa’s son Jehoshaphat is commended by the writer of 1 Kings, who said of Jehoshaphat that he did, “that which was right in the eyes of the LORD.” Among Jehoshaphat’s righteous acts was his removal of, “the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father, Asa.”
The reformations effected by Asa and Jehoshaphat in Judah show that it is possible for righteous magistrates to reverse prior gains by sodomites and, so to speak, put them back in the closet.
Christians should take heart from this. Although things are going very badly for us and the sodomites seem to be going from strength to strength, they can be defeated.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has led the way in this by dealing a decisive blow to uber-woke Disney Corporation after it opposed a bill prohibiting the teaching of sexualized material to young children in Florida schools and later, after the bill passed, threatened to campaign for its overturn.
The decisive actions in punishing Disney seem to have had an effect on other “woke capital” as several large firms recently have backed off their woke initiatives in the wake of the smackdown given to Disney by the DeSantis administration.
The actions of Governor DeSantis and the Florida legislature are commendable and indicative of the good that can come when magistrates follow the Lord by punishing those who practice evil and pass laws that uphold the good.
As Christians, let us take heart from this victory and the success of Asa and Jehoshaphat and pray and work that the Lord would strike more such blows against Satan’s kingdom of darkness and that those who are caught in the clutches of the sin of sodomy would repent of their evil and come to saving faith in Christ Jesus.
One-Time
Monthly
Yearly
Make a non-tax-deductable donation to support the work of Lux Lucet
Lux Lucet 