The US Supreme Court issued two landmark rulings yesterday. One struck down affirmative action, declaring the consideration of race in university admissions to be unconstitutional. According to the Wall Street Journal, the high court’s ruling against racial preferences means “admissions offices now must decide where racial diversity ranks among priorities that can include academic performance, achievement in extracurricular activities such as athletics, and preferences for alumni and donors.”

Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts stated, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” He added, “The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the opposite.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented: “The Court ignores the dangerous consequences of an America where its leadership does not reflect the diversity of the people.”

If you were on the Court, how would you balance our founding declaration that “all men are created equal” with the consequences of racial discrimination across our history?

The other ruling sided with an evangelical Christian worker who was denied requests to take Sundays off from his post office job to observe his Sabbath. The unanimous opinion made it more difficult for employers to deny religious workplace rights, as Justice Samuel Alito stated:  “An employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” This is a significant victory for religious liberty in America.

However, some worry that the ruling could give employees more leeway to exercise their personal religious views even if they are inconsistent with those held by their employers or colleagues. Should a Jehovah’s Witness who works at a hospital be able to withhold a blood transfusion on religious grounds? Should a Muslim be able to stop for daily prayers even if this disrupts other workers and hinders workplace productivity?

Asked differently, does the ruling violate the First Amendment’s promise that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”? Or does it uphold the promise not to prohibit “the free exercise thereof”?

If you were on the Court, how would you balance the two?

“The boundaries between spheres are collapsing”

Yesterday’s rulings demonstrate the problem of competing constitutional values in a democratic republic. And they illustrate an even larger narrative at work in our culture today.

New York Times columnist David Brooks recently highlighted the thinking of the early-twentieth-century Dutch prime minister and theologian Abraham Kuyper, who observed that there are a variety of spheres, each with its own social function. Brooks explained that there is the state, the church, the family, the schools, science, business, and so on. Kuyper noted that each of these spheres has its own rules and possesses its own integrity and way of doing things.

Brooks writes: “Society grows unhealthy, Kuyper argued, when one sphere tries to take over another sphere. In our country, the business sphere has sometimes tried to take over the education sphere—to run schools like a business. But if you run a school or university on the profit-maximization mentality, you will trample over the mission of what a school is for—the cultivation of the student, the mission of pure research.”

According to Brooks, “Today, the boundaries between spheres are collapsing. You go into an evangelical megachurch and it can feel like a political pep rally. Some professors now see themselves as political activists. You open your email and find corporations taking political stances on issues that have nothing to do with their core businesses.

“Some days it seems every sphere has been subsumed into one giant culture war.”

How evangelicals feel as Pride Month ends

This concept of social “spheres” is vital to our flourishing as a democratic republic. However, these spheres often overlap, as when a university tries to balance the equality of an individual with the consequences of racial discrimination or a worker claims religious rights in secular employment.

At such times, inevitably one “side” will think it lost the legal and cultural battle.

This is precisely where many evangelical Christians find ourselves as Pride Month ends. We agree that LGBTQ individuals have civil rights and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. But we have civil rights as well.

We do not want our children exposed to incessant attempts to normalize unbiblical immorality. And we do not want to be branded as bigoted and hateful for upholding moral positions that have been upheld for all of Judeo-Christian history and are still the majority position in much of the world.

But remember this: If Jesus is your Lord, this world is not your home. On the contrary, “Our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20). You are an “ambassador” for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20), representing your king in this foreign land.

Christ “is Sovereign over all”

The Supreme Court is generating headlines around the world, but your next act of faithful obedience will echo in heaven. The culture wars are dominating our culture, but you cannot measure the eternal significance of present faithfulness.

Here is where another assertion by Abraham Kuyper, one omitted in Brooks’ article, is essential: “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not exclaim, ‘Mine!’”

Can he say the same of your life and obedience today?

Denison Forum

You can buy a replica of the iconic Princess Leia dress from the 1977 Star Wars movie for $36.99, or you could have purchased the real thing in an auction that closed yesterday. The gown had been expected to bring up to $2 million, but the final bid amount of $975,000 failed to meet the seller’s minimum sale price. So you still have time.

If you buy the real Princess Leia dress, I wouldn’t know the difference between the two, but you would. Whether that’s worth what it cost is up to you.

The late Zig Ziglar noted, “It’s your attitude, not your aptitude, that will determine your altitude.”

“If a million people say a foolish thing”

The power of ideas to change the world is why Pride Month grows bigger and more insistent every year. For example, Time is carrying an article titled “Miss Benny is Glamorous—And Transgender.” Yahoo! wants us to know about two military sisters who used to be brothers.

Greater Good Magazine, which claims to offer “science-based insights for a meaningful life,” wants to teach us “how polyamorous people can find happiness in later life.” The New York Times informs us that “Emily Morse wants you to think seriously about an open relationship.”

And halfway through a seemingly innocuous Time article titled “The Best Father’s Day Gifts: 39 Thoughtful Ideas for the Dad in Your Life,” along with pocketknives and tumblers, we find Stella Brings the Family, which turns out to be a story about a girl and her two dads.

Ideas change the world for good and for bad. For example, a bill being considered in California would make a parent’s refusal to “affirm” their child’s transgender identity grounds for denying custody or visitation rights. More studies are demonstrating the danger of recreational marijuana use to public health, especially threatening expectant mothers and their babies, the mental health of young men, and the safety of those in the workplace.

Legal euthanasia is now being practiced in the Netherlands for people with autism or intellectual disabilities. As David French persuasively demonstrates in the New York Times, permitting transgender women to compete against biological women in sports threatens the legal foundation of women’s sports.

The singer and LGBTQ activist Rod McKuen claimed, “It doesn’t matter who you love or how you love, but that you love.” Does this apply to adultery? Polygamy? Pedophilia?

The French journalist Anatole France was right: “If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.”

Why people “behave badly”

You and I likely agree that, whatever conventional wisdom or personal opinion might claim, biblical morality is authoritative and foundational to life. We know we are to “flee from sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 6:18) and to refuse all “works of the flesh” (Galatians 5:19).

But here’s the part of the story that is often overlooked: choosing to avoid wrong thoughts isn’t enough to avoid wrong thoughts.

New York Times columnist David Brooks is right: “People don’t behave badly because they lack information about their shortcomings. They behave badly because they’ve fallen into patterns of destructive behavior from which they’re unable to escape.” Consequently, he advises, “The way to get someone out of a negative cascade . . . . [is] to go on offense and try to maximize some alternative good behavior. There’s a trove of research suggesting that it’s best to attack negative behaviors obliquely, by redirecting attention toward different, positive ones.”

Brooks agrees with the Apostle Paul: “Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8, my emphasis). It is not enough to avoid sinful thoughts—we must think godly thoughts. It is not enough to refuse temptation—we must choose godly behavior.

Otherwise we are like the man in Jesus’ parable who was liberated from an unclean spirit and then swept his house but left it empty. As a result, the spirit returned and brought with it “seven other spirits more evil than itself” (Matthew 12:43–45).

If, however, we fill our “house” with biblical thinking that results in biblical acting, we benefit not just ourselves but those we influence. After encouraging the Philippians to think about what is worthy of praise, Paul could offer himself as a concrete example: “What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you” (Philippians 4:9). This was not egotism but the positive result of positive thinking in action.

“Keep your face always toward the sunshine”

NFL Hall of Fame coach Tony Dungy observed, “Your mind is more powerful than you think. What is down in the well comes up in the bucket.”

This is why I so often encourage you to begin your day by meeting with God in his word and worship. (Our devotional ministry, First15, is a great resource.) I would add this practical suggestion: the next time you face temptation, ask the Spirit to show you a positive way you could respond in opposition to the sin you are being tempted to commit.

When you are tempted by immoral thoughts, reflect on biblical truth. When you are tempted to slander or gossip about someone, pray for God’s best for them instead. When you are tempted to shrink from sharing your faith, pray for courage and then stand boldly for your Savior.

Walt Whitman observed, “Keep your face always toward the sunshine, and shadows will fall behind you.”

Use evil for good and good will defeat evil.

This is the promise—and the invitation—of God.

Denison Forum