(upbeat music) Welcome to this special weekend edition of the Ask Pastor John podcast. In the last week or so, we have gotten about 50 emails from listeners who wanna hear from you, Pastor John, about Kim Davis, a county clerk in the state of Kentucky. Here's one such email from Sherry, one of our faithful podcast listeners, who simply asks this.

Pastor John, is Kim Davis wrong for not signing same-sex marriage licenses? What would you say, Pastor John? I don't know Kim Davis's heart, and so I can't assess her motives, and I don't know her theology. It's possible to do right actions for wrong reasons, and so be wrong in doing right.

So I'll just try to say something about her actions and what appear to be some of her convictions, and perhaps touch on some wider implications. So first, I think she's right in rejecting so-called same-sex marriage as contrary to God's design for what marriage is, and she is right in assessing this departure from God's will as massive, not marginal, and as personally and culturally deadly, not trivial.

And therefore, not something that you can just go along with as if that were a loving thing to do. The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 6, 9, and 10 that the endorsement of same-sex practice, which is what the approval of so-called same-sex marriage does, that that endorsement of that practice, along with idolatry, greed, theft, drunkenness, is an endorsement of the destruction of persons.

Those who impenitently practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Calling such behaviors legal in no way removes the capital punishment that will follow in eternity. Therefore, this judgment of the Supreme Court is massively evil and deadly for persons. Kim Davis is right if she believes that.

Seems she does. Second, I think she's morally right and probably legally right to refuse to put her name on the marriage license of two men or two women. She's morally right because God has given civil authority and civil authorities to the world to reward the right and punish the evil.

So when those authorities, instead of doing that, promote evil and punish good, those authorities may rightly be disobeyed for the sake of obeying God. So here are the two key texts. 1 Peter 2, 13. Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor supreme or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.

So be subject to governors as they're sent to punish evil and do good. Paul said it like this, Romans 13, 1. "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, "for there is no authority except from God, "for," here's the ground, "rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.

"He is God's servant for your good." Now, I don't think Peter and Paul are naive in writing this way. I think what they mean when they tell us that this is the way it is, this is what governments do, they reward the good, they punish the evil, that what they mean is that this is what governments ought to do.

This is the way it ought to be. For example, when Paul says, "Rulers are not a terror to good conduct," we're liable to scratch our heads to think of a hundred cases where governments have slaughtered people in great wickedness. And so what in the world, Paul? Well, Paul says rulers are not a terror to good conduct.

Like a dad says to his children, "We tell the truth in this family." That's the indicative statement of what ought to be. "We treat other with kindness in this family." That's what we do. He doesn't mean sin never happens in this family. The kids are not always good. He means this is what we ought to do.

And when we don't act this way, we're acting out of character. It ought not to be. Something should change. And so it is with governments. They exist to support the good and resist the bad. And here's an interesting thing. A few verses later in Peter 2.18, he gives an illustration of how slaves are to be subject to masters.

So he's carrying this submission theme through for governments and slaves and wives and husbands and children and so on. And then he says, "Servants, be subject to your masters, "even to the unjust, for what credit is it "if when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? "But if when you do good, when you do good "and suffer for it, you endure, "this is a gracious thing in the sight of God." So Peter envisions someone under authority doing something good that gets him a beating.

Authorities don't ordinarily punish people for being completely compliant. Now, of course, it may be that the slave was slandered and then punished for something he did not do. That's possible, but that's not what the text says. He wouldn't jump to that conclusion, I don't think, without pressing it. And it seems to me that he has done something good.

Maybe he stuck up for a fellow Christian slave or maybe he shared the gospel or maybe he or she, say, refused to have sex with the master. When you do good and suffer and endure, this is a gracious thing with God. So it may well be, I suspect it is, that this slave or citizen or wife or whatever knew he or she would pay a price.

And that was a gracious thing with God, to suffer like that for doing good. Now, I think Kim Davis was right not to sign the marriage licenses and thus to treat evil as marriage. It's not marriage. And to participate in the endorsement of anyone's destruction, which is what she's doing if she blesses with her authority and her signature, this union which leads to destruction.

Encouraging homosexual behavior is the participation in someone's destruction. I think she's right not to do that. Now, I said she may be also legally right and not just morally right. Now, this is complicated, but just a few observations. Was she legally bound to resign instead of obstructing the licensing process?

Now, there are two angles on this, two ways to come at this. One is to observe that perhaps she's not the one breaking the law, but that the Supreme Court broke the law by the ludicrous claim that they could find in the Constitution a right to the nonexistent illusion called same-sex marriage.

That's absolutely ludicrous that they could find such a thing in the Constitution. They came up with that out of thin air because they want it to be. There does come a point, doesn't there? I mean, I have to ask everybody, doesn't there come a point where people with eyes say, "This strutting court has no clothes on." They may have a tiny little, a picture, maybe an inch across, a tiny tyrannical crown on their heads, but they are not robed with the royal power to make the Constitution condone the killing of children and so-called same-sex marriage.

It cannot be done. They have created out of nothing this mirage. The other angle that suggests Kim Davis was not only morally right, but perhaps legally right, is that she was drawing the line, the hill to die on, not at whether so-called gay marriage could be authorized by anyone in Kentucky, but by whether it would have to be authorized by her.

The specific issue was whether her name or her official authority as clerk was put on the licenses. And so the legal question is, does an employee, even an elected employee, have to comply with every aspect of the job description if it compromises the conscience or are there legal, legal, that's the key word here, the legal provisions that mandate that an employer adjust the employee's job requirements to avoid the conflict with conscience?

And the answer is yes. Both the Federal Civil Rights Act and Kentucky's Religious Freedom Restoration Act have such provisions in them. And so the question for the court, if she pursues it this way, I don't know how she's pursuing it, is whether the adjustment in her job description can be made without an undue burden on that office, on the employer.

Kim Davis's case is not unique. People need to really be aware of this. Can she keep her job and not do part of her job because of her conscience? Like, and these are all real litigations, nurses who have religious objections, not to being a nurse, but to doing abortions, can they keep their job and not do abortions?

Even though the hospital says you have to, that's your job. Can a Muslim truck driver not transport alcohol? Can a pacifist postal worker not process draft registration forms? Can a Jehovah's Witness employee not be required to raise the flag at the school? Can a vegetarian bus driver not be required to hand out hamburger coupons?

I mean, those are all real cases I read about whether or not legally one can have his job description without resigning, adjusted so as to avoid the conflict with conscience. So for Kim Davis, the legal question is, can she be given an exemption so that she can carry out her clerk's duties while not giving any of her official authority to the licensing of so-called same-sex marriage?

And the answer is, we'll see. I don't know what's gonna happen. But morally, she is, of course, just one prominent case of what will be hundreds in the months and years to come as Christians and others draw a line of conscience beyond which they will not go. And the upshot for us, all of us, is that we should all be pondering now what that line is in our vocation, our schooling, our civic life, our finances, our friendships, because if we're not fixed and strong in our resolve and are taken off guard with the threat of loss, we will cave in.

Now, now is the time to be clear and resolve before they knock on your door. - Wonderful, Pastor John. Thank you for tackling this subject. And thank you, Sherry, for the question, and for everyone who sent in questions about this issue. Thank you. Please keep your questions coming in to us.

Thank you for listening to this special weekend edition of the Ask Pastor John podcast. For more details, go to our site at desiringgod.org/askpastorjohn I'm your host, Tony Reinke. We'll see you on Monday. (upbeat music) (upbeat music)