|
If you love the Weekly Speak, consider making a one-time or monthly donation to So We Speak! Thanks to everyone who supports our ministry. We couldn't equip Christians to think Christianly about the world without you!
|
|
|
|
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, 2018 | Photo: VWEAA, Wikipedia Commons
|
|
ACB
On Saturday, President Trump introduced Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his nomination to the Supreme Court. Barrett is an eminently qualified judge from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the mother of seven, a devout Roman Catholic, and one of the brightest legal minds of her generation. In his endorsement, John Garvey, the president of the Catholic University of America and former law professor at Notre Dame, described her as “the best student I ever had” when he recommended her to clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia.
Shortly after the president made his remarks, Barrett stepped to the podium to accept the nomination, thank her family, and introduce herself to the nation. In her acceptance speech, she previewed her personal character and judicial philosophy; “And if the Senate does me the honor of confirming me, I pledge to discharge the responsibilities of this job to the very best of my ability. I love the United States, and I love the United States Constitution.” She made clear that the role of a Supreme Court justice is to serve the people of the United States, not any specific group, but the entire nation; “I would discharge the judicial oath, which requires me to administer justice without respect to persons, do equal right to the poor and rich, and faithfully and impartially discharge my duties under the United States Constitution.”
Barrett defined her judicial philosophy as a continuation of the late justice Antonin Scalia, whom she clerked for; “A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.” Originalists believe that laws should be interpreted according to the “original public meaning” of the statute, (which is both broader and more easily ascertained than the “author’s original intent”). Barrett has a record of originalist interpretations, but she is no Scalia clone. She will bring a fresh originalist vision to the court alongside justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
The significance of Barrett’s tenure on the court will be a bulwark of originalism against the tide of judicial legislation and activism. As she said in her speech, the judiciary does not make the laws, they interpret them. If she does that, she’ll leave an excellent judicial legacy on the Supreme Court and that will just be the beginning of her legacy in American life.
Opposition
The opposition to Barrett has continued to gain steam in the media. When it comes to political messaging, Democrats have decided to make Barrett’s confirmation all about healthcare. In a note to Senate Democrats, Sen. Schumer said the best way to keep the pressure up during the pandemic is to focus on the threat to people’s healthcare. With the individual mandate portion of the ACA coming before the Supreme Court after the election, Dems have zeroed in on the blow Barrett could deal to the Obama administration’s signature legislation, forecasting millions losing their insurance.
Some Democratic leaders have cautioned against making personal attacks against Barrett. This is the way congressional hearings should typically work, but after Kavanaugh how could anyone expect otherwise? These calls may be too little too late as Barrett has already faced a barrage of attacks over her religious commitments, the size of her family, adopting two children from Haiti, her respect for her husband, and her commitment to the constitution. Every one of these attacks likely plays well for Republicans.
The personal attacks revive discussions about religious life in America. It’s interesting that Democratic leaders like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have made it clear that they believe themselves to be “devout” Catholics but they vigorously oppose Barrett’s nomination to the court. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s comments about Barrett ring loudly in the ears of every religious person in America, wondering not just about anti-Catholic bias in America, but anti-religious biases of all kinds. Elizabeth Bruenig has pointed out that Catholicism and American Democracy have always been in tension, and Barrett’s appointment highlights some of the differences. America’s elite classes have quickly become completely unfamiliar with true religious belief. The next two weeks will serve as a Rorschach test for American perceptions of religion and its role in the nation’s highest offices.
A Feminine Icon
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was praised as a “feminist icon” and it’s a sign of the times that Barrett isn’t being given the same honors. She’s a smart, successful woman getting ready to be confirmed to the highest court in America; there’s no doubt she should be revered in the same way. As some feminists have sought to define their vision around abortion and the LGBTQ agenda, the place for femininity defined by the traits found in faith, motherhood, marriage, and the nuclear family have begun to evaporate. With Barrett’s appointment the question arises, is there a place for this kind of femininity in American life?
In an essay for Politico, Erika Bachiochi considers how Amy Coney Barrett will “serve as a catalyst for rethinking the most powerful social movement in the last half century: feminism.” It’s a courageous question to pose in such a prominent media outlet. As she points out, Ginsburg’s brand of feminism was premised on pro-choice advocacy and breaking out of “caretaking” stereotypes. Barrett certainly represents a different approach. She’s personally pro-life and believes in the biblical understanding of sexuality. Whether or not she would adopt the “feminist” label, she’s certainly championing a biblical and beautiful vision of femininity. There’s a wide road running between the Women’s March and the patriarchy, and Amy Coney Barrett may be just the person to draw our attention to it.
The pushback against Barrett demonstrates just how feeble our social conceptions of feminine success have become. We live in a society that despises femininity for its own sake and on its own merits - and I’m not just talking about the transgenderism movement, the deconstruction of gender binaries, or the drift toward androgyny in American advertising - just ask J.K. Rowling. In a world that wants to do away with gender, it’s women who suffer the most. It’s their identities and opportunities that are being erased.
Success for women has been fashioned to look exactly like success for men. We know what it means to be successful, but is it possible any more to talk about a successful woman without reaping the whirlwind? Money, power, and promotions are the patron saints of secular success. In the corporate world especially, being a successful woman means beating men at their own games, and more and more women are doing so. But there’s a difference between celebrating things like equality of opportunity in the workplace and higher graduation rates for women in professional degrees and making those categories the standards for success. These are real wins, but they only display one aspect of femininity. As we work to mend injustices in the marketplace, let’s not abolish the dignity of the home.
Contrary to popular opinion, the problem isn’t that Christians believe women must be forced to stay at home and raise children; most Christians do not believe this as a universal principle. The problem is that when Christian women do decide to devote themselves to raising their children, our society often supplies one of two explanations: either they must not be ambitious or they must be being forced into that decision by their fathers, husbands, or religious principles. These damnable lies prove how far we’ve drifted from God’s design for human flourishing.
Christians believe that success should be defined by completely different metrics; there is dignity, power, and honor in the domain of the family that supersedes the modes of success displayed in the marketplace. While this is true for men and women, biblically speaking, it’s particularly evident in the lives of women who chose to make the family their primary focus and who use their gifts, talents, and passions to steward the gifts God has given them in their home.
Our secular society has no category for this. What would they even make of the woman in Proverbs 31? Of Prisca, Ruth, Deborah, or Lydia? It’s one of the reasons Barrett is such an inspiration, and such a target for attack. It’s not in vogue to view motherhood as a more central and important calling than serving on the Supreme Court, but in a speech at Notre Dame last year Barrett said, “What greater thing can you do than raise children? That’s where you have your greatest impact on the world.” Barrett has chosen to pursue her career and she treasures the even higher calling God has given her as a mom. That’s something to be celebrated.
One of the storylines going unnoticed in a lot of the coverage is Barrett’s son Benjamin, who has Down Syndrome. The abortion rate for children with Down Syndrome is one of tne of the darkest spots in American life. Nearly 67% of these babies are aborted in the US. Barrett isn’t just a pro-life judge, she’s a pro-life mom. When the Barrett’s found out their youngest son would have special needs, they welcomed him as a gift. After the devastation in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, they found ways to make sure they could adopt two children, one of whom was so malnourished that doctors said she might never walk.
In today’s world, we hardly have a category for a woman who graduates at the top of her class in law school, clerks at the Supreme Court, and wants to be a mother of seven, but it’s something worth talking about. Outlets like the New York Times have no category for this, safely limiting Barrett’s appeal as an inspiration to “conservative Christian women,” but this is an insult to women who aren’t conservative Christians. Barrett is a model, not just in her particular calling and career choices, but in her character, ambition, and faith, especially to our young women, but more generally, to all of us.
In the coming weeks, attacks and celebrations of Amy Coney Barrett should remind us of the starkly different vision of the world we have as Christians. The Bible is clear that men and women are different, equal in dignity and honor, both created in the image of God, and both necessary for the flourishing of the other. The family is the core unit of society in the biblical worldview, children are joyous gifts from God, we work to bring God glory and to build his kingdom here on earth. Husbands and wives should love and respect each other, honor and serve one another, and take joy in God’s provision and gifting. Maybe Amy Coney Barrett will transcend RBG, if not as a “feminist icon,” then as a “feminine icon.”
The Schedule
The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin meeting with Barrett this week. Then they will hold hearings beginning with opening statements on Monday, October 12 and questions beginning the next day. Wednesday of that week will see a second round of questions and a closed session. Thursday the committee will hear from outside witnesses on Barrett’s qualification and character. Sen. Lindsey Graham has indicated that they will vote no later than October 22 to send the nomination to the full Senate. This leaves less than two weeks before the election.
There’s no telling what may take place between now and then. The Democrats have no procedural way to block the nomination, but they may try to apply social pressure to vulnerable Senators or various delay tactics to push the vote past the election. Sens. Graham and McConnell control the schedule and with the votes intact, they intend to confirm Amy Coney Barrett before November 3.
|
|
Study Philippians
When Paul wrote the letter to the Philippians, he saw an opportunity for the Gospel in a difficult time. In this series, Terry Feix walks through the unique opportunity we have to see our world changed by the Gospel during these unprecedented times.
|
|
|
The policemen who shot Breonna Taylor have not been charged in connection with her shooting. They found no fault in the officers who entered Taylor’s apartment with a warrant for her boyfriend’s arrest. They found that the officers returned fire in self-defense when they were attacked. Andy McCarthy walks through the facts of the case with his usual precision. When the decision was announced, protests erupted across Louisville, continuing months of unrest over Taylor’s death.
This situation defies the categories we’ve grown familiar with in American life. It’s an unjust tragedy, but it’s unclear who to blame. Many prominent Democrats and protestors are calling for justice, but few of them have given specifics on what to do. If a jury didn’t find enough evidence to charge the officers, what should be done? This does not appear to be race related. It does not seem to be a miscarriage of justice. Our judicial system relies on the integrity of due process, not public sentiment, and we shouldn’t be quick to forget the unique and radical freedom that brings us as citizens of the United States.
But what happens when due process is not enough? Daniel Cameron, the Attorney General put this well in his announcement, “The decision before my office is not to decide if the loss of Breonna Taylor’s life was a tragedy — the answer to that question is unequivocally yes.” Just because the officers were treated justly before the law doesn’t mean that Breonna Taylor’s death has been undone. Her family still feels the pain of loss. They still long for her and miss her. It’s a tragedy and it forces us to deal with grief without taking vengeance. Terrible things happen in this world. We can be just and compassionate, equitable and broken-hearted, sympathetic and committed to due process. If nothing else, Breonna Taylor’s death reminds us of the fallenness of the world we live in, the devastating situations we find ourselves in, the promise of the perfect justice of God, and the hope of resurrection we cling to and long for when our savior returns.
Capitol Hill Baptist Church files a lawsuit against Washington D.C. over lockdown discrimination. Mark Dever’s historic CHBC is the first church to challenge the city over their double standards for churches and other businesses. In Washington D.C. there is a ban on any gathering over 50 people, inside and outside. While D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser attended a large outdoor protest in June, supported demonstrations throughout the summer, and refused to enforce her 50 person limit on outdoor gatherings, that same leniency didn’t apply to churches. Dever has appealed to be able to meet outside for worship and begin to gather again as a church for worship after almost 6 months of prohibitions.
The New York Times released leaked information on Trump’s tax returns, showing he paid no income tax in 11 of the last 18 years and only $750 in 2017. This is the story driving the day in the mainstream media. A trio of NYT reporters obtained the president’s tax information and chronicled Trump’s up and down real estate career. In many years, he reported overall losses and did not pay any federal income tax. The biggest point of concern is that he has $400 million in debt obligations due in the next decade.
There’s been a lot of speculation surrounding this story. In the media, pundits and talk show hosts have seized on the president’s losing record. Some have accused him of tax fraud. Others have wondered if he has debts to foreign governments. The president's defenders have called the story fake news. Many have questioned the legitimacy of publishing information leaked illegally without verification.
Trump’s taxes have been a source of interest since he announced his candidacy in 2015. This is a conversation worth having - the tax system in the United States is something that affects every person - but because of the way this information has been presented, it will be impossible to make any sense of the data. More importantly, it will be impossible to judge what factor this should play in Trump’s candidacy. When everything is partisan, hardly anything sticks.
The bottom line is that this story is hardly new, even if it has new data. These same authors wrote very similar stories in 2018, 2017, and 2016, and this storyline has been tried many other times before. The trio won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on Trump’s taxes in 2019. It will likely be out of the news cycle by the end of the week. However, the timing of the story is not insignificant. The New York Times has given Joe Biden a load of ammunition two days before the first presidential debate. Expect him to use it generously on the stage Tuesday night.
Bethlehem Bible College and Seminary named Joe Rigney as its second president. The college and seminary, founded and led by John Piper is entering a new phase as Piper steps back from leadership, and Rigney has been charged with leading the school into the future starting June 1, 2021. Andy Naselli, a professor at Bethlehem, detailed Rigney’s qualifications for the role, calling him the perfect successor to John Piper.
|
|
Best Reads:
“3 Things I Learned from a Pastor Who Endured for 70 Years” - David Schrock, The Gospel Coalition
Seventy years in one church! That’s how long Vernon Lyons served in Ashburn, Illinois, on the south side of Chicago. In this article, Schrock pays tribute to his wife’s grandfather and gleans lessons from such a long tenure in ministry. It’s impressive and inspiring to hear of someone quietly serving the same group of people for so long, and it’s a reminder not to neglect the wisdom and the testimony of faithful obscure pastors. Let’s pray for many more Vernon Lyons.
“Princeton Is Not Racist, but Race-Obsessed” - Sergui Klanerman, National Review
This Princeton saga sounds like it should be the Babylon Bee. The president of Princeton announced that the school was rife with racism so the Department of Education decided to launch an investigation into these disturbing revelations. The president then released a statement saying they weren’t racist in that sense, as in they weren’t violating any of the government’s regulations on non-discrimination, but that they were subject to the same kinds of “implicit” and “systemic” racism plaguing the rest of the country. These sentiments are not uncommon, even if this case is particularly poignant.
Klanerman makes the astute observation that Princeton is not racist, but race-obsessed. I’d say he’s right about our entire society. Looking at every issue through the lens of racial oppression isn’t just unwise and unpractical, it’s proving an excellent way to deconstruct all of society in short order. At minimum, I think Klanerman calls into question the merits of race-obsession in American culture. At his best, I think he presents the bankruptcy of the current “anti-racism” movement to solve any of our problems. This Princeton parable should serve as a warning sign; if there are instances of racism in our institutions, let’s work to fix them. If there aren’t, stop signaling racist bona fides. Hypocritical statements like these can’t be the way forward.
“The Patient Ambition of John Milton: A Conversation with Thom Satterlee” - Cynthia L. Haven, Los Angeles Review of Books
Milton is becoming a lost hero for Christians. As Satterlee comments in this interview, he’s remembered for Paradise Lost, which is hardly read anymore, and one beautiful sonnet about going blind. As this interview displays, Milton lived a fascinating life and should be admired now for his ambition, writing talent, endurance in suffering, political theology, and most interestingly here, his patient plodding. The greatest epic in the English language was composed over twenty years by a man who had gone blind, lost his social status, but never lost his faith in God. This book sounds interesting, but the little tidbits about Milton make the interview well worth reading.
“Why We Should Be More Familiar with OT Sacrifices” - Peter Krol, Knowable Word
Leviticus is an easy book to avoid and a hard one to study, but hard work in this book pays big dividends in the New Testament. The sacrificial system is the backdrop for so much of what Jesus did on the cross and how he fulfilled the law. As Krol points out, it’s easy to collapse the entire sacrificial system into a primeval ritual to atone for sin, but the Levitical system is richer and more textured than that; it informs the way we worship, pray, and confess our sins now. This 2-minute read is a great primer on how to study Leviticus and how to apply it to New Testament passages.
|
|
|
|
