Kingdom-Building

“Theocracy Alert: Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, advises new lawyers[i] to use their law career to build the ‘Kingdom of God.’ ”[ii]

“The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”[iii]

On October 27, 2020, Judge Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in as associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, “setting another milestone in Trump’s rightward shift of the top U.S. judicial body.”[iv] “Barrett is the dream candidate for conservative Republicans and the nightmare candidate for Democrats.”[v]

It goes without saying that if Donald Trump were a Democrat pushing their agenda, and if he’d nominated an ideological heir of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, leftists would be rolling out all the arguments conservatives are now using to justify this appointment so close to a federal election.

This isn’t about what’s “apropos” for a president in an election year, no matter what leftists or conservatives may tell you. This is about ideology.

After Trump’s nomination of her, Barrett hinted at her own ideology by

pledg[ing] to become a justice in the mold of the late staunch conservative Antonin Scalia[.]

. . . . Scalia, who died in 2016, was one of the most influential conservative justices in recent history. Barrett previously served as a clerk for Scalia on the high court and described him as her mentor, citing his “incalculable influence” on her life.[vi]

Unsurprisingly, and especially given that Trump had already tilted the Court toward the conservative end of the spectrum, with the appointments of Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh a year later — leftists are alarmed at the 6–3 advantage Barrett’s confirmation gives conservatives. After all, her mentor Scalia “had voted to curb abortion rights, dissented when the court legalized gay marriage — he called it a ‘judicial putsch’ — and backed broad gun rights, among other positions.”[vii]

Barrett herself “is in many ways the ideological opposite of Justice Ginsburg, who led the court’s liberal wing. She has an unwaveringly conservative voting record in cases that touch on abortion, gun rights, discrimination and immigration.”[viii]

Undeniably,

An emboldened Supreme Court conservative majority could shift the United States to the right on hot-button issues by, among other things, curbing abortion rights, expanding religious rights, striking down gun control laws, halting the expansion of LGBT rights, and endorsing new restrictions on voting rights.[ix]

Among the panic-stricken, vitriolic reactions of leftists:

• TV host and political commentator John Oliver: “Look, this has been a very dark week for lots of people. The Supreme Court is about to lurch to the right for the foreseeable future, and if things seem hopeless right now, it’s because, to be completely honest, they basically are.”[x]

• Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer: “Justice Ginsburg must be turning over in her grave . . . to see that the person they chose seems to be intent on undoing all the things that Ginsburg did.”[xi] “[I]f she is confirmed, the reproductive freedoms that millions of women hold dear would be in grave danger.”[xii]

• Los Angeles Times Op-Ed: “Judge Barrett’s legal philosophy is deeply antidemocratic”[xiii]

• Humanist blogger: “Barrett is a dangerous religious extremist who believes her religious faith comes before the law, and claims that the Bible precedes the U.S. Constitution.”[xiv]

• Commentator Keith Olbermann: “[Trump] and his enablers, and his supporters, and his collaborators, and the . . . Mike Pences, . . . and the Amy Coney Barretts must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society while we try to rebuild it[.]”[xv]

Mark this: Olbermann’s admission that leftists are “try[ing] to rebuild” the United States marches in lockstep with humanistic alarm over “build[ing] the ‘Kingdom of God.’ ”[xvi] The arrogant and erroneous assumption here is that it’s “wrong” to try to conform America to God’s kingdom — but “right” to build a secular-humanist kingdom.

Barrett’s publicized use of “Christianese” before an audience of law graduates prompted cries of the secularist’s favorite mantra: “Separation of church and state!” It has consistently escaped their notice, however, that this concept doesn’t mean philosophically empty governance; nor does it mean that the church (or any other institution or religion or philosophy) is barred from informing the state.

—

The state vs. the individual

The well-known slogan is derived from Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut. He argued that “religion is a matter which lies solely between [a] Man & his God,” and therefore legislators should “ ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”[xvii]

The “separation” in view, then, was intended to guard citizens’ “rights of conscience,” as Jefferson put it. His concern wasn’t that an individual might commit the ghastly postmodern sin of influencing legislation on the basis of their belief-system — but that a power-hungry state might encroach on the individual’s conscience rights.

Jefferson continues:

Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.[xviii]

Those conscience rights, in Jefferson’s view, were no threat either to the government or to other citizens of the nation: “no natural right [exists] in opposition to [one’s] social duties.” In other words, if you’re expressing what really is one of your rights as a human being, then it’s no threat to society, and no legislation should oppose that expression.

A Supreme Court justice, as a citizen with the same rights as any other, has every right to express her worldview in the course of her duties — just like every other judge has done, throughout judicial history.

Even if her worldview is (Gasp!) a Judeo-Christian one.

—

Institutionalism vs. influence

The two entities in “separation of church and state” are the church and the state as institutions — not individuals expressing their worldviews (which we would naturally expect people to do).

As a practicing Catholic, if by “building the kingdom of God” Amy Barrett had in mind an agenda to nudge the United States toward being controlled by the Roman Catholic hierarchy — that would be legitimate grounds to oppose her SCOTUS appointment. I would be the first to oppose that agenda, since it would be a violation of church-state separation; it would be an agenda to have one institution ruling the other.

But individualism — not institutionalism — is a different matter. If “building the kingdom of God” refers only to the individual expression of Barrett’s belief-system while on the judicial bench, that isn’t merely innocuous — it’s entirely appropriate.

How can I say that? Simple: because everyone brings their worldview to work with them.

This assertion would seem to fly in the face of Notre Dame law professor O. Carter Snead’s claim that “[w]hile Barrett’s faith is the source of her selflessness, it is not a source of authority for her work as a judge,” and that she “would not draw on any extralegal source of authority — be it religious, moral or political[.]”[xix]

Snead might be correct, if by “Barrett’s faith” he means Roman Catholicism, specifically, and institutional influence therefrom. In other words, we could reasonably expect Barrett to ignore, say, pressure from the Catholic Magisterium to rule in a specific way on a given issue.

But to argue that “Barrett’s faith is . . . not a source of authority for her work as a judge” simply isn’t true. She may not look up a Bible verse or an item in the Roman catechism in preparation for rendering a verdict — but such things are almost certainly in the back of her mind in terms of her conception of “justice”; of what she believes is right or wrong.

A judge’s worldview informs her view of governance, the legitimacy of this or that law, and the very role of a judge in such matters — just as legislators’ worldviews inform their legislation. Even if one argues that a judge or legislator is obligated to conform to the Constitution, their very choice to do so is informed by a worldview that tells them the Constitution is just, and worthy of being upheld.

The principle of church-state separation doesn’t mean that a given law or state policy can’t be based on the Christian worldview — because all laws and policies are based on somebody’s worldview. No laws or policies are created in a philosophical vacuum; they are unavoidably derived from what politicians and legislators, either individually or corporately, believe or assume to be Ultimate Reality, with whatever set of values that Ultimate Reality may establish. If a legislative assembly is dominated by, say, Hindus, that legislature will inevitably produce laws that have a Hindu “flavor.” The same outcome is guaranteed by any worldview you care to name, whenever that worldview becomes dominant in the culture.

Indeed, the champions of church-state separation ought to be grateful that the United States was founded on the Judeo-Christian worldview . . .

. . . because that’s the perspective that resulted in “the separation of church and state.”

—

A Christian idea

Earlier versions of church-state separation were developed not by secularists, but by Christians.[xx]

Depending on your background, it may surprise you to learn that there are very strong Biblical reasons to oppose having a Christian institution — a particular denomination or parachurch organization — controlling government. At the core of the Biblical approach to societal governance are these truths:

• “God made people good, but they have found many ways to be bad.” (Ecclesiastes 7:29) Since the original fall of humanity, everyone has been “born a sinner” (Psalm 51:5[xxi]).

• God mandated secular (yes, secular!) government to restrain humanity’s tendency toward malice (Romans 13:4[xxii]) — not to look after you, make all your decisions for you, or be your moral nanny.

• What God ultimately desires, however, isn’t merely restraints on our sinful nature, but the restoration of sinners to Himself in a loving, joyful relationship.[xxiii] And a relationship requires, among other things, freedom of conscience.

What this means is that the Bible’s implied political philosophy is something between libertarianism and America’s own paleoconservatism. One of the emphases of Biblical politics is small government — and small government maximizes your liberty. This sort of climate, in turn, encourages independent thinking, through which — the Christian believes — God can and will reveal Himself to the individual.[xxiv]

By contrast, where there is increasing centralization of power, and where there is increasing “groupthink” in the media and entertainment, independent thought is less likely to occur on a society-wide scale. It has been very well said, “Establishing the kingdom of heaven on earth always means rendering more to Caesar than what was originally due.”[xxv]

Therefore a supreme court justice who adheres to a genuinely Biblical worldview can be expected to uphold true justice and liberty — not impose her personal views on the rest of us. It turns out, then, that Christians are the only true “pluralists,” valuing genuine societal diversity — of ideas, conscience, and expression.

This is the difference between institutional control and legitimate philosophical influence. In any society, without exception, policy and legislation are influenced by one or more worldviews. And in a free society — the kind of society promoted by genuine Bible-believers — any politician may suggest policy ideas stemming from their respective worldview. Remember: at the end of the day, no matter what legislation you end up with, somebody’s metaphysical perspective was behind it. This is literally unavoidable.

And there’s no reason — in a free society — that a Christian perspective shouldn’t be one of those allowed input.

—

Integrity vs. hypocrisy

Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein would seem to disagree with the model I just put forward:

“The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern,” Feinstein told the nominee [during Barrett’s 2017 Court of Appeals confirmation hearing].

Barrett responded, “If you’re asking whether I take my Catholic faith seriously, I do, though I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge.”[xxvi]

Barrett’s disclaimer is ambiguous: she could be construed as effectively affirming the institutional separation of church and state. If so, I affirm the same thing.

Yet in another sense, Barrett could not help but have her “religious belief . . . bear on the discharge of [her] duties as a judge.” She tried to further parry Feinstein’s “concern” by saying that it’s “never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else.”[xxvii]

Here I would humbly offer a partial correction to this brilliant woman’s attempted deflection: impose one’s personal convictions? — no. However, (a) all legislation is based on a collective faith, even if the legislators don’t realize that faith is, indeed, what they’re exercising. And (b) there simply isn’t “anywhere else” from which legislation could come. It always, unavoidably, derives from a faith position. Obviously, in a Western legislature not everyone in the room will share the same worldview; yet in order for them to do any legislating at all, their respective worldviews will necessarily find zones of overlap.

All of that is metaphysics. All of that is faith.

Perhaps a more instructive response from Barrett would have been to point out, as respectfully as possible, that “the secular-humanist dogma lives loudly within you, Senator Feinstein — and that’s of concern.” She might also have asked, “Senator, were you ‘concerned’ in 2007, when then-presidential hopeful Barack Obama, speaking to ‘a multiracial evangelical congregation,’ said he was ‘confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth’ ”?[xxviii]

I suspect Feinstein, et al, were not concerned about such a declaration from Obama — because they knew the “kingdom” he was intent on making was someone else’s, not God’s.

Despite the pious-sounding claim of many leftists (such as Obama) that they are people “of faith” along with “other” Christians, it is their secular-humanism — just another metaphysic — that has been allowed influence in government far out of proportion to either its philosophical merits or the number of its devotees in the population. Secular-humanists don’t recognize that they are imposing their faith on the culture — and don’t even realize that faith is precisely what they’re imposing.

The assumption of the humanistic establishment is that their worldview should be the default position of all elected officials and government-run agencies, the foundation of all public policy and legislation. And they assume that secular-humanism is equivalent to reason itself — when in fact the view that all things “must” have a natural explanation is actually a faith position. Secular-humanists choose to believe that raw nature explains the existence of reason; that we don’t need to resort to a metaphysical explanation.

That belief is, itself, a metaphysic — yet the average elected official never thinks to question the nonempirical basis of their faith about what constitutes “reasonable” or “appropriate” legislation. All legislation, all government policy, is based on a set of values — and values, in turn, are predicated on what one believes is Ultimate Reality. This is a deeply metaphysical, religious foundation.[xxix]

In contrast to secular-humanism’s hypocrisy, Amy Coney Barrett appears to be an honest person; she doesn’t hide who she is or how she views the world. Question: Would you prefer an honest person on the Supreme Court — or a hypocrite? Would you prefer someone without integrity?

But of course, integrity only makes sense in a theistic world. Chemistry doesn’t produce character. Only a personal, moral, purposeful Creator does that.[xxx] Believing in this sort of God, as Barrett obviously does, isn’t “religious”; it’s rational. And the American people need[xxxi] more rational, less hypocritical leadership.

Barrett and other conservatives are well within their rights to call out the hypocrisy of the secular-humanists: “Tell us why you believe it’s okay to impose your belief-system on the nation. What sort of ‘kingdom’ are you trying to build?”

Cuz everybody’s building a kingdom of some kind.

—

[i] Amy Coney Barret, “Associate Professor Amy Coney Barrett, Diploma Ceremony Address” (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Law School, Fall 2006), https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=commencement_programs (accessed 31 Oct. 2020). On this occasion Barrett opined “that your legal career is but a means to an end, and . . . that end is building the kingdom of God.”

[ii] Michael Stone, “Amy Coney Barrett Tells New Lawyers Their Job Is To Build ‘Kingdom Of God,’ ” Progressive Secular Humanist (1 Oct. 2020), https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-tells-new-lawyers-their-job-is-to-build-kingdom-of-god/ (accessed 28 Oct. 2020; emph. mine).

[iii] Nina Totenberg and Domenico Montanaro, “Who Is Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett?”, NPR.org (24 Sept. 2020), https://www.npr.org/sections/supreme-court-nomination/2020/09/24/915781077/conenator-who-is-amy-coney-barrett-front-runner-for-supreme-court-nomination (accessed 24 Oct. 2020).

[iv] Steve Holland, Lawrence Hurley, and Andrew Chung, “Trump picks Barrett as he moves to tilt U.S. Supreme Court rightward” (Reuters, 26 Sept. 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump/trump-announces-brilliant-conservative-judge-barrett-as-supreme-court-pick-idUSKBN26H0GI (accessed 19 Oct. 2020).

[v] Nina Totenberg, “Amy Coney Barrett: A Dream For The Right, Nightmare For The Left,” NPR.org (28 Sept. 2020), https://www.npr.org/2020/09/28/917554001/amy-coney-barrett-a-dream-for-the-right-nightmare-for-the-left (accessed 24 Oct. 2020).

[vi] Steve Holland, Hurley, Chung, op. cit.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Nicholas Fandos and Michael Crowley, “Judge Amy Coney Barrett is President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court,” The New York Times (26 Sept. 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/09/26/us/trump-vs-biden#judge-amy-coney-barrett-is-president-trumps-nominee-for-the-supreme-court (accessed 24 Oct. 2020).

[ix] Steve Holland, Hurley, Chung, op. cit.

[x] Christopher Rosen, “John Oliver Says Amy Coney Barrett Nomination Means ‘We Lost,’ ” Vanity Fair (28 Sept. 2020), https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/09/john-oliver-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court (accessed 24 Oct. 2020).

[xi] Steve Holland, Hurley, Chung, op. cit.

[xii] Michael Levenson, “Republicans quickly circle around the president’s pick as Democrats denounce a rushed process,” The New York Times (26 Sept. 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/09/26/us/trump-vs-biden#republicans-quickly-circle-around-the-presidents-pick-as-democrats-denounce-a-rushed-process (accessed 24 Oct. 2020).

[xiii] Victoria Nourse, “Why Judge Barrett’s legal philosophy is deeply antidemocratic,” Los Angeles Times (4 Oct. 2020), https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-10-04/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-textualism (accessed 24 Oct. 2020).

[xiv] Michael Stone, “Leading SCOTUS Candidate Amy Coney Barrett Claims Bible Precedes Constitution,” Progressive Secular Humanist (19 Sept. 2020), https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2020/09/leading-scotus-candidate-amy-coney-barrett-claims-bible-precedes-constitution/ (accessed 28 Oct. 2020).

[xv] Keith Olbermann, “Worst Person In The World №2: Trump’s Plan To Nullify The Election” (YouTube, 8 Oct. 2020), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzFtT4yKiZY (accessed 19 Oct. 2020). The specific section I’ve quoted is at the 08:47 mark.

[xvi] Stone, “Amy Coney Barrett…,” op. cit.

[xvii] Thomas Jefferson, “Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists” (Library of Congress, June 1998 [orig. Jan. 1802]), https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html (accessed 4 Oct. 2020).

[xviii] Jefferson, ibid. (italics mine).

[xix] O. Carter Snead, “I’ve known Amy Coney Barrett for 15 years. Liberals have nothing to fear,” The Washington Post (26 Sept. 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/26/ive-known-amy-coney-barrett-15-years-liberals-have-nothing-fear/ (accessed 22 Oct. 2020).

[xx] See, for example —

• Augustine of Hippo’s The City of God (c. 426 AD), XIX.17; https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120119.htm (accessed 3 Oct. 2020);

• Anders Nygren, “Luther’s Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms,” Journal of Lutheran Ethics (1 Aug. 2002), https://www.elca.org/JLE/Articles/931 (accessed 29 Oct. 2020) (Nygren argues: “The whole point of [Martin Luther’s] doctrine of the two kingdoms [c. 1523] was in fact to prevent the powers of this world from encroaching on the realm of conscience” — the very objective Thomas Jefferson championed over two and a half centuries later);

• Derek Suderman, “Church and State” (Waterloo, ON: Mennonite Historical Society of Canada, 1998), https://mhsc.ca/mennos/bchurchstate.htm (accessed 29 Oct. 2020);

• James Madison, letter to Rev. Frederick C. Schaeffer (3 Dec. 1821), National Archives: Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-02-02-0357 (accessed 29 Oct. 2020).

[xxi] Cf. Genesis 8:20–21; Job 15:14–16; Psalm 58:3; Romans 5:12; Ephesians 2:3.

[xxii] The backdrop to this verse — Romans 12:17–13:3 — implies that the primary concern under discussion isn’t private, personal activities, but specifically behavior toward others.

[xxiii] See Genesis 5:22; Psalm 16:11; 17:15; 73:24–25; Isaiah 41:8; Jeremiah 9:23–24; John 17:3; 2 Corinthians 4:17; Hebrews 8:11–12; 1 John 5:20.

[xxiv] This was in fact God’s ultimate purpose in subdividing human society at the infamous Tower of Babel (in the vicinity of the later Babylon) through the confusing of human language. See Genesis 11:1–9; Acts 17:26–27.

[xxv] Nick Gillespie, “Obama’s Kingdom of Heaven on Earth,” Reason (8 Oct. 2007), https://reason.com/2007/10/08/obamas-kingdom-of-heaven-on-ea/ (accessed 1 Nov. 2020).

[xxvi] Nina Totenberg, Montanaro, op. cit.

[xxvii] Video: “Doubling Down on ‘Dogma Lives Loudly’ Debate-ENN 2017–09–18,” EWTN Global Catholic Network (18 Sept. 2017), https://youtu.be/M0ZUrXHnrl8?t=122 (accessed 25 Oct. 2020).

[xxviii] Peter Hamby, “Obama: GOP doesn’t own faith issue,” CNN.com (8 Oct. 2007), https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/obama.faith/ (accessed 1 Nov. 2020).

[xxix] See, for instance:

• J. Warner Wallace, “Are Theists the Only People Who Have the ‘Burden of Proof’?” (Cold Case Christianity, 4 Jan. 2017), https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/are-theists-the-only-people-who-have-the-burden-of-proof/ (accessed 31 Oct. 2020)

• _____, “Can Naturalism Account for Human Dignity and Value?” (Cold Case Christianity, 3 Aug. 2015), https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/can-naturalism-account-for-human-dignity-and-value/ (accessed 31 Oct. 2020)

• _____, “Are Moral Truths a Product of Culture?” (Cold Case Christianity, 25 Aug. 2015), https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/are-moral-truths-a-product-of-culture/ (accessed 31 Oct. 2020)

• _____, “Is God Real? How the Principle of Causality Points to the Existence of God” (Cold Case Christianity, 21 Nov. 2018), https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-the-principle-of-causality-points-to-the-existence-of-god/ (accessed 31 Oct. 2020)

• Greg Koukl, “Dominoes, Determinism, and Naturalism” (Stand to Reason, 22 Apr. 2013), https://www.str.org/w/dominoes-determinism-and-naturalism (accessed 31 Oct. 2020)

• _____, “Science Isn’t, Science Is” (Stand to Reason, 28 Feb. 2013), https://www.str.org/w/science-isn-t-science-is (accessed 31 Oct. 2020)

• Aaron Brake, “Why Knowledge Requires More Than Science” (Stand to Reason, 19 Sept. 2018), https://www.str.org/w/why-knowledge-requires-more-than-science (accessed 31 Oct. 2020)

• Aaron Brake, “What Is Truth?” (Stand to Reason, 6 Feb. 2018), https://www.str.org/w/what-is-truth-1 (accessed 31 Oct. 2020)

• Melinda Penner, “Christianity as the Best Explanation” (Stand to Reason, 19 Feb. 2013), https://www.str.org/w/christianity-as-the-best-explanation (accessed 31 Oct. 2020)

• _____, “Christianity and Naturalism” (Stand to Reason, 28 Feb. 2013), https://www.str.org/w/christianity-and-naturalism (accessed 31 Oct. 2020)

• Amy K. Hall, “What Can’t Science Account For?” (Stand to Reason, 20 Aug. 2016), https://www.str.org/w/what-can-t-science-account-for- (accessed 31 Oct. 2020)

• Angus Menuge, “Scientism and Its Cultural impact | Book Review of Scientism and Secularism [by] J. P. Moreland,” Christian Research Journal (online, 20 May 2019), https://www.equip.org/article/scientism-and-its-cultural-impact-book-review-of-scientism-and-secularism-j-p-moreland/ (accessed 31 Oct. 2020)

• Bob and Gretchen Passantino, “Religion, Truth, and Value without God,” Christian Research Journal 22(4) (10 June 2009), https://www.equip.org/article/religion-truth-and-value-without-god/ (accessed 31 Oct. 2020)

[xxx] See, for example:

• Paul Copan, “Why Science Can’t Explain Morality,” Christian Research Journal 29(6) (16 Sept. 2006), https://www.equip.org/article/why-science-cant-explain-morality-a-review-of-the-science-of-good-and-evil-why-people-cheat-gossip-care-share-and-follow-the-golden-rule-by-michael-shermer/ (accessed 31 Oct. 2020)

• J. Warner Wallace, “Are Moral Truths Simply Brute Facts About the Universe?” (Cold Case Christianity, 31 Aug. 2015), https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/are-moral-truths-simply-brute-facts-about-the-universe/ (accessed 31 Oct. 2020)

[xxxi] Not always deserve.