The Christian argument in Monday’s contest in the U.S. Supreme Court over the constitutionality of Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” as applied to a “practicing Christian” troubled me. The case seemed to be about everything but the primacy of Christ to a Christian who is counseling a person attracted to the same-sex or suffering body dysphoria. But perhaps most importantly, I believe the Christian organization’s legal argument will, in time, backfire.
The law in question prohibits “conversion therapy.” It is defined as “any practice or treatment … that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” It specifically includes “any effort to “change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
I think it is a bad law. As a former legislator, I would have argued against it and voted against it. I would like for the law to go away. So, why was I troubled that the Christian lawyers were arguing that the prohibition is unconstitutional?.
What troubled me is that the Christian lawyer’s argument seemed to concede that a state law prohibiting a counselor from encouraging same-sex attractions or encouraging incongruous sexual/gender identities would be unconstitutional as well. Transcript, p. 25, l. 9-25; 26, l. 7.
When Justice Kagan asked if the Christian lawyers argument “applies symmetrically to both—i.e., the state is constitutionally mandated to allow the opposite type of “speech,” he said, “That’s correct.” Transcript, p. 26, l. 4, also l. 7. In other words, what’s constitutionally good for the Christian counseling goose must be good for Christ-denying, homosexual- and gender-affirming counseling gander.
So, if the Christian organization wins the case, states like Tennessee that prohibit gender “transition” medical care will still be constitutionally required to allow gender “transition” affirming counseling, because it, too, will be constitutionally protected speech.
In that case, counseling care and medical care will be inconsistent in states like Tennessee. At least states that believe subjective mental states are one’s true identity, permit medical transitions and prohibit counseling inconsistent with the available medical care.
Moreover, and worse yet, it seems to me the Christian argument is conceding that there is no counseling that is objectively correct for the kind of beings we are, male and female.
Consequently, I must ask: What is the long-term good in “winning” the present dispute if Christians ensure that counseling contrary to what the revelation of God in Christ says is true of human beings is constitutionally required?
I understand why the Christian lawyers would argue that the law is unconstitutional. It’s the same principle applied by liberals--if you can’t win in the legislative chambers, run to the U.S. Supreme Court to have your preferred policy position written into the U.S. Constitution.
But is the double-edged sword described in the preceding section the only alternative? No. There is always an alternative.
In this situation, the Christian counselor could, by faith, continue her practice. Colorado has never tried to enforce the law against her. However, if enforcement begins, she could change careers or move to another state to practice.
Let’s consider the perspective that Hebrews 11:32-35 (NKJV) provides. It’s about the effect of living by faith in God’s provision and in tough circumstances.
And what shall I more say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again.
Who knows what the Holy Spirit would do positively if, when subjected to enforcement, the lawyer explained that “Christ is his client’s life” and who Christ is informs everything she thinks and does? What might such a testimony bring about over time? Alternatively, disregard of such a clear testimony might may quicken God’s righteous judgment on those whose persecution of her (and those like her) is the persecution of Christ himself. (See Acts 22:7 “Saul, why persecuteth thou me”)
Changing careers or moving would be hard—I had to do the latter for similar reasons—and it could bring about less pleasant lifestyle circumstances, but let’s put that in perspective, too, using Hebrews 11:39-39
[O]thers were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
But we know clearly and have received the promise--the Spirit of living Christ indwells us and the riches He secured for us are ours! And as to how living by a faith that walks according to the Spirit will work out, we are not like those who despair. Though “we do not yet see all things put under him,” “we see Jesus!” (Hebrews 2:8.9). The day is of consumption is coming, and our reward is sure.
So, my fellow Christians, let’s not make a constitutional argument that effectively sells our proverbial birthright and inheritance for a pot of porridge in the moment.
