Episode Description

In this episode Senior Pastor, Dr. Kurt Bjorklund has a conversation with Strip District Campus Pastor, Joel Haldeman, and Director of Young Adult Ministry, Josiah Leuenberger, about Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court, should Christians have an opinion at all on the topic, if yes, what it should be, and more!

Episode Transcript

Kurt Bjorklund: Hey, welcome to Orchard Hill's podcast Perspectives. This is a podcast that we're doing just to address some current issues, hopefully from a biblical perspective. And we've chosen the name Perspectives intentionally because although we hope that at times we'll clarify what the Bible says, we realize that a lot of times things that are current have a lot of perspectives and a lot of ways you can think about them biblically. Not meaning that there aren’t important inferences or something like that, but that the Bible may not address it explicitly. And so, that's why we have called it Perspectives and what we hope to do. And today, we are going to talk about something that is very current, and that is the Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, and how we should consider that and think about that. And so, here's my question. I'm joined by Joel Haldeman and Josiah Leuenberger. Here's the question that I have. And certainly, if you pay attention to news cycles at all, this is all over the news right now, and will be for a while. And so, my question is, should Christians have a take at all on the nomination and selection of a Supreme Court justice? And then secondly, if your answer is yes, what should it be? So first, just the question, should we as Christian people have a take on what is happening with the court? Or is this something where you just kind of step back and say, hey, that's politics, and we do church things that aren't necessarily tied to politics? 

Joel Haldeman: I would say, I think there is a time and a place for Christians to sort of be hands off, but I would have a real hard time telling someone that it's their moral responsibility to be hands off. In fact, I think probably the opposite. It probably is our moral responsibility to be engaged in politics in the way that our country is established today. Where it depends on the input of citizens. 

Josiah Leuenberger: Yeah, for me in thinking about this issue, personally, as a Christian, the right to life issues is very significant to me. And so, I know that is on the minds of a lot of believers saying, we want to be advocates for human life, from birth to death, recognizing the value of every person made in the image of God. And so when we see a conversation taking place around the issue of abortion, which is a motivating factor for a lot of people and wanting to see a conservative Supreme Court Justice elected, there's a strong desire to engage in that conversation. I think that is a conversation that's important to me as a believer. And right now, I think the question that so many people are conflicting over is Amy Coney Barrett's faith going to influence her understanding of the law. And I think the fact of the matter is not one of us is objective, in our ability to see with perfect clarity, any sort of document. However, there's another conversation taking place right now, which is how is the law to be best understood. And there are some who view the law almost with this sort of reverence of inerrancy that we in the church hold for scripture. You know, Amy Barrett herself, an originalist, someone saying, I want to interpret the constitution as it was framed originally and have this sort of linear explanation based on the intention of the authors. To me, that seems kind of like a biblical inerrancy almost view of this text, whereas others would say, you know, the founding fathers, they weren't as understanding as we are today with our values. And so, we really need to think critically about how we can reinvent the law to best accomplish the intent. There are multiple issues that are at stake in this. And I think that is an additional cause of division. 

Kurt Bjorklund: Yeah. What's interesting is that you brought that up, because I had the same reaction when I've heard that conversation again. You know, Antonin Scalia was an originalist as they call them and then some are not, and it's the exact same conversation you have in seminary in a biblical interpretation class or hermeneutics class where you work through all the different ways that people interpret the Bible. And do you need to get to the author's original intent, or can it mean whatever it means to you? And certainly, here at Orchard Hill, we would say in terms of the Bible, you have to get to the author's original intent, I don't get to decide, oh, I think it means this. I have to say our job is to discern what did the author intend? So yes, it is interesting, because it has a shade of that. Now, obviously, our Constitution is not an inerrant document, but it's an interesting interpretive question that does have a parallel into the church. So, I heard you both basically say that Christians should have a take. So then what should it be with this? And obviously, just how you brought up the right to life issue, I think people would also bring up the fairness issue in terms of the Merrick Garland appointment four years ago, and then why this one is being streamlined in an election year, and that one was thwarted. So, there are a host of ways we could go with this. If you think Christians should have a take, what is a good take to have on this issue? 

Josiah Leuenberger: Yeah, I just want to be candid and say that my knowledge of the American political system and this process of adopting a new justice, I don't believe that I have enough information to make a statement on timing, and what is most appropriate. However, for me, what I really want to recognize is that I believe that each and every individual comes to our role with a certain perspective and a certain background. And for Amy Coney Barrett to be a person of faith in her position, I don't see that as a disqualifier that she would have one particular background because every individual comes with a background. And so as much as she says, the quote that I read from her, talked about how she says, I'm a faithful Catholic, I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge. That's something that she directly said when asked about the interaction between her faith and her work. I just don't believe that's possible. I truly believe she's a very genuine follower of Christ from everything that I've read about her background and other quotes. However, I don't think that it's possible for us to separate our faith from our work, because that is a part of who we are. It's part of our being.  

Kurt Bjorklund: Well, and part of the dialogue right now in the Senate and media is we don't want somebody who has faith that's informing their views, among some circles. And I think your point is right, and that is everybody has some kind of dogma. I mean, what was the famous quote, the dogma lives loudly within you. Well, everybody has a dogma that lives loudly within them. It doesn't matter where you get your dogma from. Everybody has something that guides their controlling thoughts about how they see the world and why they see the world a certain way. And so, to expect anybody to not have that is an unrealistic expectation. The question I think, is it fair to try to discern what that is? And are there some dogmas that disqualify people from sitting on the Supreme Court? And I think some people would say, yes, her Catholic faith is a disqualifier, because it predisposes her against the majority opinion on certain issues. Other people would say, of course not. It's good to be a Catholic, or a Protestant, or a Mormon, or some other type of faith, because that's part of your worldview. And it's just helpful to know what that is.  

Joel Haldeman: I think that what has challenged me most in thinking about this, or helped me to be a little bit more even handed, is to ask the question, what if somebody was being nominated who was a Muslim who believes in Sharia law? Now, is that a fair question for the dogma lives loud in you and that's of concern, is it fair for that person to make that statement in that situation? And so, I think that there is an appropriate discussion to be had about how does that dogma interplay with the reading of the Constitution? Because all of this stuff about what's her take or position on certain issues? That's not the supreme court justice's role, to have a take on an issue. It's to interpret the constitution and so that when an issue comes up, it's not their political opinion that they're supposed to be putting forward, it's their ability to interpret the law. So, I think that's where there's kind of an uncomfortable conversation, because we have to say, there are certain dogmas that do not jive with the Constitution. And it happens to be, not that I shouldn't even say it that way, but that the Constitution was written with a Judeo-Christian ethic and mindset in mind. 

Kurt Bjorklund: Right. Well, it's interesting, too. Obviously, what's happened more and more in the last 30 years, is that justice appointments have become truly a political appointment. And even the way the original articles of approval were set up, you needed 60 senators. And in 2012-2013 in order to get some justices approved, the democrats reduced the number to 50-51 just a majority vote, which has changed the whole thing. Because if there were 60 right now, it would be hard to get Amy Coney Barrett through. It would have been hard to get through anybody who doesn't have some bipartisan support. And so, the court now has become completely polarized, rather than saying, let's find somebody who we don't really know their views. We want an impartial jurist to sit there as best we can. It's become how do we get somebody on the court who holds our views. Now, having said that, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, especially knowing that whichever side of the aisle you sit on, that the other side's going to do that. You're just simply saying we're going to play by the same set of rules and try to get our person on the court. But it's an interesting change that has happened where my early recollection of the court was you always had at least a few senators who would cross the aisle and vote for a nomination because the person was reasonable. And now it's become completely all republicans are against the democrat appointees, and all democrats are against the republican appointees.  

Josiah Leuenberger: Now, what would be an issue is if it were said, well, the reason I would like her to serve as a justice is because I'd really like to see Roe versus Wade overturned. And so, I'm choosing her for this position solely because she is a devout Catholic, not because of any qualifications. That would be a real abuse of the political system. However, I think that there's a way in which in our culture today, we can be very cynical about the political system, because we see abuses of power. And we see people acting with a character that would be different from what we would hope for, for those who represent our nation. However, I think that at some point, we have to say, okay, we either trust that these rules that have been established for how our country is best led, they either work or they don't, we're either going to trust them or not. And so, we can be cynical and say, this system is just totally broke, you know, let me just have zero confidence in it altogether. Or we can say, I really trust that this justice has been vetted, her qualifications are there, which I really believe that she has the background, the experience, the education to serve in this role, and what it comes down to is you pick the best person to serve in a job. You don't want to you don't want to play this game of choosing favorites based on whether they're on your team or not, you choose the best person for the job. And so, if she were a practicing Muslim, and she had the qualifications and experience that she does, I'd be like, this woman would be great for this job. And so, because she has a devout faith in Christ, should that disqualify her? I would say by no means. 

Kurt Bjorklund: So, I guess the question that it leads to for me to a certain extent is, are there views that would disqualify somebody? In other words, with what you just said, qualifications are enough. But we heard the question about Sharia law. Like if somebody said, I want to see that practiced, is that a person who should be on the Supreme Court of our country? 

Josiah Leuenberger: Yeah. So my take kind of in response to the comment I made about trusting the political system, I believe that if someone did have a position that was disqualifying, I have confidence in the system, that they would not be the point where the President of the United States was recommending them to serve as supreme court justice. Because I do believe the system, despite its flaws and brokenness, I think that those who were in a position of power would have said, this is not someone whose views are compatible with forwarding democracy in the way that we believe is best for this country.  

Joel Haldeman: But let me push back on you there. I read an article last week that basically said, I don't know if it's the president, one of the leaders of France, is working towards banning homeschooling in their country because of the way that the Islamic community is homeschooling their kids, and indoctrinating them is the word that they used, into practices that are not France like. And so, you know, that's already something that is being dealt with pretty severely, I'd say in European countries. That there's been this Islamic influence, and they're already seeing it begin to influence their politics. So, I think there's going to be some very uncomfortable conversations about what makes America America? Is it the constitution or is it whatever the people vote for the country to be? 

Kurt Bjorklund: Yeah, so let me come back to the question I asked earlier. So, for people of faith, what I'm hearing I think you guys say is, you're comfortable with Amy Coney Barrett being the nomination, the nominee, in part because of her qualifications. You'd be comfortable with somebody who you didn't agree with if they had the right qualifications coming to that role. I guess what I'm trying to drive at is, there are a lot of Christians who would say, this is the issue of any election, any presidential election, is who's getting appointed to the Supreme Court or all the district courts, because this is where so many of the religious liberty and life issues are being decided. Issues that have to do with some of how faith interacts in our culture. So, I guess what I'm asking is, how important should this piece of the election process be? I think there are Christians today who would say, okay, maybe I agree with the take that you're giving here about this judge or not, but there are a lot of other issues that matter just as much, therefore, this should not be a driving issue for how you see elections. So, I guess what I'm what I'm trying to drive at is, not that a Christian should care, but how should they see how a justice appointment influences or tips the balance? Because part of why this has become such an issue is obviously, when a conservative replaces somebody like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it is going to slant the court a certain way for probably a generation. And so that's why some people say, this is a key moment. Do whatever you need to do to get this done. And other people would say, this is a key moment, do whatever you can to stop it.  

Joel Haldeman? I would say that this is exactly why Trump was elected in 2016. Because everybody who voted for him believed that he was going to put in conservative judges and justices. And so, I would say that this is from a very pragmatic perspective, this is a huge deal, because it is going to affect our judicial system for generations. And more so than what's going to happen by one president in four years.  

Josiah Leuenberger: Yeah, I think for me, I shared earlier that the right to life issue, something that's really important to me. And I would say that the value for human life isn't something that I believe just applies to the unborn, but social issues across the board, for those who are most in need, and most vulnerable in our culture, are vitally important. And so, I think in different ways, I find myself landing on opposite sides of the aisle at times. However, protecting the lives of the unborn, it's critically important to me. And so, I would find myself just aligning with understanding of people who would say this is really an important issue for Christians to speak up for. However, I just have to be honest, and say, for me, I have a rule, or at least a slogan that I like to say, the person who's the president of our country, I want their moral character to be that of, if my wife was to have a flat tire on a country road in the middle of nowhere, I would like it if the President was someone, I would feel safe being the first person to come along that road to give her a hand. And sometimes I don't have that level of trust of our political leaders and their moral character and integrity. And so, although there are some people who I would appreciate and align with their views on pro-life issues, I can't excuse personal conduct that is far beyond what I would hope for the leaders of our country. And so, I can share viewpoints, but I also can be critical about a desire for something better for our nation. 

Kurt Bjorklund: Well put. Let me let me just transition this just for a moment. So, there's a professor at Boston University named Ibram Kendi, who wrote a book called How to be Antiracist. I read the book, really learned, and appreciated the book. He came out and tweeted something about Amy Coney Barrett, which has gotten some response. Amy Coney Barrett has seven children, two of which she adopted from Haiti. So, they're black children living in her home. And this is what Ibram Kendi tweeted, "Some white colonizers, adopt black children. They 'civilize' these 'savage' children in the superior ways of white people while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity." So basically what he has said, and he's probably one of the big voices and that's one of the most celebrated books right now, and he's a sought after lecture on this, and basically what he's saying is she's disqualified from serving as a Supreme Court justice because she has exhibited racism by adopting black children and trying to give them a white life rather than a black life. How do you respond to that? 

Josiah Leuenberger: I would say I didn't know that he knew her so well. He's so acutely aware of her heart and her intentions and motivations and the way that she's raising her children, there must be some real depth of relationship there to make that kind of statement. 

Joel Haldeman: Yeah. And I would say, that's a ludicrous statement, unless you're going to apply it across the board. Like, I'm a family of people who came from Switzerland. We have two kids that we've adopted through foster care that have the same color skin as we do. Although we don't know, probably not from Switzerland, but we're adopting them out of a family of origin that was not going to ultimately be productive for them into our family. And they're getting a new culture altogether. And some of the culture that they're going to leave behind are things that are kind of neutral, right? But some of those things are our inferior things, and we're giving them better things because we're a stable family. And so, I just think that's a ludicrous statement. You can't apply that just to white and black and not apply that to a family from Switzerland adopting kids who have a family background from Germany. 

Kurt Bjorklund: Well, it is interesting. I mean, if again, if you're going to make that your standard and say that is in and of itself a colonizing act as I think what he called it, which implies it's racist, then you should apply that to anybody who adopts somebody who's different ethnically, and try to help them in any way. So yeah, I thought that was an interesting level of attack, that, you know, instead of the views, let's go after something that looks to him maybe like a photo-op or something.  

Joel Haldeman: I think you'd also have to say, if you're a married homosexual family, a couple, and you want to adopt a child that's coming from probably a heterosexual family, then you can't do that as well, because you're taking somebody out of a culture and having them assimilate to your culture. 

Kurt Bjorklund: Yeah, sometimes you get a little veil pulled back. And I read that book, and that was my first exposure to Ibram Kendi, and again, I found it to be helpful. I didn't necessarily agree with everything in it, but I found it helpful. But I found that interesting to say, any white person who adopts a black child must be racist. I mean that's in essence, what he was saying. And you just look at that and say, wow, so a family that says, hey, we're going to adopt a couple kids, and we're open to a child of any race. And they happen to get a black child, according to Ibram Kendi, you can't do that and not show that you are racist in the very act of doing that.  

Josiah Leuenberger: Wouldn't it be interesting to flip his argument and say, would he have viewed it as a positive if Amy's family was to say we refuse to adopt a black child. That would be much more alarming to me. And, I mean, there's just a lot of self-righteousness to make a statement like that. And assuming that you've got her heart intent totally understood, and you know the full desire that's motivating her action is only to project herself a certain way before others. It's a statement of superiority and your understanding of what someone's doing in pretty critical way. 

Kurt Bjorklund: Well, good. I'm not sure we answered all the questions, but I appreciate you guys jumping into this conversation, and you who are listening for taking a few minutes just to hear us try to make sense of the world in which we live, as we understand the Bible and how it relates to the issues of our day. Have a great day!