The reversal of Roe v. Wade by the United States Supreme Court last Friday is certainly cause for rejoicing among those who are pro-life. And I do rejoice. But a profound conversation is lurking below the surface in the opinions of the various justices. It will be a critical mistake for Christians not to understand that conversation and not to consider how best to join it. Not joining the conversation and not doing so wisely will perpetuate our existence under what is, in principle (as I will explain) a tyrannical state and federal government.

With campaign mailers now flooding my mailbox, I couldn’t help but think back twenty-eight years to my first political race. I was running for the Tennessee Senate in a Republican primary against a 26-year incumbent. I learned then that endorsements, whether by organizations or persons, are important in primaries. However, they are increasingly unhelpful. I hope what follows will help you evaluate the state legislative candidates in the upcoming Republican primary.

It is “Pride Month” for those who believe in the LGBTQ community’s understanding of human identity and dignity. Many in the conservative evangelical community who know what the Bible says about pride condemn even the concept of celebrating pride, let alone what those with an LGBTQ belief system celebrate. For me, though, it was cause to think more deeply about my pridefulness and the protestant version of the gospel dominate in evangelicalism today. If you dare read, please hang with me to the end, because what follows may not be pleasant. 

I spent most of my first 22 years in Southern Baptist Churches. Thereafter, I have been joined to other protestant churches. So, when sexual wrongs—dare we call them sins anymore? —and their cover up were exposed within the ranks of those in Southern Baptist pulpits and the Southern Baptist Convention’s leadership, I could say to myself and others, “I’m not Southern Baptist.” But my thoughts of non-culpability went beyond denominational lines, and it was good that they did. I saw myself with clearer eyes.

Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked abortion decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization seems to have put many pro-life policy advocates in a rush to enact newer, stricter laws prohibiting doctors from performing abortion procedures. But by Justice Alito’s legal logic, all of us, the born and the unborn, are not much more than an aborted fetus. To be pro-life, one’s view of law and the constitution must go much deeper than prohibiting abortion procedures.

I am delighted that the U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to reverse its abortion precedents, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The opinion does a great job dismantling the faulty historical analysis employed in Roe between abortion and its treatment under the common law. However, one thing I have not mentioned previously was particularly grievous to me in two ways.

United States Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to be political, but there is a form of politics that takes place on most controversial cases. T...

People have begun to protest the leaked U.S. Supreme Court decision that would overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey outside the homes of several Justices. I believe the Court has been fostering for decades the climate of threats and violence the Justices are now experiencing for the following reasons.

Pro-life advocates are naturally excited that the United States Supreme Court may be ready to reverse its abortion-rights jurisprudence.  But I found the leaked opinion amusing.  One such amusement was the Court's opening and closing its opinion with the assertion that abortion presents a “profound moral question” and then proceeding to ignore it. Truthfully, Justice Alito’s opinion is more despicable and disgraceful than the Court’s treatment of slaves and their descendants in the infamous decision involving slave Dred Scott.

On Monday the state House approved by a vote of 70 to 14 a bill previously approved by the state Senate by a vote of 27 to 4. The bill prohibits biological males who “identify” as female from competing against biological females in collegiate sporting events. After its passage I asked myself why Republican legislators would deem it overwhelmingly important to recognize the distinction between biological males and females in sports but not in marriage, represented by their general lack of interest in supporting the Marital Contract Recording Act. You won’t like the answer.