The Power of One

In Galatians chapter 1, we can read about how the apostle Paul was devoted to pleasing God rather
than men. He writes:
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

There are people who would wish to fit you into their mold.  Then, there is the potter, our Master, who wants to mold us to fit into His purposes.  There is a tension between pleasing people around us and pleasing our Heavenly Father - we can recognize that, and act according to God's principles, consistent with the call upon our lives to be His servants.  And, if we're dedicating to serving Him, then we can see Him use us to touch the lives of people and love them as He has loved us.

+++++

Colossians 3 can reminds us to use the position or positions to which God has called us to bring
honor to His name:
23 And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men,
24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ.

This past Saturday, U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia passed away at the age of 79.
Religion News Service reports that:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral will be held Saturday (Feb. 20) at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, the largest Roman Catholic church in North America, according to media reports.

The late justice will lie in repose at the Supreme Court on Friday, following in a tradition last observed after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 2005.

I had shared about an event in New Orleans at which Justice Scalia spoke. I quoted from a piece
on the WORLD Magazine website, which quoted from the Justice: “To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition,” adding, “Where did that come from? To be sure, you can’t favor one denomination over another but can’t favor religion over non-religion?”

Scalia reportedly pointed out that government neutrality in religion is not “common practice,” noting that activist judges began imposing their own rules.  He said if people want strict prohibition against government endorsement of religion, let them vote on it.

On The Washington Times website, writer Wesley Pruden quotes Scalia from that New Orleans speech:

"God has been very good to us," he said. "That we won the Revolution was extraordinary. The Battle of Midway [the turning point in the Pacific in World War II] was extraordinary. I think one reason God has been good to us is that we have done him honor. Unlike the other countries of the world that do not even invoke His name, we do him honor. In presidential addresses, in Thanksgiving proclamations and in many other ways. There is nothing wrong with that, and do not let anybody tell you there is anything wrong with that."

A Baptist Press article says that:

Scalia belonged to a school of constitutional interpretation known as originalism or textualism -- which held that the Constitution's meaning is determined by the intention of its authors, as indicated by their use of grammar, syntax and vocabulary. In contrast, his legal opponents, known as progressivists, believe the Constitution is a "living" document whose meaning can be shaped and altered by modern judges.

Scalia illustrated his view in a 2005 dissent to a death penalty ruling, in which he stated, "I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court."

Scalia was forthright in his opposition to the 5-4 Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage last year, writing, according to Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist:

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

So, what happens next?  Rachel Alexander of The Stream provides some analysis:

President Obama has said he intends to appoint Scalia’s replacement — even though since World War II, when a Supreme Court justice died or retired during a president’s last year in office, outgoing presidents have generally not appointed a replacement. Senate Republicans have indicated they may block Obama from bringing a nominee up for a vote. They also have the numbers to vote down a nominee or filibuster it. The influential SCOTUS blog predicts Obama will nominate his far left Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Whether a new justice is appointed to replace Scalia this year or not, several cases on which the court would probably have taken a conservative position by a 5–4 vote may now be decided for the liberal position. When the court splits 4–4, the lower court of appeals decision is affirmed. Cases that could break against conservatives include a challenge to public employee unions, the counting of illegal immigrants for redistricting in Texas and a case concerning religious accommodation under Obamacare for birth control.

However, two other cases in which the lower courts took a conservative position, a challenge to Obama’s executive order stopping illegal immigrants from being deported and a challenge to Texas’s strict abortion law, would be left standing. In a third case, challenging affirmative action in Texas, left-leaning Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she worked on the case as solicitor general, so the court may strike it down 4–3.

So, there is plenty to keep our eyes on with respect to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially the challenge to the Obama administration's contraception mandate as it applies to non-profit organizations.  And, there is the pro-life abortion law in Texas, as well.   We can be reminded to be diligent in prayer for our decision-makers.  And, again this session, that applies to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially in the absence of Justice Scalia.

Scalia can be an inspiration for us all - with respect to history, he was cognizant of the Biblical principles and the presence of God that have shaped this nation.   He was certainly someone who allowed his deep personal faith to shape his approach to his influential position on the bench.  And, we can be challenged to make sure that how we do our work - as unto the Lord - is shaped by our faith in Christ.

Finally, Scalia is an example of one man who exercised great influence.  He had acquired a reputation for being thoughtful and forthright, whether or not he was in the majority.  As he demonstrated in Obergefell, his originalism was on full display.   That point of view can serve us well as we continue to hold fast to the Constitution, which, despite the challenges, has worked extremely well.  He was one of 9 justices, but I would say he regarded that position as a sacred trust.  We can view our positions, likewise, as places to which we have been entrusted, to be used of God and to carry out our respective calling in a manner that brings Him glory.