There is much to say about the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. For those interested in the text, go here. Just like the march toward gay marriage, the reactions to it have been swift and unrelenting.* Though I am sorely tempted to write more about the actual decision, I would rather focus on our path forward as evangelical Christians. I believe we can win this contest, but not according to the standard definition of victory. We will win by honoring Christ through our conduct. The rest, to a degree, is secondary.

How should we react to Obergefell and gay marriage? There is a range of options.

Civil Disobedience–Mike Huckabee and others are calling for overt civil disobedience, even among government officials. In fact, Texas’ Attorney General has said that county clerks can opt-out of issuing licenses to gay couples. I find this option untenable if we care at all about the rule of law. Besides, asking county officials to ignore the Supreme Court smacks too much of registrars refusing to enroll African-American students, even after the legal process had played out. Huckabee’s insistence that state and local governments need to “enforce” or pass laws that define the Court’s ruling is nonsense. The Court ruled. As a pure legal matter, that is the end of the line for now unless states want to take a more radical option.

Privatization–Rand Paul is calling for the privatization of marriage in order to remove governmental attachments. If the government is not involved in marriage, it cannot define it. Marriage becomes religious, in a sense, while the government can recognize civil unions between two people. Alabama is already heading in that direction, it seems. I have a great amount of sympathy with this option, at least legislatively. In some ways, it returns the idea of marriage to its religious roots, where it properly belongs in our tradition, if not in reality, while at the same time disentangling the matter from pastors and churches. This may have salutary benefits for the future.

Gay Marriage is the New Abortion–These previous responses say nothing of how we should respond to the Court or our culture in the long-run. Obergefell is not going away. Some conservatives think we should begin a campaign to roll back the Supreme Court’s opinion, just as pro-lifers did after Roe v. Wade. We marshal our arguments, vet candidates, build our party around it, and define ourselves, to a degree, politically by this issue. Ryan Anderson, who has been a public face for traditional marriage the last several years, argues this here.

This is the most noble route, but it assumes too much. Unlike in Roe, our arguments against Obergefell are unlikely to expand beyond our religious principles, which makes them less persuasive to secular audiences. We may eventually be able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that gay marriage is harmful and destructive for society in general and children in particular, or we may not, but that will be required to justify laws that seek to redefine marriage away from same-sex couples. Social science is ideally suited to tackle that question. However, the data collection and interpretation of such studies will be highly politicized. The smoking gun of causality will be difficult to forge–even if it exists–and opinions will vary. This process, of trying to sift Obergefell‘s social impact, will take at least a generation.

Arguments about Roe are stronger because pro-life advocates can claim they are most concerned about the innocent life lost in the abortion procedure. What to make of the life is a matter of debate in our culture, but the fact a potential life ends is beyond argument. Arguments about gay marriage are much harder to make, especially if we hope to overcome #LoveWins.

The constitutional sins of Obergefell are legion, but those arguments are complex, abstract, and resist soundbites or hashtags. They are wed to a philosophy of interpretation and the principle of limited government. While originalists have made great strides in the last quarter century, hoping that argument seeps into the legal culture is, at best, a long term proposition. #LoveWins is emotional, short-term, and visceral. #LoveWins is an argument based on equality, which is the most powerful force in democracy. I am not optimistic about winning this argument in a culture that values feeling over argument and reason. That does not mean we abandon the field, but I am not sure how much hope we should place in it.

Move On–Beyond that, organizing our party and our political support around traditional marriage might be self-defeating. The Republicans, whether we like it or not, are already fragmenting over gay marriage and that seems unlikely to change. John Kasich and Lindsey Graham, for example, want to leave the issue behind–drop it and move on. Why spend time on gay marriage when there are more pressing issues–including abortion–where we are more likely to see progress? By wedding ourselves only to a part of a party, we are minimizing our influence and asking for marginalization.

While appealing on a purely pragmatic level, is this the appropriate response when the issue is so critical? Marriage is not just a Christian preference. The family is the building block of society. The redefinition of family–single-parent, no parent, same-sex parents–may turn out to be the Twentieth Century’s most enduring legacy. Sitting on our collective hands seems a poor response to such a massive shift.

Unplug from the Culture Wars/The Benedictine Option–Rod Dreher, most famously, calls for evangelicals to pull away from culture. We should focus on our own community and the enculturation of that community as opposed to working to influence the culture that surrounds us through integration.

For conservative Christians, this might take us back to the fundamentalist withdrawal of the early to mid-Twentieth Century. We would turn our focus to our churches and souls and our own institutions as opposed to a more Kuyperian goal of redeeming culture. Some Two Kingdom advocates in the modern Reformed tradition are also making such arguments.

No matter the shortcomings associated with Kuyper’s approach (principally, if taken too far, it can turn Christians into cultural warriors that ignore or redefine the gospel), he was correct that all of God’s creation was good and that our callings and talents require us to engage the world outside of our churches. There is something stunted about Christian ghettos when you see them in light of both God’s creative act and Christ’s return to reclaim all of the earth. Besides, if we withdraw from the world, we will find it much harder to reach the world for the gospel of Christ.

What to Do? 

I am not thrilled with any of the above choices singly. Of course, we can commit ourselves to multiple options at the same time, for not all of them are contradictory, and we might hatch different approaches that will be superior. I don’t think cultural withdrawal is an option because that assumes the culture will leave us alone. At the same time, I think our hopes are not in a governmental solution, but in a cultural transformation that is built on the gospel. Additionally, we should willingly use the legal and political means at our disposal to resist these twin assaults against family and religious liberty. Let me explain.

Culture is upstream from politics and our culture is not only far from Christian, but openly hostile to Christianity’s basic teachings about sexuality (and many other things). We are a minority and we should expect to be treated as such. Our views are no longer in the mainstream and I don’t see that changing any time soon. For conservative Christians, we have too long placed our hopes (abortion? school prayer? marriage?) on the next election or a constitutional amendment. It is unlikely that American culture will transform through a political process, but American culture can still transform politics. Our culture grew more tolerant of homosexuality over time, thereby informing and influencing our political class, which has largely coalesced on the issue at the elite level. For example, Alan Sepinwall, the stellar television critic at Hitfix, argues persuasively that television shows ranging from the Real World to Ellen and Will and Grace brought homosexual characters into the mainstream. No matter what we want to achieve politically, we need to make cultural strides first.

How do we do that? Though I am open to arguments, cultural transformation cannot occur outside of the gospel and its impact on individuals. Our first priority should not be to win the political or legal argument about gay marriage (those are secondary concerns), but to spread the gospel as we engage on this and every other issue. We draw attention to God when we follow his commandments. This requires a radical transformation in how we engage the public square. Our priority should not be on winning, whatever that means, but on being Christ-like.

We must honor, respect, and obey the government–even the Supreme Court. While I think Justice Kennedy got this issue spectacularly wrong, he is part of God’s established authority over us.** We should abide by the Court’s ruling (even while we might work to change it) unless it is used to make us sin. If the Court’s rulings are used to force our pastors and our churches to perform gay weddings, or if they are used in a way that violates individual conscience, we must disobey the government at that point. We do it openly, publicly, and we accept the consequences for that disobedience. We should work to see that does not take place, but we should be prepared for that possibility that it might.

At the same time, we must love those who disagree with us, be they gay, straight, transgendered, or whatever. I would not call them “enemies,” but Scripture commands us to love our enemies. This time is no different. The amount of hostility and rage on display over this issue is troubling and, too often, dehumanizing. Whether we are sitting across the table for a discussion, or if we are commenting on Facebook or posting on Twitter, our opponents, however we want to characterize them, are in desperate need of God’s grace. The moment we forget that, we have lost, even if we “win.”

We should work to make sure our culture understands that we value marriage as God has defined it, but we can do that in a multitude of ways. Though many may disagree with me, I don’t think the political route (working for a constitutional amendment, trying to impeach members of the Court, or even organizing our political agenda around this issue) will be our most productive approach. I am unsettled on this, and we need to think carefully about how to proceed, but as strangers in a strange land (to use Robert Heinlein’s lovely phraseology), we should expect to lose on this issue for the foreseeable future. The law in this case does not define marriage, for God has already done that. The law conflicts with God’s word in this case, but, at least so far, the law is not compelling me to abide by that definition. In this narrow sense, the law allows for all sorts of conduct that conflicts with God’s Word. In short, people are often free to sin in many ways. Their freedom to sin, though it may impact our world directly and indirectly, cannot alone change me, my marriage, or how Christians live their lives. Our best witness on this issue is to live our lives in the open–unapologetically. If our lives are not witness enough, we must look in the mirror before we look to the ballot box or a court order.

Of course, I am not advocating for a withdrawal from culture, even to the limited extent that Dreher calls for. Besides, I am not sure that is a live option. This culture will not leave us alone. We can retreat to the caves and the homosexual lobby will pursue us, it seems, demanding conformity. This battle, and it truly will be a battle, will be fought in three phases.

First, the argument will be about religious institutions that are not churches. Oral arguments for Obergefell gave this away, but advocates will argue that sexual orientation should be inserted into the Civil Rights Act, thereby making it illegal for any entity that receives federal funding to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This will put religious non-profits in the cross-hairs. I expect evangelicals to lose this battle within the next five years, though I would love to be wrong.

Second, the argument will eventually circle toward the direct clash between the free exercise of religion and gay rights in general and gay marriage in particular. The Court will decide which value should be most cherished when this conflict takes place. This is when churches, pastors, and congregants will be in the cross-hairs. This will range from the famous bakery and florist disputes to matters of church ceremony, ministerial licensure, tax status for churches, and the religious definition of marriage.

Third, and this one is already under way, the gay rights lobby, will label everyone who disagrees with Obergefell as a bigot. This status, in their argument, should render all of those who disagree with gay marriage as unfit for public office, corporate leadership, or any position of managerial consequence. They will argue that companies should refuse to do business with businesses and governments led by such people, and companies should fire employees who opposed gay rights and gay marriage. This has already happened in a limited way. Orson Scott Card, Brendan Eich, and Mike Pence have all suffered their two minutes of hate. We should expect that list to get much, much longer. Christians who are open about how they view marriage should expect to meet only cold shoulders as they work toward the elite parts of our culture. Even when subjected to this, which we will be, we, as Christians, should respond appropriately–not with hate, but with love and reason and truth.

Since the battles will come to us, we have little choice but to engage them. We are not called, nor does our governmental system expect us, to sit idly by as our liberties slip away. All of these phases will require a vigorous defense of religious liberty (politically and legally) for any American who seeks the freedom to believe as they wish and to act on those beliefs. Our founders placed religious freedom at the center of our existence. This freedom is not limited to worship as we see fit, but to build organizations and lives based on those beliefs. That includes freedom from discrimination based on our religion. This is our right and we should protect it. Just as the Apostle Paul used his status as a Roman to his benefit, so should we eagerly assert our rights as they come under attack.

No matter what we think, God may take all of this and shove it into his divine blender, mixing a future reality we cannot predict. Perhaps this is the darkness that precedes the dawn, or maybe the darkness, whether we wish to embrace it or not, will catalyze the church’s next epoch. However this plays out, none of these political, social, or cultural realities should shake the firm foundation upon which our faith is built. God is sovereign. As he counts the hairs on our heads, so does he number our days as they carry out his decree. He will be glorified in spite of what happens. Our ultimate obligation is to be sure that our actions further his glory. We can control that. Everything else we leave to him and his providence.

*If you want some conservative arguments against the opinion, see David French’s criticism or for a more libertarian take, see Charles C.W. Cooke’s takedown. Our fellow Berean Marc Clauson provides a nice summary of Justice Kennedy’s opinion. We also have a variety of people happy over the news, of course. If you want one of those opinions, go here or here for examples.

**Yes, one could argue that Kennedy’s rulings have perverted the design of our government, even to the point of transforming it in a radical way. In general, I agree, but that does not give me the ability to just disobey the Court. Our system provides us many ways to counter Kennedy’s (and the Court’s) decisions, and we should pursue those.