Reading a recent article about the ACLJ and the Mt. Soledad Cross reminds me a lot of my last post about the National Right To Life.
Why is it that a good organization becomes “big” and turns lukewarm? I remember back in the day when Jay Sekulow would represent various pro-life leaders when they were harassed during national events. I had great respect for him because it seemed that he was standing on principle.
Men and women were going to jail and being abused by police departments around the nation and he was standing up for them in court. Gradually he transitioned from representing them in “rescue” cases to only representing them when they did not commit “civil disobedience”. Now it seems he is more interested in representing congressmen.
It is one thing for a man’s career and business to change focus, as long as the principles he operates on do not change. It is another to change the principles and focus to increase your bottom line. Jay gave evidence that he was changing in the later years of the pro-life movement. But more recently he not only refused to stand up for Judge Roy Moore when the federal court stepped into a state matter in Alabama, he spoke publicly against the judge. Why would he do this to a brother in Christ? By Jay’s own words he is “a member of the court”.
He is in the good graces of the Supreme Court and he can stand before their bar and argue all kinds of none relevant ideas. Ideas like the 10 commandment should be displayed in context with other documents because they are historic. It seems to any casual observer that these type arguments defeat the purpose of the case. The issue is not the display of the 10 commandments, that can be accomplished many ways. The issue is whether a local or state government in agreement with the people it represents can display those commandments as an acknowledgement of the living God.
To clarify, the issue is whether the people have enough freedom and liberty to order their local government and it’s policies in such a manner as represents their interests, their beliefs, and their wishes. Or, must they bow to the national thought leaders in Washington?
What good does it do to display the 10 Commandments with a group of other historical documents if the people of that community only wants to acknowledge the God of the Bible?
Jay’s enslavement to the fundraising campaigns and his name being spoken before the supreme bench has darkened his vision and his calling before God. The same principle of liberty is in play with the Mt. Soledad Cross. The issue is not whether Jay and others can get the federal politicians to pull some quick maneuver to “save the cross”. The issue is does California, and specifically the city of San Diego have the freedom and liberty to decide for themselves what they want on their own hill top, or do they give in to the tyranny of the minority. The move to federalize the land doesn’t solve the issue. In fact San Diego has lost this case, she has lost her cross and her rights of self determination by giving the cross away.
In a ironic spin of poetic justice, she lost her liberty by giving away her cross. May we cling to the cross of Christ and may we vigilantly defend the liberties that cross brings to every area of life! And may Jay Sekulow recall once again the grace that brought him to that cross and return to being a true defender of it.