So far, listening to the news, I’ve seen a number of reactions to the Supreme Court’s rulings.

Mike Huckabee has stated, eloquently, “I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat,” his response is inspiring and should be read in its entirety, (please note this is not an endorsement of Huckabee’s attempt at the Republican Nomination for president, as an apologist I do not want to endorse a particular candidate in the upcoming election), but its eloquence is long on philosophy and short on actual strategies. There are a number of options we are likely to see discussed.

• Secession – This often comes up in discussions of major political import. If a state actually takes the steps legislatively towards leaving the union, it is something we may want to consider, as Jesus said, “If they persecute you in one city flee to another,” though this would mean missions of some kind would be needed in the current United States. Yet, a secession by any state in the Union would almost certainly lead to another civil war, particularly since many of the states that would choose to leave the Union would be in the middle of the country, dividing the more liberal coasts. As many of the states most likely to secede (such as Texas) are major income earners for the United States this would further lead to controversies. There are tremendous practical concerns in any such discussion, and is an unlikely outcome in the immediate future; this is therefore at best a backburner answer to the question.
• Legislation – Senator Ted Cruz[1] and possibly others have discussed the possibility of a constitutional amendment, either stating marriage as between a man and a woman, or other legislation with the proviso that the courts cannot review the issue (which is within the powers of Congress according to the constitution). We are unlikely to see any action that will not be filibustered by Democrats in the Senate, so it is also not a central strategy.
• Convention of the States – Mark Levin, a major conservative political thinker in his book, The Liberty Amendments has advocated in the past a convention of the States to amend the constitution. On his June 26^th radio broadcast, he has advocated this as the ultimate constitutional answer. This would be effective, but would be difficult to sell. While some steam is building towards such an approach, it, like secession, is a “wait an see” posture.

I consider all of these to be inadequate answers to the Supreme Court’s actions. It is clear the country is on its way towards a constitutional crisis, and this is only one issue in that debate. Yet, I do not ultimately advocate any of these approaches. We may very well pursue any or all of these, but all make as a central contention the idea that a nominally Christianized society is our goal.

The problem is not just the Supreme court, the problem is that droves of millennials are favoring gay marriage, and do not tend to favor protections of religious liberties; they view the first amendment as protecting our right to believe the Christian faith, but not to practice it (despite the clear meaning of the word “exercise”). As such, our primary approach must be to formulate not only our arguments, but an approach towards evangelizing not society, but snatching what brands we can from the burning.

As Christians, our desire is always to win the many to Christ. Yet, when God spoke with Ezekiel, His command was not to win the many but to be faithful. I suggest that today is our goal. The question is ultimately not what will society do, but will we offer incense to the Emperor, will we render to Ceasar the things, which are God’s? In this, our only recourse may be civil disobedience, realizing in this life we may suffer for those decisions. We should as Christians of old make our case, and take our stands. Ultimately that is all we can do.

            [1] Cruz has also discussed impeaching justices of the Supreme court, but this will lead to the same challenges as legislation.