Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Radical Christian Living  /  When Persecution Comes  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 7
In the Ken Miller/Lisa Miller case, Bercot argues that the First Amendment protects preaching and church membership decisions but does not protect actions that infringe government-granted rights (like court-ordered visitation); what does this reveal about the limits of religious liberty in practice, and how should Christians think through obedience to Christ when the state frames conflicts as “other people’s rights”?
Another way to ask: If the First Amendment may protect preaching but not actions the state says violate someone else’s legal rights, what does that show about the real limits of religious freedom? How should Christians respond when the state calls the conflict “other people’s rights”?

Direct Answer Bercot’s point is that religious liberty often protects beliefs and speech, but not actions that a court sees as interfering with another person’s legally granted rights. Christians therefore must separate what the state permits from what Christ requires, and if obedience requires crossing the state’s line, they should do so without expecting legal immunity.

Support from Transcript:

  • He summarizes the case: Lisa Miller fled rather than comply with a Vermont visitation order for her former lesbian partner; Ken Miller was convicted of “aiding and abetting an international parental kidnapping.”
  • He says many urged a First Amendment defense, but the Supreme Court has made clear “that’s not how the First Amendment works.”
  • He lists protected freedoms: Ken can believe and teach homosexuality is sin, preach publicly, deny a practicing homosexual church membership, and refuse to perform a same-sex wedding.
  • But the First Amendment does not give Ken the right to “deny a lesbian the visitation rights…granted…by a court,” because his beliefs would be “infringing on the government-granted rights of another person.”
  • He adds: even if courts won’t protect us, “that doesn’t mean we have to do what the government says…We still must obey God as ruler rather than man,” but must expect consequences.
Discussion Follow-ups How do we evaluate situations where the state describes our obedience as “harm” or “rights violations,” even when we believe we are acting faithfully?

Jumpstarter 7 of 10
Back Questions Next