Amy Cony Barrett as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

As Christians, we may be inclined to laud the possibility of a conservative serving in the United States Supreme Court. From all reports, this woman seems to be morally conservative and “religious” and in other ways she seems to please the more moral elements of society. We appreciate these reports.

Let’s remember that Barrett is surrounded by a pack of evil wolves who are eager to attack her, her credentials, her morality, and her life. They come from the left or immoral element of society, including liberal Democrats, but this is not all. These wicked wolves seek to destroy her–not as a woman, per se–but her position as an active justice and moral proponent!

Probably by the time that you read these words, she will either be approved or rejected. From all appearances, she will be approved to serve in the Supreme Court. Sadly, the liberal Democrats are valiantly seeking to disqualify this woman since she seems too conservative for their liberal mentality. Especially, Diane Feinstein, the radical feminist, former mayor of San Francisco, a liberal Democrat and senator, sought to intimidate Barrett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein).

There are different ways of looking at this. We definitely agree with Barrett’s stance against abortion. Even though she doesn’t seem to want to affirm her opposition (thus we can’t know for sure), it does seem that she would oppose the killing of unborn babies. Of course, the Christian would endorse such a stance. We must remember that when Jesus was incarnated, He came 9 months before His birth. But He wasn’t killed in Mary’s womb. If abortion were an option 2,000 years ago in Israel, it may be that someone would have attempted to murder the Son of God Himself! Even though abortion itself was not very advanced at this time, we are assured that this young Israelite girl would not have murdered her own child even though she was in a very difficult and awkward situation, as an unmarried mother!

As conservative Christians, we would also appreciate Barrett’s view of motherhood. As I said, I know very little about this woman, but since she has seven children, she must appreciate motherhood immensely. We remember, of course, that God commanded the first pair, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28). Conservatives would appreciate this stance, even though most women who are considered religious conservatives do not have many children themselves—and even earnestly seek to prevent childbirth.

Further, we would appreciate Barrett’s view of morality. We assume that she would be opposed to pre-marital fornication as opposed to keeping oneself pure before marriage. She would oppose the various sexual compromises in our day—such as adultery, homosexuality, and transexualism. Moral conservatives would also applaud this stance.

We would also appreciate Barrett’s view of adoption. We know that this can be a very difficult choice and we really don’t know what went into this position of hers. Yet it is well known that she has two children who were adopted from Haiti, known as the most poverty-stricken nation in the Western Hemisphere, perhaps especially in light of the hurricane and earthquake found there.

At the same time, we must question or condemn certain other positions that Barrett takes. For instance, Scripture says that a woman is to be adorned in “proper clothing, modesty and discreetly” (1 Timothy 2:9). The KJV has here “modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety.” As W. E. Vine says, this Greek term means “a sense of shame, modesty” and he quotes Davies, “Shamefastness is that modesty which is ‘fast’ or rooted in the character” (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words). It can be safely said that any woman who would expose herself to millions of people could not have a true, Biblical “shamefastness” or “modesty.”

Further, we wonder about the propriety of Barrett’s refusal to answer questions. Either she doesn’t really know what she would do under certain circumstances, or she is willing to hide these from the public. We know that the liberal Democrats (or shall I say, the “ultra-liberal Democrats”) want to expose her “conservative” views so that she would not become a Supreme Court Justice, but is this really responsible? If we know the answer to certain questions (and we surely would hope that Barrett would) is a Yes or No, then we could wish that she would be willing to acknowledge this. Admittedly, we are living in such a wicked and liberal nation, openly speaking the truth (cf. Ephesians 4:15, 25) would surely seal Barrett’s doom in regard to various moral questions.

Of course, it is well known that Barrett is a faithful and conservative Roman Catholic in her religion. We recall that John Kennedy was the first Catholic president and he was widely opposed by conservative Protestants. Never before was there a member of this religion in the United States. Does Barrett’s religion now not matter to the American public? We also remember that Barrett was a faculty member at the very Catholic University, Notre Dame, in Indiana.

We might be interested in these comments about Barrett, found in Wikipedia:

Barrett is a practicing Catholic. She has served as a laypastoral women’s leader[a] in the Christian parachurch community People of Praise, an ecumenical covenant community founded in South Bend. Associated with the Catholic charismatic renewal movement but not formally affiliated with the Catholic Church, about 90% of its approximately 1,700 members are Catholic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett#Personal_life

We also remember that God’s Word is quite clear that a woman is to “quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness” (1 Timothy 2:11). She is not to “give” instruction and she must remain in a submissive stance—not an authoritative stance. As a woman, she is not to “teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:12). We fear that Barrett’s past work is utterly opposed to these clear instructions. And, if she should be approved, surely her position as a Justice would be utterly opposed to these inspired directives.

We would also question her past work, per se. Generally a woman is to “keep house” (1 Timothy 5:14) and be a worker “at home” (Titus 2:5). While there may be exceptions to this instruction, we wonder how Barrett can be an active mother as well as a Justice at the same time. Regardless of President Trump’s appointment, we believe that this new appointment would be a clear violation of Scripture. In fact, it seems to be utterly opposed to God’s Word.

It might be helpful for us to also remember that apparently Barrett doesn’t only go by her married name (Barrett) but also her maiden name (Cony), which might be a possibility in a Spanish-speaking country, but this is not a legitimate means of addressing someone in America.

Let’s also keep in mind that Scripture forbids the woman from speaking in public and do such things as teaching the man, having authority over the man, or having a domineering role in male-female relationships. We wonder how the other eight (8) Justices will implement these restrictions. In fact, how would Barrett herself apply these restrictions? We would think that it is nearly impossible—or entirely impossible.

It is good to bear in mind that we do not question the intentions of Barrett for she seems like a pleasant and capable person. Nor would we want to question at least some of the convictions of Barrett (even though we must utterly condemn at least some of her views since we are looking at things from a Biblical standpoint). But we must bear in mind that being capable is one thing; being permitted to carry out those abilities is something else.

As we can see, coming at this matter from a conservative or Biblical point of view, we would have several affirmative points as well as a few negative points. We know that as Christians, we would want to look at all things through the eyes of God—not through the viewpoint of a liberal, wicked, evil, immoral American stance. We know that as followers of Jesus, we do radically differ from the sodomites, the liberal Democrats, the immoral San Francisco elete, the liberal Jews, the anti-Christ or anti-God proponents. Thus, our examination is not at all surprising. Disappointing, yes, but not surprising. May God be glorified whatever may be the outcome of Amy Cony Barrett!