It is not w-w.
Mike Horton tries to make a case that support for gay marriage is a function of w-w:
What this civic debate—like others, such as abortion and end-of-life ethics—reveals is the significance of worldviews. Shaped within particular communities, our worldviews constitute what Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann coined as “plausibility structures.” Some things make sense, and others don’t, because of the tradition that has shaped us. We don’t just have a belief here and a belief there; our convictions are part of a web. Furthermore, many of these beliefs are assumptions that we haven’t tested, in part because we’re not even focally aware that we have them. We use them every day, though, and in spite of some inconsistencies they all hold together pretty firmly—unless a crisis (intellectual, moral, experiential) makes us lose confidence in the whole web.
Every worldview arises from a narrative—a story about who we are, how we got here, the meaning of history and our own lives, expectations for the future. From this narrative arise certain convictions (doctrines and ethical beliefs) that make that story significant for us. No longer merely assenting to external facts, we begin to indwell that story; it becomes ours as we respond to it and then live out its implications.
It seems to me that gay marriage is much more a function of deeply ingrained American instincts than anything Nietzsche or Hegel might cook up. Equality and fairness is one aspect of American confusion over gay marriage. Why can’t everyone have the same access to the benefits of marriage? Another is a post-Civil Rights desire to keep anyone in America from feeling inferior? If gays can’t marry, doesn’t that mean we have a 2-tier social system and isn’t that like Jim Crow? Finally, Americans have learned to sever marriage from reproduction (largely thanks to Protestants). If marriage is more for fulfillment than for procreation, why can’t everyone have access to marriage?
This doesn’t mean Mike’s piece is wrong. But I do wonder whether the invocation of w-w will help with this conflict among Americans. By invoking w-w we conceivably turn this debate into a consequence of the antithesis. And that won’t do because so many non-Kuyperians (i.e. Roman Catholics) oppose gay marriage. And if we look around and see non-Reformed opposition to gay marriage, and still cling to w-w, then don’t we need to say that Roman Catholics have the same w-w as Reformed Protestants? Say hello to the Manhattan Declaration.
Better it seems to (all about) me simply to follow what God’s law requires in our churches and think through what changes in marriage policy mean for our societies. Has it not occurred to any baby boomer, rapidly approaching Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, that we need more babies who will grow up to pay taxes that keep our senior citizens medicated and fed? Has anyone heard of what’s going on Europe? Now is a bad time in the history of the West to make permanent a divide between marriage and child-bearing.
163 Comments
“Better it seems to (all about) me simply to follow what God’s law requires in our churches and think through what changes in marriage policy mean for our societies.”
Uh-oh. Now you’ve done it, Dr. Hart. In thinking only of yourself (and the country that you love, along with its aging population), you’ve crossed the line. You are going to find out that it’s really all about THEM, THEM, THEM!
As much as I like Horton, I’d have to say that he’s wrong on this one.
Marriage long ago ceased to be about hearth and home, and came to be about individual fulfillment infused with sappy sentimentality. Evangelicals bought into this redefinition of marriage without much of a whimper. If anything, same-sex marriage represents the triumph of individualism over sentimentalism. Evangelicals, of course, don’t object to sentimentalism or individualism. They’d just prefer that sentimentalism play the dominant role.
When Paul speaks of marriage and family, sentimentalism and individualism are far from the picture. For the past month in North Carolina, Christian transformationalists have been telling us that God’s definition of marriage is at stake in Amendment 1. The neo-Cals are wrong on two counts. First, none of God’s definitions require popular approval. God, after all, is not a contestant on American Idol. Second, evangelicals have abandoned God’s definition of marriage long ago. Their opposition to same-sex marriage isn’t rooted in a “Christian worldview” any more than their proclivity to divorce, remarry, and engage in sex outside of covenantal union.
I’d suggest that transformationalist/evangelical opposition to gay marriage is likely rooted in sentimentality. Homosexuality isn’t sentimental. It smacks of a kind of brokenness that’s not readily repaired. And evangelicals aren’t comfortable with persistent brokenness, at least to the extent that it can’t be recast as a sentimental virtue. It’s a gospel that has little place for Psalm 137. It prefers Hallmark to Matthew Arnold, Sandi Patti to Bizet, and Thomas Kinkade to Hopper.
(Of course, it’s ironic that the sentimentalist, Kinkade, died of a toxic mix of alcohol and valium. I love Fred Eaglesmith’s music. Kinkade’s death reminded me of one of Fred’s song, “Alcohol and Pills”. It strikes me that the mode of Kinkade’s death is probably a closer representation of the travails of the human condition than his paintings ever were. And for that reason, evangelicals will likely reject the man and keep the paintings.)
The error of transformationalism is that is believes that God’s free grace to us in Christ should allow us to overcome the banal and the ugly and to pursue a transformational vision of society. I see nothing of that in Scripture. Rather, God’s grace to us in Christ allows us to see his general revelation in the world around us–even in its banality and ugliness. And, in Christ, we embrace the ugly in its ugliness without engaging in idolatrous efforts to sanitize or sentimentalize it.
D.G. Hart: And if we look around and see non-Reformed opposition to gay marriage, and still cling to w-w, then don’t we need to say that Roman Catholics have the same w-w as Reformed Protestants? Say hello to the Manhattan Declaration.
RS: It is not necessary to have the same W-W to agree on certain things, but just that they meet at one point. You (D.G. Hart) have a lot in common with those who strongly believe in w-w’s and even (gasp) pietists, but you certainly don’t agree with those undesirables at all points.
Hmmm, seems like the ‘breeder’ argument gets marginalized by the advances in fertility science and the availability of surrogates and ‘sister’ egg donors. Just trying to think through the public square debate. As pure theoretical debate the homosexual community can overcome the procreative argument, but I would assume in concrete policy discussions you’d have to consider the actual statistical prevalence of same-sex couples who actually pursue or avail themselves of procreative opportunities. If it’s minimal or dwarfed by the ratio of heterosexual marriages whose outcome results in offspring then you could make an argument that the state is going to favor the heterosexual marriage over same-sex marriage because the one union, much more often than the other, actually ‘creates’ a tax base, workforce, and potential military force at a more reliable rate than homosexual marriage and therefore the state, in securing it’s own future is going to favor the one union over the other by granting favorable status, tax benefit and general bully pulpit type lauding for the one while ‘only’ tolerating and granting a legal, think same-sex civil union, but less advantageous classification for the other. Just thinking through what might stick to the wall.
DA Carson: “Many of those who speak easily and fluently of redeeming the culture soon focus all their energy shaping fiscal and political policies and the like, and merely assume the gospel. A gospel that is merely assumed, that does no more than perk away in the background while the focus of our attention is on the “redemption” of the culture in which we find ourselves, is lost within a generation or two.
Carson: “At the same time, I worry about Christians who focus their attention so narrowly on getting people saved that they care little about doing good to all people. Getting this right is not easy, and inevitably priorities will shift a little in various parts of the world, under various regimes. Part of the complexity of the discussion, I think, is bound up with what the church as church is responsible for, and what Christians as Christians are responsible for: Failure to make this distinction tends to lead toward sad conclusions.”
Consider the source. Niebuhr balanced and revised is still illiberal about what’s liberal.
http://www.reformation21.org/articles/don-carson-talks-about-culture.php
It is hard to take these “worldview” critiques seriously. If Reformed apologists wanted to interact with and critique non-Christian worldviews, they would interact with current non-Christian (etc.) philosophers. But for the most part, they don’t, and we get nothing but pop-apologetics and Sunday school arguments. One problem is that, in my brief experience (in college and teaching philosophy in college for a little while now) most ordinary folk simply don’t have a worldview, or even basic “presuppositions” they assume. They simply don’t, they auto-pilot and play video games and go on dates, etc., all without having the slightest clue about how they know what they know. Or giving a crap. “Moralistic-therapeutic-deism” is what you get out of some people from surveys when you shake them for answers, and for all most people care those answers might be different on any given day. That’s just my observation, though.
But D.G., what do you think about the legality of same-sex marriage? What do you think are the best arguments for preserving in law traditional marriage in a pluralistic society? Could you recommend some readings?
To follow up on patrick’s question…what is the natural law argument against same-sex marriage? And if natural law is the same for Christians and non-Christians, why is there no consensus on the morality of homosexuality?
I wonder if those with transformationist worldviews fault the “moral compromise” of the Lord Jesus for His submission to the occupying empire. Is Christ’s rejection of Peter’s sword an endorsement of Roman power to define marriage?
Acts 2:23 “this Jesus, handed over according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”
We should never confuse what’s “necessary” (because it’s predestined by God) with what is good. can agree that nation-states do great evil, without in any way seeing any duty for us to attempt to repair or replace these regimes . “Submit” does NOT mean that we accept suffering from them because I think their marriage laws are good. Patience, even such that we wait for the Lord Jesus to come and judge, is not necessarily cowardice, and definitely not approval of that which is evil. To do nothing when nothing wise can be done is to avoid the evils which come when we attempt to overcome evil with evil.
We cannot dismiss the commands to submit and suffer with our idea–”if it were only me suffering that’s one thing, but it’s not only me suffering, so therefore I must do something about i for the sake of future generations.”
I Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
The “spirituality of the church” is the politics of ecclesia. There is something very “religious” and “political” about knowing that church is more important than marriage or race or the boundaries of a nation-state.
12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.
Unless we adopt a situation ethic (now that we have the spectacle of democracy, we can act differently than Peter commanded), since when do we aliens tell the nation in which we live how to get married. Do we say: Agreed, you surely are not going to listen to what Jesus Christ actually said, but we like our worldview better than your worldview and maybe you could listen to it?
How will allowing gay marriage undermine our need for babies to grow up and support the older generations? Um, gay people aren’t going to be having babies anyway…
Second, marriage is not primarily about procreation, never has been. Eve was created to be a companion to Adam because “it is not good that man should be alone.” Procreation is certainly a primary element of marriage, but not a fundamental.
“So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth…”
hmmm…
Sean, I’m all for a public policy that says, if you want to have a baby, use your own organs and don’t let doctors in the room or the womb.
mcmark, as if my concern for soul-winning means I don’t feed my kids (if I had any, okay my cats). As if feeding kids is not about being socially responsible or relevant.
Patrick, I’d go to the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society. I imagine they have some freebies at their website along with recommended books. Anything written by Allan Carlson on the family would also be good.
Terry, you know the answer: people suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Even I do when I think God won’t forgive me.
Alexander, if people aren’t marrying to procreate, why are they marrying? And if the state wants to encourage procreation, then make policies that discourage people for marrying for the wrong reasons. Take away the benefits that accrue to spouses who don’t have kids.
D.G., Really? No way. How would you legitimize the use of some medical technological advances and not others? Surgical and disease treatment advances, o.k. but fertility enhancement or alternatives are right out? Based on what criteria would you make such an argument that still embraces 2k and doesn’t unnecessarily capitulate to the argument that modernity is largely inhuman.
I’m willing to bet, though I haven’t checked the stats, that the homosexual union is severly deficient in it’s ability, even with fertility advancements, to adequately sustain a populace that would be sufficient for a state, much less a state/union of our size. That argument alone would be sufficient to grant formal/state recognized advantage to heterosexual marriage while allowing for the “experiment” of domesticity for same-sex civil union, that someone like Andrew Sullivan would argue for as it regards ‘norming’ the homosexual community as it regards their morality. Essentially, make them better citizens and provide a legitimized stratification within the homosexual community between the ‘bathhouse’ homosexual and the monogamous one. We can’t hardly point to the heterosexual’s track record on monogamy for sufficient ground to argue heterosexual superiority or priority over the homosexual’s.
To me the best arguments against the legalization of gay marriage in the context of a pluralistic constitutional democracy are more along the lines of where DGH seems to be pointing, and these are basically bound up in the philosophical underpinnings of political conservatism – namely is such a radical revision of the elemental social institution of marriage a good thing – does it promote the good of society. On the flip side, the best arguments for gay marriage are also constitutional arguments, namely, can the state impose restrictions on two consenting adults who wish to enter into marriage, which in many respects is not dissimilar to other contractual relationships that all adults are free to enter into as US citizens. Of course there are moral concerns on both sides of these arguments, but it is fundamentally a question of what sort of society do we wish to have, one that focuses on the preservation of foundational social institutions such as marriage and family, or do we wish to have a society that maximizes civil liberties even if such liberties represent serious revision (or as some would argue, threat) to traditional institutions.
The worst arguments are the ones, unfortunately, that rule the day, where private agendas, whether amongst conservative church members, or amongst the gay community that seek to foist their moral agendas on the public without laying the more civil foundations for dialogue, and to see if these communities can come to some form of amicable compromise. But, it really has become a zero sum debate, and I frankly have tired of it since the prop 8 debates here in CA (ca. 2008).
Darryl, yes, that’s the answer I would give, but I’m not quite sure how that works in a natural law framework. How do we decide what the natural law is? It appears that the consensus in the west is that homosexuality is not contrary to natural law. Do we decide based on consensus? Do we decide based on biology–ability to procreate–is that the foundation for natural law? How does natural law speak to monogamy, serial monogamy, or even polygamy?
I am not sure what feeding my children (or others) has to do with telling non-Christians in the nation in which we are aliens how to get married. I won’t be able to feed my children if the state does not define property rights like I want them to?
Do we say to non-Christians?— Agreed, you surely are not going to listen to what Jesus Christ said, but since we like our view of marriage better than your view, then we want you to vote with us Christians on this issue. Because if you do, then we both will be in better position to feed our children.
Sean, it is not natural to make babies outside the — ahem — natural way to make babies. See, and I didn’t even open the Bible. The Roman Catholics, don’t, right?
Sean, but men need women to domesticate them. Every male knows that. You really want one man to domesticate another?
Terry, how do we make babies? That’s pretty obvious. What is the best context for making babies? It’s not a brothel or a bathhouse.
McMark, it has something to do with what we have inherited as a civilization and how we are going to receive and pass it on. Heterosexual marriage was a very important part of the West and the way heteros have screwed it up is no reason to give up on the institution and its benefits for society. Just consider the woes of inner-city schools. We can dump all the money we want on them but if the children in those schools are coming from single parent homes, that education is not going to go nearly as far as a two-parent household. The benefits of marriage are huge even if you take them for granted. Does it mean that marriage is easy or pleasant? Of course not. But there is something about a creation ordinance that works for (all about) me.
D. G. Hart: Heterosexual marriage was a very important part of the West and the way heteros have screwed it up is no reason to give up on the institution and its benefits for society.
RS: In like manner what is thought of as Christianity and the Church has been messed up, but that is no reason to give up on Christ and His Bride.
Jack: blockbuster argument there. Quote one short passage from the Creation narrative, with no context, and no comment. Such a biblicist
If procreation is the reason for marriage, are y’all willing to say that (heterosexual) marriages which can’t produce children aren’t real marriages? Of course procreation is part of the creational ordinance of marriage, but it wasn’t the impetus for God’s instituting it.
Also, I think the bathhouse chat is a tad insppropriate. I don’t think heterosexuals can claim any moral superiority when it comes to the area of promiscuity. And at least when homosexuals have relations out of wedlock, illegitimate babies aren’t a potential result.
Richard, but it would be a good reason to abandon revivals.
Alexander, you have answered you’re own question. Since sex (hetero) produces children marriage is the proper context for having offspring. Childless marriages may exist, but they shouldn’t become the norm. They should be considered abnormal (I are one). And since there will be no marriage in heaven, I’m betting there won’t be any more people, which suggests a pretty close identification between marriage and procreation.
D. G. Hart: Richard, but it would be a good reason to abandon revivals.
RS: Aargghh. There is not a single good reason to abandon seeking the Lord to revive His people.
Psalm 85:6 Will You not Yourself revive us again, That Your people may rejoice in You?
How about the best argument against “gay” marriage is that God’s Word condemns the behavior? God calls sodomy an abomination, the strongest word for revulsion in the Bible. God calls it a *crime*, *worthy* of death. Moreover, God in days past has destroyed whole cities for there’re homosexuality.
I’ve got a question for Hart: Is the act of Sodomy still *worthy* of the Death Penalty? Or has God changed his mind?
Akexander,
Your self-assured sarcasm is so convincing.
You read quite a bit into that verse I quoted. I didn’t say procreation is the sole reason for marriage. But I do think it is more fundamental than your first comment asserted.
Alexander, what does Jesus calling his people *salt* and *light* mean to you?
Doug,
Are the wages of sin death, or has God changed his mind on that as well?
Dgh: no argument from me that marriage is the proper context for having babies; but is having babies the reason for marriage?
Jack: thank you for the compliment:) I’m sorry but your italicising of the command to be fruitful was a tad too much, concha think? I think we agree more than we disagree
Doug: ummmm, that we taste like salt and we shine like light? I’m not sure how your question relates to the discussion… :S
Doug Sowers: How about the best argument against “gay” marriage is that God’s Word condemns the behavior? God calls sodomy an abomination, the strongest word for revulsion in the Bible. God calls it a *crime*, *worthy* of death. Moreover, God in days past has destroyed whole cities for there’re homosexuality.
I’ve got a question for Hart: Is the act of Sodomy still *worthy* of the Death Penalty? Or has God changed his mind?
RS: Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for sodomy and they were not part of covenant Israel. In fact, Genesis 13:13 tells us that “the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the LORD.” Then we have the story of Jonath going to Nineveh: : Jonah 1:1 “The word of the LORD came to Jonah the son of Amittai saying, 2 “Arise, go to Nineveh the great city and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before Me.”
The two pasages from the OT above could be multiplied, but we also have Romas 1-3 which sets out that Jew and Gentile are condemned by their sin against the Law. Romans 1:18-32 tells us that God judges sin by hardening hearts and turning people over to sin, and then in v.32 speaks of those who “give hearty approval to those who practice them.” Where the perfect line is I don’t profess to know, but surely the fact that all men are sinners against God should teach us that we should warn them of the judgement to come and that we should not pass laws that lead to unrestrained sin. The fact that a person does not attend church or profess Christ does not lessen that person’s judgement for his or her sin. All sin is against God.
Hey Doug, if I say yes, does that mean you think recalcitrant adolescents should also be executed? If so, can you believe how unfaithful the church has been since 1650?
I Corinthians 5:9 —I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Ah, the italic. My wife has often warned me about it’s use due to those who are
italic-sensitive…
Does anyone find it ironic that President Obama when announcing his support for gay and lesbian marriage acknowledged that he is a Christian and in the same spirit that Christ sacrificed Himself for us, we should show the same kind of love and equality to gays and lesbians?
Jed, I thought you understood that I was talking about socio-political justice. While all sins are worthy of death, not all sins are crimes. And God never asks the Magistrate to punish all crimes with Death. Isn’t that basic Christian 101? God sees a different heinousness in various crimes. And crimes are to receive just retribution, amen? We don’t take “eye for and eye” *literally*, amen? We understand that the punishment should fit the crime, amen?
Since God explicitly states:
Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a male, like a women, both of them have committed an abomination, they shall surely be put to death, their blood is upon them”.
Here’s my question Jed, if engaging in sodomy was *worthy* of the death, back then; what are the morally relevant factors, that make it not *worthy* of death, today?
Terry, it might help to think more like St. Paul who didn’t seem all too worried about “how do we decide what natural law is,” which is really more a question that flows from an epistemological framework than a biblical one. Here’s what a Pauline answer might look in this discussion: we all know homosexuality is contrary to nature and so should not enjoy the sanction of marriage. As for your concern about consensus, surely you’ve heard of majorities being wrong and minorities being right (sort of like how smart people can be wrong and dimmer folks right, or doing the right thing and getting kicked in the teeth for it and getting away with your sin).
I know raging theonomists (hi, Doug) want to execute homosexuals, but 2kers actually believe Jesus fulfilled the law and so would rather make points that might irritate some modern American assumptions but not send folks screaming for the hills.
Darryl, my position is, that for something to be intrinsically moral, means it must be universal. Morality as well as *Justice* must also be universal. So, if God’s Law calls for the execution of recalcitrant children, then that is what we *should* do. Of course upon reading what constitutes the definition a recalcitrant adolescent, we also read of beating ones parents. I think that still against the law today, no?
But let’s face it Darryl, we give all sorts of crimes, that God says are *worthy* of death a free pass. Just look at child molesters, when caught the first time, they normally receive a few months in jail or a couple of years in prison, only to see them repeat the same offence once they are set free. If we really want justice, we would obey God’s Law, because God says that that particular sin is a crime *worthy* of death. Once again Darryl, what are the morally relevant circumstances that have changed? If there aren’t any morally relevant factors that have changed, why wouldn’t you stand up for justice?
Zrim, in case you haven’t noticed, it doesn’t really matter what *I* or *you*, think or want. What has God said?! That is the crux of the issue. And once God has spoken emphatically, it’s binding upon mankind unless or until God either resends or modifies his commands with further revelation.
Once again Zrim, how can something *worthy* of the death penalty (like homosexuality) in Moses day be *unworthy* of the death penalty today?
What are the morally relevant circumstances that have changed???
Can morality change?
Ooops! When I said we give a free pass to crimes, that God said are *worthy* of death, I was referring to homosexuality, bestiality, as well as adultery, and blasphemy. I apologize if I didn’t make that clear.
Doug, well it could be that Christ’s coming is morally relevant, and that by fulfilling the law and codes of Israel, things changed. Could Israelites have eaten meat offered to idols? No. Yet, Paul says believers can.
Doug, boo! Israel is over.
D.G., You’re preaching to the choir here on the superiority of the heterosexual arrangement as both a creation ordinance, a procreative environment, and a domesticating vehicle. BUT, since the fall is pretty radical and set most everything on it’s ear, we all have to make accommodation. RCer’s take advantage of fertility science last I checked, but since I was an american rc, maybe it was just some more buffet line practice than strict adherence that I was observing. Or was that reference to cracking the bible you were making? Both could apply. The point of accommodation, I was trying to make was one of recognizing something less than marriage for homosexual couples, civil union, while at the same time boosting the status of heterosexual marriage and it’s benefits to society by creating a legal and monetary stratification. Homosexuals are humans and citizens as well, who make contribution to both the country’s prosperity and defense and being as I’m not homosexual, if those who are, want to argue for a potential improvement of both the civility of their own community, while, maybe unwittingly, also end up making a case for it’s ultimate bankruptcy under the guise of norming it’s morality, while exposing them to the punitive legal ramifications of separation, and the benefits of estate for fidelity( however twisted that looks between Adam and Steve), I don’t really see how that endangers the institution of marriage. We heterosexuals have done a good enough job besmirching that arrangement all on our own. My biggest concern on the issue would be the potential creep into the church as it regards performing ceremony and any potential exposure to discriminatory law suit.
In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia,the Supreme Court struck down state laws banning interracial marriage. The case was filed by an interracial couple — Richard Loving, who was white, and his wife, Mildred, who was black. And of course this means that all churches now can be commanded by the nation-state to marry inter-racial couples. Thus you see, churches needs to tell the state what to do, or the state will tell the churches what to do.
Doug, you’re right that what God has said is what matters. And what has God said? “It is finished.” Stop suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.
Jack: not sensitive. One uses italics to emphasise a statement. When you italicised “be fruitful and multiply” you were implying that was a crucial point, and becaus it followed my point about marriage not being fundamentally about procreation, the clear implication is that you were disagreeing with me and using the Genesis quote to do so.
So perhaps one could say I’m improper-use-of-italics-and-badly-constructed-points sensitive