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
Alexander,
I’ll stick with “italic-sensitive,” but add “-and-prone-to-read-into-italics-what-isn’t-there.”
Your quote: “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?”
Never said that, never implied that. Why should I defend it? The Gen. passage speaks for itself. Procreation is fundamental to marriage without being the sole ingredient that defines marriage. In the same way your quote “it is not good that man should be alone” is fundamental to marriage, but relationship alone doesn’t define the purpose of marriage.
By the way, “it is not good that man should be alone” leads up to the verse that the “two shall become one flesh” pointing to a union that is both personal and physical, the result of which was: Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.” And again, she bore his brother Abel. It seems ‘not being alone’ had to do with more than just having a companion at one’s side.
God later reissues the original mandate to Noah and his sons: And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.
By the way, I’m using the flooding technique with all the above italics.
cheers…
I would just say you’re using italics incorrectly, but whatever. However, if you have a fear of italics the flooding technique might help you. Good luck
When to use italics:
“Most commonly, italics are used for emphasis or contrast — that is, to draw attention to some particular part of a text.”
Of course in employing the flooding technique, I admit, I abused that rule.
cheers,
Jack
Zrim, how dare you! When Jesus said it was *finished* he was talking about his atoning work of sacrifice, on the cross for his people, *the Israel of God. He paid the price, and obtained his people.
When our Lord was on the cruel cross and cried out “It is finished”! He wasn’t saying that Nations should no longer punish crime! He certainly wasn’t implying that we are now free to go out and sin! Furthermore, Jesus wasn’t claiming we have a new standard of justice, which is poppy cock, and philosophically impossible.
As long as God gives me strength I’m not going to let people like you, confuse Christ’s completed work on our behalf, (once for all) with society’s obligation to punish crime with *just* retribution. Morality and justice go together like a hand in a glove.
And I’m suppressing the truth in unrighteous? You’ve really got nerve. You continue to talk out of both side of your mouth, confusing God’s atonement, with society’s duty to punish crime, in a God glorifying way.
Darryl, boo, back at you! I fully understand that Israel is gone, BUT morality and justice haven’t gone anywhere. They can’t, because they are both universal. When is it going to dawn on you, that morality and justice are coterminous? I’m praying for the day, when a light blinks on that darkened mind of yours, and you finally *get it*.
I’ll leave the light on for you
P.S. we all have darkened minds, some are darker than others
If I can make an analytic comment without being misconstrued, I think the whole gay marriage conversation is off course. That is, people read “gay marriage” as “gay sex” but gay sex is already legal. Strictly speaking, gay marriage is about the bundle of legal rights and obligations that accompany marriage. I wonder how different the conversation would be if it was about whether two individuals should be able to contract into, e.g., certain property laws and probate laws.
As for the rhetoric of the debate, calling it “marriage” does cause more uproar but its advocates probably prefer the term because it seems to put gay unions on the same level as heterosexual unions.
So is this whole debate about a label? That’s not to say labels are unimportant, but if this is the debate, let’s be clear about it.
Let the misconstruction begin…
I’m new to your site. In your response to Horton you use the abrivation w-w several times. What is this short hand for? Thanks.
Doug, I think that is used for World View, but why W-V isn’t used I’m not sure, even after asking.
Other Doug, is justice something we accomplish now or something God brings at the consummation? No one said people are now free to sin. Don’t forget, there will be hell to pay.
When did God come down to American and have the founding fathers stand on capital hill and shout blessings and curses as he covenanted with them?
Doug, I think “worldview” is a holy word on Darryl’s blog, too holy to be written out; so it is written as the first and last letter with a dash in between: w-w. Something like the practice of some to write “G-d” instead of writing out the word “God”.
Sowers:
In one of your above comments, you suggested that God may view certain sins as less heinous, and that, for that reason, the state may not criminally punish certain sins, including those that were capital offenses in the OT. I respectfully disagree.
Your argument implicitly suggests that the Bible (i.e., special revelation) is the primary basis upon which criminal law is based. Our Anglo-American system of jurisprudence has never looked to the Bible as a primary policy rationale for criminal law. To the contrary, criminal law is generally rooted in notions of deterrence, which are justified in terms of general revelation. Moreover, we have generally not criminalized conduct that does not cause direct harm to others without their consent.
I prefer to believe that God said what he meant, and accept that the Bible says a lot that is not applicable to the conduct of those outside of the covenant community.
Bob, when does the punishment fit the crime? Shall we cut off the hand of a thief? Shall we execute the drunk driver? Shall we cut out the tongue of the liar? Shall we *wink* at the abortion Dr? By what standard can you tell a Magistrate that he is going over the line? After all Bob, it’s not a matter of *if* we’re going to draw the line, it’s just *where*. Shouldn’t we base our laws, on the Rock of God’s commands? Since justice and morality are universal, we need to be consistent Christians who pray the Lord’s Prayer, and really mean it!
It probably didn’t look like Israel could defeat the Sons of Aniken, either lol!
Doug, and neither am I saying that Jesus’ atoning work means there is no longer need for magistrates to punish evil doers or that we are now free to sin. I affirm the first and third use of the law. But your theonomic system makes hay out of WCF 19.3, which is to say Christ’s work. (Plus it assumes salvation is geo-political as well as personal. But it’s personal alone.) So to the extent that you undermine Christ’s atoning work by want reinvigorating the laws and codes of Israel, you are calling Christ insufficient and suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Stop doing that.
Man! I’ve been following some Reformed sites, for awhile now…and Doug…and I say this with as much brotherly love as I can conjure, through the internets…your intense desire to punish homosexuality by way of God’s covenant with O-T Israel, seems to border on obsession.
It’s as if God’s law lives or dies on the amount of executed homosexuals a culture can build on. You might want to get that checked. And i swear i share this more out of concern, than irony.
I have a question about theonomy. I had no idea what this was until reading Doug’s comments. How would a western culture go about executing such judgements? This sounds like Iran.
One last question. Why didn’t Jesus stone the woman who committed adultery?
“This sounds like Iran.
One last question. Why didn’t Jesus stone the woman who committed adultery?”
Don’t let anyone tell you you don’t understand what theonomy ultimately amounts to. You got it right.
Hi Robin,
When America was founded in 1776 we had the death penalty for sodomy in all thirteen states! We had a strong “reformed” understanding of morality and justice. What I find shocking, is that men who call themselves reformed today, men like Darryl Hart have done a 180, and now find America’s original perspective on sodomy, repugnant. Ironically, homosexuals are on the attack in our culture, demanding not only our accepting they’re “idolatrous” form of behavior, but want it put on par with marriage.
Doug’s gonna whisper in your ear now Robin, but just remember, you know where this ends up; with you in a burka and a rock in Doug’s hand. In truth, Doug will equivocate and talk to you about how the penal sanctions have to be accommodated for our culture, but your first impressions are right on.
Sean, I don’t *know* you, so how are you so cock sure what I am all about? I desire that God’s people would be faithful to his commandments. And that when we live in a Nation that allows our impute, we would echo what God says in His Word. What you don’t know, is that Darryl and I have had a conversation for about a couple years. When Obama courageously (wink wink) came out *for* gay marriage I wanted to see how Hart was going to respond.
God bless you one and all!
Rest in his completed work
Doug Sowers
Doug,
I’ve had to endure theonomists for 22 years now after leaving RC. I’ve got the t-shirt and been on all the rides. Greg Bahnsen was my associate pastor. You ain’t gonna tell me anything I haven’t heard.
Doug,
The death penalty for sodomy was revoked in all thirteen colonies (not states) shortly after 1776, though still against the law, and in the entire 18th century only one man, a black man, was ever put to death for sodomy. Finally, how were our founding fathers reformed? That’s news to me and most church historians.
Seriously though, how would you go about executing homosexuals? Would you arrest them and give them the lethal injection? Would you give them opportunity to repent and then let them go or still kill them? Would you stone them? I mean seriously, how would all this work out? Finally, how would you get that law to pass? If the law is never passed would it be ok to take justice into your own hands? I am not writing these things to come across as sarcastic. I don’t agree with what Doug has said but am really interested how a thenomist would hypothetically work out all of the sordid details out.
Also, if your child were found to be in gross sin would honor killings not be considered sinful? My goodness I need to stop writing because the more I type the more questions I have.
Todd, thanks for making my point! Our Nation still had the death penalty for sodomy, after 1776 and kept it illegal for a couple centuries. Has something ethically changed? What does God say? Are you looking to “special revelation”, or Natural Law? And if your looking at General revelation, how do you know you’re reading it aright?
Robin, hi
God’s Law (the general equity of the Mosaic Law) is never going to be the law of our land, until there has been a reformation in our culture starting with His Church. And no, I don’t take the law in my own hand, and I don’t hate the homosexuals I have met. I witness to them, and the ones I’ve met know intrinsically they are in high defiance to God. And will even admit they *know* what they’re doing is worthy of death. But no Theonomist I know (which I don’t know a great many) thinks if a sodomite repents that he should be retroactively put to death. “Such were some of you”, says the Apostle Paul.
And Robin, in all seriousness, when sodomy is considered a death penalty crime in a Christian society, that particular sin-crime, is going to be kept w-a-a-a-a–a-a-y in the closet and not even spoken about in polite civil discourse. That is what Christians need to be praying for, a change in the heart in Christ’s church,(first) and for the greater cultural transformation in our Nation as a whole. Thy kingdom come, they will be done, even right now, and tomorrow like it is in heaven. We are commanded to be people of faith, not those who scoff and say, society will never submit to God’s revealed Word of God.
Psalms 72 shows King David’s heart, that all Nations would serve God and God’s enemies would lose clout. Christ is King in all areas of life, encompassing individual, family, Church, and State. All must bend the knee to God’s revealed Word, the Christian Scriptures. That Jesus would be the King of Kings in every realm. And that is what Machen believed as well. That even our federal Government would submit to the Gospel.
Is divorce punishable by death? Or just the Gays?
Why are we debating theonomy? This feels like 1990 all over again.
@Luther Perez: There were a few more “sin” crimes that God found worthy of death for both the Israelites and the (Sojourners who were not circumcised), nor members and partakers of the CoG, yet they still had to keep the moral Law. Jew and Gentile alike. What else did God’s Law constitute a civil death penalty action for both Jew and Gentile? Rape, blasphemy, (stubborn outlandish blasphemy) adultery, beating ones parents, kidnapping or man stealing, bestiality, witchcraft, sodomy, child molesting, and murder.
Doug: so you’re advocating hypocrisy? We should all just ignore what’s going on because of the shame? Maybe you should lead by example and stop talking about homosexuality.
The reason there’s so much promiscuity amongst evangelicals is because the evangelical/conservative Christian culture is obsessed with sex. It is possible to be Reformed, conservative, have Church cultures where people follow Biblical morality: don’t make everything about sex.
Jack: don’t make everything about italics. There’s a whole world of grammar and associated techniques out there. Exercise your Christian liberty brother
@Alexander: No, I don’t advocate hypocricy. As to point two, I didnt bring this subject up. Check upove, it’s what this post in about
Bob, we’re not debating theonomy, although a few people asked some questions. I was just trying to shed a little light. BTW, as to the debate on theonomy in the ninties? Theonomy won!
So why are you so focused on homosexuality, when adultery (and having sex with your second/third/fourth wife is an act of adultery) is rampant in the US?
It seems a bit, unnerving, that you immediately demand God’s justice for same-sex desire, while the sexual sins of heteros seem to be off your specialized God given gaydar. Mind you, I’ve read your spirited debates with 2k folks, and same-sex desire seems to be your specialized focus.
Doug: what Luther said. This topic is actually about gay marriage, not gay sex per se. No one was debating whether gay sex should be legal. Also, you jumped right into this debate. I don’t remember reading any posts by you on this blog in the past couple of years, certainly not regularly. And yet you’re all over this. That suggests obsession to me.
And what exactly did theonomy win? It’s kinda like Gaelic over here in Scotland and the attempts to promote it through the media: everyone who speaks Gaelic is on TV speaking it. I.e. the only theonomiss are those speaking at theonomy conferences. I.e. No one’s a theonomist and there’s a reason! It’s craaaaaaazaaaaaaaay!!!
D. S: But no Theonomist I know (which I don’t know a great many) thinks if a sodomite repents that he should be retroactively put to death. “Such were some of you”, says the Apostle Paul.
Me: So do repentant murderers not get the death penalty?
What does w-w mean?
Thomas, great question! A murderer is in a different category, because of the dead body. Bahnsen went on over that very issue in Theonomy #14.
@Erik, it means “worldview”.
Alexander, theonomy means a lot of different things to people. Applying theonomy (God’s Law) in a new covenant context in today’s modern society is the tricky part, on which even most theonomists are not in full agreement. The Church has much work to do on the matter.
But calling theonomy crazy doesn’t make it so. People of your ilk, tend to mock and deprecate God’s penal sanctions from the Mosaic Law as if they were horrible. Like executing young men who curse and beat their parents. That’s Darryl’s favorite OT penal sanction to mention, because *he thinks* it’s a great example of how riculous and “out there” theonomists are.
I haven’t heard anyone to date explain how homosexuality, or rape, or kidnapping, or child molesting or murder is now suddenly no longer a death penalty offence, *ethically*. When the death penalty for these exact sin’s (crimes) was considered *justice* a couple hundred years ago. Has morality and justice changed? Is that even possible? I think not.
Doug says;
‘Applying theonomy (God’s Law) in a new covenant context in today’s modern society is the tricky part, on which even most theonomists are not in full agreement. The Church has much work to do on the matter.’
Sean: Robin I just want you to remember what I told you about ‘he will start to equivocate’. In the very same response where he blusters about God’s law never changing and how it was deserving of death just a couple hundred years and how it’s not even possible for morality and justice to change….’I think not’. Well apparently it’s ‘tricky’ and this ‘unchanging’ standard apparently can’t receive unanimous agreement even in “theonomist’s” circles.
Robin, just remember what I told you; ” you pegged it from the start.” Think Iran, Islamists, burkas (sp) and rocks. Except when it comes down to it, they don’t actually have the stomach or don’t really believe their own rhetoric, as they bluster about. All hat, no cattle.
Doug: I’m not denying that crimes which received the death penalty under
Moses no longer deserve it ethically. I’ve long read Jesus and the adulterer as Him saying that whilst her crime may, ethically, deserve death it is not for other sinners to dole out. But I never said anything about how God, objectively, views these crimes. And after all: ALL aim results in death.
What we’re talking about is how we, as fallen humans, relate to other fallen humans, in light of our own sinfulness and the grace that has come in Christ. It was said in an episode of The Good Wife that Christ’s Incarnation, Life and Atoning Sacrice has tempered the need for punishment, but that the substance- the moral nature- of the Law still stands. That seems right to me and it seems to accord with Jesus teaching re:the adulteress.
Yes we should be salt and light; not judge and executioner.
Vengeance is mine, saith the LORD.
Doug, I don’t see sabbath breakers on your list. Don’t they get the ax too?
David R. don’t blame me, it’s not “my” list, that’s God’s list. I’m just the messenger! I think I pulled that list from 1 Tim 1:8-13. That’s the Law that according to Paul was still *good* when it’s used in a lawful way i.e. by the civil Magistrate. Also notice that when the Law is applied to those crimes, all were given the death penalty except for stealing, Paul says that is in accordance to the Gospel of Christ.
Sean, Sharia law? burkes, Iran? I am not advocating Sharia Law, where they cut off the hand of the thief. I’m advocating God’s Law, where the punishment fits the crime. Unless you’re intimating that God’s Law is equal to Islam. I hope you don’t really feel that way, for it you do; you have a completely different religion.
BTW Sean, if the death penalty for murder were on trial, I would argue by the exact same standard, God’s Word. Murderers and homosexuals both deserve the death penalty “BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO”!!!!! I know that is true, because the Bible is the very Word of God.
Alexander, do you believe in the death penalty for murder? And if so, then by what standard?
Sean, do you believe in Capital Punishment for murder? If yes, by what standard?
Doug, not to answer for Alexander or Sean, but the divine ordinance arming civil magistrates with the sword for the avenging of innocent blood is found in Genesis 9:5-6.
Hi David R
So you go to special revelation? Gasp! I thought that was a no no for you “new” 2K types? I thought the new *Hart* agnostic Christian method to govern, was to look to Natural Law or General revelation, because that is sufficient, no? Because of your going to say you *peaked* at the Bible, for the justification of Capital Punishment for murder, then I will too, for justification of Capital Punishment for sodomy
And don’t be shy David R. you can jump in anytime
Doug,
And those who engage in divorce.
Do they get your ax, as well?
Premarital sex?
Off with their head?
You seem to want death, for sexual acts unfamiliar to you.
I understand the “ick” factor…but I’m willing to admit that I should not confuse my prejudices with God’s vengeance…and then justify my sins by claiming God’s grace.
Doug, we all agree sodomy is a sin and that like all sins, is punishable by an eschatological curse. But the issue here is one of Hermeneutics 101. You’re misguidedly claiming universal applicability for typological ordinances. You realize the Mosaic economy was a pedagogue unto Christ, right?
Sorry my questions led to all of this…
I have never heard of such! So, since we have the death penalty we should also execute homosexuals? Ok, fine but, if we do it as the bible tells us we have to stone them correct?
This is really disturbing me Doug. What if I am a homosexual and am imprisoned. Then, I repent of my wickedness. Do I still die because if I murder someone and then repent I am still on death row.
Also, punishment for murdering someone isn’t distinctly a Christian thing. Christian or not societies don’t work out when murderers get to roam the streets doing what they please to whomever. I assumed the reason why stealing and murder were the two commandments western society punished if broken were because those two have an effect on lots of people, random or not so random. So that coveting something or being in an adulterous relationship just don’t mean the same thing when talking about keeping a society relatively safe. But, I am pretty sure you have an answer to this so I am interested to hear.
However, I believe Doug is also operating from the notion that we were a Christian nation until when exactly? Doug, how many homosexuals were executed in this country in its beginnings? I didn’t know it was illegal and you seem to know everything about Levitical law which is really astounding and maybe frightening. I am not sure yet.
One last thing. Can you give me a list of prominent theologians who are advocates of theonomy? Thanks.
Luther, I’ve read the Law very carefully, and while out of wed-lock sex is most certainly a sin, it’s not given the death penalty, except in some extreme cases. Divorce? No, that is not a Capital crime either.
David R. the *ceremonial law* was a tutor unto Christ. Not the DP’s for rape, murder, sodomy, child molesting, beating up ones parents, bestiality, kidnapping, blasphemy, and adultery. And I have yet to hear any exegesis that would infer that perspective. As in none
But, let me play alone: How is executing a murderer a tutor to Christ? How is executing a rapist, a tutor to Christ? How is executing a child molester a tutor to Christ. And now that Christ has come, what are we to do?
How is making just restitution a tutor to Christ? Quick answer, it isn’t!! All those punishments exhibit perfect socio political justice. In fact, God’s Law is to be a light for all the Nations, the very model of justice, and how a just society should govern.
Robin, check out “By This Standard” by Greg Bahnsen. It’s well thought out, and a good read. Theonomy just means God’s Law. And some theonomists are said to be cranky and mean. We all have bad days, amen? Check out Covenant media foundation, they have a bunch of Greg Bahnsen’s tapes, as well as some other excellent resouces.
Blessings,
Doug
Doug, the judicial penalties were a type of eschatological judgment, revealing God’s righteous wrath against sin and pointing forward to the eternal punishment awaiting all who refuse to trust in the Mediator who endured that punishment on our behalf.