The federal court decision on California’s Prop 8 legislation has prompted many responses. One significant theme is that conservative Protestants, who oppose gay marriage, whether from the pulpit or in ordination standards and hiring practices, should prepare for continued marginalization and even legislative harassment if they continue to publicly oppose gay marriage. In this vein, Carl Trueman writes:
Those evangelical leaders, academics and evangelical institutions that prize their place at the table and their invitations to appear on `serious’ television programs, and who enjoy being asked to offer their opinion to the wider culture had better be prepared to make a choice. As I have said before in this column, we are not far from the place where to oppose homosexuality will be regarded as in the same moral bracket as white supremacy. Those types only appear on Jerry Springer; and Jerry generally doesn’t typically ask them their opinion on the ethics of medical research, the solution to the national debt, or the importance of poetry to a rounded education.
(BTW, Trueman adds that the older generation of conservative Protestants dropped the ball on this one and failed to produce an exegetical argument against homosexuality. He remembers that for his peers, “now in middle age, dislike of homosexuality . . . had more to do with our own cultural backgrounds than with any biblical argumentation.†He even admits that “we were basically bigots and we needed to change.†Trueman may be too young and too English to remember – if he is middle-aged, what does that make me? – that when John Boswell’s much read and discussed book came out, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality [1980], this geezer remembers any number of evangelicals responses to Boswell, all before the age of the Internet, peppered with important historical and exegetical arguments about biblical teaching on homosexuality.)
I may be as naive as I am old, but I do not agree with Trueman’s assessment that opposition to gay marriage will become synonymous with white supremacy and other crack pot ideas from the perspective of the cultural mainstream. At a deep level, Americans identify with the underdog. Homosexuals have used this to gain acceptance, even though people with the kind of access they appear to have to cultural elites are generally not eligible for the category of the oppressed.
Minority groups in the United States do oppose homosexuality and they do so without any noticeable threat. For instance, Muslims are not keen on gay marriage, nor are orthodox Jews, or African-American Protestants for that matter. And yet, the thought of the state threatening these groups with penalties for their stances on homosexuality seems far-fetched. If Andrew Sullivan were to come to a place in policy debates where he wound up on the other side of a dispute with Jesse Jackson, I bet Sullivan would have enough sense not to charge Jackson with bigotry – something that rarely sticks on minorities. And if Jackson were a spokesman for African-American ministers opposed to homosexual marriage, I doubt he would be banned from the Sunday morning talk shows for doing so. I could actually see lots of bookings (though I wouldn’t be at home to watch them).
The problem for evangelicals is that they are the minority who thinks like a majority. It would be one thing to look at the numbers, recognize you don’t have the votes, and look for ways to protect your own sideline institutions. This was the approach to public life in the United States by Roman Catholics and they found their political outlet in the multi-cultural Democratic Party. But evangelicals have readily identified as the mainstream tradition in the United States, with claims about the nation’s Christian founding, and an accompanying political theology that says God loves republics and freedom. Evangelicals have also tended to approve of the Republican Party’s efforts to impose cultural uniformity on the nation. In which case, evangelicals may like to think that they are a minority only seeking toleration for themselves what other minority groups want (or have). But they have a uniformity-by-majority disposition that seeks to establish their norms as those of the nation.
This is the main reason for quick and ready dismissals of evangelicals as bigoted and intolerant, not their actual views or practices on homosexuality. Gay marriage is an emblem of a deeper cultural divide that prevents white conservative Protestants from embracing some form of cultural diversity. If they could concede ground to homosexuals (I don’t know if it should be civil marriage), they might be able to gain concessions for their own churches, schools, and families. But for the better part of 200 years, evangelicals have approached public life as a zero-sum game.
Scott Clark is sensitive to the particular consequences that gay marriage would have for the entire culture, and not for a certain sector of it, and argues plausibly for considering the social consequences of gay marriage. Scott is particularly concerned about the fallout for the family:
By analogy it is not possible to re-define the fundamental units of society without a cost. Consider any society. Assuming a certain degree of natural liberty and mobility, if people are living together in a defined space, those people have consented voluntarily to live together. They have made a society. What is the basic unit of that society? It cannot be the isolated individual if only because no mere individual is capable of forming a society or of perpetuating a society. There must be a basic social unit. Historically that social unit has been understood to be a heterosexual family, a father, mother, a grandfather, a grandmother and their children and grandchildren because it is grounded in the nature of things.
I tend to agree with this but sense it is almost impossible to use this line of reasoning in a plausible way. For forty years our society has been experimenting with a host of new social forms. Some of those were surely welcome – racial integration, and redefining women’s roles. But the impetus to overturn unwanted hierarchies did not leave much room for recognizing the value of hierarchy more generally and the way that social order depends upon other kinds of order. And so along came sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll as the baby boomers’ favorite idioms for resisting cultural and moral conventions.
Evangelicals may have taken longer and been more selective in appropriating the cultural shifts of the 1960s and 1970s, but when it came to worship and sacred song they did so with abandon. Granted, it is a leap even to suggest – let alone argue – that Praise and Worship worship was a step on the path to gay marriage. But if Christian rock did to religious conventions what rock did to cultural conventions, it is possible to wonder where the bending of conventions ultimately leads.
Scott points in the direction of his observation when he writes of the generational differences on opposition to homosexuality. The younger generation has:
been raised in a culture which not only tolerates homosexuality but celebrates it. Consider the contrast between the way homosexuality was regarded in popular culture in the first half of the 20th century. Liberace was openly effeminate and made only the thinnest of attempts to protest his heterosexuality. Homosexual movie stars regularly went out of their way to create a heterosexual image and especially when it was contrary to fact. Some movie studios had a policy requiring single male actors (e.g., Jimmy Stewart) to visit a studio-run bordello in order to demonstrate their heterosexuality.
In the second half of the 20th century the old conventions, which has lost their grounding in nature and creational law, were deconstructed. . . . All of this took decades but it happened. It’s a real change of culture, of attitude, of stance, of definition of what constitutes acceptable social and sexual behavior and norms.
If Scott is right, and I think he is about the gradual ways in which the culture has changed since 1960, then evangelicals may want to rethink why it is that their disregard for what the created order reveals as appropriate for Christian worship is okay but homosexual disregard for the created order of sexual reproduction is not. It could be that Trueman’s point about bigotry has a point: can you really sing Christian rock in praise of God and oppose gay marriage with a straight face?
Old Life 
The church has really blown it on this issue….big time. Falwell and his ilk have done great harm.
What we’re experiencing now….is something of a backlash. No surprise. The multi-generational Constantinian veneer has finally worn through or peeled off.
Homosexuality was rampant in the Hellenistic and Roman world as well. The early church certainly dealt with it in a way vastly different than the moral majority. Hadrian was a flagrant homosexual who placed statues of his ‘favourite’ all over the empire. Polycarp and Justin Martyr were very concerned…I know.
I wonder how much of the real vitriol over this issue is due an idolatrous disposition concerning the United States….all the romanticism that goes along with that. Our white picket fence vision of the kingdom is being overthrown…..it turned out it was just a cheap and tacky Wal-mart.
As with the Muslims we don’t need to pander to them, but some effort needs to be made to try and undo much of what has been done.
Ideally we would hope for a free society…as much social freedom as possible that allows us free speech and the ability to work for the Kingdom. We’ll do it anyway, but it’s always nice if we can do it peacefully.
If that freedom means that unregenerate people are allowed to continue acting like unregenerate people, so be it. Because guess what? Even if the Theonomists take over and transform America….unregenerate people are still going to act like unregenerate people.
We should have been giving the gospel instead of venom. Now, no surprise, they don’t want to hear the gospel anymore. They’re angry and they want what’s theirs, so to speak. I hope we don’t end up suffering as a result. If we do, it’s largely due to the false gospel of the Jerry Falwell’s, Pat Robertson’s, and Jim Dobson’s…….
We won’t change America (if that’s our goal) by social gospel (even a conservative one)…..America and all lands need the gospel of Christ.
And at this point it would seem about 99% of the America Church has no clue as to what they’re doing, or for that matter Whom they worship. Until that’s fixed….forget it.
I’m thinking of several conservative Baptists I know….they don’t know their Bibles, can’t explain even basic doctrines…but they’re off to the Glenn Beck rally at the end of the month. That’s what the church needs….get the civil rights movement back to it’s Anglo-Saxon roots, then all will be well!
I think I know some Baptists who are as crazy as the TV host they like to watch.
It would seem the American church is under Judgment on several fronts.
John A.
LikeLike
Oh, come on! It is not what the created order reveals but what Scripture reveals that determines what is appropriate for Christian worship. It is their disregard for what scripture teaches that runs them afoul with respect to what is appropriate for worship. The RPW actually applies to evangelicals as much as the reformed, they don’t get an out, pun intended, just because they don’t believe it.
LikeLike
I had no idea that Stryper and gay marriage were organically related in the evangelical mind. I do often wonder what it would mean if Christians pondered what it means to be a part of this emerging society, as opposed to ruling it, or transforming it. What does that mean for the “in and not of” distinction? What does neighborliness mean when your neighbors are Adam and Steve? Can we make distinctions without making Declarations (of the Manhattan variety)? Maybe it is a bit too much to even suppose these questions can be asked since it seems almost impossible to separate the Christian baby from the political and material bathwater.
LikeLike
Not sure of what you are trying to say, dgh, but I think pointing out that evangelicals can’t inconsistently pick and choose between creation ordinances – marriage over the sabbath – is the real parallel, rather than a critique based on the 2nd and the RPW.
( If I’m wrong about that, I’m sure I will be told.) Not that I got anything against the RPW, far from it, but the strange worship= strange flesh is more of a stretch. While the Israelites whored after other gods, as in worshiped them and the house of the sodomites was by the house of the Lord … I don’t know that I can quite make the leap.
Anyway.
LikeLike
bsuden, the point is to wonder where evangelicals are in the cultural upheaval of the last forty years. Their reputation is cultural warriors on the Right, on the side of tradition and morality. But they have also absorbed into worship and elsewhere several of the same trends that have destroyed a sense of what is orderly, natural, and appropriate. Contemporary worship points in this direction. It is the achilles heel of any claim to be conservative. Evangelicals need a verse to tell them what to do rather then recognizing (however difficult) real limits supplied by the creational order. Thankfully, they can still find verses to reject gay marriage. But to argue persuasively in the culture wars with non-believers, they don’t have a clue or a verse.
LikeLike
Andrew, the rpw says sing. Evangelicals follow and sing. You think only psalms. I would be glad if that were the only option. But you aren’t any help if you can’t distinguish between Shine, Jesus Shine and Of the Father’s Love Begotten. I get it. You think both are wrong. But formally and musically and textually, Father’s is better than Shine. That’s what the created order reveals.
LikeLike
Darryl,
The public sphere has been squeezing out the private sphere in modern American life. This raises a challenging question for Biblically Reformed Christians: How much of our lives should be lived in self-created ghettos?
You mentioned the approach that Roman Catholics took to public life in the face of being a (sometimes despised) minority. Isn’t part of the maintenence and influence of Roman Catholicism in America due to how Roman Catholics sacrificially built parochial schools a century ago? Related to this is their establishment of world class colleges and universities with a distinctly Roman Catholic identity. Is this a model that Biblically Reformed Christians could follow even if we wanted to given how few of us there are?
David
LikeLike
“Bigotry” is a strong word. But it is hard to see how evangelicals escape it entirely when their arguments against gay marriage seem to rest on it being contrary to the right, true and good, and yet never seem to apply that to ecclesiastical life. Indeed, to the extent that they are virtually defined by resisting the definition of what makes a church family, their vociferous pushback on the “re-definition of marriage” seems inconsistent at best and (ahem) bigoted at worst. Maybe ecclesiasticals and homosexuals have something in common: evangelical bigotry against certain definitions.
LikeLike
Darryl, brilliant point on Roman Catholics wisely and soberly embracing their reality, and the multi-culturalism of the Democrats and the unholy alliance of evangelicalism and the Republican party accomplishing their own downfall and dragging religious conservatism of all stripes down with them. After all, nobody would ever accuse the Roman Catholics of being bigots for denying non-celibate priests, after all… or even denying communion to a pro-abortion politician.
And David Booth, excellent point as well. As a result of Roman Catholic cognizance of their circumstances and ability to maintain their autonomy AND witness, they now have world-class research and idea institutions with distinctly Christian and Catholic identities like Georgetown, Notre Dame, and Boston College. I suppose evangelicals could have done the same had we/they stopped trying to “retake American culture” or isolating from it… and there are far too few biblical/confessional Reformed Christians to pull off something similar.
LikeLike
One factor left out of this discussion is that the push for gay rights has been historically sourced in the church. The PCUSA, ELCA, and Anglican churches, not to mention UCC, have been pushing tolerance for four decades at least, beginning with the acceptance of Fletcher’s Situation Ethics as the basic primer for ethical decision-making. Individual churches have also performed “gay marriages” (or “commitment ceremonies”) for at least 15 years now, prior to any state-wide laws.
Arguably, much of America’s shift on gay rights has come because their pastors (and pastorettes) have stood up and said, “Who are we to judge? Compassion is always God’s will.”
So this isn’t a simple case of church v. the world, at least not in a straight-line way.
LikeLike
Jeff,
You hit the nail on the head here. Far more than what the world does or doesn’t do with gay marriage, we should be concerned with what the church is doing with it. The Liberal/Mainline push for “tolerance” and “acceptance” has gutted their own churches.
If we ever get to the day that we cave to the cultural drift, God help us.
LikeLike
DGH,
Nice piece. While there will always be some people who take offense with orthodox Christianity on the merits of what we believe, I suspect that this number is small. At present, most ridicule of evangelicals is directed to their constant striving to gain hegemonic influence over the culture.
I don’t see that Trueman’s predictions will necessarily ring true. But at some point, our leaders have to stop parading around, alleging to be the “rightful owners” of the culture.
After all, passing Proposition 8, at some level, was never about stopping gay marriage. Rather, it was a “show of force” wherein evangelicals joined hands with Mormons and Papists to show that we could assemble together a coalition that could out-muscle the so-called “elitists” at the ballot box–even in California.
LikeLike
Bob,
In a republic/democracy, who are the “rightful owners” of culture? Maybe a better question is, who gets to make culture? Do Christian citizens get to participate? If so, how do they do it without being perceived as hegemonic especially if said Christian citizens are a majority? Why is a such a hegemony bad anyway?
Different question: do I need to stop reading “Touchstone” because Papists and Orthodox write there?
LikeLike
Ken, how exactly is reading Touchstone the same as making culture?
Different question: what does the Christian majority do with minorities? Don’t you want to behave admirably in case you find yourself on the minority side?
LikeLike
Thanks Jed.
Let me throw out this grenade and then duck for cover:
What I appreciate about 2k (REPT) politics is the insistence that the church is the church and the culture is the culture and the boundary between the two needs to be maintained. Broadly speaking, this makes sense and has value.
What troubles me about it is an overstatement of the rigidness of that boundary. Many of my objections here have aimed to show that there are portals or channels back and forth across the two boundaries: people or situations which are simultaneously under both jurisdictions. The (in?)famous “Christian magistrate” is one of those. The public behavior of Christians who are always under the norms of Scripture is another. I call these “portals” because they are instances in which the norms from one jurisdiction are partially imported into the other, where one kingdom intrudes on the other via its “dual citizens.”
The existence of these portals casts doubt on the idea that there is a rigid separation between the two kingdoms, which doubt in turn casts doubt on the idea that we can “use Scripture here, but common sense there.” It appears instead that the situation is more complicated.
Marriage is another “portal.” On the one hand, marriage is a part of common-grace culture. On the other hand, Scripture has definite things to say about marriage. Following on this, so does the Confession. Further, Jesus appeals to the Genesis creation norm when he speaks to Jews about divorce.
It seems to follow, therefore, that marriage falls simultaneously under the jurisdictions of the church and also of the state. This, at least, is the approach of WCoF 24, which speaks of marriage generally and then gives specific subinstructions to believers, implying that the general commands are applicable to all.
If this is the case, then shouldn’t the church speak up about matters under her jurisdiction?
JRC
LikeLike
If this is the case, then shouldn’t the church speak up about matters under her jurisdiction?
Jeff, it all depends on what you mean. Should the church exhort and counsel one of her members who fornicates or adulterizes or files for no-fault divorce, and then discipline when there is no repentance? Yes. Should she meddle (directly or indirectly) in civil affairs just because the issue shares space with one on political maps? No. The questions of who, what, how and why how have to be carefully clarified, otherwise it’s easy to fall into notions that the world sets the church’s agenda and before you know it nobody can remember what the spirituality of the church means.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I’d hardly call that a grenade, maybe a hot potato. I don’t necessarily insist on a rigid separation. I do think that the church can speak to cultural issues. It is more of a question of how these issues are spoken to. The church can and should call sin what it is. However, where I suspect we disagree is over jurisdiction. The church doesn’t have political jurisdiction, so I believe she should refrain from making official political statements.
There is a very real sense where the scriptural, and confessional mandates are binding on all men. The question is when and how are these mandates enforced. In the church they are adjudicated in real time by the church’s officers. However in the world, judgment is in a real sense suspended. God is not yet calling men or cultures to account for their blatant violations of his Law. However, they certainly will be in the future judgment. For now God has left human governments free to govern as they will, and has not enforced his Law yet. I don’t think we can expect that government can perfectly enforce God’s law within a fallen system.
For me, the best we can hope for is a government that protects the freedom of its citizens. From there order should be maintained. However we ought to wait for God to execute perfect judgment. As the church, we testify to the coming judgment, and call individuals to repentance and faith in Jesus, and not the widespread reform of culture. I suppose Christians as individuals, as they are called, can engage in social and cultural reform. So long as we are clear that common callings are distinct from the sacred call of the church and her officers, I am fine with Christians engaging the culture. However, there will be legitimate room for disagreement on how this should be undertaken. That’s my two cents anyway.
LikeLike
Jeff, no one said it is a rigid boundary or without complication. The fact that congregations in Pa. need to have trustees — not a biblical office — to be accountable for property and the like indicates that the world if hyphenated through and through.
But your examples seem to revel in the muddiness in order to find a way to get the church to speak on something you think the church should speak about. In this case, I don’t think it’s terribly complicated. The church has jurisdiction over persons. Some activities in which Christians engage lack biblical norms and so the church doesn’t oversee the way I teach U.S. history. Some Christians hold public office. If a politician votes for policies that allow for gambling, the session may want to have a chat. But simply because the Bible has teaching about marriage does not mean that the church has jurisdiction over all married people. The Bible also has instruction about slavery. It doesn’t mean that the church has jurisdiction over all slaves.
LikeLike
Thanks for the responses, all. One point of clarification before I return to cleaning the porch:
DGH: But your examples seem to revel in the muddiness in order to find a way to get the church to speak on something you think the church should speak about.
Not at all. On your account, I begin with a presupposed notion that the church should speak to X, and then I go mucking about in the ambiguity to find an excuse for it. That’s backwards.
Rather, I begin with the observation that the Reformed community has already said that the Bible speaks to marriage — not merely individuals who are married, but the institution itself (WCoF 24.1); and it speaks to non-believers and believers both (24.3, 24.6).
Based on that observation, I conclude that the Reformed community believes that the Church has something to say about marriage (including, incidentally, the definition of marriage).
From that, I’m generalizing: the boundaries between cult and culture are not nearly so clean as sometimes presented.
If you think I’m overplaying the fuzziness, then I can live with that; but the real meat of the issue is WCoF 24.
LikeLike
dgh,
why are you answering questions with questions?
LikeLike
It might help to distinguish between a document speaking to a group of people in addressing their existence, and speaking to them in asserting jurisdiction over them.
Jeff: Based on that observation, I conclude that the Reformed community believes that the Church has something to say about marriage (including, incidentally, the definition of marriage).
Which means what? How is the church to tell people outside of Christ to obey a certain portion of His Law?
LikeLike
Got it dgh, but I still think an explicit creation ordinance beats an implicit sense of what is orderly, natural, and appropriate for worship music for taking the evangelicals to the woodshed. I’d definitely give’em a couple extra licks for it though.
As for Trueman’s comments, where has he been? As Pete Brimelow over at Vdare has been saying for a couple of years, ‘you know you are winning an argument with a liberal/progressive when they call you a racist’.
I would only add that “sexist, bigot, homophobe” and “nazi” ought to be on the list also and not necessarily in that order, along with “white supremacist” as honorable mention. That’s the current level of the popular debate or what passes for one and has been for some time.
Of course, it hasn’t got to the point that “child molester” has made the list, but maybe that’s because I understand that Ceasceau utilized that particular term in order to frame and imprison his political enemies and Christians and he ultimately managed to maneuver himself in front of a Romanian firing squad. IOW the yapping class is still getting plenty of mileage out of their current smear vocabulary and maybe, maybe they’re not quite ready to be associated with such an obvious loser as Nicolae. Yet.
LikeLike
Rather, I begin with the observation that the Reformed community has already said that the Bible speaks to marriage — not merely individuals who are married, but the institution itself (WCoF 24.1); and it speaks to non-believers and believers both (24.3, 24.6).
Based on that observation, I conclude that the Reformed community believes that the Church has something to say about marriage (including, incidentally, the definition of marriage).
Jeff,
It’s not clear to me how 24.3 & 6 speak to unbelievers. Indeed, the whole chapter seems to only have believers in mind and seems to be telling us what the contours of Christian marriage should be.
Based on that observation, I conclude that the Reformed community has something to say about the marriage of believers, full stop. If the magistrate wants to define things differently, fine. But we live by a higher law. I mean, Michigan’s secular text says I can divorce my wife for whatever reason besides adultery or desertion. But the church’s sacred texts (inspired and not) say otherwise.
And this really is a part of the whole discussion, I think: do those who want the church to speak to the magistrate, to whatever degree, about certain creational norms understand that they are slaves to Christ, no matter what Caesar says? Home Depot may have a policy that says if you are undercharged you are under no obligation to reconcile it. But that’s stealing, which is arguably just as bad for society as gay marriage. The concerted pushback against the state over gay marriage would have more credibility if there were also pushback against vendors who allow stealing. On the other hand, consistency would also break the back of the church, since there are endless things going on in the world contrary to generally and specially revealed norms. Isn’t enough to worry about governing ourselves? It seems to me we have more than enough to deal with in here.
LikeLike
Ken, because your replies are not coherent.
LikeLike
Jeff, by your logic and exegesis, because the Bible has something to say about Sunday, the Bible therefore speaks to Blue Laws and therefore the church speaks to policy. Like Zrim said, the church administers to the word to those in her membership.
LikeLike
Gentlemen,
My wife reminds me: “You’re not the elder of the Internet.” So I really, really cannot give the issues that you raise the full attention they might deserve. I think there are good answers to each of them, but one-liners are all that I can do here.
To Mike K: There is a difference between declaration and enforcement — the first being the Church’s job; the second, not. Note that prophets were sent not merely to Israel but to Ninevah and Babylon as well. Nebuchadnezzar actually listened, too.
Zrim: Bad argument, bro. Speaking out on one issue does not obligate one to speak out on all issues. It may be that marriage is the place to draw a line because coexistence in this matter is fundamentally impossible.
DGH: Aiming for original authorial intent here, it seems clear to me that WCoF 24 gives direction to the magistrate about what is and is not lawful, and about which marriages may be dissolved by divorce. To whom else could it be written? Ditto WLC 139. “Nor can such [incestuous] marriage be made by any law of man…” Seems pretty clear.
If you have an alternate exegesis that draws on your wealth of knowledge of historical sources, that can show that the original authorial intent of WCoF 24 was to guide the Church alone and not the magistrate also, I will of course be happy to consider it.
As far as blue laws go, Machen nails it: Get rid of blue laws and you inevitably make it impossible for the Christian to practice Sabbath-keeping. A society of pure tolerance is impossible.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff wrote: “Speaking out on one issue does not obligate one to speak out on all issues. It may be that marriage is the place to draw a line because coexistence in this matter is fundamentally impossible.”
Having had same sex marriage for 7 years in my province and 5 years in the entire country, the sky has not yet fallen. Coexistence in this matter is possible as reality has shown. Marriage as governed by the magistrate states that marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Churches, including Reformed and Presbyterian have not changed their views of marriage as between a man and a woman. The state does not interfere with the church’s view of marriage and the church does not interfere with the state’s view of marriage. The WCoF 24 may give direction to the magistrate, but it is unrealistic to expect the unbelieving magistrate to adhere to WCoF 24.
LikeLike
Jeff, WCF 24 gives direction to a magistrate who is a member of a Reformed communion, maybe. As I’ve said many times, if a magistrate cannot reconcile his church’s teaching and the laws and policies of the body politic he should not hold public office. But do you really mean to say that Barack Obama should follow WCF? Is he only accountable to Americans who are Presbyterian? Has he no obligations to the people who voted for him?
LikeLike
Wout, glad to hear it. Hope it lasts. I thought there was rather a kerfluffle in your courts about gay rights and freedom of conscience.
DGH: But do you really mean to say that Barack Obama should follow WCF? Is he only accountable to Americans who are Presbyterian? Has he no obligations to the people who voted for him?
Should? Interesting question. First and foremost, he should, like Festus and Agrippa, repent and believe the gospel (assuming, based on his ecclesial membership, that this is not already the case).
But Should, with regard to governing? On the one hand, we have God’s revealed will. In the case of this issue, Judge Walker has before himself both a creation ordinance and also special revelation stating what marriage is. Traditionally, God’s revealed will has been interpreted to mean “What we should do” — his prescriptive will. So we have a clear norm with regard to the meaning of the word marriage.
On the other, he has an “obligation to the Constitution and the US Code.”
Are you suggesting that he should set aside the first in favor of the second?
Anyways: Do you believe that the Confession contains the system of doctrine taught in Scripture, which in turn contains the revealed prescriptive will of God? OR, is the Confession simply one opinion among many, a set of club rules that define who is and is not “Reformed”?
Likewise: Is the Scripture God’s word to mankind, or to Christians only? Did God send no prophets to the Gentiles?
LikeLike
Speaking out on one issue does not obligate one to speak out on all issues. It may be that marriage is the place to draw a line because coexistence in this matter is fundamentally impossible.
Well, Wout’s got gay marriage in Canada and we’ve got no-fault divorce here in Michigan. Like him, I co-exist just fine with my adulterers. Maybe what you mean by saying that coexistence is impossible is that you have a particular view on gay marriage and disagree with those who have another? But no fair saying those who disagree are making co-existence impossible; it’s in the shreechy ballpark of saying another political conclusion expedites the fall of western civilization. They could say they same about you, speaking of bad arguments, bro. For my part, I’m good with saying homosexuality shouldn’t enjoy the sanction of marriage without attaching the scare tactic for fear of losing to those who disagree.
And the problem with picking and choosing what civil issue the church should speak to is that the SOTC simply doesn’t allow for it, to say nothing of it coming off as saying, “The church can speak to what is my political concern but not yours; my social gospel is ok because it’s mine but yours is bad because it’s yours.”
LikeLike
Zrim: Maybe what you mean by saying that coexistence is impossible is that you have a particular view on gay marriage and disagree with those who have another?
Not quite. You and I and anyone else can live with a lot of different disagreements: is it better to use cap-and-trade to solve global warming, or is it better to be skeptical of the science(?) and drill, baby, drill? Those kinds of disagreements can be heated, but at the end of the day, you and I can live side-by-side together. We disagreed about *what to do*, but we move forward.
Gay marriage is a little different. The justice of the peace says to society, “They are married.” The church by contrast says, “No they aren’t.” This is an irreconcilable issue of fact. (compare WCoF 24.4). Here, the church is obligated to say that the magistrate’s decrees are simply wrong.
The spillover happens when a justice of the peace who is a Christian now has to choose whether to marry a couple before him. This is one of the issues before the Canadian courts right now, I believe. According to DGH, the honorable thing to do is to resign. But all that means is that Christians strike the job of magistrate off the list of acceptable professions — a pragmatic Anabaptism. Is that really where we want to be?
Or, is it better for the church to make its case to society that “gay marriage” is not in fact marriage?
LikeLike
Jeff: FYI
There was a case before a human rights tribunal (not the courts) of a fellow who wrote an article in the local paper condemning homosexuals. He was found to have met the provisions of hate literature by the tribunal. He appealed this decision to the courts and his article was found not to have reached the legal criteria for hate literature. By the way, there was no Christian gospel in his article at all.
Another case involved a gay teacher who was fired from a position in a Christian College. He filed a complaint under human rights legislation, and eventually his case went to the Supreme Court. The court found that the government (Alberta) was wrong in that it did not allow him to file a complaint as Alberta at that time did not consider sexual orientation under its human rights legislation. The court ordered Alberta to insert sexual orientation into its legislation. It did not order the college to hire him. Should this complaint have come to the human rights commission in British Columbia where I used to work, I know his complaint would have been dismissed forthwith as a not for profit Christian college (or church) does not have to hire anyone who does not meet their religious requirements. This is the same protection that ensures Presbyterians do not have to hire non-Presbyterian ministers or women or gays.
Marriage commissioners are people who are specifically hired and authorized by the state to perform marriages for the vast majority of couples who do not get married in a church by a minister. Their job description requires these people to marry couples who qualify under the law for a marriage licence. A couple of these people have appealed to a human rights tribunal on the basis that their Christian beliefs will not allow them to marry gay couples. In my opinion, I can’t understand why a Christian would want a job in secular society that specifically requires him to marry all kinds of non-believers. I do not see this as any different to someone working in a liqor store and refusing to sell alcohol because it is against his religion.
Clergy have NO obligation under the law to marry anyone who does not qualify for marriage because of Christian principles or church doctrine.
I know some US periodicals have sensationalized human rights issues and Christians in Canada, but be assured we do have freedom of religion.
LikeLike
In response to Jeff’s comment…..but I’m asking the general audience….
Wouldn’t we say many heterosexual marriages aren’t marriages either?
I can think of people in my town who unlawfully divorced and then married someone else….are they married? in the eyes of the Church?
I think resignation has to be an option on many fronts. What if you’re called to serve on a jury and you’re supposed to decide something based on a law you don’t agree with?
Do you set the law aside even though you promised to uphold the law (of Virginia or wherever)…thus judging the person by a standard (say, the Bible) they don’t know they are being judged by?……..
Most Christians seem to have no qualms in imposing their view of the law on other people. I’m inclined to say at that point we would be duty bound to recuse ourselves.
What think ye?
John A.
LikeLike
Gay marriage is a little different. The justice of the peace says to society, “They are married.†The church by contrast says, “No they aren’t.†This is an irreconcilable issue of fact. (compare WCoF 24.4). Here, the church is obligated to say that the magistrate’s decrees are simply wrong.
Jeff, you still seem to be assuming that WCF 24 is speaking to the citizens of the world when it’s speaking to those of the church. So, the wording is really something more like this: “The magistrate says you may marry your sister or divorce your spouse for reasons other than adultery or desertion. Fine and good. But as long as you’re under our jurisdiction, you mayn’t. Some here want us to tell the magistrate his job, but all we’re concerned for is that you all hold fast to what we confess.”
The spillover happens when a justice of the peace who is a Christian now has to choose whether to marry a couple before him…According to DGH, the honorable thing to do is to resign. But all that means is that Christians strike the job of magistrate off the list of acceptable professions — a pragmatic Anabaptism. Is that really where we want to be?
Well, I’m not wild about Christians striking good vocations off their lists or resigning them. But when Christian pharmacists start whining about having to dispense birth control or judges grant no-fault divorces or marry gays, there is something to be said for perhaps having contemplated what certain vocations may demand of one’s conscience. Wild as I’m not about vocational withdrawal, it may beat joining the ranks of those who want the rest of the world to live by their conscience.
LikeLike
Jeff, so the spillover of your view is that Jesus should have taken Satan’s offer to be the ruler of all the kingdoms of the world? Imagine all the good he could have done. He could have kept healing the lame and blind forever. Or maybe he, like his followers, have to make choices and accept the consequences.
What gets old is how selective Christians are about the state and its policies. Gay marriage bad, divorce law good?
LikeLike
“Gay marriage bad, divorce law good?”
Au contraire.
Divorce law bad, gay marriage worse.
LC 96, 150
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, so the spillover of your view is that Jesus should have taken Satan’s offer to be the ruler of all the kingdoms of the world?
Well, of course. I naturally mean the most ridiculous caricature that one could imagine, even if it bears no logical relationship to what I said. *rimshot*
Seriously, though.
What I’m getting at is this: WCoF 31.4 says
Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.
Isn’t the real question here NOT “do we have to protest Christian rock if we protest gay marriage” — as if it were all-or-nothing — BUT rather “Is this an extraordinary case”?
Wout has reasonably argued that it isn’t, and I respect that; but your argument is along an entirely different line.
You very reasonably wish to preserve REPT from erecting rigid boundaries. If that is to be the case, then the procedure cannot be a knee-jerk declaration: “This is culture, case closed” or “If you protest gay marriage, then you have to protest singing rock-and-roll.” Such all-or-nothing mentalities create the rigid boundary that we agreed earlier does not exist.
Trueman and Clark are implicitly arguing that this is indeed an extraordinary case — because of loss of moral authority, because of damage to society respectively. That is the argument that needs engaging.
—
The other question that needs to be addressed is what WCoF 23 and 31 mean in a political context in which the citizen *is* the magistrate — that is, in a democracy. In the case of Prop 8, a purely democratic process (ballot initiative leading to constitutional amendment) was enacted, making each citizen a co-magistrate. Does the church have the right or need to speak to this issue? What if some citizens ask it to speak to this issue?
And yes, this is one of those “messy” areas. I’m not raising to create a niche for my own view, but because the reality on the ground *is* messy, and our theory needs to be able to deal with that.
LikeLike
JRC: Gay marriage is a little different. The justice of the peace says to society, “They are married.†The church by contrast says, “No they aren’t.†This is an irreconcilable issue of fact. (compare WCoF 24.4). Here, the church is obligated to say that the magistrate’s decrees are simply wrong.
Zrim: Jeff, you still seem to be assuming that WCF 24 is speaking to the citizens of the world when it’s speaking to those of the church.
Neither one. The audience is not the pertinent question here because WCoF 24.4 is not saying “you may or mayn’t do X.” Rather, it’s making a statement of objective reality. Consanguinous marriages are objectively not marriages, period. Such a statement is not “true for those in the Church but false outside the Church” — such relativism is entirely foreign to the writers of the Confession.
And that’s the larger issue here: is Scripture a document that is true only for the Church? Or, does it reflect God’s prescriptive will for all?
You and I can agree (we do agree!) that the Church cannot willy-nilly dictate to the magistrate. But that’s a political question. Separate from that is the ethical question: Does the magistrate have an obligation to the law of God, even if he does not acknowledge that obligation?
By continually framing the issue as you have in terms of church and state, you’ve overlooked the question of the magistrate coram deo.
JRC
LikeLike
So, Jeff, what you seem to be saying is that this all turns on whether gay marriage is an extraordinary issue. And you seem to agree that it is “because of loss of moral authority, because of damage to society respectively.” But it has always seemed to me that the inherent problem of the extraordinary clause is that it is so open to interpretation that anyone can make his political issue sound like it’s the exception to the explicit don’t meddle rule. I think I have said this to you before, but it seems to me that the burden is on those who want an exception made. I don’t envy that position, because it also seems to me that when the other guy gets it in his head that his politics deserve ecclesial sanction for the same reasons (loss of moral authority, harm to society), and the first guy disagrees and denies his plea for an exception, it begins to just look like two guys who have different politics, especially when the political issue is the same one but with differing conclusions. And like I have said before, I suppose I’d like someone make the case that the church should speak to the stripping of states’ rights in 1973 because it somehow reflects “a loss of moral authority, a damage to society respectively,†but I know darn well that I merely have a political opinion, and asking the church to make an exception to my particular politics is just plain disingenuous.
And that’s the larger issue here: is Scripture a document that is true only for the Church? Or, does it reflect God’s prescriptive will for all?
I’d suggest that the distinction between general and special revelation is what helps us here, Jeff. I know you think general revelation is insufficient to govern civil tasks, but honestly, whatever else that distinction helps us to see one is that if we have a disagreement over a civil issue we have everything we need in GR to make our case. If we fail to do that it’s just bad form to whip out the Bible and claim checkmate. I mean, if the Bible is sufficient to be the final rule on things civil (the implication of your notion that GR is insufficient for general tasks), why waste all that time in the first place with appeals to universal knowledge?
LikeLike
Zrim: But it has always seemed to me that the inherent problem of the extraordinary clause is that it is so open to interpretation that anyone can make his political issue sound like it’s the exception to the explicit don’t meddle rule. I think I have said this to you before, but it seems to me that the burden is on those who want an exception made.
I agree with you on burden of proof. But you seem to argue that since the “extraordinary clause” is so difficult, that it’s not really there … that SOTC solves all issues, end-of-story.
And in so doing, you’ve pragmatically banished the “extraordinary clause” from the Confession.
Maybe that’s not what you intend, since you clearly value the confessions of the church. But a lot of frustration on this side of the keyboard has been that you play the SOTC card as the ultimate trump card. It’s not. The SOTC card merely opens up the question, “Is this an extraordinary situation?”
And that calls for wisdom rather than a simple answer.
JRC: And that’s the larger issue here: is Scripture a document that is true only for the Church? Or, does it reflect God’s prescriptive will for all?
Zrim: I’d suggest that the distinction between general and special revelation is what helps us here, Jeff.
I know that you think this distinction is helpful. But I don’t understand the logic of it. The issue for me as a voter is not sufficiency but loyalty. If I vote down a definition of marriage as “one man, one woman”, I’m saying to God that His definition is simply wrong.
But you seem to say, if I vote for Prop 8 on the grounds of special revelation, I’m somehow violating SOTC, bringing special revelation to bear on the common sphere. Or, if I as a pastor speaking to my congregation say, “Y’all know this Proposition 8 coming up on the ballot? Here’s what Scripture says about marriage”, then I’m violating SOTC.
You seem to be advocating ignoring Scripture for the Christian acting in the common sphere; yet in previous conversations you say that you don’t advocate the Christian ignoring Scripture in his common calling. The apparent contradiction is what I can’t wrap my head around. Help?
Zrim: I mean, if the Bible is sufficient to be the final rule on things civil (the implication of your notion that GR is insufficient for general tasks)
Sorry to play the math card here, but I think one of the hangups is this implication that you draw. It’s incorrectly drawn. We could, I think, get past some of our impasse by recognizing that
(1) “GR is insufficient for general tasks”
does not imply
(2) “SR is sufficient for general tasks.”
Several other possibilities might obtain:
(3) “SR and GR together are sufficient for general tasks.”
(4) “Neither SR nor GR is sufficient for general tasks.”
My contention is that (3) is the proper conclusion. More precisely I would say that SR+GR are necessary for general tasks, and since we must assume that God has given us what is necessary (cf. 2 Tim 3.16), then SR+GR are also sufficient.
Walk with me here for a second. You have previously agreed that Christians are subject to SR in every area of life — we mayn’t disregard it. We also agree that GR is necessary for tasks such as surgery or plumbing or raising butterflies.
It follows, does it not, that for the Christian *both* SR and GR are needed to go about one’s day? Are *necessary* to be observed? That I must observe both “sound business practices” and also the 8th Commandment in my plumbing?
If we add the assumption that God has given us what is necessary to glorify Him, we get to the conclusion that SR + GR is *sufficient* as well as necessary for general tasks, for Christians.
What about the non-believer? At first glance, it might seem that SR is not written for him. But not so fast. He is still obligated to the Law of God (Rom 1, 2) to fulfill it — in fact, that is part of his inheritance from Adam (WCoF 19.1). And that Law is, in fact, spelled out in the decalogue. If we want to know our duty to God and man, it is found in the Law (WCoF 19.2).
So it is *necessary*, whether he knows it or not, for the unbeliever to follow God’s law also. Note that I did not say, for the Church to claim jurisdiction over him. This is not an issue of politics, but of men living coram deo.
And in fact, it is most necessary for all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. But even if they fail to do so, that does not relieve them somehow of the burden of the law of God. The decalogue is no less true and binding for non-Christians than it is for Christians (WCoF 19.5).
So we conclude that special revelation is *necessary* for men in their tasks. That GR+SR is necessary for all men.
For you, the issue is that men know the law of God in their hearts, and that is enough.
For me, the issue is that all men are obligated to the decalogue whether they know it or not. Why then would we pretend otherwise by refusing to say so in the public square?
LikeLike
Jeff, or anyone out there who might know the answer:
Is there any historical precedent for the presbyteries and/or GA’s have employed WCF 31.4? Is there any objective criteria that governs the use of the “extraordinary” clause. Even with my political views, I do see warrant in employing this clause, but the question is, under what circumstances?
For instance do we speak out when:
1. There is the threat of great moral harm to the republic?
2. Law or policy is somehow prohibitive to public and/or private worship?
I am sure there are other scenarios that would cause our ecclesiastical courts to contemplate invoking 31.4; however I am concerned that it can be used to speak to general (and admittedly problematic) political policy too often and entire ecclesiastical bodies can be held hostage to the consciences of a few. I would obviously be more inclined to invoke the clause if a magisterial stance can be shown to have direct impact on churches, but leave politics be for the most part.
LikeLike
And in so doing, you’ve pragmatically banished the “extraordinary clause†from the Confession. Maybe that’s not what you intend, since you clearly value the confessions of the church. But a lot of frustration on this side of the keyboard has been that you play the SOTC card as the ultimate trump card. It’s not. The SOTC card merely opens up the question, “Is this an extraordinary situation?â€
Jeff, I can admit that it is a bit of a conundrum to say “don’t intermeddle in civil affairs…unless you really have to.†And I can admit that it looks simplistic to try and solve that tension by placing the accent on the SOTC. But I suppose I’d rather err on the side of the SOTC because what seems to me to be at stake is the purity of the gospel. Maybe you’re willing to run the risk of aligning the gospel, to lesser of greater degrees, with some political conclusion or another, but I’m just not, even when my confession seems to give me ground to do so.
But you seem to say, if I vote for Prop 8 on the grounds of special revelation, I’m somehow violating SOTC, bringing special revelation to bear on the common sphere. Or, if I as a pastor speaking to my congregation say, “Y’all know this Proposition 8 coming up on the ballot? Here’s what Scripture says about marriageâ€, then I’m violating SOTC. You seem to be advocating ignoring Scripture for the Christian acting in the common sphere; yet in previous conversations you say that you don’t advocate the Christian ignoring Scripture in his common calling. The apparent contradiction is what I can’t wrap my head around. Help?
Individuals, of whatever particular religious persuasion, cannot help but bring their religious convictions into the public square with them. But the only convictions that count around the common table are the ones that everyone can come to by mining general revelation. So you might have a Presbyterian, a Muslim, a Hindi and an atheist who all bring their particular religious beliefs to the table, and it is possible that they all can agree that marriage is defined as between one woman and one man without ever having to explicitly appeal to any particular religious conviction. And if they don’t agree, there is no use appealing to their respective religious convictions, because each one has a religious conviction that doesn’t correspond to the others. So I’m not advocating “ignoring†the Christian Scripture when the Hindi disagrees with me; what I am saying is that it is of as much use to me to persuade him as the Muslim’s appeal to the Koran to persuade me, or any of us to use our sacred texts against the atheist when he disagrees. Why would anyone appeal to a book another does not hold to? The advantage of saying general revelation is God’s sufficient book for all men to use for general purposes is that it keeps us from appealing to books other men reject.
I’ve no idea why a pastor is talking about the particular politics of the day to his congregation, to say nothing of why he’s giving strong hints about how they should vote. Why do I get the feeling there are Voter Guides in the narthex? But let me propose another hypothetical: “You all know a vote for immigration legislation is coming up? Here’s what Scripture says about the alien within your gates.†Does that begin to look like the unholy mix of religion and politics now? And why is he talking to them about this particular issue and not others on the ballot? Oh, that’s right, this one has a moral dimension to it, has to do with the relative im/possibility of coexistence, and goes to the relative harm of society, unlike every other issue that is on a ballot.
LikeLike
Zrim: Individuals, of whatever particular religious persuasion, cannot help but bring their religious convictions into the public square with them.
Note that in a pure democracy (and ballot initiatives are certainly exercises in almost-pure democracy), the individual is also a magistrate. So our man is legislating on the basis of Scripture, which (as I recall) is the big no-no for SOTC.
So on the one hand, you are OK with it; on the other, you are not. Right?
Zrim: So I’m not advocating “ignoring†the Christian Scripture when the Hindi disagrees with me; what I am saying is that it is of as much use to me to persuade him as the Muslim’s appeal to the Koran to persuade me, or any of us to use our sacred texts against the atheist when he disagrees. Why would anyone appeal to a book another does not hold to? The advantage of saying general revelation is God’s sufficient book for all men to use for general purposes is that it keeps us from appealing to books other men reject.
OK, so in terms of persuasion, I might — I do, in fact — make a secular pro-life argument. But if the same Hindi pushes me and asks, “How do you know that murder is wrong? Perhaps some murders, or deliberate homicides, are justifiable.” Then I have to be honest: I know this because God says so. My views on what count as justifiable homicides are shaped by Scripture, and to omit this fact in common square discourse seems quite disingenuous.
Now, I might say, “People of many faiths agree that murder is wrong. For the sake of broad appeal, let’s take this as a given…” That’s at least honest. Perhaps that’s what you have in mind?
The danger that I see, however, is that of ethical intuitivism. If I walk into the public square making only Natural Law arguments, then the ground of my arguments will always be nothing more than ethical intuitions (interestingly, I’m currently reading DGH on AA Hodge’s efforts at building an ethical instructional program at Princeton). Intuitionism will actually be a significant mark against my arguments.
So if we’re talking about persuasive power, I think it’s a wash. On the one hand, we have mister Divine Command Theorist who has a coherent program, but who relies on axioms (Scripture is God’s word; God’s word determines what is good) that are not universally accepted. On the other, we have mister General Revelationist who relies on the conscience but can’t for the life of Pete spell out what the conscience has to say, or why, and can’t account for the difference between consciences without appealing to the Special Revelation doctrine of sin.
The further danger, to be honest, is that SOTC won’t really happen. Instead of the believer using GR for common tasks and SR for the church, he will practice using GR in his daily life and then re-import that into the church. That was my overarching point about mainline churches and gay marriage: pastors of mainline churches spoke to congregations whose thought habit was ethical intuitionism, and they all nodded and smiled.
—
Zrim: I’ve no idea why a pastor is talking about the particular politics of the day to his congregation, to say nothing of why he’s giving strong hints about how they should vote. Why do I get the feeling there are Voter Guides in the narthex?
Well, because you have a two-bin theory of churches: SOTC or full-on reconstructionist. Unfortunately for that theory, there are all manner of things in between. Our church has neither a narthex nor Voter Guides therein, on principle.
And our pastor has, to my knowledge, spoken directly to political issues exactly once in 16 years — a gambling ballot initiative — with a disclaimer that (a) the church normally does not speak to politics, but (b) gambling can cause significant harm to the poor.
Zrim: But let me propose another hypothetical: “You all know a vote for immigration legislation is coming up? Here’s what Scripture says about the alien within your gates.†Does that begin to look like the unholy mix of religion and politics now?
Not necessarily. Is the passage on the alien within the gates the text for today’s sermon? (I’m a fairly strong believer in preaching through books so as to avoid the topical trap). If it is, then he has the obligation to teach what the passage means in its original context and how that meaning applies today.
Probably, you will argue correctly, that will not leave us with a clear-cut answer about how to legislate, since legislation involves compromise and such. Fair nuff. But part of the art of compromise is to know what chits one is willing to concede. Being informed by Scripture is a necessary part of knowing the value of our chits.
—-
Sadly, I haven’t added much that’s new to our discussion. I’m hoping that one side or other can provide a new insight to break some of the impasse.
JRC
LikeLike
Jed, I don’t know whether the PCA position papers each represent a principled application of WCoF 31.4. I’m guessing that in the mind of the authors, they do. In any event, here’s a link to them:
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/index.html
Jeff
LikeLike
Jeff, on extraordinary cases, if the church were petitioning the magistrate on the basis of what laws or policies would do to the churches — consequences that the magistrate overlooked — rather than whenever the church thinks the sky is falling and society is going to hades in a shopping cart, the church might be more successful in adopting a pose of humility. It’s the humility that 31.4 recommends that I don’t see much of in today’s Protestant culture warriors.
LikeLike
OK, so in terms of persuasion, I might — I do, in fact — make a secular pro-life argument. But if the same Hindi pushes me and asks, “How do you know that murder is wrong? Perhaps some murders, or deliberate homicides, are justifiable.†Then I have to be honest: I know this because God says so. My views on what count as justifiable homicides are shaped by Scripture, and to omit this fact in common square discourse seems quite disingenuous.
Jeff, I fail to see what relevance epistemology has. Who cares how I know murder is wrong? When I get correct change back from the pagan cashier I don’t ask her how she knows she is morally obliged to give me $5 back instead of $3 when I give her $10 on a $5 product. All I care about is that she doesn’t cheat me. If she’s an atheist and I press her as to how she knows this and she says, “That’s what my parents taught me,†great; if she’s Muslim and I press her and she says, “Allah says so,†great. Ordering public life is not the same as having an epistemological debate. If it were, nothing would actually get done.
And if your views on what counts as justifiable homicide are shaped by Scripture then how do account for folks who come the same conclusions as you without claiming Scripture? I mean, when I read pro-life secularists they sound an awful lot like pro-life religionists. Do the latter really care how the former get their conclusions instead of the fact that they agree about how public life should be ordered? Seems sort of petty.
LikeLike
DGH: It’s the humility that 31.4 recommends that I don’t see much of in today’s Protestant culture warriors.
That’s a fair point.
Do you think there is *no* room for prophetic speaking to the culture? Were Jonah and Habakkuk out of order?
Zrim: Who cares how I know murder is wrong?
As it turns out, a lot of people do. Maybe that’s not of interest to you — I can appreciate that, having never concerned myself with figuring out whether the NL or the AL has the designated hitter rule.
But people who debate ethics in the public square care an awful lot about the definition of murder because it seems to determine one’s views on abortion, partial-birth abortion, euthanasia (voluntary, non-voluntary, active, passive), assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, and other issues that you probably *have* heard of.
So even if you see it as “petty”, please leave some room for the fact that those involved in trying to shape policy on the latter issues do care, a lot, about why murder is wrong and how we know this.
LikeLike
Jeff, you’re sort of making my point sound too cavalier or apathetic. I’m not saying certain political issues involving questions of life and death don’t matter.
What I am saying is that when I say to my pagan neighbor that one segment of the human population shouldn’t have the right, at will or whim, to take the life of another segment of the human population simply because the former houses the latter, and he says he agrees, I see very little point in begrudging him his epistemological rationale. And when my Reformed brother says the federal government should have the right to criminalize abortion in every nook and cranny of the union, I simply disagree. But according to you his epistemology has relevant bearing. So what happens now? My pagan neighbor and I agree on the question of “may she or mayn’t she?” but my brother and I disagree on the question of “who gets to decide?”
LikeLike
Jeff,
It’s all in the distinctions amigo. Yes the church speaks prophetically to the culture, and we have a very specific, infallible oracle of salvation and judgment in the gospel. The other distinction is that Habakkuk and Jonah were under the administration of the old covenant which called for different norms in relating to culture. The problem with many manifestations of the “prophetic voice” paradigm is that it is reduced to pure politics trying to decide what is good or detrimental for culture, it so often lacks any gospel at all. I might be more inclined to give some passes here if gospel proclamation was motivating the “prophetic voice”, this might happen from time-to-time but I certainly can’t remember one off the top of my head.
I am not sure where you are deriving the “prophetic voice” argument pertaining to politics from the NT, unless you are willing to confine this to the gospel.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I don’t see the problem with “ethical intuitivism”. Because the created order does not suffer under a curse of utter depravity and because the creation still imperfectly reflects the image of its Maker, we should expect “ethical intuitivism” to lead to reasonable public policies (most of the time).
If this were not true, then we’d also have to concede that Christian belief is an irrational enterprise. While we can’t derive the Gospel from observing nature, we can certainly appreciate that the Gospel makes more sense of the data of life than any competing worldview (once we have made the Gospel presupposition). So, if “ethical intuitivism” has utility as an apologetic tool (even for a presuppositionalist), then why is it deficient for guiding public policy?
You seem to use abortion as an example to demonstrate that “ethical intuitivism” cannot work. Consider, however, that few pro-choice folks outright deny the possibility that abortion may be murder. On the contrary, most pro-choice folks object to criminalizing early-term abortion because they believe that such laws are difficult to enforce in an evenhanded way. Further, there are practical concerns about how such laws should deal with alleged miscarriages and with birth control pills (which have an abortifacient effect some portion of the time). So, I’d suggest that abortion opponents could benefit from a healthy dose of “ethical intuitivism,” so that they could understand the reasons why rational, middle-of-the-road Americans are often wary of laws that would criminalize early-term abortion. As it stands, many pro-life activists are merely content to cast off these folks as “murderers” under the notion that “the Bible tells me so.”
I fear that too many evangelicals prefer the-Bible-tells-me-so types of explanations over “ethical intuitivism” because they are intellectually lazy, not because of any inherent shortcomings of God’s general revelation.
LikeLike
Jeff, Jonah and Habakkuk had direct instruction. I don’t see the church called to the same kind of prophetic voice other than the ordinary means of preaching and teaching the word. Anyway, “prophetic” makes me jumpy. It’s either what liberal Protestants say, or what Jack Van Impy does.
LikeLike
Wuff. What happened to my “duck and cover”?
I will need to discipline myself to stop here. Thanks for the interactions all, and may God continue to move us all towards unity in the faith and in the knowledge of Jesus.
Final thoughts:
Bob: I haven’t done statistical surveys, but I can say that several pro-choice arguments (including the line of reasoning in Roe) deny that abortion is murder. If you are not familiar, I encourage reading Judith Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion.” From there, you might consider the arguments that personhood begins with consciousness, and that embryos are simply “masses of cells.” (See Singer’s works for the extreme example of this argument). Both of these lines of reasoning are common in discussions I’ve had.
As far as ethical intuitivism, I’m arguing that it’s not more persuasive than a principled Divine Command theory.
Further, I’m arguing that it is perilous for a Christian to adopt ethical intuitivism because God saw fit to give us more than our consciences. Put another way: it is necessary for a Christian to follow the Scripture even in his common affairs (cf. WLC 95-97, 122-148). It follows therefore that general revelation and ethical intuitivism are not sufficient for Christians in their own personal ethical reasoning. To set aside Scripture in favor of ethical intuitions is simply wrong, as I think all here would agree.
To my mind, there is or ought to be a connection between the public arguments we make and the private reasonings we undertake. If my real reason for opposing gay marriage is the creation mandate of Genesis, then oughtn’t I own up to it?
I fear that too many evangelicals prefer the-Bible-tells-me-so types of explanations over “ethical intuitivism†because they are intellectually lazy, not because of any inherent shortcomings of God’s general revelation.
The phenomenon you describe is deplorable, but the solution is not to embrace GR. Rather, the solution is to provoke deeper thought, starting with asking people to distinguish between “the Bible says so” from “someone on Christian radio said…”
—
Jed, DGH: I’m fine with limiting the church’s voice to evangelistic prophetic utterances. My main concern, as you know, is to think through how the Christian in a position of authority is to be loyal to the Lord while simultaneously existing in a non-Christian society. It’s one thing to say “submit”, which works fine for non-magistrates. It’s quite another to be a magistrate, in a position to actually make decisions.
—
Zrim: Sorry I made you sound too cavalier. I perhaps over-read the “who cares” sentence, which did strike me as rather blase.
What I am saying is that when I say to my pagan neighbor that one segment of the human population shouldn’t have the right, at will or whim, to take the life of another segment of the human population simply because the former houses the latter, and he says he agrees, I see very little point in begrudging him his epistemological rationale.
Well sure! If we get to agreement, I’ll stop. (Heck, if we could ever get to agreement here I could be content… 🙂 ). But that wasn’t the situation under discussion. The situation was, the Hindi disagrees with me and asks me to justify myself. Perhaps that doesn’t happen to you, but it does to me. So what then? Do I fancy-foot around about ethical norms that we “all” have — even though we all really don’t acknowledge? OR, do I answer honestly: My sense of right and wrong is grounded in God’s Word.
I would consider the latter to be a form of prophetic pre-evangelism: putting forth the law forthrightly in a 1st use sense.
And when my Reformed brother says the federal government should have the right to criminalize abortion in every nook and cranny of the union, I simply disagree.
I disagree with your disagreement. If in fact fetuses are persons, they are entitled to Constitutional protection. That’s why Roe had to find that the personhood of fetuses was in doubt, so that it could deny 5th and 14th Amendment protections to the fetus. Admit personhood and states are obligated to extend protection of the law to fetuses. I’m not a lawyer, but that’s how I read it.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thanks for the response. I will make the following remarks, as we seem to have misunderstood some of my statements.
First, I nowhere suggested that special revelation should not play a role in guiding the ethical reasoning of the Christian. After all, as Christians, we are to love God with our whole heart, soul, and mind. But general revelation or ethical intuitivism doesn’t give us much guidance in doing that. So, contrary to your suggestion, I do believe that Scripture plays an important role in the personal ethical reasoning of Christians.
Second, I don’t see why it’s disingenuous to submit myself to certain ethical practices–as a Christian–and yet determine that I need not demand that others necessarily submit to those same ethical practices. As a Christian, I believe that gluttony is a sin. Am I therefore compelled to advocate publicly for criminal laws that would punish people for eating too much?
Third, what’s the rational basis for asserting that ethical intuitivism is no more persuasive than divine command ethics, particularly to someone who is not a Christian? Do you really expect that someone will submit to an ethical precept because “God says so” if the Spirit has not moved her to believe that there is even a God? C’mon.
Fourth, I nowhere suggested that ethical intuitivism could supply arguments that would be persuasive to the more extreme proponents of abortion or to those who concur wholeheartedly with the reasoning of Roe. Rather, I said that ethical intuitivism could be used to engage “middle-of-the-road” folks, such as the 1/3 of the population who believe that early-term abortion is wrong but who do not support criminalization of it. I also noted several reasons that middle-of-the-road folk typically proffer to support their uneasiness with criminalization of early-term abortion. I note that you passed over those reasons without comment, and instead directed your response to the reasons typically proffered by the more radical proponents of abortion (of whom I made no mention). After all, one may accept the personhood of the early-term fetus, and yet conclude that criminalizing early-term abortion is legally and practically unworkable.
Fifth, you seem to forget that our exegesis of Scripture is no less plagued by the effects of the fall than our efforts to interpret God’s general revelation. So, even if the special revelation speaks without error, it certainly does not speak exhaustively on all matters and still needs to be interpreted by a fallible human being whose faculties are plagued by the fall. Thus, I don’t see how ethical intuitivism is somehow more “perilous” or less “honest” than alleging that the Bible gives clear black-and-white answers on complex social policy questions.
Sixth, what do you mean by saying that we should “not embrace GR”? God made the created order; it is His handiwork and His image pervades every bit of it! If you elect “not [to] embrace GR,” then I fear that you are turning away something good that God has granted to us for our enjoyment and as an aid to appreciating his glory and majesty (even if the created order is only a scant foretaste of what we will someday experience).
Peace, brother.
LikeLike
Well there ya go … who knew that the President of the United States reads the comment section of OldLife! 🙂
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Aug/19/white_house_says_obama_is_christian__prays_daily.html
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff, your last-final comment got buried.
I know you’re done, but my point up there wasn’t to debate the disagreement per se, it was to make the larger point that believers can politically agree with unbelievers and politically disagree with fellow believers, which seems to make hay of your notion that epistemology counts in political discourse. So if a guy thinks states should be able to govern themselves on the question of abortion, I really “don’t care” if he also doesn’t think God exists. And my hunch is that in practice you agree with that, since likely the only criterion you use in voting for candidates isn’t whether s/he is a member in good standing in your church.
LikeLike
Jeff, you can’t fool me, Obama is United Church of Christ.
LikeLike
I completely agree with the other comments!!
LikeLike