My
initial response is to ask questions, muse, pray, and reflect in stream of consciousness.
I post this as a way of inviting inter-action.
I
apologize if I repeat myself at times or if the logical flow seems to hit some
rapids i.e." stream of consciousness"
The
current “evolution” of President Obama and the national discussion on marriage raises
some issues. This is actually a great opportunity for Christians to engage
others at a significant level. The marriage issue is so deeply rooted in our
presuppositions and underlying worldviews; it exposes those worldviews. It is
easier to make a direct connection with the root issues when talking about
marriage than when discussing other cultural issues.
One
major concern:
Approval
of and granting legally sanctioned status to same sex marriage (SSM) would go
against the practice of the vast majority of human history. Opposition to SSM
is not a narrow parochial view that is forced upon society by Christians trying
to impose their morality and religion on everyone. Other than a few instances,
hetero-sexual marriage has been the universally adopted and practiced form of
marriage in all cultures for 6000 years of human history. It’s not an idea that
the religious right recently thought up because they “hate gays.”
This
is not a decision that should be made lightly or quickly in the context of a
political race. Fortunately in our system no president can set the laws on
marriage so in one sense Obama’s view doesn’t matter. But as President his view
is high profile and reflects the values that others perceive about our country.
If
we’re going to live together in society then we must have foundational
principles and building blocks of the society. One man/One woman marriage has
been that foundation for 6000 years. In our system of law the states determine
was marital status is recognized for legal purposes and the majority of states
have voted against SSM. That in and of itself doesn’t make opposite sex
marriage (OSM) right per se, but it means that we need to give a lot of careful
thought to what’s at stake. Once the door is open to redefining marriage then
in order to be “fair” we must say, “Anything goes.” Obama spoke of the “Golden
Rule” and treating others just as we want to be treated. My guess is that the polygamist
out there will be ready to test his “Golden Rule” policy. And why not? This
open door to a new definition may really be a Pandora’s Box. The real winners
in all of this may just be the divorce lawyers. It’s costly enough to work out
a divorce for ‘Ted & Alice” (OSM couples); if SSM gets approved then there
will be a whole new client base. Imagine if polygamy gets approved (seems crazy
now, right, but just wait) then think of the costs of the divorce for Ted & Alice & Jane & Brittany – don’t forget custody issues for all the kids
involved.
Do
we really want to go there? It may sound crazy, but that is the trajectory once
you redefine marriage. Who’s to say that marriage must remain OSM & SSM
only? That wouldn’t be “fair”.
Supporters
of SSM would never accept a ‘religious’ argument against their position, but do
they realize that their position is also rooted in their own “faith”
affirmations? Are they willing to follow their argument about “civil rights”
and extend those rights to cover any possible form of marriage?
Are
the “rights” of some being violated today? Is there a “right” to marry someone
of the same sex? If so, where does the right come from?
Is
it merely a question of “civil rights” for those who want SSM? SSM proponents
talk about tax issues, and legal status of partners, etc. These dynamics tend
to muddy the waters of the deeper issues about the definition of marriage.
The gay marriage issue raises some
interesting questions about our system of taxation and civil rights. Should
people be taxed at a higher rate or denied certain benefits because they do not
marry a member of the opposite sex?
Being married, I never gave thought to the benefits
I have because of that choice. The rights to medical insurance, sick and
bereavement leave, death benefits or parental leave are among the rights that
the gay community is seeking. If I did not have these rights I would feel a
significant loss of safety and freedom. The US General Accounting office
reports that there are 1,049 benefits the US government provides to married
couples. The most important benefits listed were the entitlement to receive
social security benefits, pensions, tax breaks and visitation rights in
hospitals or prisons.
Scripture speaks of paying taxes as a Christian
duty. Regarding taxes Jesus simply says, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and
to God what is God’s”. As believers we should follow the example of Jesus by
seeking to walk wisely on this issue of taxation. In one short sentence Jesus
separated the tax issue from the spiritual issue. His directives to us as
believers are clear. We should be willingly pay what is due to the earthly
nation
This means that we should want to establish a
system of taxation that is in the best interest of all of our citizens,
regardless of their lifestyle choices. Our country was founded on the premise
of no taxation without representation. The current cultural norm for taxation
is a working husband and a stay-at home wife. This norm reflects the lifestyle
circumstances of less than 10% of American households. It would seem that a
more equitable tax system that better reflects our culture might be in order.
After carefully considering this issue one can conclude that this tax issue is
not a heterosexual versus gay issue at all. This is a married versus single
taxpayer issue. There is no Biblical prescriptive to support giving married
people tax incentives and benefits that are withheld from single people. This
practice may not be appropriate any longer.
Geri Huminski Harvest USA online resource article-
“What About Gay Marriage?”
Taxes,
pensions etc are really a different issue than marriage and would have to be
treated in a different discussion. Sadly our tax codes mix them together and
complicate the entire discussion.
Do
we merely ask, “What’s the harm with SSM? How does it impact anyone else if two
men want to marry?” Is this only about civil rights or does it reflect a much
bigger issue about our view of society and culture? What if we separate the
tax/benefits /pension issues from married status al together?
Do
we dare ask the question “Is there an ultimate right or wrong on the issue?”
That question presupposes some objective standard to be taken into account. The
issue and the related questions remind us that this is a BIG DEAL.
To
those who say, “YOU can’t or shouldn’t impose your morality on others” I must
point out that in saying that YOU are actually trying to impose your morality
on others. That statement is a moral doctrine; it is not some neutral guide.
Also remember that all laws impose someone’s morality. All laws reflect
someone’s worldview and values – the values of the majority.
This
whole topic gets so tricky because it inevitably leads to the issue of the
source of our societal values. Who defines and how do we define marriage? Those
are huge question. If we’re off on the definition then we’ll be off on the
application. Is it a definition that needs to evolve or is it a definition that
is fixed for us? Remember that marriage is the basic unit of society so it’s
worth doing the hard work of examining the questions.
This discussion has been a
long time coming. It has taken a long while for the seeds planted in the
relativism of the Enlightenment to bear their full fruit, but that is happening
now. From the perspective of those who come from the historic Christian
framework this change in the definition of marriage is seen as a major
challenge to God's authority. The SSM position reflects a distinctly different
worldview and narrative of life than what has been practiced for 6000 years. During
the course of human history the definition of marriage has always been OSM, so
most people haven’t really had to ask themselves the hard questions, thus
exposing their underlying worldview narratives.
“Every
worldview consists of a founding drama, a narrative plot, whether it’s
creation-fall-redemption-consummation or the self-caused and self-sustaining
evolution of energized matter, the unfolding of Absolute Spirit, the education
of the human race from medieval superstition to modern (or postmodern)
self-sufficiency, or class warfare, and on we could go. Each story yields
distinctive doctrines. If our origin and death have no transcendent meaning or
purpose, then our reasonable response is to have faith in ourselves and try to
make something work here and now. If the “meaning of history” is the survival
of the fittest, then my neighbor is a competitor and the weaker they are, the
better. If it’s the worker’s victory over the bourgeoisie, then our daily
actions will be oriented to that goal” – Michael Horton
As
much as we want to avoid “big picture / moral/religious” discussion in our
society, the bottom line is that what we believe matters; ideas have
consequences. The idea that we can’t or shouldn’t be influenced by our
religious / faith views when setting public policy is a farce. One’s faith, or
lack thereof, comes with one’s worldview; we can’t avoid being influenced by
our worldview when it comes to the big items such as marriage. I’m personally
opposed to cigarettes but I don’t think they should be illegal. I’m personally
opposed to stealing, and I do think it should be illegal. Our personal preferences
are expressed through the laws of our cities, states or nation, and they must
be dealt with at the appropriate level and on an individual basis.
Doesn’t
this lead to a pick and choose form of law making? Yes, but that’s what we
always do in a non-theocratic society. The fact that we are not a biblical
theocracy does not mean that biblical values must be excluded from the public
arena. Non-christians don’t leave their worldview at the door when they enter
the public arena. They don’t say, “I don’t believe in God, and so there are no
grounds for right and wrong, but in order to be a good citizen I’ll respect the
values of the majority who do have values.” For some reason they expect people
of faith to say, “I do believe in God and His values, but in order to be a good
citizen I’ll lay them aside so that no one will be offended by them. To show
that I’m a good citizen I’ll simply adopt the position of the minority who
oppose my values.”
The
public arena is the marketplace of ideas, and ideas have consequences. We don’t
need less debate; we need more and better debate. We need fewer sound-bites and
more probing of the significant worldview questions. The SSM issue is an
occasion for such discussion.
There are really two competing narratives
for life and how it is lived in community:
1). A purely secular
view of the universe
– we are here by random activity of molecules; there is no grand design and no
designer, thus no real inherent meaning or purpose- the self-caused and
self-sustaining evolution of energized matter”. Things just evolved, but that doesn’t make
them right or wrong. In fact nothing is right or wrong; it just is. We can try
to agree on certain social values in order to have a functional society, but in
the end our social values and rules are simply made up.
It’s
like a group of kids playing school – the oldest and smartest gets to be the
teacher i.e. the boss, and the younger kids are the students. (I saw this often with our second daughter
playing with her three younger siblings) They get bossed around and eventually
they quit. There is no overarching moral argument compelling them to stay in
the game. It’s only make-believe anyway. Playing is neither right nor wrong in
any significant way.
If
there is no God then we can only hope that people will agree to some rules and
agree to play by them so that we can all get along. But at some point someone
or some group decides that they don’t want to play anymore. In real life, we call
that “breaking the laws” and put them in jail or punish them. But have they
broken any real law of the universe? No, they’ve just decided that they don’t
want to abide by the social norms anymore. On what basis can one criticize them? Maybe
they just evolved that way. Who are we to say they are wrong or that they
should be punished?
If
this approach is consistently applied then people must be free to pretty much
do what they want. We always throw in the caveat “as long as they don’t hurt
anyone else”. But what gives us the right to make that condition? Isn’t that
“imposing our morals on them”? Why is it “wrong” to hurt someone else? Life is
rough; the strong survive and the weak lose. Nature is red in tooth and claw.
With
this approach anyone should be able to marry anyone or anything he/she chooses.
On what basis do we stop a man from marrying a man or two men, or his sister,
brother, mother, or a woman, or two, three or five women, a horse, a cow, or a
child? Who’s to say? Where is the source of authority? THERE IS NONE.
People
may agree to certain social norms, but nothing is really right or wrong. If
that is the narrative that we want to live by then at least be honest enough to
come right out and say it. Don’t hide behind “evolving views” or “civil
rights”. In this narrative there are no intrinsic rights; there are only rights
that society agrees to confer.
Same-sex
marriage makes sense if you assume that the individual is the center of the
universe, that God—if he exists—is there to make us happy, and that our choices
are not grounded in a nature created by God but in arbitrary self-construction.
To the extent that this sort of “moralistic-therapeutic-deism” prevails in our
churches, can we expect the world to think any differently? If we treat God as
a product we sell to consumers for their self-improvement programs and make
personal choice the trigger of salvation itself, then it may come as a big
surprise (even contradiction) to the world when we tell them that truth (the
way things are) trumps feelings and personal choice (what we want to make
things to be). Michael Horton
2.) A religious
narrative that includes a creator God.
( religious/ spiritual narratives that don’t have a creator God run into the
same issues as the atheistic narrative mentioned above).
For
the purposes of my discussion here my reference point is the historical
orthodox Christian Biblical narrative, not the “moralistic-therapeutic-deism” model
that is the working theology of Americans today.
A
creator model means that we are not “the masters of our own fate: or the
captains of our souls.”
We
are created for a purpose, and marriage serves this larger purpose ordained by
God. To live according to our design we should structure our families according
to God’s plan. That is the road to true freedom and fulfillment.
I
am a Christian and an American, and I love our system of laws and our freedom.
But I don’t take the Libertarian view of absolute freedom. I believe that there
are concerns above and beyond those of pursuing maximum freedom “so long as no
one else is hurt”. As a Christian I believe that there are things that are not
good for us personally or for society even though we may not be able to see the
harm. Going against God’s ordained design for marriage/family is one of those
things. My views as a Christian trump my views as an American. I don’t buy the
“civil rights” argument as being more important than my “own religious” view
i.e. “while I’m personally opposed to SSM on religious grounds, I wouldn’t want
to impose my view if it violates someone’s civil rights.” I don’t go there. One
reason is that SSM isn’t a constitutional civil right in America. Another
reason is that it so violates God’s design that it should not be established as
a right. If non-Christians are willing to be swayed by their worldview to change
the laws, then why can’t a Christian be influenced by his/her worldview to try
to maintain the legal definition of marriage?
If the laws are going to be changed, then I would hope that it is done so on the basis of a vote of the people, not a decree from a judge (one that might overturn the vote of the people). If the change is going to come then it should be because the people have heard a clear debate on the issues and consequences, and they have freely voted. Each person can vote his/her own conscience.
Which
worldview narrative makes more sense? Which corresponds better to reality? Which
is a narrative that gives rise to a society that has values and standards that
promote individual freedom, but also limit anarchy?
What
is your narrative source? A book that comes from God or a communal consensus?
What happens when the consensus breaks down and we’re left with everyman does
that which is right in his own eyes? We get anarchy or tyranny. For that is the
ultimate trajectory of there being no outside source of authority. It may take
a while for it to fully fall apart into anarchy or tyranny of the strongest
(might makes right), but that is the inevitable direction. A godless secular
narrative has been tried – it was called Soviet Stalinist Russia; Nazi Germany,
Mao’s China and Castro’s Cuba. Those are
the full blown version of godless secularism, seen at its worst, but they are
the trajectory of all secularism. Some narrative must and will dominate. So do
you want one that has no base for eternal significance, no base for real meaning;
or do you want a narrative that explains our reality even though we may not
like the explanation. Do we want a
narrative of meaninglessness or a narrative based on a personal creator God who
entered into time to give Himself for his enemies?
The
values that most people aspire to, or want other to aspire to, such as love,
justice, humility, compassion, courage, etc. don’t grow in the soil of godless
secularism. Those values require a meaning to the universe, or they require
that people at least agree on a common meaning so that they can live together.
But a consistent secular view void of eternal meaning does little to nourish
the values needed for healthy social relationships.
For
those who want to hold onto the Judeo- Christian title yet who promote same sex
marriage, I have a question:
“Where
in the bible does God address how a same sex marriage should work?”
If
one takes the position that “God made me this way, so it’s OK” then why is God
silent on the issue? God addresses marriage from the beginning in the Garden.
The cultural mandate begins with God telling Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and
multiply”. God addresses so many issues of life in both OT and NT, yet the
bible never once recognizes same sex marriage, nor does it give any instruction
about it. God addresses the male/female bond of marriage and compares it to the
relationship of Christ and the church. God addresses the parent/child
relationship. He addresses the boss/servant, pastor/flock, and Christian / state
authority relationships. If SSM is approved by God, the why is God silent on
man/man or woman/woman marriage?
There
is no passage that says, “Husbands love
your husband as Christ loves the church”, or “wives be subject to your
wife as the church is to Christ”, or “a man shall leave his father and mother
and cleave to his husband.”
If
one goes with “it’s OK with God but the Bible has been corrupted by men” then
you’re really just throwing out the whole book. Why even appeal to Christian
truth or values to support same sex marriage if you really don’t believe in the
authority of the Bible? At least be honest and leave God out of it.
To support same sex marriage
is to support a system that has within it the seeds of its own destruction. Had
god started with Adam and Steve in the Garden we would not be here today. The
SSM advocates talk of an “evolution” of thought on this issue; they seem to
believe that as a society we are evolving and progressing to a place where SSM
should be acceptable. The idea is that Obama is “on the right side of history”
by embracing SSM. If this is an evolution then what makes us think the evolution has
reached its final destination and stopped? Suppose we start with a naturalist/
secular worldview, then it certainly seems to violate the concept of evolution
/ survival of the fittest to think that a species would evolve to the place
where its own reproduction is impossible. If SSM is the final destination, then
the evolutionary process has gone haywire.
Exactly where would same sex partnering
fit into a purely naturalist evolutionary model? We don’t really see it in
nature. When was the last time Animal Planet had a feature on same sex behavior
among lions, elephants, monkeys etc. Even if that behavior did take place at
certain times it is an evolutionary dead end. It does not promote the survival
of the species. No species can build a flock, herd, gang, colony, or tribe on
that lifestyle.
Those who want the name Christian
and still support SSM they must be asked, “Do you believe the bible is your
authority? If so, in what way? If you have a view that goes against scripture
who wins, you or God? Do you assume the throne of authority and say, “God must
be wrong, because this just seems or feels right to me? Or do you say, “I may
not understand it, but I see what scripture is teaching so I’m going to submit
my will and judgment to the Word of God.”
That is the movement of faith
and that is how we all must live if we want to follow God. Either we let god be
god or we assume that place as autonomous creatures.
It seems that the burden of
proof would be on the side of the SSM advocates – they need to prove that it is
the best thing to overturn 6000 years of the universal human experience in
order to redefine the foundational unit of society.
Once the definition is
changed, why stop with SSM? Why not polygamy or sibling /close relative
marriage? WHO IS TO SAY?
Carrying this out further
(ideas have consequences), if a man marrying a man is the same as a man
marrying a woman then aren't we saying that there is no real difference between
a man and woman; they are the same. Will that be applied to other areas of
society.... no separate restrooms for men and women; no separate competitions
at the Olympics, but men and women competing against each other; no separate
teams in college or organized sports, etc. Just think of the potential for real
equality between the sexes now that the artificial gender distinctives are eradicated.
I’ll
close with a quote from an online article at Harvest USA website.
No matter what the courts decide, how a
congressional vote is cast or what the gay community would like to demand of
us, the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, cannot condone gay marriage. The Church cannot condone gay marriage because
we do not have the power to so. This is the spiritual issue at the heart of the
gay marriage debate. The gay community wants to feel at
peace with God without making peace with God. The Word of God has clearly
declared that marriage is a covenant relationship between three parties, the
man, the woman and God, (Genesis 2:24). Each party enters into the covenant
relationship by their own choice. God will not enter into a marriage covenant
with a homosexual couple. We cannot change the Word of God. He has been clear that
homosexuality is wrong. God is against gay marriage and there is nothing the
Church can do to change that. … The issue of gay marriage will be an ongoing
challenge for the Church. Developing a full understanding of the underlying
issues will be critical to being able to address the subject. This will be
important in offering the world a godly and Biblically accurate understanding
of God’s Word as it pertains to gay marriage. Hopefully, this deeper
understanding will lead our congregations to become places of open dialogue
where people can wrestle with what it means to love those who struggle with
sexual sin in practical terms like how to accept the sinner and not the sin.
In order to be places of refuge our churches need
to become places of safety. We will need to offer a safe place to disclose our
struggles. We will also need safe places to wonder aloud about the questions of
civil rights and the inequality the gay marriage debate has raised. We are
called to actively wrestle with what kind of men and women God wants us to be
on behalf of others who want to live apart from Him. This is an invitation to
share in the sufferings of Christ by giving of ourselves for people who might
never respond to the Gospel. It might also be an invitation to become part of the
social change process.
As significant change continues to overtake our culture
we will need to have a clear voice of truth to speak. We will need to establish
our light to be able to impart the truth to successive generations. We have
been entrusted with the truth of God’s own word. As His ambassadors we have
been commissioned to speak for Him sharing His grace and mercy to a lost and
weary generation
(Huminski ibid)
