Posted on 08/15/2012 7:38:20 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
I appreciate the responses to my previous posts on this issue and, after reading some of the questions, thought somewhat pressed to write this last one. OK, so we know what Christian marriage is. We preach that, teach it, and expect believers to embrace Scripture’s instructions regarding sexual conduct, although we are still sinners who must continually repent, trust in Christ, and receive his pardon. Got it. But what about the public argument?
As I said in the last one, we aren’t authorized to speak in God’s name where he hasn’t spoken, but we are commanded to do so wherever he has. This is where it gets dicier, though. I’d like to frame my response, first off, in terms of two extremes that we have to avoid:
1. Treating references to homosexuality in the Old Testament as either irrelevant or directly applicable to the current question.
You see this in public debates of the issue, where extremists on both sides talk over (and past) each other. One thing they often share in common is interest in quoting passages from the Old Testament on the question. Then the person on the left reminds us that the sanction mentioned is stoning. “Do you want to stone gays?”, one shouts. “No, but I believe what the Bible says about homosexuality.” “Well, right next to that verse it says that you should stone disobedient children—Oh, and not eat pork, and not touch a woman who is having her period.” Bottom line: the skills of biblical interpretation are about equally as bad on both sides of the table.
The statements in Leviticus are part of the Mosaic covenant. They pertain uniquely to the covenant that God made with Israel as a nation. The laws that governed every aspect of private and public life, cult and culture, were a unique episode in redemptive history. Their divine purpose cannot be rationalized in terms of sanitation, public health, or personal well-being. The whole focus was on God and his desire to separate Israel from the nations, preparing the way for the Messiah to come from her womb. Therefore, there is no more biblical warrant for stoning homosexuals today than there is for avoiding Scottish cuisine.
If there’s every reason to distinguish these two covenants, we have to be very careful nonetheless that we don’t make the opposite interpretive blunder of contrasting the Old and New Testaments on the question of homosexual practice itself. I’ve heard of late several times committed Christians acknowledging that the Old Testament forbids it, but the New Testament is silent. It’s “mean Moses” versus “nice Jesus”: a familiar but completely baseless contrast. Affirming that the the civil laws are now obsolete doesn’t mean that the rationale explicitly given for some of these laws should be disregarded, especially when God singles some acts out not simply as dependent on God’s will for that time and place, but as “abominations.” Homosexuality is included in that list, as it is also in the New Testament (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10—right up there with “murders, enslavers, liars, and perjurers”). The church does not have the power of the sword in the new covenant. Nevertheless, God’s statement on the matter is pretty clear: he hates homosexuality. It violates the natural order—reflecting the extent to which fallen humanity will go to suppress the truth—even that which can be known by reason—in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18-32).
Jesus brings forgiveness of sins, not a new—supposedly easer, happier, more fulfilling law. In fact, he upbraids the lax view of divorce tolerated in his day. Jesus does not ground marriage between a man and a woman in the Mosaic covenant—or in the new covenant, but returns to the order of created nature: “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate’” (Mat 19:4-6).
It should be added that Paul’s point in Romans 1-3 is to sweep the whole world—Jew and Gentile—into a heap, condemned under the law, in order to announce that Christ is the Savior of all, Jew and Gentile, and justifies the ungodly who trust in him. We are all called to repent—lifelong repentance, in fact. In this, as in everything, we fall short; our imperfect repentance would be enough to condemn us if we weren’t clothed in Christ’s righteousness. However, to repent is to acknowledge that God is right and we are wrong—on the specifics of precisely where we want to assert our sovereignty.
2. Allowing same-sex marriage because since this isn’t a Christian nation, we should not seek to make the traditional Christian view public law.
Yes and no. The argument sounds like a “two-kingdoms” approach, but I think it’s actually more on the historic Anabaptist side.
First, it is certainly true that America is not a Christian nation and in any case Christians should not seek to promote distinctively Christian doctrines and practices through the properly coercive power of the state.
Second, however, I believe that we have to carefully distinguish general and special revelation, common and saving grace, the kingdoms of this age and the kingdom of God. Traditional Roman Catholics and Protestants are the vanguard of the pro-life movement, but in addition to witnessing to the depth of Christian conviction on the subject they also make arguments that can appeal to the conscience of non-Christians. The goal is certainly to legislate morality (just as the pro-abortion lobby attempts). However, it is the attempt to include the unborn in the category of those to whom the most basic right to life applies (namely, human beings). It is not a distinctively Christian view that the unborn are human beings (many pro-abortionists even agree, but rank the mother’s choice and happiness higher). Nor is it a distinctively Christian view that human beings shouldn’t be murdered—regardless of the parents’ economic or psychic well-being.
I think that the same can be said here as well. Marriage is not grounded in the gospel, but in creation. Special revelation corrects our twisted interpretations and gives us a better map, but general revelation gives sufficient evidence at least for minimal arguments from antiquity. Knowledgeable people will disagree about the strength of those arguments, since, for example, Greek elites often had teen-age boys entertain them on the side—with the approval or at least the awareness of their wives. Yes, others reply, but that was part of the downfall of the Greek civilization. In every case, it will be a debatable point—not to say that it isn’t worth arguing, but in the light especially of recent studies, it probably will not change a lot of minds.
Third, in my own wrestling with the political debate, love of neighbor looms large. Some on the right may offer arguments that reflect more the same demand for special rights as those on the left of the issue. The legal aspects of that are beyond my pay-grade—and they are important. Others may treat this issue as irrelevant: “Look, it doesn’t affect me. I just don’t want to live next door to some creepy home like that.” However, in terms of specifically Christian witness, love of neighbor (as God’s image-bearers) should be front-and-center. We have to care about our non-Christian neighbors (gay or straight) because God cares and calls us to contribute to the common good.
The challenge there is that two Christians who hold the same beliefs about marriage as Christians may appeal to neighbor-love to support or to oppose legalization of same-sex marriage.
On one hand, it may be said that if we can no longer say that “Judeo-Christian” ethics are part of our shared worldview as a republic, then the ban seems arbitrary. Why isn’t there a campaign being waged to ban providing legal benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples? Or to make divorce more difficult? It just seems more symbolic than anything else: it looks like our last-gasp effort to enforce our own private morality on the public. On the other hand, we might argue that every civilization at its height, regardless of religion, has not only privileged marriage of one man and one woman but has outlawed alternative arrangements. Same-sex marriage means adoption, which subjects other human beings to a parental relationship that they did not choose for themselves. Are we loving our LGBT neighbors—or their adopted children—or the wider society of neighbors by accommodating a move that will further destroy the fabric of society?
I take the second view, but I recognize the former as wrestling as much as I’m trying to with the neighbor-love question. Legal benefits (“partnerships”) at least allowed a distinction between a contractual relationship and the covenant of marriage. However, the only improvement that “marriage” brings is social approval—treating homosexaul and heterosexual unions as equal. Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security. However, the “marriage card” is the demand for something that simply cannot consist in a same-sex relationship. Human love is defined not by a feeling, shared history, or animal attraction, but by something objective, something that measures us—namely, God’s moral law. To affirm this while concluding that it’s good for Christians but not for the rest of us seems to me to conclude that this law is not natural and universal, rooted in creation, and/or that we only love our Christian neighbors.
At the end of the day, what tips the scales toward the second view is that I can’t see how neighbor-love can be severed from love of God, which is after all the most basic command of all. Even if they do not acknowledge “nature and nature’s God”—or anything above their own sovereign freedom to choose—reality nevertheless stands unmovable. Like the law of gravity, the law of marriage (of one man and one woman) remains to the end of time—not just for Christians, but for all people everywhere.
I find that the study of Natural Law Theory is what gives Catholic Theology the fundamental advantage over Protestant Theology. It is where Common Sense and Logic and Reason come from and the Bible should really never conflict with the teleological design of man (which is to unite with the opposite sex, have children, and then do their natural Duty of raising/protecting their own children and families.
St. Thomas Aquinas knew—since God made man rational—that we were meant to understand the things in Nature and their teleological ends-—Our intellect is meant to be used for understanding the world—since it is His creation and points to understanding of God and Truth.
I find that many people with PH.D’s are irrational and have no logic and it is because of their embracing Postmodernist philosophy which gets rid of Natural Law-—because then they can get rid of the Designer and make themselves into gods.
Your logic is much better than MANY theologians in today’s world. Pastor Bonhoeffer stated in 1931 that in America (as well as Germany) the Christianity being practiced was “religionless”—esp. by the pastors on the cover of all the prominent newspapers and magazines at the time.
Truth/Justice/Logic/Virtue/Wisdom====all go together-—can’t have any of it without Natural Law Theory. You especially have to use Logic with the Bible—not only Faith.
Excellent comment and completely correct. This also gives lie to the argument that homosexuals just want the same legal privileges and protections married people have. They've gotten civil unions which are legal and economic contracts/partnerships, but that's not enough.
Why the push for homosexual marriage? To try and get man to affirm what God has denied.
Marriage is a sacrament and cannot be consented to without the approval of God.
Look at all the sociological/psychological evidence. Science is finally catching up to God. We now know that rampant sexuality in any form isn’t healthy. Marriage works best. Families built around marriage are what create great civilizations.
To state otherwise is to ignore the historical record. It’s simple dissembling.
Since I’m not Reformed, I have no impediment to criticizing Dr. Horton’s 2 kingdom’s view.
First, it’s utterly unsupported by the actual stories of the bible. Whether Joseph and Pharaoh, David and Samuel, Hezekiah and Isaiah, Daniel and Babylonian Emperors, Esther and the King, Jesus and Pilate, James and Herod, Paul and Felix, and maybe even John and the Emperor, there is no shortage of God-believers involving themselves in affairs of state.
Jesus’ words to “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s” does not say to be uninvolved as citizens. There is no doubt, of course, that Christianity is not about taking over kingdoms and forcibly subjecting them to our beliefs. (We’ll leave that to Islam.) Christ’s intent was that believers actually believe, not that they be forced to say they are believers.
To say we are to withdraw from the reality of the political responsibilities that are upon us is no different than saying we should withdraw from the responsibility to help fight a fire at our neighbor’s house.
Truly, Christians must be involved in the political process.
Just one clarification — being Reformed definitely does not require one to believe “Two Kingdoms” theology. Many conservative Calvinists believe that Dr. Horton and the Westminster-West people have imported a Lutheran view of the state. I do not understand Lutheran doctrine well enough to make that claim and I don't want to bear false witness against Lutheran brothers. I'm “pinging” a Freeper who is a Missouri Synod Lutheran, Rev. Charles Henrickson, to see if he wants to comment.
I do know Reformed doctrine well enough to believe that “Two Kingdoms” theology, especially in its more radical forms, cannot possibly be reconciled with what Ulrich Zwingli did in Zurich, what John Calvin did in Geneva, what John Knox did in Scotland, what the Dutch burghers did in the Netherlands, and what the Puritans did in England and New England. I cannot imagine how anyone can say with a straight face that Calvinists historically did not believe their faith had direct political implications.
Some of the “Two Kingdoms” people admit that the “Old Calvinists” were, in their words, “theocratic” but say the American revisions of the Westminster Confession make that unnecessary to believe anymore. Others, including a Ph.D student in my own theological circles, are making serious efforts to prove that John Calvin himself advocated “Two Kingdoms” theology. I plan to read his doctoral dissertation or subsequent books, but I just don't see it.
Exactly right xzins.
The same thing goes for Abortion and every other thing that God is displeased with.
We do this because we love our Children, our Family, our Friends, and even our Enemies, because our Heavenly Father desires this out of us.
Another long thesis of self-congratulation. When any of you wise latinos out there has actually done the 24 months of research into each letter of the legal opinions as I did, charting the progression from the Supreme Court’s CLEAR UPHOLDING OF MARRIAGE AS THE BUILDING BLOCK OF US SOCIETY in the 1960s, on through its dismantling, block by block, including not only SCOTUS’ own decisions but the 500 or so lower court cases stemming from their decisions, and has written a detailed history of those decisions as I have, can you thump your back in one-upmanship on the topic.
While I appreciate your comment that my “logic is much better than MANY theologians in today’s world,” credentials count in the academic world. Someone with better academic credentials than me needs to be responding to these Two Kingdoms people.
On the broader issue you raise of natural law, my concern about natural law is not primarily the Roman Catholic way of viewing it but rather how the Two Kingdoms people are saying we should apply natural law and not Scripture in dealing with civil government.
In fact, some Reformed people have agreed to some extent with a Thomistic view of natural law. RC Sproul and the “classical apologetics” movement are in that category. I'm not in agreement with them but that's not an issue on which I'm going to fight.
I'm not going to ask you to agree with a Reformed view of total depravity — if you are a Roman Catholic, you need to be faithful to your own doctrinal position or leave your church — but once the doctrine of total depravity is affirmed, I'm sure you can see why most Calvinists do not believe the sinful human mind is able to understand general revelation properly.
In other words, even if natural law would in theory be sufficient to understand God's will from it, our sinful brains can't make sense of it and will come up with really bad perversions of it. General revelation is enough to leave us without excuse four our sin but not enough to lead us into the right paths. Yes, “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead,” but while that's enough to leave us without excuse it's not enough to save us.
Romans 1:18-23 applies here: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.”
Again, I'm not asking you to change your Roman Catholic viewpoint, only to understand the logic behind the reasons why which most (not all) Calvinists do not emphasize the use of natural law or general revelation.
Hope this helps.
Absolutely. This is a stewardship issue. A vote has been placed in our household, and we must care responsibly for it.
Excellent point, brother.
I repeat: I do not think the acts of the Supreme Court are driven by reason. Twenty years ago, when I began the research, I believed that a majority of justices still adhered to their personal bias towards a JudeoChristian form of marriage, in view that the SCOTUS repeatedly UPHELD traditional marriage against challenges up until the 1970s, when Thurgood Marshall and other encroaching leftists started appeasing the underworld socialists and communists ON THIS ISSUE.
Please read the words of my original post, including the dates cited, before jumping on the "you so stupid" bandwagon here. I actually did the research in one of the nation's most outstanding law libraries. Why continue to insist that I must be wrong from the comfort of your sofa without having done similar research yourself? Could it be...vanity?
So very true, dear brothers in Christ!
Well apparently the point I made must have ticked off someone since my post was removed. I certainly didn't request that it be removed.
Moderators, could you explain why my post was removed?
Yes, Lutherans do teach the doctrine of the "Two Kingdoms," because it is the biblical teaching.
This is a huge subject. In fact, I taught a whole week's course on this subject at a pastors' conference in Indonesia in March, under the theme, "The Two Kingdoms: The Proper Distinction of Church and State."
Here is a blog report I wrote on that conference: The Luther Academy goes to Indonesia. I'll quote from that article now to give you a quick synopsis of the Lutheran view:
The topic on which I lectured . . . was “The Two Kingdoms: The Proper Distinction of Church and State.” . . .
We started with the distinction of Law and Gospel, since that is the basis for the distinction of how God rules in his two “kingdoms” (or “governments”), Church and State. The “first use” of the Law, written on human hearts, is how God keeps order in the world, especially through civil government. The Gospel is the special ministry of the Church, by which God saves sinners for Christ’s sake for eternal life. Law and Gospel, Church and State--these need to properly distinguished and not confused, so that each can do its necessary job.
The seminal work by Luther on the topic of the Two Kingdoms is his 1523 treatise, “Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed” (Luther’s Works, Volume 45). All subsequent Lutheran teaching on this topic stems from this essay. I led the group through this treatise, which was also a good way of getting at the key Bible passages, which Luther handles.
Next we went through the pertinent portions of the Lutheran Confessions, especially the following. From the Augsburg Confession: Articles IV, V, and VII, on Justification, the Ministry, and the Church; Article XVI, on Civil Government; and Article XXVIII, on Church Authority. Likewise, from the Apology: Article XVI, on Political Order. And from the Small and Large Catechisms: the Fourth Commandment and the Table of Duties.
After all of this, we were able to identify six key passages that Luther and the Confessions always were citing: Matthew 22:21, “Render unto Caesar”; John 18:36, “My kingdom is not of this world”; Acts 5:29, “We must obey God rather than men”; Romans 13:1-7, government as God’s servant that bears the sword; 2 Corinthians 10:4, “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal”: and 1 Peter 2:13-14, very similar to Romans 13.
Then we went through other biblical and historical examples of how the two kingdoms operate and how they often have been confused. From the Imperial Cult of Rome to Constantinian Christendom to the Medieval Crusades, from the Protestant Reformation to the Prussian Union to issues of Church and State today, history bears witness to the importance of keeping the two kingdoms in their proper perspective.
If anyone's interested, I can send you the three handouts I used at the conference, which give: an outline of the course; excerpts from Luther's essay on "Temporal Authority"; and excerpts from the Lutheran Confessions. Send me a freepmail with your e-mail address, and I'll send you the three documents as file attachments.
I'm planning to use this same material to teach a class at my congregations this fall on the same topic, "The Two Kingdoms: The Proper Distinction of Church and State."
BTW, Luther's important and helpful 1523 essay can be found online in pdf form: "Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed"
I'll post a comment on the particular subject of this thread here in a moment.
Leni
God has written his law, a sense of right and wrong, on human hearts. This is the basis for civil law, e.g., laws against murder, stealing, bearing false witness. See Romans 2:14-15: "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law [i.e., the Ten Commandments, given to Israel], by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them. . . ."
As much as possible, civil laws and societal norms should correspond to God's Law, his unchanging will for human society. When they do, a society works better. When they don't, a society declines. In our lifetime, American society has declined especially in the areas of marriage and the family, sexual behavior, and the like. We can and should work for improvement in these areas, both in unwritten societal norms and in written civil laws.
Matters such as abortion and homosexual "marriage" (sic) fall under the category of Law. One need not be a Chrisitan to recognize that these things are wrong. Nature, reason, and conscience all attest that abortion and homosexual behavior are wrong. To oppose these abominations is not a distinctively Christian position.
What IS distinctively Christian is the content of the Gospel, e.g., the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of the person and work of Christ, the doctrine of justification, the preaching of forgiveness and eternal life for the sake of Christ. This is the exclusive domain of the Church. This is the ministry of the Gospel.
The Law cannot save. Only the Gospel can do that. The Law can make for a better society, and it should do that.
One more post in a moment on what Michael Horton said.
Thanks for this. I’ll give it a look when I have time. I like guy who knows his stuff.
Summing up my position (and what I think is close to Horton's): Homosexual "marriage," no. Contractual arrangements between individuals, already permissible. But no special status bestowed by society on immoral relationships.
We agree on that, then. Sorry if I came across belligerent or vain.
You said, "My astonishment was not with the arguments of the left: it was with the contortions of the the Supreme Court justices". My thought was that since you were astonished by a [mental] contortion, you must have expected reason instead of a contortion. I misunderstood something; it happens to me often.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.