Protecting Biblical Marriage and the Family?
As most of you probably know, North Carolina citizens yesterday voted to add an amendment to their state constitution defining marriage as between a man and a women, basically assuring that it would be even more difficult for gay marriage to ever be legal in the state. (Gay marriage is already illegal in N.C., but a state constitutional amendment is MUCH more difficult to overturn than a state law). If my numbers are correct, I think that’s 30 states now that have such an amendment, while 6 states (plus the District of Columbia) allow gay marriage.
When I listen to those who support such state amendments (or a corresponding federal amendment) the arguments seem to revolve around a few related assertions: 1) homosexuality is a sin, 2) God has defined marriage in certain ways, and we need to follow suit, and 3) the family must be protected as it is the basic building block/bulwark of a healthy society. The third one, especially, makes the situation so serious that it merits involving the power of the federal and state governments to insure that marriage and family (and thus the nation itself) are protected.
Now since the stakes are so high and God’s standards are so important, I’m excited to announce a new campaign to add a new amendment to the Texas constitution making it illegal to get divorced (except for maybe a few very particular circumstances) and making it illegal to be a single parent! Sign up now!
Wait? Where is everyone going? I thought we had to uphold God’s best! I thought we had to protect marriage and the family! I thought the very future of the nation depended on it! Think of the children!
The logic is sound, people. God hates divorce. Absolutely hates it. It’s sin. (By the way, that’s why in none of our churches do we allow those who divorced for unbiblical reasons and who remain unrepentant to hold positions of leadership. In fact if they want to remain members, we insist on church discipline. We do that stuff, right? Right???)
Children from broken homes or who don’t even know who one parent is suffer significant effects because of it. I mean, if we decide it’s prohibitively harmful to allow gay people to raise a child together, then we must want what’s absolutely best for the kids. Let’s use the power of the state to round up all the single-parent children. They’ll be much better off in the foster system, anyway.
If the family is the cornerstone of our society, then we can’t afford to let people get divorced! We can’t afford to let two people who have a child together not get married afterwords! It’s the family and the nation at stake here, people!
If you’re worried about issues with the legal system, etc that gay marriage would bring about … how much money, time, and energy do you think we would save every year and how much more simple would the legal system be if we simply refused to let people get divorced?
I’m not actually suggesting such amendments, of course. This was an exercise in the absurd meant to make a point. Nor am I trying to demonize either divorced people or single parents. But I want you to think about why the idea of such an amendment made you nervous in the first place. Is it because divorce and broken homes aren’t as serious a problem to God or for the Church or society as homosexual marriages and homes? Is it because such an amendment ia an abuse of state power, and who wants the government dictating to its citizens like that?
I don’t understand at all.
I don’t understand why Christians aren’t holistic in their announcement to the world of the coming kingdom and God’s standards of holiness, as well as His bountiful and readily available grace.
I don’t understand why we pick out pet issues and ignore others.
I don’t understand how we determine when to involve the state and when to let it stay a matter of personal conscience. I don’t know why we insist on liberty for ourselves in some instances, yet wield Constantine’s sword on a hair trigger.
I don’t understand why some people are so convinced that God will punish our nation for homosexuality and abortion, yet never breathe a word of concern about how He’s going to view the rampant divorce rate, the way we treat the poor, or racism and imperialism in our past and present. Are those slap on the wrist offenses or something?
Someone help me make sense of all this.
Related Posts
About The Author
If you’ve walked down the wrong road, you can only start the path back to the right by undoing the last step you took.
Can you unpack what you mean by that for us?
While the culture has made progress towards Christian ethics in some ways, our sexual ethic has followed a steady path away from cultural Christianity. If we are going to reverse that trend, we have to make out way back up the path we descended.
Of course, the ethics of the church can’t follow this graduated path. We need to reform ourselves thoroughly and immediately. And this means putting an end to divorce for unscriptural causes within our congregations, and actively disciplining our members.
I have yet to hear a reason to oppose legalizing gay marriage that’s not religiously-based.
I have yet to hear an argument for why anything ought to be done that isn’t religiously based.
Clever approach and good questions, Thomas. On my first reading, I’m sympathetic to your reasoning.
However, something about it bugs me logically. Are you making the issue of divorce equivalent to same-sex marriage in every way? I beg to differ if so: even God accommodated hard hearts and gave an out, if you will, for allowing divorce–though He famously said, as you alluded, He hates it (Matthew 19:8). By contrast, God never gave any leeway to the sin of homosexual relations (or adultery or other sexual sin, for that matter). It’s not that it’s less grievous to the Lord, it seems. But functionally, homosexual behavior and the lifestyle of promiscuity may do more damage to the human identity. Divorce is a secondary reaction to sin, like anger is a secondary emotion. (I’m not going to die on that hill, but am exploring the thought–your thoughts are welcome, of course.)
Here’s something I do know, which renders your exercise in satire less convincing: no one is trying to redefine divorce (which is, importantly, the negation of the societal building block of marriage and family). Yet, there is a concerted, culture-wide, documented (even by some of the originators–see http://bit.ly/Jqwbjp) PR and political campaign to radically redefine marriage and restructure the meaning of family. Whoever, as they say, controls the definitions controls the debate.
Thus, you seem to make what I’ll call a category error: focusing on sins and their equivalency vs. separating the private sin of homosexuality (one sin among a very long list of others) from a public policy issue regarding what constitutes the very bedrock of culture. You are failing to appreciate that, indeed, this one issue–which proponents are mounting a virulent, laser-targeted and relentless attack on the institution of marriage is a uniquely critical one for our entire culture. (I suspect you won’t like the war language. But hey, this fight was picked by someone else.)
In fact, this mistake reminds me of the error made by an acquaintance who recently said, “Abortion as an issue just doesn’t touch my life.” He fails to understand two things: 1. to refuse to resist such a social more is failing to render aid (babies die, who cares?) and 2. in such a culture, he’s perhaps next (we already see a move towards killing born babies and arbitrary decisions by doctors to eliminate the elderly). These are results of an abortion-minded culture (history shows).
What will remain of our culture when marriage is arbitrarily redefined? I think we all know that things go from bad to worse once the slippery slope is mounted. I’m asking you and others to recognize not only what’s at stake, but the very thing that homosexual-rights proponents base their fight upon: if they can demand a redefinition of terms, they can overturn the created order in a very real way. Only they don’t see it as a created order, but rather a power game in which they are the losers so far.
Hi worldviewist,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I think you’re right in that Scripture rejects homosexuality with much stronger language than divorce, and you are also right in pointing out that according to Scripture divorce is permissible in at least some instances while practicing homosexuality never is.
I didn’t quite follow you when you said “No one is trying to redefine divorce.” (Everything else you said made sense, though). The point of my satire was that the way we treat divorce these days is very much a redefinition of marriage “as God intends,” as well.
And also to wonder why we are okay with using the power of a pluralist state to make others agree with us in this case, whereas we would probably be extremely uncomfortable with the government regulating marriage along the lines of “biblical” divorce. (And I think you could argue historically that once Christians resort to the state to enforce things for them, they’ve already lost what matters most.)
In other words, we need to have the intellectual honesty as believers to admit that for most this is about going after one sin that makes them particularly uncomfortable or whose proponents seem particularly powerful in a fear-inducing way. (And admittedly the concerted effort to bring the issue to the forefront of society certainly explains why many Christians are focusing on it, though we still need to respond correctly). It’s not really about marriage, but about this particular threat to it … while ignoring others is fine.
On a related note, I’ve heard the argument many times that basically says, “As the family goes, so society/the nation goes.” As an historian, I’m unconvinced. Which isn’t to say it’s wrong, but that I’m not convinced. But I’m hardly an expert on every society ever!
Thanks, Thomas, for the thoughtful and respectful re-reply. We’re not exactly debating, so I won’t call it a rebuttal. Fine if it was seen as that, though. The tone is fair here and arguing ain’t always bad!
Sorry to be unclear: I simply meant that, though divorce is another sin-laden and cultural issue directly related to marriage, there is a sharp distinction in what’s going on regarding divorce vis a vis same-sex “marriage” (I put that in quotes–I don’t want to honor what I see as a redefinition against millennia of global and trans-cultural history, Scripture (not just the Bible, incidentally) my will and, obviously, the will of the people of N.C. and 29 or so other states). Hence, we have a different dynamic afoot than with divorce.
What I want to say as a 50-year-old guy who’s been in and around the so-called culture war for decades to younger folks (I presume you are younger than I) is: “Welcome to the tired-of-the-culture-war club! In fact, we may have lost it anyway and live in a post-Christian country. (Lost or not, the fight continues if for no other reason that principle, but hopefully on respectful, realistic, humble terms.) And as you rightly point out, it’s a pluralistic culture.
But therein lies an error that I perceive: I simply don’t understand your point about governing. You seem to be saying that, given a pluralistic culture that has to be governed accordingly, we need to accommodate this issue (same-sex marital rights) accordingly.
Another category mistake, imho (if I use the term correctly): pluralism in regard to color, race, ethnic heritage, and the like is a fact of life. These are undoubtedly innate characteristics. It is fair, but hard to swallow for some of us, to allow a Hindu priest to open the U.S. House in prayer. Hindus need representation too.
However, it’s an article of faith that I strongly disagree with to say that someone who identifies as a homosexual is simply being who they are–as in the case of, say, race. People don’t seek help with changing their race or other immutable traits. Yet there are credible cases aplenty for same-sex attractions having been treated (see http://bit.ly/K37Z3H). One colleague is on the board of Living Hope Ministries, a Christ-centered outreach to those dealing with unwanted homosexuality. She testifies of many who want out of the lifestyle and have been wonderfully changed through biblical discripleship. This is not like race or ethnic background. And freedom of religion is a matter of conscience.
“Aha, so is homosexuality a matter of conscience,” you might say! “Doesn’t that argue against your position on politics?” When there is still a voting public in a true democratic republic that wills–based on a biblical worldview or even blind bias–that the LEGAL definition of marriage should not change, it’s perfectly proper for them to vote this way.
(Continued, if you can believe it)
Don’t know, but it also seems you may be falling into the simplistic trap of “we can’t legislate morality.” On its face this is ridiculous–all laws are morally based legislation by definition. It’s whose morality that gets legislated that is at issue. If there comes a time when the majority (and their representatives) overturn this state of affairs, then so be it. I’ll vote oppositely and consider conscientious objection if necessary (I know I may have to pay the consequences).
As to your statement about needing intellectual honesty, maybe so for some. Maybe most. But I see an equal need for folks holding your position to admit some cultural captivity–if indeed this is at the bottom of things. Hard not to assign motives here on either side. But I urge you and readers to read the link I put up about the selling of homosexuality written by gay activists’ own PR advisors–many of us may have been drinking that Kool-Aid unawares.
I may need to rethink my position. But right now, I’m standing firm on these principles:
1. The church needs to be salt & light and this is partly done in our culture by voting and holding to biblical principles when we can there;
2. homosexuals and those with (often unwanted) same-sex desires are no more or less sinners AND made in God’s image than me or anyone and should be treated with dignity just like everyone–so let’s embrace them while challenging their behavior;
3. mess with marriage and you mess up mankind. Ask sociologists, cops, youth workers, parents. As a historian, you know that this is a unique time in history–has any culture ever monkeyed with the definition of marriage? When it was abused (Greece, Rome) what was the outcome?
4. it will always be tough to discern how and when to stand up for public policy principles while maintaining a concern for individuals (erring on the latter if erring). Please write a book when you master that one!
Blessings and thanks again for the platform.
Hi worldviewist,
Yeah, I don’t think we’re arguing, either, persay. I “thought out loud” in a public forum, and you’re responding, which I appreciate and want. I’m not really struggling with what the Christian response is (I, too, believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin), but rather how to respond in a truly Christian manner, as opposed to a fearful, a hypocritical, or in some other way insufficient manner — as well as questions as to what sorts of methods and tools are legitimately available to the Christian to influence and impact society, culture, or what have you. Your responses have given me a lot to think about along those lines, and I’m quite grateful.
So thanks for chiming in! That’s the sort of response I wanted — one that helps clarify as well as challenge my own thinking on an issue that I’m admittedly very much in the process of working through!
Ladd,
You asked for an explanation for Christians opposing same-sex marriage. I’d try to give an explanation for my own opposition, but I find I often botch it in cyberspace. But others do it quite well. I’m with these folks:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299644/bigotry-no-sanction-mona-charen
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/08/1507
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2350
These folks produce some good moral reasoning. It’s not specifically religious. But when Christians oppose same-sex marriage and don’t care about the adultery, fornication, and pornography rampant in our own churches, well . . . well, that is a serious problem.
As a reason for Justin T that is not religiously-based, and to point that I think Thomas Ladd didn’t quite follow of worldviewist’s “no one is trying to redefine divorce”, I would simply add this: The secular world has for centuries defined marriage as “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife”. Once a society begins redefining words like “marriage”, then why not “apple”, or “how do I know the color I see as “red” is the same color you see as “red”, and “how do I even know you or the red apple are even here” etc. The power of cults begin with and are built on the willingness of the inductees to accept such redefinitions. (Even in a world where there were no religions, there soon would be cults which, if they didn’t commit mass suicide or whatever, turn into some pretty misaligned religions.) And if you saw the movie “The Reader” in which Hitler was able to mount an evil regime by book burning–a way of not just redefining things but by destroying the old definitions entirely. I don’t have time and I’m not smart enough to build a complete defense, but I hope you can see the point I a trying to make. If words lose their meaning, then meaning loses its meaning, or something pithy like that.
Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful replies so far. Thanks also for the general tone of the conversation on a controversial topic that is difficult for many to work through (including myself). You all have given me (and I hope each other) much food for thought. Maybe there will be a follow up post someday, but for now, back to thinking and processing! 🙂
Incidentally, I don’t think it’s correct to say that “same-sex marriage” is “illegal.” Nor is it “banned.”
Most (probably all) of these so-called “bans” are actually clarifications in the definition of marriage, specifying that same-sex unions are not recognized as marriages. In other words, according to these marriage laws, “same-sex marriages” are not banned; they simply don’t exist.
PS:
Al Mohler’s “The Briefing” for 05-22-12 provides the clarity on the Christian view of homosexuality which so many are seeking.
http://www.albertmohler.com/category/podcast/