The argument rages on. Arizona is considering a constitutional amendment to preclude gay marriage. And it's not just Arizona. Of course, the homosexual community is against it (go figure), and everyone is quite sure that it's wrong. You see, it makes no sense to prevent homosexuals from getting married. Why would you do that? It's not right!
More and more it's mostly the Christians who are making the argument. The truth, however, is that most of the Christians have lost the argument before it starts. The argument died ... by definition. What do I mean by that? I mean that we have accepted definitions to terminology that are not in line with our original (read "orthodox") beliefs. The new definitions remove the ground on which to stand. And the argument is murdered by definition.
Consider the main points. First, define marriage. You'll find a lot of definitions in the dictionary. It is first and foremost "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Okay, seems clear enough ... "man and woman," "husband and wife." It seems clear at the outset that "man and man" or "woman and woman" are precluded not on legal or moral grounds, but simply by definition. But wait! It moves from there. It can also be "any close or intimate association or union." I particularly liked this one: "Two people who are married to each other." Okay, now we're slipping. The definition is moving. But don't depend on the dictionaries. Ask around. What is marriage? It is, in the minds of most Americans, when two people love each other and decide to commit themselves to each other (for life or at least until they stop loving each other). That's marriage. It may include a ceremony; it may not. It may be recognized by legal authority; it may not. And it is never right that it would not involve love. An arranged "marriage", for instance, is morally offensive to most Americans (Christians included).
Second, then, we need to define love, since it appears to be integral to marriage. Love would be "a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person." Yeah, that sounds about right. It would be "a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection." We've even allowed it to be "sexual passion or desire" and spiral all the way down to the sex act itself. ("We made love" is simply a euphemism for "we had sex.")
I suppose, then, we have our definition. Marriage is defined as two people who share a profound passion for one another and commit to each other (often to legitimize the sex they're already doing). Whew! Got that settled! I think we're all in agreement here, right? Okay, now ... what was the question? Oh, yeah! Why should Christians object to homosexuals getting married? Let's see here. Do we argue that homosexuals don't love each other? No, that would be stupid. Do we argue that homosexuals are not two people? No, don't be ridiculous. Do we argue that they cannot commit to one another? No, that doesn't work either. Okay ... now we're stuck. We can only say, "Homosexual ... bad!" Not much of an argument, is it? And we've managed to kill the argument by definition.
The truth is we lost this argument a long time ago. We lost this argument when we willingly tossed the actual definition of marriage for a societal definition. We started giving it up back in the 19th century when the "higher critics" appeared and assured us that the Bible couldn't be fully trusted. Evangelicals fought that off, but not without leaving a bad taste in the mouths of most people. It wasn't quite acceptable anymore to define marriage with the Bible. What was the biblical definition? The biblical definition of marriage was two-fold: 1) A man and a woman leave their families to form a new family through a spiritual union that is for life (Gen. 2:24), and 2) the primary purpose of such a union is to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). The fact that "love" is expected and commanded is a given, but not part of the original definition. (You have to admit; Adam certainly had an arranged marriage.) Biblical morality in the area of sex is invariably that sex is allowed only in marriage and primarily for procreation. That it is pleasant is a bonus, not an aim. So the Bible was thrown out in defining marriage, but most people understood that marriage was the union of a male and a female and one of the primary purposes of this union was procreation. Enter the 20th century. Society shifted its mores. Children, originally a blessing, became a nice thing, then a not so nice but necessary thing, and finally a burden. Sex shifted from a marital issue to a "love" issue to a recreational pastime. Contraception became a given. Only a fool would have sex without the option of contraception. Marriage shifted from a union of a man and woman for procreation to a union of man and woman because they love each other to a union of two people because they love each other. Hey, why do we need this union? And love, of course, went from a biblical command about a way to treat other people to a warm feeling.
It seems to me that we are long past trying to argue that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. Why aren't they forbidden to marry in Scripture? That's because Scripture defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. For two people of the same gender to join in something they call "marriage" would be a radical redefinition of the term. But, then, we've allowed the radical redefinition already. Now where do we stand? Unless you're going to stand on a biblical definition (with the ramifications that go with that), you're going to have a tough time with this one. Marriage is dead. Long live marriage.
11 comments:
If Christians desire to pass legislation along their mores and their definitions in America; can’t people of differing beliefs equally pursue to pass legislation in line with their morals and definitions?
Why must a secular entity (a government) define marriage solely on Christian terms?
Look, I defend your right (and it is a Constitutional right) to freely speak your mind, and push for legislation that fits your belief system. Whether that is for an increase in fees for dog licenses or marriage to be defined in a certain manner. But that is simply a right as an American—not as a Christian.
Equally, though, others have the right to push for legislations which would not conform to the Biblical definition of…well…anything!
Why does that surprise you?
Surprise me? Not at all. But this post isn't about America or passing laws. It's about Christians who moved. It's not even about whether or not we should pass such a law. It's about the fact that Christians who oppose homosexual marriage have willingly given up their leg to stand on.
The other fact (which I didn't mention in the post) is that the post came from a conversation between two Christians. "Tell me where in the Bible it says that homosexuals can't marry." That kind of thing. The point of the argument between Christians is lost when Christians give up their own biblical definitions.
Whether or not to impose any of that on government or society is a different question. I'm only addressing the Christian problem.
Ah…got it. I did wonder whether you were only addressing Christians.
In the law there is a never-ending and never-resolved battle regarding the U.S. Constitution. Strict Constructionalists hold it should only be interpreted within the four corners of the document. Since ideas like “Right to Privacy” are not specifically stated, to a Strict Constructionalist they should be banned.
Others believe it is a “living, breathing document” meaning it was intended to be malleable with the times. To be more than what it strictly says, and to look behind what it intends.
I see much of the same arguments within the discussion of the Bible. Was the order having women cover their heads to be strictly construed, or do we look at the intent? Was the prohibition on homosexuality, or the way in which it was practiced?
How one approaches the Bible will vastly impact how one interprets it. Of course, determining which method is the correct one is a Herculean task indeed!
Oh, let me help you with that last question. My method is the correct one. ;)
Those two Christians you were talking about are seminarians. I see their "interpretation" as more than just a way of looking at the Bible. One would have to look at the Bible with one eye closed while drinking massive amounts of kool-aid. For me, though, marriage is a lifelong union of a man and a woman with the main goal as raising children. And, yes, that is how I vote too. ;-)
Jim,
You see, if the definition is as you say (and I agree), then the Bible wouldn't prohibit gay marriage ... because it's a nonsense term. It would be like saying, "The Bible doesn't prohibit cats from being birds." Well, true ... but what kind of nonsense is that? Cats are not birds. Interestingly, it also ceases to be a matter of morality and is simply a matter of definition.
Many, many Christians, however, won't see it.
I agree with you, Stan. My personal opinion, as a Christian, is that when we Christians chose to go against the clear Biblical teachings on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, we lost our moral compass on human relationships in general. How can we think we are the cultural "defenders" of marriage, when we have already demeaned and deconstructed it? I don't know the exact statistics on Christian ministers, but it seems that many of our best-known and most-beloved pastors have themselves left one spouse for another. We rail about the homosexual community wanting to change the definition of marriage, but we have already changed it decades ago.
I am nowhere near as smart or as able a debater as Dagoods, but my take on the Constitution falls somewhere between "strict constructionism" and the "live organism" theories. I do believe there is room for course correction, but not just any old time one group sees fit for their own agenda's sake. Isn't that why the framers made the process of attaching amendments such an arduous one?
Oh, and as to the "Where in the Bible ... ?" question, Stan is right about the very term "homosexual marriage" being a nonsensical term by definition. Now, if those same seminary students want to know what the Bible says about homosexuality in general, all they have to do is read it! Once one becomes aware of how God feels about homosexual behavior, the whole issue of "homosexual marriage" becomes strikingly clear. God help our country. ~10km
10km
It is no state secret we ALL fall somewhere between Strict Constructionist and living organism when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. No one can consistently survive at either extreme.
But if you will allow me, I can use this to springboard what I mean by highlighting the differences in how one interprets the Bible.
See, when it comes to the U.S. Constitution, we have an (ideally) independent tribunal in the U.S. Supreme Court which is specifically in place to interpret the Constitution. A tribunal which makes interpretations that we are stuck with—regardless of whether we are a Strict Constructionist or living organism type of interpreter. We cannot “opt out” of a particular interpretation simply because it goes against our grain, or doesn’t follow what we wish or think should be the “correct” interpretation.
It is a methodology of checks and balances to provide (hopefully) objectivity to the interpretation process.
The Bible has no such mechanism in place. There IS no such tribunal which is set in place by which, regardless of what you and I think, determinations are made regarding interpretation that we all must live by. It has become a matter of individual interpretation.
And here is what happens. We make individual interpretations of what we think the Bible means. Being human, we align and associate with those who believe similarly to us. (This is not limited to religious beliefs, of course. Republicans hang out with Republicans. Single-moms hang out with single-moms. Motorcyclists gravitate to other motorcyclists, etc.)
If you have ever moved to another town and looked for a different church—you know exactly what I mean. When we moved, I never contemplated attending a Catholic church, thinking, “Gee, I wonder what they think? Wonder if we would fit in there?” Of course not! We looked for churches with similar beliefs and interpretations as we held.
But this association comes with a price. What naturally happens is our interpretation is continuously re-affirmed. What we think, we hear on Sunday Morning (twice), in small groups, on Wednesday evening, at social functions with our Christian friends, in Bible study, over and over and over and over. As the saying goes, hear something enough it becomes truth.
We are constantly reassured that our interpretation is the valid one. The word “orthodoxy” creeps in. Our interpretation is “orthodoxy.” Other interpretations are labeled “heresy.” And dismissed. And all our friends, and pastors and elders and teachers and deacons and family members nod their head in agreement with such a dismissal.
This creates a sense of immutability—a permanence. Even history begins to be reinterpreted along our beliefs. The “orthodoxy” was ALWAYS in line with Protestantism—the Catholic Church just forgot it for a few centuries. (Despite the fact the Catholic Church would claim its “orthodoxy” has been maintained since Jesus made Peter the first Pope.) So the Protestants claim the Catholics introduced heresy; the Catholics claim the Protestants introduced heresy.
And each individual Catholic/Protestant remains steadfast in their own interpretation, with no method, no tribunal, no system to resolve the controversy.
Interestingly, there have been attempts at instituting such a tribunal—I am thinking of corporate bodies such as the Southern Baptists or PC-USA. But what happens when the corporate tribunal makes an interpretation certain individuals don’t like? Simple—it is labeled heresy and the individuals leave! They don’t stay and say, “Well, we don’t agree with that interpretation, but if that is what our tribunal says, we will live by it.” Unlike the situation under the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution.
This is what I meant. While you and I may be firmly convinced of the obviousness of an interpretation, and we can each re-affirm the other’s interpretation:
“It is obvious the Bible teaches against homosexuality.”
“Yep, obvious to me to. Right there in black and white.”
“Obvious to me, too. How could anyone read it and come to a different conclusion?”
Understand this is still a matter of individual interpretation. While it may be a whole group of individuals, it is merely consensus of all of these individuals. And if a group of individuals begin to interpret it another way—what happens? They leave and form their own group!
Each, of course, declaring their own position as “orthodoxy” and the other as “heresy.” By what method can we determine who is correct in interpretation?
Better question—by what consistent method can we make such a determination? Let me use an example. In 1 Tim. 2:8-9 the author states he desires women to not braid their hair, not wear gold and not wear pearls. Most conservative (all as far as I know) Christians do not hold this to be literally applied, but rather limited to the culture of the time, since the cultures are different. The principle may stay the same (don’t be worried about external beauty), but the exact application (don’t wear gold) has changed.
However, using the same methodology some people interpret Romans 1:26-27 to say homosexuality, as practiced at that time and in that culture, was incorrect and should no longer be literally applied. The principle may stay the same (don’t engage in unnatural sex (i.e. against your orientation) or rampant sex), but the exact application (no homosexual sex) has changed.
Can you see how the exact same methodology produces the same results, yet Conservative Christians use different methods (one is limited to culture only, the other absolute for all time)?
This is how individual interpretation, with no consistent methodology, causes the rifts and divisions between what the Bible says.
I know it seems obvious to you all the Bible teaches against homosexuality. To be perfectly honest (and due to my own leaning toward Strict Constructionist as well as my own attempts for a consistent methodology) I think the Bible teaches against homosexuality as well. This may not help you. I also think, to be consistent, the Bible teaches against women wearing gold. My views on the Bible’s directions regarding divorce/remarriage are equally…restrictive (shall we say?)
What I see is this application of individual interpretation, with no checks and balances, leaves a great deal open to interpretation. Absent agreement as to a methodology, the division is permanently in place.
Dagoods,
I see the same problem you reference regarding individual interpretation. It happens a lot. It can be a problem. Strike that ... it is often a problem.
That being said, I disagree that interpretation of the Bible must be without checks and balances. I disagree that the Bible is so malleable that it is easily possible to conclude anything you want. And I disagree that it is necessary that individuals remain with their "happy crowd" (my term, not yours) -- the people that simply confirm what they believe.
First, I think there are inherent checks and balances by looking over the history of Christianity. If you can find consistent beliefs held by Christians throughout Church history, I think those can serve as valid checks and balances -- "orthodoxy" if you will. You can find an "average" so to speak, discarding the deviations. Assuredly you end up with a small set of certainty, but it isn't a null set. Second, assuming that the Bible is indeed true (as we must if we are to even entertain the question), we believe that the Holy Spirit will guide us into truth. That, again, acts as a check. (It also ties into the first check I offered.)
Second, while lots of people can come up with lots of beliefs and tie them to the Bible, surely you must admit that lots of these "biblical beliefs" are, in all honesty, "out there." I remember "the Church of Love and Light" that argued that "since God is love" (a biblical statement), "then love is God and all we have to worship is love itself." Yeah, okay ... but that's not a rational interpretation of the Bible, is it? I think it is possible, to be sure, to twist the Bible to come to whatever conclusion you might think ("you" meaning "generic people"), but it is a twist. If you discard the "twist", there are far fewer possibilities left.
Finally, I can assure you that not everyone settles into their comfort zone and simply affirms what they are told. I am an example. I have allowed -- nay required -- my beliefs from birth to be confronted by various arguments and positions. I have examined the arguments and positions and come to conclusions that have often varied from my "comfort zone." What I once held as "right" has been shifted by other views that are more tenable, more rational. So while all people, as you point out, tend to stick with their "happy crowd" (again, my term, not yours), not everyone sticks to that rule.
So I think there are checks and balances available, that there are a limited number of rational conclusions from Scripture, and there are people who allow their beliefs to be formed by evidence and argument rather than mere comfort.
Stan,
Just to clarify what I mean by terms such as “like” and “comfort.” I do not mean to imply it is the most pleasurable, or even the most pleasing to the ear. “Comfort” has a far deeper meaning and impression to me.
For example, it would be more pleasing to me that I can eat a huge chocolate cake without worry of calories. I cannot. Because of my concern, it actually becomes more “uncomfortable” to eat chocolate cake, despite how wonderful it tastes. We all do things out of “comfort” we would not preferably do, by doing a cost/benefit analysis. We work, despite the time it takes away from our families, because of the “comfort” of financial security.
To use another example, a person who holds to inerrancy finds contradictions “uncomfortable.” They will actively strive to find resolutions, even (what seem to me to be) ridiculous resolutions, in order to maintain that “comfort” zone. Or another one I often encounter in this field is the belief in hell. While people assure me their belief in hell is not “comfortable” I interpret that to mean it is not pleasurable or desirable. However, their belief in Heaven is tied to a belief in hell, and to lose Heaven is MORE uncomfortable than to lose Hell—so their assurance, their comfort requires things that they may not prefer.
Or let me pick on you… (*grin*)
Stan: I have examined the arguments and positions and come to conclusions that have often varied from my "comfort zone."
I would argue that you haven’t. Your “comfort zone” requires you to come to conclusions based upon arguments and positions. As much as you may “desire” something or want to believe something true, if arguments/positions show otherwise, you change your position. Why? Because you would be “uncomfortable” believing something you think is against arguments/positions! Your “comfort zone” trumped your desire for a belief!
I hope you understand what I am saying.
For whatever reason, whether they are Strict Constructionists, or were raised that way, or have always been taught that way—many people can believe women wearing gold was cultural, but homosexuality prohibition was not. They become “uncomfortable” (perhaps because it goes against what they reason is the more arguably solid position) to believe otherwise.
As to the checks and balance by review of history—I am not so certain. Unfortunately, we can find what we are looking for. A Calvinist, looking for writings which support Calvinism, can find statements from today right back to the Early Church Fathers. So can a Universalist. Those supporting sola scriptura can likewise find statements throughout the history, as well as those who hold to the authority of the church. If you will recall, the church was continuing to debate the nature of Christ’s deity up through the beginning of the Fourth Century!
As to the Holy Spirit guiding to truth, all we need to look at is the difference between Pentecostals and Charismatic claims of Holy Spirit guiding as compared to Baptists and Conservative Christians. Which one is the Holy Spirit guiding?
You are correct—I do find some beliefs “out there.” Although some I find would be embraced by many Christians as “orthodoxy.” Young Earth Creationism, a literal Exodus, and inerrancy come to mind. Not sure I am the best barometer for people to measure what is “out there” when it comes to the Bible! *grin*
First, so that you and any other reader knows it, I just wanted to say that I have always enjoyed these discussions with you. Without agreeing, we have been able to be agreeable with each other and I appreciate it.
On the check and balance of Church History, let me illustrate. The question of the Deity of Christ came up in the early years. The Church shot it down. No questions. No doubts. And for a long time it was gone. That would qualify, to me, as a check. If it were true that Christ was NOT God, it should have immediately and forcibly resurfaced. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Those doctrines which can trace straight lines from Scripture to today without vanishing.
As for the Holy Spirit and truth, again, an easy question. As long as they agree with me ... :)
And I, too, find beliefs embraced as "orthodoxy" as bizarre. That's why I stated that historically you would end up with only "a small set of certainty."
Again, always a pleasure.
Post a Comment