Apparently you have the option to choose the hill you are going to die on.
What I know about military strategy can be written on the round bit of one of those metal thingies that come out the long bit you point at other people when using a rifle.
Let me start again. Military strategy is not my strong point, but it seems rather strange that one’s death point could be within the realm of the voluntary.
Admittedly, the context I have heard this being said has not been an actual battlefield with tanks and stuff, but the metaphorical battlefield of Christian beliefs, morals or lifestyle being under attack. Perhaps the strategy is different when the language of ‘hill’ and ‘battle’ and ‘dying’ is in the metaphorical mode; I don’t know.
So, for example, in Australia in 2011 the gay and lesbian lobby is gearing up for a concerted push towards changing the Commonwealth definition of marriage. Even though that definition basically derives from Christian teaching and tradition, and even though the push is unnecessarily divisive—there are other options to recognize same-sex unions at law, such as the civil union—there are Christians who feel that “this is not a hill to die on”.
Here is where my military deficiencies apparently let me down. I thought soldiers had to fight at the point where the battle was raging. If you don’t fight, you lose. It would be lovely to have the luxury of choosing a green hill far away, and dying there. But if the battle is raging at some other point, you have to fight on that hill, don’t you?
Or am I missing something?
Just for some clarity Peter, you’re saying there is a feeling from some that this is a battle not worth fighting because it is “not the hill to die on”?
I do find it interesting that there seems to be some parts of Christian belief that is ‘ok’ to let go of, or concede, and others that are ‘core’ to our faith – if we are convicted God has spoken and what he says is good, it should be the opposite shouldn’t it? But then again, i’m not very politically minded.
An encouragement in the midst of a bloody battle, thank you Peter.
I do ask myself “Did I not die on another hill already?” Perhaps I have muddled my metaphors in recalling Gal 2:20 and imagining, along with Paul, that I am already spiritually dead, buried and raised in the crucifixion and resurrection of my Lord and Saviour.
It seems to me that guarding the good deposit of the gospel means that on each and every hill to which the Lord takes me I am to fight the good fight of the faith! Every dialogue presents an opportunity to proclaim God’s revealed word concerning His true King and, by God’s grace, either to reclaim the hearts and minds of those currently serving under the prince of the air or to bring judgment to those who refuse to serve the Prince of Peace.
The battle is bloody on every hill regardless of whether we choose be there, flee there or die there?
No, Pete, you can always run away.
Well said Peter and Robin. It is so tempting to remain silent when we need to speak for the sake of the Lord Jesus and for the glory of God our Father. I think the view you argue against is based on a deeply flawed understanding of what constitutes the ‘things of indifference’ so called.
These days, I can imagine pragmatists within church circles telling us that Judaizers who insist on male circumcision ought not to be resisted publicly, because ‘after all they love Jesus as Messiah and it’s not a hill to die on.’
Thank God for the Apostle Paul, who took a different view.
Pushing the fighting metaphor a little in terms of strategy, there seems to be more going on here than simply picking hills to die on.
Marriage, as I understand the biblical view of marriage, is meant to be a reflection of God’s faithfulness to His world, most especially of Christ’s relationship with His church (Eph 5). Thus the foundation of biblical marriage is faithfulness. It seems the foundation of ‘modern’ marriage is love. That is if people feel love for each other they should be entitled to marry. So when Christians and proponents of gay marriage use the language of ‘marriage’, they don’t hear each other because their assumptions have them talking about separate things though they use the same word.
Marriage and God’s view of marriage is a hill worth dying for but I fear the hill is already lost. It was lost long ago when Christians allowed the foundation of marriage to change from faithfulness to love. Now when proponents of gay marriage hear Christian opposition, what they hear them say is that they won’t allow two people to affirm their love to each other. The rightness of wrongness of their affirmation becomes irrelevant at that point, for they have stopped listening.
This brings me to the point of strategy, how do you fight a battle of ideas when one opponent refuses to engage and through sheer force of numbers simply takes the hill? When I hear Christians say ‘this is not a hill worth dying on’, sometimes I think they mean, ‘why throw good troops after a lost cause?’ The lost cause in this case being the continued use of the state to enshrine in law an idea of marriage that is completely foreign to the majority of the constituents of that state.
People seem to have decided to act on their view of gay marriage without thinking through the consequences of their decision. In light of this, maybe a change of strategy is needed. Maybe Christians need to say ‘where you go we will not follow’, holding firmly to the truth in a more hostile environment, showing the truth of our words through the commitment of actions in our lives. This is not a call to stop fighting, but to change the way we fight in light of the different battle conditions we face.
God’s faithfulness is always a hill worth dying on. But we want to make the deaths to mean something, instead of being a pointless slaughter in a meat grinder.
Thanks for this insight Pete.
It’s the difference between wisdom and cowardice. And in the sinful complexity of our hearts it’s not always easy to tell what the motivation is!
There are surely times when it is right to ‘pick your battles’. Parenting teenagers comes to mind! It’s a recognition not just of the longer term value of the relationships, but also of that fact that some issues ARE more important than others.
That’s the key judgement, in fact. Not whether you’re likely to win, and not how much blood it will cost you, but whether this is a truly significant issue or a minor annoyance that I can let pass (because there is quite enough to struggle over).
I think I’m still talking about teenagers, but exactly the same applies to our conflicts in other areas, it seems to me.
The other thing that occurred to me reading your post was: die of what?
I think the answer is embarrassment and humiliation. And that matters more to many of us than we care to admit.
TP
Here goes with my first comment on the Sola Panel:
Question: Why is the homosexual lobby (I refuse to acquiesce in mangling the English language by using that other word) so keen on having their version of “marriage” recognised, when most of our younger generation seem to be ditching the idea of marriage altogether?
My suggested answer comes from the experience in various parts of the USA – they want to get their propaganda into the schools (it would become “discrimination” to disallow it). In other words, they want to actively promote a homosexual lifestyle to our kids. Is this what we want to see happening? I think this is a battle worth fighting – even if the idea of lifelong commitment has largely gone in our society now, I think most still hold to “complimentary sex” as being part of the definition of the word marriage.
Cheers, Michael.
Whoops, of course I meant “complementary”!
Is not the Sola Panel “a group of Reformed-Evangelical
friends who love the five ‘solas’ of the Reformation,
and want to promote a Bible-driven passion
for theology, holiness and gospel ministry”? If so, why is the topic of same-sex marriage even being raised here as a possible hill to die on?
Sola Scriptura? Scriptura specifically calls Christians to undertake a number of tasks, from visiting those in prison to the Great Commision and a whole lot in between. But Where in the scriptura does it say to defend marriage or common law or even public morality?
Marriage is a contested “hill” for traditionalists and the view of some, for moralists. But for those who love the five ‘solas’ of the Reformation too? Im not a big reformation kinda guy myself, but even I can see it surely shouldnt be a priority for you.
Hi Craig,
I don’t think “Sola Scriptura” has as narrow a focus as you seem to be implying. The specific commands the Bible gives are important, but they’re hardly meant to be exhaustive – as though the Bible is to be a simple bunch of rules to be learned and kept. “Do not murder” and “Kiss one another with a holy kiss” are to be kept in the same way, with the same significance on both, no matter the circumstance.
The Bible calls on Christians to hold marriage in honor, and to seek the good of society as a whole as part of what it means to love one’s neighbour (that’s certainly the case for those of us in the Reformation tradition).
That means that Christians do have an interest in the moral dimension of society’s laws and practices. How much energy we should invest into such things is an important question – as Tony raises.
But I think anyone who reads the Bible properly should see that Christians should be concerned about marriage, and should be concerned about the good of their neighbour. Bad marriage laws, and especially ones that are attempting to encode a disastrous view of sexuality and relationships, dishonor marriage and harm people.
I think sola scriptura would lead us to see this as something we should be concerned about. Peter is right to raise it – a lot of Christian reticence about this seems to me to be less wisdom and more either short-sighted cowardice, or bad views about how Christians should relate to society. Not saying that’s you – just that I resonate with what Peter’s putting his finger on.
Mark, I respect your choice to hold the opinions that you do, and it may be that Im off track since my knowledge of the history of Christendom is minimal. But my impression is that when Luther etc cried “sola scriptura”, he was opposing doctrines that seemed to have been a departure from what one naturally perceives when one reads scripture. I wonder whether some of those doctrines he opposed may well not necessarily have been inconsistent with scripture, despite not being naturally apparent from reading scripture, eg the RC policy on birth control. When you write of a “reformation tradition” that teaches that loving your neighbour means to do things that are not specified in scripture, while well intentioned, I wonder whether you have actually departed from the simple teaching of scripture in the very way that Luther was protesting?
I agree that most who read the Bible would see that marriage is a Christian doctrine, and should be concerned about the good of their neighbour. But your neighbour is generally entirely capable of voting for government that will support the laws they want. I dont recall reading Scriptures that call on Christians to reform society, but rather to call individuals to full Christian commitment. I suggest that the policy of loving your neighbour is simply caring for their welfare. Going to the extent of entering into political debate that the neighbour perhaps doesnt even care about, is probably going beyond the call, perhaps to the detriment of more important Christian responsibilities.
I accept your point that following Christ is more than a simple following of the explicit directives as laid out in scripture. Yes, there is a bit of interpretation required, weighing up of hermeneutics, and some teachings do apply more broadly than others. But when trying to earn a living and cope with the demands of modern life, I suggest there isnt much time left after you have met the many clear directives that are laid out in scripture. My guess is that those that have time to venture into the time-consuming politics of the marriage debate, probably are slacking off in other areas that are so important as to be clearly specified in Scripture, such as Bible study, helping the poor, participating in church life, evangelism, developing their talents, visiting those in prison, being good parents, supporting their spouse etc etc etc.
Im a hypocrite for writing the above, but hopefully the discussion of determining what a follower of the “5 solas” should believe, is ultimately productive anyway…
Hi Craig,
Thanks for your response, and I see nothing hypocritical about what you’re doing.
I think that you’ve misunderstood some of what sola scriptura means. Luther put forward the view (that was later called ‘sola scriptura’) that Scripture is the sole norm for the Church’s faith and life. There should not be requirements for people to believe things, as an item of faith, that are not taught by Scripture, or to do things, as an item of Christian morality, that are not taught by Scripture.
That’s not quite the same thing as holding that Christians should only follow what is explicitly commanded in Scripture. One of the things that separated Luther and the other Magisterial Reformers from the Anabaptists was this point – the Anabaptists looked for a far more literal application of the Bible to 16th C life, the Reformers saw the relationship as somewhat less literal (at least in places).
On the issue we’re debating, the Reformers clearly saw that Christians should be involved in politics, and in civic morality, and saw that as a natural expression of where sola scriptura should lead – that was my point about the Reformation tradition. Your argument seems less ‘Reformation’ and more ‘Anabaptist’ in its view of the relationship of Church and State.
Yes, but ‘loving your neighbour’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘leaving them to vote for governments that support the laws they want’. If I love you that doesn’t necessarily mean that I want you to have what you want to have. It means I want you to have what is good for you. If I have come to firm conclusions about what is good for you, then I am going to want that for you even if you don’t want it for yourself. Love leads me to seek the good of my neighbour, not just what they want for themselves. If I’m not sure what’s good for you, then, yes I’ll want you to have what you want to have for yourself. And under the vast majority of cases I won’t want to impose something on you against your will. But I won’t just go, “These guys don’t care about this, so love requires me to let them have whatever they want.” That’s not love from the Bible’s point of view, I’d suggest, it’s indifference.
Well, it depends a bit on whether you read the Bible with a commitment to Western individualism or not, I think. The Bible shows a lot of interest in people living in relationships and calls on people to live in submission to human authorities in social life. The OT shows a lot of concern for structuring the corporate life of Israel, and the prophets extend that to the pagan nations around – they don’t just rebuke the nations for not believing in the LORD, they also critique their institutionalised moral practices. John the Baptist addressed issues that, in his day, would have been considered political (not least the marriage practices of a reigning monarch).
In a Western democracy (especially Australia, where voting is compulsory), part of citizenship is to take an interest in politics – to be informed, to vote, and to speak up. We have built in substantial ‘freedom of speech’ principles so as to enable citizens to be involved in politics. Being a good citizen (which the Bible does require of us) would seem to have a political dimension in that kind of society.
And loving one’s neighbour means caring about their welfare? Certainly. But if no person is an island, alone unto themselves, but their welfare is very much impacted by the laws that are established, then surely concern for their welfare will lead to a concern for laws that promote their welfare?
I disagree. We have far more time now than our forefathers did when most of life for most people was spent growing food.
I don’t think the issue is time. The issue seems to be the degree to which our concern for our neighbour should translate into speaking to contemporary political debates about issues on which the Bible has something clear to say , versus the Christian’s role being to preach the gospel and focus on how Christians (only) live. And the degree to which we think this issue really matters anyway.
Well said Mark – and I’d add that a discussion is always relevant when our love for Scripture puts us in a position where some others may see us as bigoted and unloving. This COULD be a stumblingblock to the Gospel. Of course the Gospel is always going to be offensive, but we must always be careful that the offence is the Gospel, and not just us being obnoxious! A discussion of just where this line should be drawn is very relevant to “Sola Scriptura” IMHO.
(And, I’ve got a few other issues around this boundary that I’d love to discuss sometime, like (gulp) Creation Science, if anybody wants to bring them up
Cheers, Michael.
Craig Pippen questions whether or not Christians should be embarking on political lobbying on social issues. From what I understand of Mark’s response, they should because somehow the majority of society who are not ‘Christian’ will be benefited by having a ‘Christian’ perspective imposed upon them by law. This is based upon the call to love our neighbours.
But the act we are speaking of is the civil act of marriage. It is a purely secular one that brings civil legal benefits to the participants. It is not a religious act. It is only a religious act for those who hold religious beliefs that make it a religious act to them.
To suggest that people who hold no religious beliefs are going to be better off because they enter into a social contract (marriage) that is similar in its external appearance to one entered into by people holding Christian beliefs seems difficult to sustain. But this proposition underpins the argument that the mere act of marriage on it’s own holds some special significance without any need for Christian beliefs to exist in the participants. That would mean that faith in Jesus etc does not matter. If most of our society go though this special ceremony, even though they hold no Christian beliefs, somehow they and society are going to be better off.
But if you don’t hold Christian beliefs and get married, you are still not Christian. No matter how fine and noble a Christian tradition marriage may be said to be. And so you get to burn in a lake of fire unless you amend your ways. To propose that homosexuals not be allowed to marry to ‘love’ them, while allowing other non-Christians to marry seems a little inconsistent. Why not stop them marrying as well? To ‘love’ them?
To actively work to prevent a non-Christian on the basis of their sexual conduct from having the social and legal benefits of marriage is described by Mark thus:
‘Love leads me to seek the good of my neighbour, not just what they want for themselves’.
There is an underlying principle here that can in my view be logically extended to other circumstances. The first extension of this version of loving my neighbour could be to the positive act of denying an array of civil and legal entitlements to people based upon their religious beliefs or conduct. Why stop at just preventing the non-believer who is homosexual from obtaining the benefits flowing from marriage. Perhaps if non-Christian’s realize they cannot say get Medicare, or citizenship, unless they amend their ways and fall into line with God’s word, then they will come around.
I haven’t seen anyone argue this. When you take the principle underpinning the argument to its extreme the true calibre of the argument is revealed. But if you really think non-Christian’s should not be entitled to legal benefits flowing from marriage it is a bit hard to put the genie back in the bottle.
The second logical extension of this argument is to other types of sexual conduct. It is only a question of the extent of the sin after all. So adulterers or pornographers etc should not be allowed to get married.
Perhaps Christians seeking a hill to die should ask themselves why they want a hill to die on in the first place. It all seems a little melodramatic and self-absorbed to me. Remember that Jesus already died on the important hill. For people who believe in him and for people who did not. In my view non-Christian’s of all persuasions are more likely to be persuaded by a carrot of actual love than the stick of Mark’s version of love. The battle is not to beat people into submission with this stick of ‘love’. Do as we say or suffer.
In my view this straining for gnats to prevent non-Christians from having a particular secular legal entitlement because of their private sexual conduct is matched by the swallowing of the camel. You don’t show love by forcing people to your will. Period.
Now Mark I have noted in your posts a tendency to personalise the issues. Here a view you do not agree with is described as ‘short sighted cowardice’. I don’t agree that people or their views that you do not agree with should be referred to in such terms. A little respect goes a long way and it should be shared around. Particularly by those with such enthusiasm for defending the Christian faith.
Regards. Tom
But the act we are speaking of is the civil act of marriage. It is a purely secular one that brings civil legal benefits to the participants. It is not a religious act. It is only a religious act for those who hold religious beliefs that make it a religious act to them.
You might as well say, for all the proof that you offer for your view, that the alternative is equally valid. That is, that the act we are speaking of is the Creator’s act of marriage. It is a purely creative act (on God’s part) that brings the benefits of creation to the participants. It is not a secular act. It is only a secular act for those who hold secular beliefs that make it a secular belief for them.
And so on.
I mostly agree with Tom on this. I think the stance we take on this issue has far-reaching ramifications for the interaction of church and state.
The number of people nominally affiliated with Christianity in our country is in decline – and this will continue – what we do now will shape the way the secular state relates to the church when Christians are in the minority. And I don’t think we’re going to win any friends, and ultimately any converts, by trying to impose our Spirit-led morality on the rest of the country.
Better, in my opinion, to argue for the right to speak the truth and affirm the goodness and God createdness of heterosexual marriage than spruik the immorality of homosexuality.
A marriage is simple: a man and a women in a committed sexual union, public, recognised, agreed to, acknowledged.
Biology matters. No matter how many rights we may or may not have as human beings, a man does not have the ‘right’ to say he is a woman. Biology says he is not. (and vice versa)
The strength of a liberal democracy, such as Australia used to be, is that, despite our differences, we are treated equally.
Therefore, in order to maintain equal treatment, we need to ensure that differences are clearly described/defined.
Same-sex unions are not marriages, by definition. If same-sex unions want recognition from Government, fair enough in a liberal democracy. But this recognition should not be from saying there is no difference. But by saying there IS a difference.
The definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, clearly differentiates this from a union between two people of the same gender. This definition of difference must be maintained, so that equality of treatment might be ensured.
Christians believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Biology matters because God created us male and female. As citizens in a liberal democracy we may say it is fine to press for Governmental recognition of same-sex unions, to prevent any disadvantage for our fellow-citizens. But this should not be through saying there is no difference, that all unions are the same. No, true equality of treatment (in a liberal democracy) needs to be on the basis of saying, no, there are genuine differences. Marriage between a man and a woman is never a same-sex union. Both may be, or even should be, recognised at law, but this should not come through changing the definition of marriage. It should come through clarifying the enormous difference, and then ensuring that those who are so vastly different are still treated fairly.
There are better outcomes on this hill than dying. But it will require a little fighting.
As people who have read the interchange between Nathan and I on this topic on his blog will know, there is little point of agreement between us on this.
I don’t want to rerun that debate with you here Nathan, but there are a couple of points you make I’d like to briefly contest:
My observation from the UK is that this is wrong.
The Church of England is pursuing precisely the strategy you are advocating. It isn’t critiquing the moral direction of the society, but simply praises the good of a Christian approach and fights for the right of the Church to not be forced to accept secular practices. It bends over backwards to not be offensive, it is acutely conscious that it is living in a post-Christian society, and seeks not to offend with its public moral stance.
The Roman Catholic Church is being the Roman Catholic Church. It is both praising the good of a distinctly Christian (if Roman Catholic) approach to these moral issues and is publicly criticising secular approaches. It is fighting for religious freedom to act on the basis of conviction and is fighting for public practices to conform to those views.
Of the two, both are hated by those you would expect to hate a Christian institution. The Church of England gets perhaps a conceded pass in those quarters compared to the RC (but only when being compared). But of those two (not including other protestant churches which seem to have no public profile at all), I think only the Roman Catholic Church is accorded any respect for actually believing in something. No-one is offended by the Church of England, but it is the constant butt of jokes on Radio 4. There is a grudging respect for the Roman Catholic Church.
I’d also argue that you don’t take stands simply based on whether you calculate the outcome is likely to be good. You have to decide whether you should, should not, or are free to either do or not do. If it is a moral obligation (one way or the other) then it is not a question of whether it’s better off to not do it. Sometimes you do it and wear the consequences.
Finally it doesn’t have to be either/or. We can (as I think the Roman Catholic Church is doing) both set forth a Christian view as well as criticise wrong alternatives, argue for religious freedom while seeking good laws.
By not doing that in the UK, I think the Church of England is giving the impression that all it wants is the right to be bigoted if it wants to. By not making the case that its view is good for everyone – Christian or not – it makes it look as though Christians just want the right to be mean to gays etc in their religious club. And I don’t think that’s winning friends and influencing people either.
Hi Tom,
The thrust of my response is going to be along parallel lines to what Gordon and Peter have said. Normally I’d not ‘stack on’ when there’s already been two good responses, but your comment seemed mostly directed at me, so here’s my thoughts for the conversation. I appreciated your contribution, and won’t feel at all hurt if you opt to focus more on responding to Peter than myself from here, seeing he’s opted to weigh into the comment thread.
Mea culpa. I do do what you are accusing me of. I do personalise issues, in the sense that I think some views dooften but not always attach to certain attitudes of the heart and when I think it’s profitable to flag that I do. I’m also okay with others doing that in reverse even when I disagree with them. Part of treating people with respect is to not always be tip toeing around on egg shells but to treat them as a reasonable person who won’t take offence easily.
What I try to do is never accuse someone specifically of taking a stance for a bad reason (unless their behaviour leaves little room to not do that), but I am willing to say that (for example) reflecting on conversations I’ve had with Christians about them not wanting to die on this hill that I get the sense of a cowardice, rather than of a concern to be as wise as possible overall. There are exceptions. Nathan is an obvious one. I don’t think anyone could accuse Nathan of cowardice with a straight face.
That’s why I covered the alternative (which you left out in your description of what I wrote) and said the other reason seems to be “bad views about how Christians should relate to society”. I then explicitly and genuinely excluded Craig from my musing about my sense of a free floating cowardice. If you’re going to hop onto a comment thread of a blog of different theological convictions than your own and challenge the post, then, again, I think it’s a bit of stretch to think that ‘cowardice’ is going to fit you well as an appellation.
to be concluded
As to the substance of your critique, I think I stop recognising my position in your words in your paragraph here, and it only goes downhill from there:
I don’t think marriage is a ‘religious act’. I would have no problems at all with an end to both the church and the state having any involvement in marriage – a far more ancient practice. People just get married according to custom, and ‘marriages’ are recognised by the populace as a whole. From a historical perspective it’s a relatively recent thing that any body would seek to pass laws enshrining or changing what marriage was. Traditionally it was far more ‘bottom up’ and less ‘top down’.
But like Gordon and Peter, my point is that marriage is something. It isn’t just a human construct, still less a peculiarly civil or religious construct. Marriage just is a union between a man and a woman. That’s not a peculiarly religious or Christian position, that’s just a recognition of reality as far as I am concerned. ‘Marriage is a union between a man and a woman’ is not part of the Christian faith in the sense that it is a distinct Christian take on things. Up until very, very recently, that was ubiquitous in all societies of which we have knowledge.
So I’m not opposed to SSM because I think it is immoral. I think immoral people, criminal people, good people, law abiding people, all should be able to get married. I think thieves, fornicators, murders, paedophiles, bitter people, racists and the like should be able to get married. I think people who aren’t sure if they are going to stay married for life and those who intend to run their marriage as an ‘open marriage’ should be able to get married. I have strong views as to how successful I think some of those marriages are likely to be, but I think there shouldn’t be any legal bars.
I oppose SSM for the same reason why I oppose people marrying their pet, or marrying themselves, or marrying their child (explaining why that one is in that set will take some words, but I can offer them), or marrying the number seven. Or wanting to be ‘married’ to everyone that is their friend on Facebook – it isn’t what marriage really is, and the more that kind of thing is done it weakens our grasp of what the institution is, and so weakens the institution.
So I have no problems with homosexuals getting married. If they want to marry a person of the opposite gender I think they should be able to. I’d consider highly unjust a law that stopped them. I can understand that that might seem like little more than a cheap debating point if you don’t see where I’m coming from, but if you take out ‘homosexual’ and replace it with ‘bisexual’ you might see the significance of the point more. It’s not the morality of active homosexuality that is the issue here for me, it is that marriage simply is the union of two people across the genders. I think that should be open to almost everyone – no moral tests involved. But I think it simply is a union between a man and a woman. Not eveyone wants that, for various reasons, but if they do, I think they should be legally free to enter into one.
So I’m like Peter – I’m happy for homosexuals to have civil unions, and to have every civil advantage (I think, someone may be able to raise something that I’d oppose on other grounds) that marriage has. But SSM will change the basic meaning of marriage in all sorts of ways that we can’t guess yet, and I think it will obscure the basic nature of what marriage is.
I don’t think that’ll be good for people in the long term. So I think it is far less oppressive to speak up and argue this case in the public square than is being alleged. People are adults, they’ll either agree or disagree and vote (or indicate their stance to politicians) accordingly. No harm is done simply by making a case on an issue in the public square. That’s why we have freedom of speech. The populace and the elites will come to their conclusions, the law will reflect that, and we’ll all work out how to live in the resulting situation – which may be the current arrangement, may be SSM, or might be some new thing we can’t see yet.
@Peter,
Definitions change. This seems an odd thing to be fighting for. Because the definition of marriage has been different in the past (ie the number of parties one can be married to).
What the homosexual lobby is pushing for is a change to the definition.
Just for the record, I agree with the definition you’ve put forward – but language is a movable feast. If enough people start calling their relationship “marriage” then the definition shifts. Usage dictates meaning. As sad as that is.
@Mark
A couple of things you’ve said here indicate you’re coming from a similar, semantic, position. And I don’t want to rehash old ground, people can click my name and search for “gay marriage” on my blog if they want to find our discussion.
Are you suggesting that when enough people recognise same sex couples as “married” they become married? I know you’re not. But I agree. Custom, and recognition, define words – and I think this is where we’re going.
That’s not what I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting we bend over backwards for the right to be offensive.
It’s curious you cite the UK – because it’s the state of affairs in the UK that fuels my concern that once we lose the wrong debate (how marriage is defined) we’re going to automatically lose the right debate (the right to discriminate and define marriage as God does within the church, and operate within the state under that distinction).
I think just about everything’s been said on this topic, so I don’t want to say much. I can see where Tom and Nathan are coming from, that where people will spend eternity is the really important question, and everything else is unimportant by comparison, and if we’re seen as bigoted that might be a barrier to the gospel. Fair enough. But also Jesus tells to be compassionate to the poor, feed the hungry, visit the sick etc etc – in other words, to care about the people around us, whoever they are.
Now I certainly agree with Nathan that language changes, and the meaning of the word “marriage” might be changing. But as I said earlier, the really dangerous thing I can see coming is that if “marriage” is redefined to include same-sex couples, then the homosexual lobby will push to get their abominable propaganda into the schools. And probably even into Christian schools. And it will be “legal”, so there’ll be no legal grounds to stop it. Do we want this to happen to our kids? Adolescent hormones jump all over the place and urges can be in all sorts of directions – kids need propaganda telling them their same-sex urges are “normal” and “natural” like a hole in the head. Most of them know they’re not normal, and they’ll “straighten out” soon enough (hey, I’ve been there myself!!) But with that propaganda, it’s a whole different ball game. This is the damage to society that I think we should be fighting to avoid, if we at all can.
Cheers, Michael.
Definitions change.
Only if people let them.
Some definitions are given to us by God.
Surely his people ought to uphold them.
Even against the odds.
Michael,
Do you really think propaganda will convince people to be gay? Or just convince people inclined that way already that it’s ok?
@Peter – I agree that the definition of marriage is God given – but what do you say to the significant percentage of the Australian population who don’t believe in that God, or don’t care how he defines marriage? “Our God says your wrong about marriage…”
The problem is that if we try to shape legislation based on our religious beliefs, and not based on fair and universally beneficial principles that the majority agree with – we’re not trying to run a democracy, and then we’ve got to figure out how we’ll respond when we’re in the minority rather than the majority.
I don’t think the early church in the Roman Empire, while they were in the minority, gained influence by telling people that homosexuality was an abomination – I think it was more the preaching the attractive message of Jesus, loving the outcast, and living different lives that swung things around…
I think Nathan is right. An argument from definition is not going to do any real work in this debate. Peter Bolt’s concern about equality of entitlement with differentiation could be just as well served by having two categories of marriage – ‘same sex marriage’ and ‘different sex marriage’.
What I find difficult about the more substantive (utilitarian) argument against SSM is why, having conceded that same sex couples should have all the entitlements of marriage except the name, is it thought that simply applying the name ‘marriage’ to same sex unions will have such detrimental affects. In the context of widespread social and legal acceptance of same sex relationships it’s hard for me to see that a name change is really going to make much more of a difference.
Am I missing something here? I am genuinely interested to know whether it is simply the social consequence of a name change that is at issue, and what consequences those opposed to SSM envisage this will produce.
Cheers
Brian
Hi Nathan,
Basically yes, although my hunch is that my position on this is between you and Peter. Because marriage is a social institution it is partly defined by each society. One society recognises polygamy one doesn’t. One requires you to do these things to get married, another requires you to do a different bunch of things to be married. But it’s still not a human construct that is infinitely mutable. If society changes marriage to something it isn’t, then Christians will be in a position where they will have to not recognise a subset of marriages that society does. It’s probably analogous to those Christians who see that marriages cannot be dissolved apart from death. Society recognises the end of marriages, but they fundamentally still see divorced people as married to their original spouse.
Yes, you want the right to be offensive. So does the Church of England. But neither you or they seem to want to use that right much by actually being offensive and saying things on moral issues in the public square that cut against the grain of where you think most people are at.
I know, and this is one of those areas where I think you and I have not a theological disagreement but a ‘wisdom’ one – we’re just weighing up the evidence around us that feeds into questions of ‘strategy’ differently. As far as I can see, Christians over here took the strategy you’re advocating – they haven’t really strongly contested this push at any point, nor do they publicly attack homosexuality. They just keep asking for the right to live by their own convictions, without any attempt to alienate people by trying to argue that those convictions are good for everyone. And I think that the evidence so far suggests that under that kind of ‘small target’ strategy, the secular and pro-homosexual forces in society will push as far as they think they can get away with. They’ll try and shrink the right to freedom of religion to as small a sphere as possible – you must support homosexuality in practice to run B&Bs;, to be a psychologist, to foster children (probably soon to teach as well). Churches are only free from equality legislation for church staff for those staff who are ministers of religion – church secretaries, possibly even youth workers, should be open to non-Christians, and openly immoral people of any stripe. It’s openly mused that churches shouldn’t really be free from equality provisions in employment for ministerial roles either.
These elements in society think religion generally and/or disapproval of active homosexuality and/or opposition to a libertarian approach to morality is harmful and they’re not interested in toleration for something they see as intolerant.
Whereas the U.S. is going to have a very different outcome I think. They are making the case, and fighting for their conviction. Which is entirely right and proper in a liberal democracy. They may lose the battle over SSM, but if they do it is looking like it’ll be done by the courts imposing it without a general support for it at the popular level. While the battles they fight are polarising society deeply (and some people may think that’s sufficient reason not to take this route), I think Christians (and therefore everyone else as well) will end up with far more freedoms than in the UK. They aren’t fighting for a right to be offensive. They’re using the right they already have. And like a lot of things in life, something is strengthened by using it and exercising it.
Hi Nathan,
Do you really think propaganda will convince people to be gay? Or just convince people inclined that way already that it’s ok?
Well this isn’t the sort of thing we can run a scientific experiment on, with double-blind controls etc etc, but my own experience was that as a teenager I had inclinations in that direction. I knew it wasn’t normal, and expected to grow out of it (I did). But in the presence of propaganda to the contrary, I might have thought different. Or at least if I hadn’t become a Christian at around the same time, I might have thought different.
Cheers, Michael.
You should see what the atheists online say when I suggest that God doesn’t think morality should be universally defined by “love”… or when I suggest it’s not hateful and discriminatory to think that homosexual behaviour is a sin. Does the Internet count as the public square? How published does something have to be to meet this criterion you’re establishing for using this right I’m arguing for?
You’re arguing with some sort of strawman version of me here. I think talking about sin and morality is essential for a full proclamation of the gospel. I’ve never said otherwise.
I’d much rather be able to call something sin in the hope that some might repent, than stop people who aren’t going to repent from sinning. Which isn’t even the issue at play here – because homosexuals are going to sin whether we call their relationships “marriage” or not.
The UK/US comparison is interesting – but I personally would like us to chart somewhere between the two. Because unlike most American Christians, I don’t think my country is the Kingdom of God.
@Michael,
I don’t have personal experience in the field, but have a few close friends who do. I’d suggest there’s something to the notion that this area boils down to a question of identity – do we want to encourage young people to identify themselves by their sexuality, or by something else. And I think you might be right if you’re suggesting the homosexual lobby are going to push the sexual identity barrow. Part of a Christian response to that is to paint a more compelling narrative for one’s identity to be found in Christ. Neither idea has much going for it from the perspective of a teenager though. Does it?
But I don’t think propaganda turns people gay. It seems to me there’s a complicated mix of factors that influence that area, including hardwiring.
Though, I’ll concede, a lot of my atheist friends talk about sexuality as a “fluid” thing, so maybe I’m being a little naive.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments here. I firmly agree with Peter and Mark. One “furphy” that it is worth disposing of is that opposing same sex marriage is “discriminatory”. It is not. If someone does not meet the legal requirements for a certain status, then it is not an act of discrimination not to confer the status. I have written a brief paper on this which is available at http://works.bepress.com/neil_foster/40/.
The argument then has to be that we should redefine the nature of “marriage”. In my view there is a very heavy onus on the proponents of this view to make a strong case that changing the meaning of the term (contrary to millenia of human practice and theory) will (1) have positive benefits to society as a whole, and (2) not further undermine the strength of the institution. I am not persuaded by the arguments offered so far.
The original post referred to the legal concept of marriage according to the Commonwealth Marriage Act and suggested dying on a hill to prevent changes to it. But it seems from later comments that it is actually not the thing called marriage in the Marriage Act that we are to die for.
Rather it is something else called marriage and described in various differing terms but generally as something with special significance. This is not a concept that is defined in the Marriage Act or in any law. It is not this second concept of marriage that people are said should be excluded from, because this concept requires a man and a woman. A same sex couple could never enter into this together.
But somehow an unspecified relation between the legal concept of marriage in the Marriage Act and the second concept of marriage is such that legal marriage should be denied to certain people. And this is based not on their sexual conduct or their religious beliefs but only on their gender. They can be worshippers of Satan, they can worship Satan all day long, Hallelujah Satan, and be permitted to marry, so long as they bear the same gender make up as a Christian couple, ie a man and a woman.
The manner of the blending of a discussion of marriage under the Marriage Act with this second concept of marriage comes across to me in a rather clunky and hard to use way. I don’t agree that they are the same. Saying they are or just acting as though there is no difference does not make it so.
This blending brings about a number of unfavourable effects in my view. One is a failure to make a coherent case for the exclusion of non-believers not from the special marriage concept (number two above) but from a legal arrangement that is similar in most respects to current notions of marriage.
Another is a too-ready acceptance of the many legal disadvantages faced by people who are not able to be married. What is more important is that you should bear the same gender make-up as a Christian couple. Your beliefs don’t matter. Worship Satan, just be man and woman.
Another is a failure to acknowledge and deal with the reality that laws passed by the Australian parliament are intended and crafted to perform in a particular way to a particular end. And religious doctrine or dogma is intended and crafted to perform in another way to another end. Mixing the two up is not helpful especially when discussing in particular the legal version of marriage.
I am underwhelmed by the usual recourse to the slippery slope argument. Gay love thought police? Are such notions not just a scare campaign tactic to overcome a lack of principle in the argument? What is the proportion of homosexual people in the populace? Does it justify this level of fear?
I found Peter’s reliance on a notion of equality to support accentuating the differences between cross gender marriage and same sex marriage a little of a stretch. Equality as a principle would more readily apply in my view to equality of entitlements to all regardless of religious beliefs, race, gender, sexual persuasion etc. Which would make it a principle that supports people of the same sex obtaining the legal benefits of the legal thing called marriage (that is the first thing I refer to above, not the second).
And at the end of it all, if people don’t hold Christian beliefs, is pontificating or posturing or suggesting we all go and die on a hill about their conduct or laws that apply to everyone going to change that? What exactly is the point of it? The gay thought police are coming? The gay propaganda will get our kids? We’ll all turn gay?
And if there is a point, is the principle underpinning it going to be applied consistently. Perhaps a law that requires people to adopt Christian beliefs. Such a law would probably have the same effect on this more fundamental matter as quibbling about what non-believers call themselves. Not much.
Hi Brian,
Well, I’ve got a couple of thoughts from this.
First, I’m not sure that I’d classify my response as ‘utilitarian’. It seems to me that there’s two lines of argument in these things – “Is this right (or true)” and “Is this good”. And people usually want answers to both. That means you have to address both – at least attempt something serious about how something proposed is genuinely good. That’s not, in and of itself, utilitarian. Utilitarian says that it is moral because it is likely to produce good results. It’s a small point, but important. I despise utilitarianism. But I’m happy to be involved in discussions about what sort of good or harm is likely to be a consequence of something.
Second, why are names important if you’ve already given the farm away? You tell me. Why do people care whether we talk about ‘sex worker’, ‘prostitute’, or ‘whore’? Are they ‘asylum seekers’ ‘refugees’ ‘boat people’ or ‘claim jumpers’? If homosexuals can get all the legal benefits of marriage through civil unions, why do they want the right to the term ‘marriage’? The question you ask cuts both directions on this question. If all homosexuals want are the legal benefits associated with marriage, why isn’t a sufficiently strong civil union sufficient? The whole practice of our society indicates that names really matter in these things.
Third, why would it change things? Here’s a few lines of thought.
1) Homosexuals, by and large, don’t actually want to be married, as far as we can see from the small experience of the Netherlands and initial indications in the U.S. so far. Once they have the right, very few opt to take it. Most homosexuals continue to be sexually active without the sanction of marriage. So one effect of extending marriage to same sex couples is to weaken further the already weak notion in our society that sex and marriage are naturally linked together. For those of us who think that there are indications that the stability and permanence of marriage is a good (indeed best) context for a sex life that will be good for the participants, that’s a decided minus. It’s increasing the shift that marriage is just an option – all that matters is that we have the right to it if we want it – and not a responsibility.
2) Second, homosexual couples, far more than heterosexual couples, run their relationships as sexually open rather than exclusive. That’s not some conservative bugbear. That great respectable proponent of gay rights, The New York Times ran a brief story on this relatively recently: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html
While I indicated that I thought people who intended to run their marriages as open marriages should have the right to get married, that is partly because within heterosexual practice that’s relatively rare. By and large everyone sees it as a departure from the norm. People basically see that marriage involves an exclusive sexual commitment, and it’s our commitment to not interfering in others’ private lives that means that most people are fine to leave the swingers to swing if that’s what they want.
But if sexual exclusivity is really not a key element in what faithfulness looks like for homosexual relationships (and it seems it isn’t, although I’m not suggesting that isn’t an aspiration or reality in any such relationship) then to extend marriage to encompass that is likely to change the definition of marriage altogether at this point.
“Marriage” now has to encompass what is held in common by most heterosexual and most homosexual practice.
And that means the notion of sexual exclusivity will likely be junked altogether from our view as to what marriage should entail. Marriage won’t be so much a union that is given certain legal recognition and rights by the State, as those legal rights granted by the State will become the essence of what marriage is – an extremely lowest common denominator view of marriage. It’ll move towards becoming a contract between two (or more) parties to enjoy the legal benefits of that contract.
to be concluded
3) We usually overestimate our ability to predict the consequences of social innovation. The best article of seen on this is: http://fireflydove.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/a-libertarian-view-of-gay-marriage/ I like it because the author doesn’t overplay his hand. He doesn’t come down one way or the other as to whether there should be SSM or not and indicates he’s undecided.
But what he does do very, very well, is show how incredibly bad the argument “If SSM’s are introduced that won’t affect heterosexual approaches to marriage” is by looking at a number of key social changes over the last century where that argument was run. He shows that the effects were far greater than even the worse scare-mongering critics predicted. Implicit, but not spelled out, is that once the change was in, no-one has ever seriously sought to reverse it even when the consequences were all that the critics predicted and more.
The fact is, this is a simply huge change. So we should expect really big consequences over time as a result, some of which we just can’t predict in advance – the law of unintended consequences is real force in human affairs. That does not mean “No SSM”. It does mean that I think people need to more clear eyed that this is likely (but not guaranteed) to have significant knock-on implications, and we won’t be able to guess them all in advance.
One small example of this comes from Massachusetts in the U.S.A., if I’ve understood things right there. The courts legalized SSM. Within the year the public schools had introduced programs to actively normalise homosexuality for their students on the basis of that ruling. When parents sought the right to be able to withdraw their children from such programs the schools denied that and the courts upheld it. It was to be compulsory for all students involved in the public school system in light of the ruling on SSM. I think that’s a surprising knock-on effect for most people. And before someone accuses me of scare-mongering, I doubt that there was any conspiracy there, still less one driven by gays. I think it’s the sort of thing that happens when a legal definition undergoes a significant change and people then try and work out how their bit of the world needs to operate in the light of it.
4) The best article I’ve seen on explaining the inner logic of marriage is by a liberal Jew on his third marriage, whose area of anthropological expertise is marriages. http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp?pg=1
If someone takes the time to read the article, and then think about what he’s setting forward, I think it does wonders to get a clearer view about how parochial our modern western ‘romantic’ view of marriage is, and shows the logic why it is an inherently heterosexual institution.
It is very much tied up with the issue of creating families – especially extended ones, disciplining and sanctioning sexual activity, marking a shift to adulthood, and safeguarding women’s sexuality from exploitation. It’s primarily about obligations due to the reproductive potential of heterosexual sex, not rights.
I think he’s right that the act of redefining marriage to encompass same sex partners simply nukes that whole kinship framework behind marriage, which means that marriage will no longer be able to serve that function even for heterosexuals.
The law courts will, over time, work out that recognising same sex marriage as a valid marriage has to mean that only those things that can apply to a same sex marriage can be part of the meaning of marriage now. And that means that the regulating of the reproductive potentiality of heterosexual sexuality, the connection between marriage and children, the protection and dignifying of women in sexual relationship with men will all cease to be part of the meaning or purpose of marriage.
Thanks Mark- the two pieces you have linked here are just brilliant! In particular the quote from GK Chesteron in the first one is just superb.
Thanks Mark for pointing us to those two excellent articles—I hope folks can take the time to read them. The things I was saying (much less eloquently) were trying to go in that same sort of direction.
(Minor aside: I think the author of the first article is a woman.)
Cheers, Michael.
Hi, all, hi, Mark,
Mark, you made the following comments on Sam Schulman’s article:
‘I think he’s right that the act of redefining marriage to encompass same sex partners simply nukes that whole kinship framework behind marriage, which means that marriage will no longer be able to serve that function even for heterosexuals.
The law courts will, over time, work out that recognising same sex marriage as a valid marriage has to mean that only those things that can apply to a same sex marriage can be part of the meaning of marriage now. And that means that the regulating of the reproductive potentiality of heterosexual sexuality, the connection between marriage and children, the protection and dignifying of women in sexual relationship with men will all cease to be part of the meaning or purpose of marriage.’
These are interesting, indeed thought-provoking reflections. But is not the theory that homosexual marriage will become in law the type of marriage an unduly pessimistic one?
Our Acts of Parliament are written, surely, to regulate the social behaviour of human beings in their concrete situations? And this being so, whilever there are marriages of the traditional form, they will be deemed to be marriages of a particular kind, and there will be laws regulating the behaviour that is peculiar to marriages of this type?
Laws to do with procreation and respect of men for women in marriage might in the future no longer be considered essential to all marriages. But they will still be essential to many and presumably most marriages. Laws of this kind can hardly be allowed to drop out of our legislation, as though just because gay people can marry, heterosexuals no longer need legal guidelines and protections for aspects of their marriages that are irrelevant to homosexual marriage.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your point—in a forum like this, where we all tend to write in haste, and where the ambiguity of language frequently trips both writer and reader, mistakes are all too easy. However, even if that is so, the question seemed worth raising.
Hi David,
These are interesting, indeed thought-provoking reflections. But is not the theory that homosexual marriage will become in law the type of marriage an unduly pessimistic one?
Have you been able to read the first article Mark cited? I think that speaks to exactly your point. Those who call the opponents of change pessimistic, often tend to be wrong. First the marginal cases flip over, then that makes the next group of changes acceptable, etc, then eventually you find a massive social shift has occurred, and can’t be reversed.
—Michael.
What an interesting discussion it has been. I originally raised the issue of whether this was worth fighting, and if not why not? It attracted a couple of other wrestlers already tussling over the issue I used to illustrate my question, who tumbled out of a neighbouring ring to continue in front of this new crowd! Although some don’t think the battle should be fought in the public arena (my ‘hill’), quite clearly the issue is certainly worth a vigorous tussle amongst the fellow-soldiers in their own barracks!
In an attempt to redirect back to the original question, I have extracted some (most?) of the reasons given in the above discussion for NOT fighting on this particular hill. (I trust I have summarized fairly)
• there are grades of Christian belief, some more important; some less; some can be let go; some ‘core’ that should not be. Things of importance; things of indifference. For the non-fighters, evidently marriage is deemed to be ‘non core’.
• What is good ‘politics’ might be different from what is good per se.
• Cowardice, fear of being ashamed, embarrassed, or otherwise threatened
• The hill is already lost. Marriage is no longer seen to be based on faithfulness, but on love. To oppose gay marriage is heard to be opposed to love.
• The hill is already lost. The world is no longer listening.There are too many out there who oppose Christian views. There are too many opposed to traditional marriage.
• We should fight differently. Once the issue is lost, declare that we Christians will not follow in that direction.
• Wisdom recognizes when to speak, and when to not speak. Some issues are more important. Sometimes a long-term relationship is more important to preserve.
• Marriage is contested in our society anyway. It shouldn’t be a priority for those in the Reformation ‘sola scriptura’ tradition. We have other more pressing priorities from which we should not be distracted.
• Does scripture say we should defend marriage, common law, or public morality, or to reform society, or to enter political debate with our neighbour?
• Such a debate risks making us appear bigoted and unloving, and this could be a stumbling block for the gospel.
• The discussion is about a civil thing called marriage, a social contract, not a ‘religious’ thing; or a God-ordained thing in the context of Christian belief.
• Christian love is not shown by forcing people to our will, or by imposing our morality on them.
Three quick responses.
1. Marriage: Core, or indifferent? The fact that it is the first thing described when the Bible gets going seems to speak rather loudly in favour of its prominence for human life and human society. God created us Male and female; and so marriage was given us. (notice the logic of Jesus’ ‘for this reason’ in Mark 10:6–7). This is for humanity, not just something ‘religious’ (whatever that is), or something Christian. Just like ‘male’ denotes someone biologically of a certain kind, and ‘female’ denotes someone biologically of a different kind, so ‘marriage’ describes or denotes a certain kind of relationship determined by our biology. Just like there are ‘core’ beliefs in regard to God (theology), so there are ‘core’ beliefs in regard to humanity (anthropology). This is core.
2. The thing about a liberal democracy is that we are all citizens and we all have a right (responsibility?) to speak, and this is the normal process of our governance. When I speak my mind as a Christian, from my particular Christian standpoint and wisdom, I am not imposing my views on anyone – simply expressing them and saying that God’s ways are best for everyone (in my opinion). If we don’t speak in favour of the way of life God has created us (all) for, who will? And besides, the fact that the gay lobby is a minority (smaller than our own, let alone if we add in other co-belligerents on this issue) has not stopped them ‘imposing’ (please note quotation marks – on my view they have every right to speak) their views on our society, why should we stay silent while they continue to speak? Liberal democracy needs both point and counter-point. So why would we keep remove half of that healthy equation?
3. The battle has not been lost, for we are in the midst of the discussion right now, and 2011 looks like there will be plenty more opportunities presented for conversation, and then some.
Hi Peter,
Don’t hear me disagreeing with any of your points 1-3.
I think our definition of marriage, as the God’s representatives on his earth, is fundamentally important. I think we have a responsibility to proclaim this truth to the world, including our politicians, and I think we need to affirm the goodness of God’s created order…
What I’m concerned about is that we, as Christians, participate in the democratic process realising we’re participating in the democratic process and valuing the liberty that our liberal system of government provides. I think if we bank on the government to protect our liberty to identify however we want, and if we want special treatment (ie generous tax concessions) for our ministry efforts, we should be prepared to allow the secular government to give other groups what they want.
I won’t recognise gay marriages as marriage, regardless of what the government decides. It’s a semantic game, and I’m happy for the state to define the concept however they want. Arguing over the meaning of a word in a pluralistic society seems a little silly to me, better that we’re sure of the definition ourselves and able to advocate for it in our own house – which lets face it, isn’t in order.
Mark keeps citing examples of the Anglican opposition to homosexuality in England, which seems odd, given their acceptance (or that they were prepared to accept before he withdrew) of appointing a practicing homosexual as bishop.
I’m not calling for debate to be stifled (I’m not necessarily suggesting that I was the target of your second point), I’m just suggesting we be a little more like John Dickson’s article on the ABC last week and a little less like Westboro Baptist. And I think we need to be considering the next battle (the one we might fight after this one – namely our right to continue speaking against homosexual marriage) so that we don’t lose the war.
Hi Neil. I appreciated the thoughts outlined in your article. It clarified a number of things for me. But I am still puzzled by what to me is the clumsy and verbose way in which opposition to same sex marriage is being articulated. It doesn’t appear possible to sum it up in a few brief sentences.
One thing that really confuses me is the apparent inconsistency in opposing a legal (under the Marriage Act) marriage for same sex couples. The underlying principle to this opposition appears to be that certain classes of people should not be allowed to label their relationship marriage so as to protect the institution. But we make no complaint about the marriage of other non-believers.
But if same sex couples enjoying the privilege of marriage truly reduces the strength of the institution in a material way as is essentially accepted without question by many of the contributors, then applying the same brush other non-believers and non-repentant sinners enjoying the privilege of marriage must also be reducing it. There are a lot more non-believers than same sex couples, so the effect of the reduction in the institution that could be attributed to them being allowed to be married presumably is greater.
If we are not seeking to apply the underlying principle generally to non-believers or any other category of person that brings the institution into disrepute or otherwise reduces it, it does come across that we don’t really think it matters if non-believers call themselves married or not. After all, they are not believers, they don’t come to church, we have nothing to do with them socially except perhaps in passing, and the bible doesn’t tell us to immerse ourselves endlessly in their affairs.
And if we don’t really believe it matters to try to stop non-believers getting married, then maybe we just don’t like same sex couples because they are different, and are playing semantic games to justify it. After all, I am not that old but I am old enough to remember that calling someone a homosexual in the school yard was one of the greatest insults used.
Perhaps I am missing a fundamental point here. Maybe the only critical thing in relationships is not that people are followers of God, but that they are male and female. Their views of God are immaterial. Whether they have any kind of relationship with God or Jesus meaningless. How can I overcome this seeming inconsistency if I am talking to a person who is in a same sex relationship?
Another issue for me that remains unresolved notwithstanding the number of words written is that it seems the primary basis to argue for this position is to produce scenarios so laden with doom that they appear contrived to simply argue a position. If same sex people get to call themselves married, the sky will fall in etc.
Are the scenarios of doom the best argument against allowing same sex marriage in your view? You say you are not convinced same sex couples should be permitted the privilege of marriage because they are not being discriminated against. But if you were talking to a same sex couple who were not believers, how would you explain why all other non believers were okay to go through a civil ceremony and call themselves married. But for some reason they cannot. What reason would you give them that does not occupy pages of words and essentially become meaningless?
Regards and thanks for your thoughts. Tom
Dear Tom;
Sometimes “pages of words” are needed because the issues are complex and important (but I could be baised as a lawyer and an academic!)
You say there is inconsistency arguing that marriage should not be applied to same sex relationships but is applied to relationships between non-believers. I don’t see the inconsistency. Marriage, as a part of God’s good created order, is good for everyone, whether or not they acknowledge God as Lord. As Jesus says, he causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust (Matt 5:45). But relationships between same sex couples are just not “marriage”.
My other thoughts are taken up with the “many words” I have already referred to. Though if you are listening to 2CH tonight between 10 and 11 there is some more coming up there.
Regards
Neil
Thanks for you generous response Mark.
I used the ‘u’ word because I was interested in the use of arguments that don’t terminus in deontological or religious principles: those which only evaluate generally agreed social welfare outcomes. With one exception (the Massachusetts example seemed to assume homosexuality was a wrong in itself) I think the arguments you cited were of this kind.
Do you think the evidence presented in the arguments you refer to is the strongest available in support of this type of anti-SSM argument, or do you know of stronger evidence? I ask because the pro-SSM side has some big hitters in psychological and sociological research supporting their case. The American Psychological Association, American Anthropological Association, American Sociological Association and Canadian Psychological Association amongst others have come out in support of the overall social benefit of SSM – with some strong research backing. I’ve not heard of any major literature reviews in psychology or sociology that have come out against SSM.
Do you think the anti-SSM case can be made on the basis of the evidence for the overall ‘welfare’ affects alone, or do you think that religious arguments are necessary?
Cheers
Brian
Hi Neil.
It is difficult not to be left with the impression that community attitudes to marriage and to same sex couples are sufficiently rigid that the sky won’t in fact fall if some same sex couples get to call their relationships ‘marriage’.
They are still same sex couples, and as such will remain on the margin of society and in the minority. It is hard to imagine notwithstanding the cries of doom that this will not remain the case whether they get to label their relationships ‘marriage’ or not. And equally hard not to imagine that the way marriage is viewed by the community won’t be greatly effected one way or the other.
That the debate is on the table now indicates the current mood of society to both marriage and perhaps more particularly to homosexuality. That mood has been formed over the past twenty five years or probably longer. It seems to me the current debate about the Marriage Act is not driving the mood at all and rather is more than likely largely irrelevant to it. It is the social mood that is driving the current debate and in particular the push to change the status quo.
Indicators of that community mood would include but not be limited to the passage of the Family Law Act in 1975, the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Australia in the 1970s, and the rise of de facto relationships. Some of the things you refer to in your paper.
We have parliamentarians and celebrities who are openly gay. Our Prime Minister is not married and in a de facto relationship. Etc. But I doubt it is the passage of the laws that brought about changes in community views of such things. Rather the laws just reflected the changes in community attitudes that had grown up and already existed at the point the laws were passed. Parliament generally does not make a law that will not appeal to a broad section of the community.
I find it odd that it is suggested presumably with straight faces that the change of a law might if resisted prevent a change in social views of things as fundamental as marriage or a change in personal views as fundamental as sexual orientation. It seems more likely that this horse has long bolted, and clutching despairingly at the wind left behind is not going to make a difference.
I would feel a lot better about what seems to be rather futile intellectual moralising about it if it went hand in glove with real efforts by the Christian Church to reach out to marginalized groups. But it all seems to be stick, stick and more stick. Not a carrot in sight.
Hi Nathan,
No, but when you say:
Then I think that reads as encouraging to praise the good and not criticise the wrong, at least as a basic tendency – else why put it this way and not say, “Better for us to affirm the goodness of x and spruik the immorality of y.”?
But it’s irrespective anyway, my point is that the “best fit” for what you’re saying at this point is the Church of England. They praise the goodness of heterosexual marriage and don’t spruik the immorality of homosexuality. They aren’t trying to impose their Spirit led morality on the country as a whole. They’ve been doing what you advocate.
As I understood it, Jeffrey Johns claimed to have been celibate for many years at the time of his recommendation to the position. So his public stance fitted the position of the Church of England – civil unions for clergy are okay (don’t want to spruik the immorality of homosexuality) but they must be celibate (uphold the createdness and goodness of heterosexual marriage). Opposition to his election was because he was openly advocating the overthrow of that position in favor of non-celibate homosexual clergy. It was his teaching, not his lifestyle, that was the issue at that time. The CoE’s behaviour here has been idiosyncratic and wrongheaded for all sorts of reasons, but I think it does fit the paradigm you’re putting forward far better than alternatives of which I have any knowledge.
Which, as Peter has said, is only relevant if that’s the choice we have – either/or. We either call on people to repent or we advocate for laws that we think reflect the way the world really is, but we can’t do both. I think we fairly obviously can do both.
And the issue of whether homosexuals will keep sinning is a complete red herring. This isn’t about trying to stop homosexuals from sinning. That would be a debate about laws outlawing homosexual sex. This is a debate about the definition of marriage. It’s oranges and apples.
But do laws restrain sin? Let’s remove some laws – it’s no longer to against the law to murder, rape, and steal, say. Now, I can say, ‘Already existing murderers, rapists, and thieves will continue to act whether there is a law or not.’ I can even argue “New murderers etc will arise even with laws against it.”
But as the article by Jane Galt (thanks Michael Hore about the gender of the author – I’m really bad with names, which has collateral damage for gender and authorship) I linked shows, laws affect the marginal case. There are people who will go one way if it’s legal/socially acceptable, and another if it is not. Divorce has risen a lot, marriage has declined a lot in the working and underclass of the U.S., and illegitimacy has lost its stigma. The consequence is a huge rise in woman-led households, which is a big predictor of poverty and criminal behaviour. A lot of those changes are due to the way changes in the law interacts with cultural change and would not be as great if the laws had not been changed the way they had.
Likewise between the two examples. But, “most American Christians think their country is the kingdom of God”? And this from the guy complaining that his view was being strawmanned?
Neil, Michael – glad you enjoyed the articles. Michael – agree with you about the marginal case. That was possibly the single biggest ‘conceptual tool’ I learned last year – extremely important concept in thinking about social issues.
Hi David,
Possibly, there are lots of ways things could go. But I wouldn’t describe my take as ‘homosexual marriage will become the type of marriage’. There’ll be things about that kind of relationship that won’t be applicable to heterosexual marriages and so will also be excluded from the definition of marriage. My point is that the definition will have to encompass both relationships. And as I think it’s clear that there are some clear differences between them (reproductive capability, and sexual exclusivity being the two obvious ones for my examples, but the actual issue could be something that no-one can see yet, but some judge puts their finger on in a decision down the track – that’s not implausible for this scenario: everyone raises concerns about x, no-one can see y, but y turns out to be big, and x irrelevant).
Yes, I agree that is possible. But I suspect that the law is more likely to be done outside of regulating marriage. To do it through marriage will be to create a distinction between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage, and the push in the actual movement we have is for homosexuals to have the right to the same marriage that heterosexuals have. A different social movement that campaigned for homosexuals to have their own marriage that met their own needs would have different effects – but that isn’t the movement we have. As Tom (I think) said in response to Peter – equality is to treat people the same, not differently. That lies behind the current move, and that view is likely to have the effect I’m saying, I suggest. Your view lines up more with Peter’s at this point – the law has to recognise differences, and I think he raised this because it cuts against the grain of the push to recognise SSM and so needs to be said.
No, the laws won’t drop out, I agree. But they are no longer relevant to all marriages. And there’s a whole raft of heterosexual relationships (de facto) that they are relevant to. So, the law will increasingly address these issues outside the legal framework of marriage. It’ll be done another way, and that aspect of things will be removed from marriage’s ‘job description’.
That’s a big change to the nature of marriage, given the article by Sam Schulman – one that threatens to derail the whole import of the institution if his research and thinking is in the right ballpark. We’ll go from a social institution, recognised and sanctioned by law, but having an influence that went beyond just the law’s blunt tool approach, to just the law on its own. I doubt the social outcomes will improve in such a situation.
I agree. Hope that goes someway to shedding some more light. I basically agree with what you’re saying in response, but I don’t think it’s the whole story. And the ‘extra bit’ is important. I don’t see what I’m saying as ‘The sky is falling if SSM goes ahead’ despite Tom’s attempts to describe it that way. I am saying, “I think, standing on this side of the hypothetical change, there will be some non-negligible negative consequences”. There’s more I could say, but I think that’s all I’ve said.
Hi Brian,
You’re welcome. I would have said, ‘long-winded’, but I’m more than happy to accept ‘generous’.
Okay, no problems.
However, I think that it is possible that those were still there in the Massachusetts example I cited – only disguised a bit. Yes, for those of us who think that homosexuality is wrong, the courts (apparently) ruling that as a result of SSM state schools have a positive obligation to normalise the behaviour to students, and parents have no right to withdraw their children from such classes is a decided minus. But I would have thought it was a decided minus in terms of the U.S.A.’s own traditions and legal history (not so much the U.K.’s, and not sure about Oz’s).
SSM is argued, at least in part, on the basis that it extends rights to homosexuals and does not harm those who oppose – it does not affect them, or their rights, so why are they even getting upset about the issue? What’s it got to do with them? Yet, it turns out that SSM means that the state of Massachusetts has taken a stand on the morality and status of homosexuality. It’s not just a right, it is right, such that schools must teach that homosexuality is as valid as heterosexuality, and parents have no right to veto such teaching for their children if they’re part of the state school system (be interesting to see if that’s taken to its next logical step).
This seems to cut against things in three ways:
1) It undercuts the argument that this right can be extended to homosexual couples without affecting the rights of those opposed to active homosexuality. Now it has to be argued that the extension of a right to somewhere between 1% (current British stats from last survey http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11398629) and 10% (Kinsey’s findings) of the population outweighs the restriction of a right to some 50% or so who seem to be opposed to the practice in the U.S. Obviously it won’t be argued that way – that’s a harder case to make, whereas the other one has a lot of rhetorical power, but I think it is the case that should be be needing to be made.
2) A position on public morality currently under democratic debate within the U.S. was decided by judges, with the effect that state institutions have to take a positive and active stand in support of the change. I think that the U.S. is set up to keep such incidents to a minimum—it is more a ‘European’ way of doing things. Courts aren’t meant to ‘lead’ public opinion in quite this way, but reflect the outcome of democratic debate (and the constitution).
3) America has traditionally a very robust sense of parental rights to do with raising their children. Last year, IIRC, a German homeschooling couple was granted asylum in the U.S. because homeschooling is illegal in Germany (IIRC). I think the judge said about Germany’s approach something like ‘It is difficult to imagine something more antithetical to America’s values and way of life’. Given that ruling – which admittedly may not be held by all judges – it seems that the outcome in Massachutes really undercuts a strong theme (and maybe even ‘the’ theme) of parental rights to do with the raising of their children in the U.S. Parents don’t have the right, in Massachutes, to withdraw their children from lessons and programs taking one side in a highly controverted issue in society. That’s a big negative effect for the U.S., I’d suggest, given its polity.
I agree we can argue whether the polity itself is good, but I don’t think those are deontological arguments about the effects.
I gave the strongest evidence I could in a quick comment. But I wrote as a non-specialist in this area who has been thinking and trying to follow the arguments on both sides over the last couple of years. If this is the best I can come up with, I think it indicates that the case against SSM could probably be argued very, very strongly, if a proper concerted attempt was made. I think there’s a lot of different strands of argument and evidence that could potentially feed into such a case. So I think what I did is an example of Peter’s three points he recently put forward in his comment. This case can be made, a very good argument can be run.
concluding
Well, my assessment of the strength of the pyschological and sociological research is a bit different. I think it’s fair to say that all the high profile professional bodies are in favor of the shift. It’s difficult to know whether that is driven by their findings, or whether their research and conclusions are being affected by the public position of the bodies.
My impression is that it would be a brave researcher (or a very, very well established one) who published findings against the ‘authorised’ view. What happened to Hans-Christian Raabe in the UK is a case in point – his controversial paper was entirely based (as I understand it) upon statistics from the government itself, but pointing out that there is a much higher incidence of paedophilia among homosexual men resulted in his being sacked. When I see someone who is a social science researcher into issues to do with homosexuality they seem to usually be homosexual themselves. That would normally raise the prospect of bias, I think.
Even where things aren’t so heavy handed as the Raabe case, the overwhelming preponderance of liberals among psychologists, and the extraordinary lack of conservatives among their number (see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html for quite an effective story about this focusing on someone whose job it is to know that you don’t get 80% self-identified liberals in a country where only 20% are self-identified liberal without something more than reason and evidence going on), would tend to push research in a different direction, than if the proportions were closer to parity. I don’t dismiss sociological research because of this, but I think it needs to be accepted that it is biased, and biased in one direction. One has to keep that in mind and read carefully.
I haven’t really seen any strong quantitative case for SSM based on psychology and sociology. Given the very low rates of homosexuals actually getting married when they can, it’s hard to see how marriage could itself have significant effects on the homosexual community.
The most I think could be argued is that extending the right to SSM will help to counteract the feeling of shame and being in the wrong that appears to be common among homosexuals, and that it will do this by counteracting ‘homophobia’—an idea that there is something wrong about being homosexual, that it isn’t ‘normal’.
My take on that is that I’m not sure that the case has really been made that those feelings arise primarily or exclusively from homophobia, such that changing the social stance will fix the problem.
The Sambia tribe might be an indication of some flexibility here in how people experience homosexual activity if it is a cultural norm (although it raises other questions about corollary effects, such as the status of women, and has institutionalised a different version of homosexuality than the one we’re dealing with in our society), but for me the more telling evidence for our case comes from the Netherlands.
The Netherlands has arguably moved the furthest in destigmatising homosexual practice. And yet the suicide right among homosexuals is, I think, much higher than among heterosexuals. That suggests that either homophobia is not driving the problem, or it’s going to take an awful lot more than just SSM to deal with this. SSM is hardly even a first step.
It can be made on non-religious grounds alone. The ‘best’ cases I’ve seen on the web have done that, (I think because they were done by specialists in an area who stayed in their area of speciality).
But I think religious people should have a substantial religious dimension to their argument when they make their case at length. Writing an opinion piece, or blog post doesn’t need everything in it.
But a Christian position needs to indicate the Christian ground of its ethical position, it can’t just argue secularly, even though it should be trying to bring out the rationality of the position for potential co-belligerent unbelievers as well.
Mark,
You seem to see my main point on this issue as:
It’s odd that you think this sentence completely characterises my position on the issue when earlier I said:
You may see the two ideas as contradictory, but I see them as two necessary components of gospel ministry that is faithful to God’s word and required for calling people to change their identity from one based on their sexuality to one based in Christ – be they heterosexual or homosexual.
Since you still seem to think I’m advocating some sort of quietism, and I’m not, I’ll respond to your lengthy and largely irrelevant comment with a question…
What do you think happens to our ability to speak the truth in love if we use your strategy of saying as much offensive stuff as we can now, and we lose this hill?
This homosexual marriage issue isn’t the war – it’s a small battle in it. From my read of the situation the war is how can Christianity continue to have a place in the public sphere when it makes an exclusive truth claim in a “tolerant” and pluralistic society.
What worries me in the UK is that the Christians who are opposed to homosexuality (I would put myself in this camp, I don’t know why I need to keep saying this but if feels like I do) are having their public role limited on the basis of that view.
Perhaps our time would be better served lobbying for some sort of legislatively enshrined freedom of speech.
I found Mark’s treatment of the psychological evidence interesting.
Schulman is quoted fairly clearly as evidence of the second ‘big bang’. When society implodes under the pressure of spending all its time thinking about what homosexuals might or might not be doing with themselves. But Schulman does not actually provide any evidence himself to sustain his conclusions. He simply says after a comprehensive and interesting account of marriage and how it relates to what he calls the kinship system the following;
‘As kinship fails to be relevant to gays, it will become fashionable to discredit it for everyone’.
There are a few problems with this statement that spring to mind. He does not explain why we should accept his opinion that merely because something is not relevant to gays, it will as a matter of course become fashionable for everyone else to discredit it. Using that rationale, heterosexual sex would be out the door. Not just marriage. Our unfashionable, heterosexual clothes. Our un-ripped heterosexual torsos. All must go. No longer fashionable, rather discredited, because we follow, hook line and sinker, what is fashionable with gays.
Really? News to me and I am sure a lot of others.
No evidence is cited to back it up this statement. He does not attempt to make a rational argument for it. He just makes a series of propositions. You could exchange the word ‘gay’ in that part of his piece with any group you did not favour, and it would have about as much meaning. The most obvious swap would be with ‘de facto’ relationships.
You would have to think twice before swallowing his opinions as credible evidence of his conclusions re the second big bang. If it came down to a comparison of evidence I would probably prefer the psychologists, notwithstanding perceptions of bias.
But regardless, isn’t the proposition being advanced that as a general rule laws operate to fundamentally change social views of moral issues? This means the law is passed, and then the social view changes. There have been some fairly definite general statements made along these lines. What about some science (not opinion) for or against that?
After all, given the nature of our political system in Australia, anecdotally there seems little doubt that laws made dealing with such issues are only made with the broad approval of the populace. So you could just as readily argue that laws made simply reflect existing social views at the time. That social changes come about as a result of far more complex factors.
Nathan,
I honestly have no idea at all what your main point on this issue is. After weeks of talking on your blog and then now here, I find it harder and harder to see what your view is as a whole. You don’t want us to impose our Spirit-led morality on society, but then (on your blog) you do want us to advocate on the law on some issues. Somehow you’ve roped in the possibility of ‘quietism’ into the discussion. You ‘basically agree’ with Tom Adam’s opening comment, and yet you also don’t want to be heard as disagreeing with Peter Bolt’s three points at: http://solapanel.org/article/choosing_the_hill_to_die_on/#7245 . And the only thing I can see in common to those two comments is that they were both written by people who are 70% water.
So in the my last comment to you, don’t read too much in. All I did was tackle a bunch of arguments you made in support of your position, or opposed to mine, and indicated why I disagreed. It was piecemeal stuff, with no overarching structure to it, and no suggestion that any of it was your ‘main point’. You find my doing that irrelevant, okay, my apologies. Let’s move on.
I don’t know why you feel that way either. It is clear that you are opposed to homosexuality, and nothing you’ve said indicates otherwise. The debate has been over whether or not we should fight for an exclusive heterosexual understanding of marriage as the legal definition. I don’t think you need to keep saying this.
Picking up your question to me:
A couple of things.
First, the question begs the point of Peter’s post, and his three points that you didn’t want to be heard as disagreeing with. If we are morally obliged to fight for this issue, then the consequences of our actions are irrelevant. Peter’s opening post was predicated on the idea (and correct me if I’m wrong, Peter) that we don’t get to choose our battles, but that we must fight where the battle is. Your question implicitly indicates that we’re free to pick the battle on this, and what we think are the likely consequences should weigh heavily on or decision making.
Peter made the same point in his comment I linked to above that you didn’t want to be heard disagreeing with. Marriage is core to Christian anthropology. And from that he indicated that Christians don’t have the freedom to ‘let it go through to the keeper’ when the issue is core. So I find it hard to see how you can agree with Peter there and then make this question the big question here.
Second, I’ve said that the best way to preserve freedom of speech is to use it, and say things that “society” (i.e. those who strongly disagree with us) will find offensive. I’m not sure that quite counts as me advocating “saying as much offensive stuff as we can now.” Given that you and I apparently agree on the point that we should say things our society finds offensive, I’m surprised that you ‘heard’ me this way.
continuing
Third, I think your paragraph about what the ‘war’ is, is too narrow (and yes, I’m not saying that that is necessarily all you think – your next paragraph where you indicate what worries you about the UK is far more on target in my view). It’s not just that we make absolute truth claims. What looks like going to be the big challenge is that we want our religious convictions to have a public face in our practice. That’s why fighting for freedom of speech is important but insufficient.
I know a couple here in England who have been told, after years of being mucked around, that they will not be allowed to adopt because of their views on homosexuality. The damage they will cause to a homosexual child by not affirming his or her orientation eliminates them as fit parents for adoption. This year the government released ways in which pro-homosexual material could be incorporated into various subjects – maths, history, science, etc. That’s likely to become a requirement down the track on current trajectories, part of the curriculum. That means a teacher will need to be prepared to teach that homosexuality is okay or they won’t be able to hold their job. We can multiply this further to other areas.
The point is that freedom of speech is the last thing anyone will try and restrict. They can leave it to the mainstream media to police the public square and keep homophobic discourse out, or at least send those who utter it into the outer darkness of public opinion.
What they’ll do is keep expanding the purview of equality legislation for how people practice and act in the public square, and keep reducing the capability of a Christian to live out their faith and hold down those occupations and roles with a perceived significant social import.
Your concern is overwhelmingly, it seems to me from our discussions, to do with freedom of speech. I think that battle, at the legal level, is some way off yet. This isn’t Canada with its human rights councils. From what I can see the judiciary has basically made Victoria’s attempt to legislatively restrict freedom of speech a ‘dead letter’. The issue for the next little while is going to be changes made on the basis of equality legislation, that are then used to say that people have to be willing to support and tacitly approve of homosexuality by their actions (they’ll be allowed to think whatever they want, as long as it never comes out) if they are to have a role in the public square.
And I think your strategy is disastrous for that, as it will keep conceding the battles that will restrict what opponents are allowed to do while it waits for them to come after freedom of speech. For the moment the battle is going to be over practice in the public square, not speech. We’ll have the right to spew our biggotry if that’s what we really want. But we won’t be allowed to act in accordance with our views, as it will be increasingly seen that the state has taken a position that only allows for actions that support homosexuality in its domain of responsibility.
concluding
Fourth, what do I think the consequence would be if we fought and lost? I don’t know. It depends on a whole range of things that are only under God’s control and known only to him.
Down one side could be something like us seriously harming our ability to get a hearing for the gospel for a generation or more, and people putting forward legislation worse than they would have if we had pulled our heads in.
Up the other side could be a grudging respect as people (except the ones who are just looking for an excuse to hate us) see that our opposition is not based in homophobia or intolerance or a hatred of gays. We could be seen as having a strong moral stance that doesn’t just bend to public opinion. The need to engage with each other could result in some positive interactions between leaders in the homosexual community and Christian spokespeople like what happened between Rick Warren and Melissa Etheridge. People could decide that there is a positive case to find a way to preserve the ability for people to be able to act on their convictions in the public square, alongside extending rights to homosexuals – a more genuinely pluralist outcome.
But the question can also be asked the other way. Let’s assume that the cause is definitely lost, and on that basis we don’t fight it. If it turns out in time that there were significant human costs associated with society broadly endorsing homosexuality and later society does one of its periodic turns from a libertarian to a moralistic ethos that has characterised the last couple of hundred years in the West, what will be the cost for that future generation of Christians for our not fighting?
We’ve just had another global pedophile ring broken up. What isn’t mentioned in the mainstream media (I had to add the word ‘homosexual’ into Google and then got taken to non-mainstream sources that forthrightly added the missing extra word) that I’ve seen about this case is that the ring is a homosexual pedophile ring.
From what I understand about 1/3 of all children sexually abused are boys, about 1/3 of all convicted pedophiles are convicted for molesting boys. Homosexuals (if we take out Kinsey’s outlier statistic) make up 1-3% of the population. And yet they appear to make up close to 33% of the pedophiles.
If that elephant in the room is really there (and it’d be nice if the cone of silence on this could be removed so we could get to the bottom of that one way or another) then there is going to be a big cost paid by children for this move in our society.
Either the next generation that experiences childhood, and has friends they know who experience childhood under these conditions, or one or two after that, will do something about this arrangement when they grow up.
Even if we lose, it would be nice if our children, grand-children or the like could be proud of the stand we took for the defenseless.
The stand some Christians took on behalf of Aborigines ended up being futile throughout the nineteenth century, it often meant their contemporaries wouldn’t listen to them. I think any reasonable person could have seen that at the time. But I thank God they did it.
Mark,
I think rather than not understanding my view you’re just choosing to disagree with it. And that’s fine. That’s up to you. I had another go, about a month ago, at articulating my position again – it is a work in progress.
But I have some experience lobbying government through setting the media agenda, albeit for major infrastructure investment and securing election promises.
Let me tell you what happens, in my experience, if we take what I think you think is the appropriate path in this debate… my take on your position is that what we should be doing is being as offensive as possible in order to win this fight. Get our teeth into the issue. Take no prisoners. Come out all guns blazing against homosexuality as an immoral act condemned by our God and not fitting to be recognised as marriage, though the dirty gays can have their civil unions… because we want to throw them some sort of bone.
Say we do that. Say we adopt a position more Westboro Baptist than Rob Bell… And we lose. It’s almost inevitable, at this point, that we will lose the hill we’re fighting for if we keep fighting the way we’re fighting. Open your mouth in the public sphere now – especially on the Internet – and you’re immediately pounced on as a peddler of hate who is against love, and thus immoral. We’re losing this debate because we’re not framing this debate – our opponents are. The media is on their side. Opinion polls indicate between 60-78% of Australians support the change. This little argument seems to be a case of suggesting we try to shut the gate after the horse has bolted – I’m suggesting we build a new fence to keep the horse on the property. What happens when we lose and we’re caught out as the belligerent guys who used to be in the majority and tried to lord our majority over everybody who disagreed with us? I’d say what happens looks a lot like England. You keep citing the Church of England as an example – I wasn’t in England during the debate, I’ve never been there, so I’ll take your word for it – were they the only Christian voice speaking in this debate? What makes you think your approach is going to work any better? What makes you think Australia will ever replicate the US if we go down the line the church in the US has? All your assertions are just that. Assertions. Based on assumptions that I find questionable. Particularly because I know what it’s like to try to position an issue in the public square. And if I was the PR staffer responsible for implementing your plan. I’d quit.
I think where you’re having problems understanding my position is that I’m constantly trying to suggest that what we want to be doing is exactly what you want to do – I think we should be able to say God thinks homosexuality is immoral.
I suspect our two main differences on this point are:
a) I don’t think Christians can impose the views of our God on an increasingly secular nation.
b) I don’t buy O’Donovan’s over-realised “your kingdom life now” eschatology. I think our job is to be reaching people with the gospel, not living heavenly lives. I recognise there’ll be an overlap there…
That’s where I affirm Peter’s original post. We need to be articulating our response to this issue, but I think it needs to be loving, it needs to recognise that we’re not in the majority, and it needs to take into account that we want to be able to continue to base our identity on whatever intolerant ideas we choose. Ultimately it needs to be something that can be positioned and framed in a way that wins people to Christ by proclaiming the gospel.
I just don’t think “God doesn’t want you gay people to commit to each other” does that. You might disagree.
Sorry if you find this confusing – but I don’t really think dismissing somebody out of hand just because you
I guess, to clarify, since we cross posted (it really is almost impossible to reply to your incredibly long posts – it becomes a discussion of attrition)…
What I am arguing for is an argument with two fronts – one when I’m arguing with secularists, and the other when I’m arguing with Christians…
I’d like the secularists to be prepared for Christians to act on their convictions and be motivated by their beliefs on a host of issues.
I’d like the Christians to take a more nuanced approach to politics. And be able to engage in the democratic process with a spirit of democracy and willingness to compromise. Our goal isn’t to establish God’s kingdom here on earth – it’s to bring people into God’s kingdom in the new earth. Sure. There’s a need for us to speak for the poor, the powerless, the downtrodden and the voiceless – and our positions on hot button issues would be much easier to convey if we were better at speaking truth to power and caring for the poor. But I think, on the whole (and we’ve been over this elsewhere) – Christians have a shoddy approach to politics which is a hangover from when Australia was nominally Christian.
Nathan,
No, I don’t understand your view. What I do get of it I disagree with, but I also can’t see how you can agree with Peter and then say more or less the exact opposite in fairly strong and unequivocal terms in your most recent comments. I read your post a couple of weeks ago, I liked a lot of it, was irritated by some of it, and didn’t walk away with substantially greater clarity.
And for the record, (and hopefully the last time I have to say this), I know that there is no disagreement between us that you and I both want Christians to be able to say offensive things publicly, and to actually do it.
Yes, I get that can be the effect. It’s not the intent. I think some issues need fuller discussion. I’m trying to fine tune it with practice to not ‘win’ just by exhausting others.
“Most Americans think their country is the Kingdom of God”. Implying that I want us to be anything at all like Westbro Baptist. And now this piece of stupidity. How you got from my four points about how we could make a case on non-religious grounds, and the two articles I linked to, and then think what you wrote is remotely a reasonable description of my position…Moving on.
My point about the English situation (again!) is I think they’ve done what you want. They haven’t fought this issue at any point. Christians have made (I think) the calculation you have—the horse has bolted, we’ll seem intolerant and beligerent. So no-one has opposed it. Instead they’ve repeatedly said, “By all means have x for gays, but isn’t it great that the UK is tolerant so we can speak against homosexuality and practice our faith. Both can live side by side.” What you’re seeing in England that worries you about the outcome of what’s happening is not, I think, a vengeful society angry with Christians for fighting against homosexuality and losing the battle. You’re seeing a society dealing with Christians who never went into bat on these issues in recent history (from what I can see).
I’m not saying: England did x and is getting one result and the U.S. is doing y and getting another. So we should do y and not x and we’ll get what the U.S. is (possibly, who knows?) going to get. Oz isn’t either England or the U.S. we can’t assume what ‘works’ there will in Oz. I am saying it is worth reflecting on the parallels around us and trying to get the facts straight.
I could also be wrong on England and the US, I’m hardly an expert on either, but even if I’m wrong, I’m pretty sure your take on the U.K. is mistaken. I’m not slanting my take to help my case. Before I came to England my position would have been closer to yours (albeit not the same).
Ironically I don’t disagree with anything you said in your second comment, out of the two more recent ones.
I don’t think we should be investing very much energy into fighting the laws. Our fundamental calling is to proclaim the gospel and live it out. This thing we’re debating is just one element among many in the ‘live it out’ bit.
I doubt that an attempt to run a case along the lines I gestured at would look all that much like an attempt by a group to say ‘you guys should do this because our God said so, and, by the way, this is a Christian country’. I think it was an attempt to start to bring out the rationality of our position to the overwhelming majority of people who don’t know God. Surely that was indicated by the fact I chose two articles by two non-Christians, both of whom are actually very supportive of broad gay rights from what I can see?
The media is a player in the game of social change, and will always try to set the debate to help one side over another. We just have to live with that, put up with it if we can’t find a way to subvert or bypass it. We have little good history of doing this kind of thing (although I think the Sydney Anglican Diocese’s leaders have more than held their own when I’ve seen them). We’re going to get our heads handed to us until we can work out how to do it. But I think we’ve got to start and work at it. And I think what we do has got to be more than just, “Have your thing but give us the right to say bigotted things.”—which is how I think your strategy is likely to be received.
Obviously there’s a little hyperbole involved in a few of my statements and you’ve chosen to interpret them pretty literally. I’ll steer clear of such in the future…
My take on your position is that you say something along the lines of:
“we win the right to be offensive by exercising that right before we lose it”
I say:
Why do we want to be offensive on this issue when the gospel itself is offensive – why not just use our platform on this issue to point people to Jesus.
Nathan,
Because I think if we’re going to use our platform on this issue we actually have to speak to the issue as well as to the gospel. It can’t be an either/or thing.
And we both agree that if we speak to the issue we’ll be offensive. I’m not talking about being offensive for offense’s sake. And I can’t see how you can avoid speaking to this issue at all without sounding like Rob Bell in his MSNBC interview:
or
People will reasonably want an answer from us on the question, not just us avoiding it and using it to preach the gospel, or saying ‘yes have homosexual marriages, but at the same time repent of being homosexual and turn to Christ’ or the like.
I think it’s more than eschatology dividing us. I think we probably differ on the relationship of law and gospel, and on the relationship of the law to Christ. When I proclaim Christ to people I proclaim him as the one who will judge the world, not just as the one is held out to us in the promises of God. And the Lord Jesus will judge them for what they do, not just for the fact that they don’t believe in him. He cares about what nonChrisians do.
I think that means there is a sense in which we should as well. And the laws you enact, especially on things that are core to what the Bible says about anthropology, are an important part of what people do.
We are ministers of the gospel. But that doesn’t mean we have nothing to do with the law of God, or the laws of men.
Thanks Mark, a good explanation of why this is important. Let me put it another way. While I am preaching the gospel and encouraging people to turn to Jesus, I will also be taking opportunities to love them in practical ways. It does not seem loving to allow the world to drift into patterns of life and laws that will ultimately be harmful to society. If I have an insight into the way that God has designed marriage to work, for the good of human beings, and in particular for the good of children and mothers, I should take the opportunity to say so. Jesus himself referred back to the Genesis 2 pattern when asked a question about the law (Matt 19:3-6).
I agree. So here’s what I’d say.
“When I proclaim Christ to people I proclaim him as the one who will judge the world, not just as the one is held out to us in the promises of God. And the Lord Jesus will judge them for what they do, not just for the fact that they don’t believe in him. He cares about what nonChrisians do.”
I’d be curious if you could point me to a Biblical text to back up that last statement. I agree that Jesus cares what we do, I just don’t think the outcome is different for somebody who has done many sins v somebody who has been basically good but has no relationship with Jesus. Since I’m pretty teleologically driven I wonder what the distinction you’re trying to make is. I presume you don’t believe hell is worse for some people than it is for others?
Hi Nathan,
It is somewhat delusional to spruik the concept of law-making on the basis of religious dogma in our present society if you are outcomes oriented. Statements like ‘gays should not be allowed to get married because our God does not like it’ will wash now about as strongly as they did when act of homosexuality was decriminalized years ago.
It there was a time when speaking up about ‘patterns of life and laws that will ultimately be harmful will society’ was going to make a difference, it was then. Now the flogging of the dead horse seems more than pointless. More than likely make yet another dent in the credibility of the organized church. Perhaps the point is not to sell the law or to persuade any one, but just to make a noise for the sake of making it, to gratify the drum-beaters so their children can be proud.
The issue as I had understood it doing my best was held out to be limited to the label applied to same sex relationships, ie marriage. But really reading some of the recent musings the underlying but unacknowledged issue is the view that homosexuality and homosexuals are bad.
When you play the pedophile card so blatantly the writing is on the wall in that regard. Not just the social institution of marriage is at stake now, but our children as well. All those extra pedophiles that will be created if same sex marriage is permitted. An unsupported assertion.
Bible principles? The early church did not appear to have much focus on changing society or persuading or coercing non-believers to go along with what the then leaders said was right. Whatever social changes were to be gained from accepting Christian dogma, they seemed to come through the acceptance by a broad section of society of the Christian faith.
But it seems the forest has been lost for the trees. Or a camel swallowed while straining for gnats.
Tom, I suspect (since one of your quotes comes from my last post) that you are addressing me rather than Nathan. So let me respond briefly.
Whether a statement will “wash” with society now is not the main criterion for making it. Sometimes people need to be told stuff that is true, even though they don’t like to hear it. The church may have little “credibility” with society- that is what we should expect since Jesus said that the world would hate his followers, just as they hated him- eg Jn 15:20.
Is there an “unacknowledged” view that “homosexuality is bad”? No, that is quite openly acknowledged. That is what the Bible tells us. (There is a difference, real though I know it is disputed by some, between condemning the act of homosexual intercourse and the lifestyle which normalises this, and condemning or judging individual homosexual peraons. Like me, they are sinners; like me, they can be forgiven if they repent from their sin and put their trust in Jesus- 1 Cor 6:11.)
So, should Christians be saying that homosexual behaviour is wrong to our society? Yes, just as they should be saying that greed and other idolatry is wrong and hence will draw onto us the wrath of the living God.
If public opposition to same sex marriage serves to highlight the fact that the judgement of God is real then it will be worthwhile. From that point of view it will be doubly an act of love- supporting values that make society better here and now,and nudging people to consider eternity.
Hi Nathan
Well, I think it’s actually harder to find bible verses that don’t indicate that God cares about what believer or unbeliever does and judges them for their deeds.
Genesis 4, Cain is judged for the murder of his brother.
Genesis 6, the world is destroyed by water because people’s hearts thought only of evil all the time.
Genesis 19, Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed by fire from heaven. Ezekiel 16:49 tells us that Sodom’s sin was neglect of the poor and needy when they had plenty. Jude 1:7 tells us that Sodom’s sin was sexual immorality and perversion (and homosexuality figures strongly in the account in Genesis 19). Jude 1:7 and 2 Peter 2:6 also tell us that the judgement on Sodom was a figure of those who will experience the punishment of eternal fire.
And at the other end of the Bible we have Revelation’s statements in its closing depictions of judgement day and eternity.
Revelation 19:
Revelation 22:
Then between these bookmarks, we can fill in things like what the prophets rebuked the nations around Israel for (more than just worshipping the wrong deities), and Paul’s argument in Rom 1-3. Not loving God is the root of all evil, but God takes an interest in all the evil that grows from that seed, not just the root of unbelief. He judges people for it all.
So I think we are supposed to say to people, ‘Don’t do that, you have to die and then face judgement. And you don’t want that on the charge sheet.’ If that’s not the case then I think we can scrap the first and second uses of the Law, not just the third.
One of the things I think we’re supposed to take away from the fact that sometimes God exercises judgement in fairly dramatic ways on earth for particular sins at particular times is that everything we do matters, it’s not just a case of ‘well I’m going to Hell anyway, so it doesn’t really matter if I do this sin or not’. What framework you derive from the Bible’s teaching that gets you to that end doesn’t worry me too much (I think), but you need to get there.
The basic vibe we seem to be sending these days that God doesn’t care about how people live, he just cares whether or not people believe in him, is setting us up for a daft, “How can God be loving and yet send good people to Hell just for not believing in him?” objection that is primarily occurring because our message is so lopsided, IMO.
Do I personally think there are degrees of judgement in Hell? Yes, I do.
It seems implied by Mat 10:15, Luke 10:12, and Mat 11:20-24. Unless one invokes the kind of rhetorical device there that robs the concrete form of the words of most of their oomph, Jesus seems to be saying fairly clearly that the most notoriously evil cities in the OT will get at an easier time of it on the future Day of Judgement than those towns that saw and heard Jesus’ ministry and didn’t believe. That seems to indicate degrees of judgement to me.
It’s also a fairly respectable line of thinking among the last two thousand years of Bible teachers from what I’ve seen (not that I’ve done anything serious to chase it down) – so that’s a support.
It also nice that it helps in evangelistic situations when someone questions how God can be just and treat a serial killer and an unbelieving humanitarian the same. I can assure them that God won’t—each will get exactly what they deserve, no more, no less. God’s punishment fits the crime. But that the judgement coming to the best humanitarian they can imagine should give them sleepless nights considering it. That seems to fit the way in which the concept of degrees is touched on only tangentially, but the terrifying and absolute nature of the judgment for everyone is front a centre.
But it’s basically those handful of passages from the lips of Jesus for me.
Mark,
I think this, more than anything else explains the different approach we’re taking on this issue.
I do think there’s a rhetorical advice at play in Jesus’ words here. But it does make sense to read them the way you do…
I certainly think, on the positive side of the ledger, that there are greater rewards in heaven for those who do good – so there’s some sort of precedent.
And I’m not trying to play down the deeds side of the faith and deeds nexus –
But I’m still not convinced.
I think part of the problem here is actually the way we’ve positioned God in the market as “all-loving” as though that excludes all other personality traits. I think the John 3:16 problem is on the “For God so loved the world” side, rather than on the “that whoever believes in him” side – though I take your point that “believe” has become a low bar it was never intended to be – because belief, by definition, shapes actions.
Hi, Mark,
Thanks for taking the trouble to clarify your views; I appreciate it.
I’ll have a think about things, and if anything occurs that seems worth remarking on, I’ll post…
Cheers,
David
Hi Neil,
It seems to me that true acceptance of one’s own sinful nature and conduct is intimately bound up in a complicated process that includes acknowledging both the existence and the nature of God and ends in taking the step of relying on Jesus Christ for personal salvation.
Denunciation of sinful conduct either in general terms or specifically clearly has a place. But the place it has is arguable.
The underlying assumption seems to be that a denunciation of the specific conduct of a specific section in society with whom you have no relationship of any kind has an inherent value. Either in influencing the sinners to change their ways. Or in fulfilling a biblical principle to the effect that sinners, for whom the church is not responsible and whose conduct the church cannot change, should be denounced by the church in a kind of pious harangue. As opposed to say focussing on the church’s own conduct, for which the church is actually responsible and can actually change.
But I thought it was not so much about giving people God’s view of their conduct to ensure they were able to make a choice nor even to fulfil the bible principle apparently in favour of the pious harangue. It was to stop the effects that were allegedly destined to ensue from the labelling by a marginal group of homosexuals of their relationships as ‘marriage’. The social institution of marriage may/will come to a gruesome end as we all follow after the homosexuals. The pedophiles may/will take over the child care centres.
I think your proposition is the easier to make out than the other. I’m not sure if supports it convincingly however.
Hi Nathan,
As I tried to flag, I’m not sure it is this issue precisely. I think it is the framework that leads me to going this way on the one hand, and on the other you not being convinced even though you see the exegesis is reasonable, and you hold that there’s varieties of rewards for believers. That’s a very unusual position, I think. I haven’t come across too many people who think that grace will result in various degrees of reward and also think that justice won’t discriminate between degrees of punishment.
That’s why I said the exact way you get to the point where you think God judges the things people do, not just their state of being out of relationship with him is what matters. Degrees of judgement plays very, very little role in my thinking or actions. The idea that God cares about what everyone does, does play a big role.
My thought at this point in time is that many people in ‘our circle’ seems to have lost any role for the Law at all.
If you remember back to a recent post on a blog we both read where the blogger was surprised at a preacher saying people shouldn’t have abortions because they’d go to Hell and thought ‘If I knew I wasn’t right with God then I’d be going to Hell anyway, so might as well abort’, that was telling for me as a sounding. Not just for the blogger’s thoughts, but the chorus of agreements from the comments – and no dissents IIRC.
And yet the logic of the preacher is in the dead centre of the Reformed tradition – the first use of the Law: that it restrains (some) sin of unbelievers, who, even if they aren’t believers, decide not to push their luck ‘just in case’. And the second use of the Law – that the Law’s critique of the concrete deeds we do is part of how we come to recognise our status of being ‘sinners’.
But if God doesn’t care about what unbelievers do, and doesn’t judge them for their deeds, then the Law is hardly capable of puncturing their self-righteousness, because it has little to say to them. Don’t do that or you’ll go to Hell is actually a pretty normal way in which the Reformed tradition has addressed unbelievers contemplating something particularly evil, I think.
I think we’ve lost that sense, not just of the third use of the Law, but of the first two. Hence why we just can’t see why you’d go into bat for laws at all. It’s a Law-Gospel dichotomy that not even Luther would have accepted.
Degrees of Hell? I think it’s marginal. Guys like me who like their theology to be coherent pick up things like that, but I don’t think it’s important.
But I think stances on this issue reflect more a view of the relationship of Law and Gospel, and a lack of even agreeing with the first two uses of the Law.
I think we got here because we were looking for a way to ruthlessly cut moralism out of the blood stream, and remove any chance that people might think that the Christian message is that you get to go to Heaven if you’re good enough.
I like the goal (really like it), but I’m not sure we achieved it. People still seem to think that’s how it works, just the bar is lower now because God is so loving. And I think we’ve lost our grip on the Law altogether. I think we find it a bit weird that so many of our older churches have the ten commandments written on them somewhere prominently.
These comments seem reflecting on my thoughts rather than Nathan’s so I’d better field them.
Well that’s because that’s the issue that is being debated in society. But once the debate focused more on what Christians should do, other issues not germane to that issue were raised.
Active homosexuality is bad, yes. Homosexuals are bad only in the sense fornicators, adulterers, the sexually immoral, and sinners in general are bad. Doesn’t mean they are worse than other sinners. Doesn’t mean they can’t be great neighbours, family members, work colleagues, friends. It’s not like we have good people who have virtues and no flaws, and bad people who have nothing good in them.
This response gets tiring, it’s like the ‘correlation is not causation’ knee-jerk response that you see so often. Any statement about the future consequences of an action is an assertion. Unless you’re a prophet, you cannot know you can only assert. The basis for the assertion will always be questionable, in good Yes Minister fashion :
My observation about pedophilia was not in my thoughts on SSM for a reason. I think it is only marginally germane to that issue. At most it would be an argument why homosexual men shouldn’t be able to marry, not homosexual women (and explaining that would be too complex for an effective argument in the public square, in my view).
It was raised to Nathan as part of why I think this fight is worth fighting even if we think we’ll lose and people will be angry with us for fighting it. The ‘fight’ is not SSM on its own in that context, it is the move by society to put homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality, as well as see it as needing special legal protections due to it being a marginalised group. My observation about that ‘fight’ is that I think one consequence will be more children (specifically boys) sexually abused then at present.
That’s not because such a change would create large amounts of more pedophiles (wherever that came from?) but because it will give pedophiles far more freedom to get access to boys. It would be a similar effect if we started to allow single heterosexual men or two heterosexual men in a non-sexual partnership to adopt girls.
We already know that pedophiles are good at getting access to prey. Two pedophiles (because pedophilia is overwhelmingly a male problem) being able to get together and adopt, which the change to society’s approach to the rights of homosexuals will enable, is likely to create a larger number of sexual abuse cases than we have now. It’s hard to see how you could stop it, even if you are willing to talk about it seriously (which we aren’t).
The rate of pedophilia among homosexual men is going to exacerbate the problem, but even if the rate was half that of heterosexual men I’d still argue that we’d get a significant rise in sexual abuse cases by allowing two men to adopt children. On the issue of sexual abuse, the two safest combinations seem to be two women or a woman and man, in descending order of safety. So, looking at this issue on its own you could argue that it’s okay for homosexual women to adopt – but that would require differentiating people, whereas Don has indicated that isn’t to treat them ‘equally’.
The overwhelming majority of men, homosexual or heterosexual are not pedophiles. Pedophilia is rare. What appears to be the disproportionate rate of pedophile among homosexual men is, in my view, worthy of some discussion and research. But I wouldn’t be happy with someone pointing to higher rates of pedophilia among males to say that there is something wrong with maleness. So I’m not going to run an argument that directly moves from rates of pedophilia among homosexual men to conclusions about the validity of homosexuality. Assessments have to be made on broader grounds than that.
Dear Tom;
Sorry for the delay in responding to your comments above. Actually I think Mark has pretty well summed up what I would want to say. I guess I would just want to reiterate that the issue is not whether
Making a public statement that homosexual behaviour is contrary to God’s word and thus ultimately harmful to people is done because it is an announcement of God’s standards, not the church’s, and it is done because all people, like it or not, are “responsible” to the almighty Creator.
In my view, despite your sarcastic comments about the likely social effects, they are also indeed serious, and hence it is the loving thing to warn society about the consequences of “normalising” a lifestyle which is contrary to God’s design for human beings.
Hi Mark,
I think it’s a bigger issue than you think – since I take a pretty teleological approach to ethics generally, I think if all non-believers are going to end up in hell, and hell is the same for all, then there’s not much sense getting non-Christians to sin less. I realise that sin, by its nature, has tangible consequences for the sinner – and it is loving to point that out. But that doesn’t, in my mind, mean fighting for legislation against individual choice. And I see only a semantic distinction between “civil union” and “marriage”.
So if by framework you mean you come at things a little more deontologically – then yes, I agree. Our frameworks are the explanation for our differences.
The jury is still out on that for me. The legitimacy of the exegesis. If I change my mind on that, I’ll change my stance.
1 Corinthians 3:10-14 to me suggests that the fire is the same for all whose houses get burned up, while the outcome of the fire is different for those whose foundation is Jesus, depending on their build quality…
I’ve never spoken to any protestant friends on this issue who believed that Hell involved a variety of punishments, I guess Dante might disagree…
I’ve always thought Paul’s take on the law in Romans is that it sets such an impossibly high standard for righteousness that we all realise we can’t possibly meet it and thus need to turn to God for redemption – and that was the case for Israel too… The law convicts us, but I don’t think the weight of our transgression necessarily convicts us more.
I’ve been thinking about Jesus’ Sodom and Gomorrah comments that you mentioned the other day – I wonder if part of the point he is making is a comparison between temporal judgment and eternal judgment – ie Hell is going to be heaps worse in magnitude than that which happened to Soddom and Gomorrah – and if you’re living post-Jesus you’ve got no leg to stand on – which seems to be a thread that Paul picks up again in Romans and Galatians.
Indeed. We’re scared of moralism and legalism. I’m particularly scared of imposing moralism or legalism on non-Christians (not so much on Christians) lest they confuse it with the gospel. My concern is not that people think you need to be good enough for God, but that they know that even though they’re bad the gospel is for them. I don’t want them to think the gospel is “you’ll be saved if you’re good” – I want them to think it’s “you’re bad, but God has done something about that for you through Jesus and will give you a hand through the Spirit”…
The more I try to rewrite this sentence to not be exactly the same as yours, the more I think our positions aren’t actually that far apart theologically, but are practically…
I think teaching ethics and wisdom are a better road to go down in terms of reforming behaviour within the church anyway… the law seems to me to be a floor for conduct pleasing to God, not the ceiling.
TBC…
Cont…
Perhaps. Though I suspect, as I’ve said above, that this difference isn’t as pronounced as you think and that it’s more a matter of the ethical framework you impose on the notion that the law sets a God-ordained standard for human behaviour, that we can’t keep, which convicts us of our sin… surely the first use of the law will happen without God’s law being Australia’s law? I keep coming back to the idea that the Biblical texts were written against a backdrop of a pretty non-God’s-law-abiding context (I’m thinking of the comparison Leviticus 18:1-5 makes with the practices of the surrounding nations, and what we know of Roman society). It seems to me that the Bible is much more worried about the conduct of people within the boundaries of the people of God than the people outside it, and that the contrast in behaviours is to be a witness to the relationship we have with God. So while I think the first and second uses of the law as you’ve described them are valid – I don’t think they necessarily achieve their ends in the way you seem to be suggesting.
Mark, you said: “What appears to be the disproportionate rate of pedophile among homosexual men…”
What do you base this claim on, Mark?
Brian
Hi Nathan,
Then let me introduce you to two new Protestant friends then, who also disagree. Their names are John Calvin and Martin Luther.
John Calvin on Matthew 10:9-15 and its parallels in Mark and Luke
And Martin Luther, in one of his expressions of hope that God would forgive the pagan philosopher Cicero’s sins, or at least treat with him mercifully:
Other Protestant friends I could introduce you to include Charles Hodge, Frances Turretin, and Jonathan Edwards, but I admit that I haven’t gone asking around all that far. Perhaps it might be easier if you list your friends, earlier than the last fifty years or so, who explicitly reject this idea in favor of ‘one size fits all’ judgement?
I agree with you that ethics is teleological, not deontological, but think the collateral damage of your view here is worse than just your position on social ethics:
Actually, with a reformed view of sin, if you have this view, then I think you actually end up with a position that says that everything non-Christians do is equally sinful. Sin is defined by its end for teleological ethics, and if all sin has the same end, then all sin is basically the same as any other sin. An unbeliever cannot do something genuinely righteous before God – everything is riddled with sin, and none of it springs from a pure love of God. So an unbeliever who pushes a little old lady in front of a bus, and an unbeliever who helps her across the street, have sinned equally on your view, I’d suggest. They haven’t just both sinned, God sees no distinction between their deeds, but treats them exactly the same come Judgement.
I think that makes ethics problematic.
concluding
Yeah, I tried that one on Peter Jensen the year before I went to Moore. He cured me of it.
I don’t think anywhere in the NT lays down a higher standard than the Sermon on the Mount. And that’s an exposition of the Mosaic Law.
And when Reformed theology speaks of ‘law’ they have Luther’s law-gospel dichotomy in mind, not NT studies mosaic covenant/new covenant dichotomy in mind.
It’s very clear in Luther. It’s there in Calvin if you look—the distinction he draws between the covenants has nothing to do with the moral law, he sees the moral law as common to both covenants.
Their ‘law’ is our ‘ethics’—it’s what Scripture reveals as the will of God for human lives. They aren’t too fussed whether it comes from the Pentateuch, the wisdom literature, or Ephesians 4-6, all of it lays out how life is to be lived, and so lays out the criteria by which God will judge, and is to be distinguished from ‘gospel’—what God promises us in Christ.
So your distinction here only works by not recognising the use to which the word ‘law’ is being put in Reformed theology. Apart from the fact that I think it’s wrong anyway – I think the apostles saw themselves as expounding the same ethics as existed in the OT.
No, I agree, not necessarily. I don’t think I disagreed with anything you affirmed in the second of your two more recent comments.
You stated things we hold in common as though they’re the whole story, and what I disagree with is that that is the whole story. From my point of view, I think everything in the second comment is common ground in this debate.
Hi Brian,
There’s a number of things. The precise figures seem to vary depending on whether you are focusing on a psychological definition of pedophilia, or how it seems (from what I can see) to be used more popularly in a ‘legal sense’ to refer to people who molest children/collect child pornography, or some other criteria. It also differs whether you are referring just to sex with pre-adolescent children, or including teenagers under the age of consent, when there is a significant gap of years between them and the adult.
This at times leads to confusion. My impression is that when the media reported the Roman Catholic Church’s pedophilia scandals of the last few decades they often gave the impression that the scandal involved molestation of pre-adolescents. And then argued that sexual orientation has nothing to do with pre-adolescent pedophilia, and so were inflamed when the Catholic Church began to tighten up on the numbers of homosexuals among the clergy – made it appear that it was a case of scapegoating.
But my reading around suggests that some 90% of the cases involved molestation of teenage boys (and when the papers gave the names of past victims they were overwhelmingly male and the ages when the abuses began were usually around twelve or so), where no one seriously argues that sexual orientation is not a factor in an offender’s preference for one gender over the other. And so the Catholic Church’s response was quite sensible in light of the scandal. The scandals were overwhelming due to the behavior of homosexual clergy and then compounded by the actions of bishops.
But for one carefully referenced scientific article by medical professionals on this, you could read the article that was the cause of Dr Hans-Christian Raabe’s sacking from the UK’s drug board. You can find it here:
http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/GayWatch/Articles/GayMarriage.pdf
The whole article gathers in bullet point form many of the key ‘utilitarian’ issues with homosexuality. Page 4 has material on homosexuality and pedophilia that looks similar to what I’ve read elsewhere. I think the style is a bit abrasive, but the content looks fairly well sourced on the whole.
I’m still not convinced that the Sodom and Gomorrah passages aren’t Jesus saying God’s final judgment is going to be worse than the judgment he poured out on Sodom and Gomorrah – I don’t think he’s talking about the way the individual citizens of those cities will be judged at judgment day, but rather making a comparison between a historical incident of God’s judgment that must have had significant traction with his audience – and the future judgment that is to come.
I don’t necessarily think that Calvin quote supports your position. I’m also not sure that that Luther quote is anything more than wishful thinking.
I would have thought the Sermon on the Mount was a restatement of law, not a statement of ethics. I don’t see them as the same, perhaps I’ve been influenced by those I’m studying under, and those they studied under at this point – but the “law is the floor, ethics are the ceiling” in the Old Testament actually works for me. The law seems, in many cases, to be a minimum standard for behaviour.
I get confused when you use the word “law” in a way the Bible doesn’t to describe a bigger thing. So I don’t think Paul talks about the law the way you’re talking about the law in your follow up post. And when I talk about the law, I’m talking Torah. Whether or not the Reformers think the New Testament is part of God’s law seems irrelevant, we already have a “law” in the Bible and redefining the terms seems like grounds for confusion. I’m much more interested, as a rule, in getting my head around what Paul (and the other writers of the Bible) were on about, rather than what the reformers thought he was on about. I think the reformers are great. But I’m not going to decide my position on Hell, or on doctrinal issues, simply because Calvin took a particular position.
Hi Mark,
My understanding of the literature is that there is no evidence that perpetrators of male-to-pre or peri-pubescent-male child sexual abuse are any more highly represented among homosexual men (those who take/prefer adult male sexual partners) than heterosexual men. This is confirmed in the big reviews by McConaghy (1998) and Groth & Gary, (1982) and a number of other other large studies since. In fact, on my reading, the evidence suggests that homosexual men may be under-represented. This is quite a well studied question and there does not seem to be much dispute about this conclusion by those publishing in the area. I’d be interested if you could point to any large studies which demonstrate the contrary.
In the article you refer to, Raabe seems to be making the common error that the term ‘homosexual paedophilia’ means that the perpetrator is a homosexual in the sense of taking or preferring adult male sexual partners. In the social science and medical literature the term is used to refer only to adult male abuse of male children. It does not entail that the perpetrators are homosexual as describe above.
In regards hebophilia by priests (which I presume you are referring to), you say that “no one seriously argues that sexual orientation is not a factor in an offender’s preference for one gender over the other”. I wouldn’t like to dismiss the contrary so quickly without some evidence – do you know of any? In any case, I’m not sure that the fact that 90% (John Ray says ~80%) of victims are male implies that homosexual priests commit hebophilia at any greater rate than heterosexual priests. Do you have any evidence that this is so?
Cheers
Brian
Hi Neil,
Sarcastic perhaps, but at least not rhetoric that is inflammatory in nature.
I don’t think I disagree with your general proposition but I think it can be distinguished from the full implications of the original one. I am not convinced that the grounds you advance make out the original.
The grounds relied upon to support the original proposition include things like the ill-effects same sex marriage will/may have on marriage and society generally, the pedophile onslaught etc. But no evidence has been provided to support the contentions as to those things that is either neutral or based on any apparent scientific method.
And at the end, we have either Mark’s unqualified opinion based upon his views about media reports or what is described as a scientific piece on the topic (presumably because it written by doctors?). But that piece smacks of a slanted opinion written to support an already accepted position. Hardly scientific.
Problematically for me and I expect others, no real effort is made by some to clearly distinguish the conduct of homosexuals that is supposed to lead to the ill effects on marriage/society from the personal characteristics inherent to homosexual people. Any such negative characterisation in my view should start with that point.
Instead we have the kind of rhetoric Mark originally advanced that broadly imputed if homosexuals get to label their relationships marriage, this directly will lead to an increase in child sexual abuse. Hopefully no one finds that kind of imputation defamatory, as establishing its truth may prove difficult.
More effort needs to be made to ensure arguments are based on the established facts. And the opinions of people who are clearly not disinterested in the outcome of the debate should be heavily salted before being swallowed in my view.
Nathan,
I think your take is a strain, and Calvin has it right:
When Sodom was judged, judgement was enacted on every individual in the city except those whom God spared (the kind of point of 2 Peter 2:5-7). And the comparison is not between what God’s judgement was for Sodom and what it will be on the day of judgement. It is between what it will be for both Sodom and the towns that hear the gospel.
And I’m not sure how Calvin can do anything other than support my position.
Calvin makes it clear that Jesus’ words refer to the final judgement, and that at that final judgement there will be a comparison of punishments between both Sodom and the Jewish towns:
So, in the context of the final judgement, Calvin sees Jesus, in these passages, as speaking about ‘more severe punishments’ and ‘less severe’ and then finishes with two ‘and if x had such dreadful vengeance than how much more y’ constructions.
I don’t think there is any other construction that can be put upon his words.
And, yes, Luther’s words are wishful thinking in the first sentence, but not so much the second in my view, given what he seems to have said elsewhere about Cicero – he considered him to be an outstandingly virtuous man. Even if they were, they still witness to his belief in degrees of punishment in Hell just as much as his words in the first sentence witness to his belief in the forgiveness of sins. Wishful thinking has to have content, and that content tells you something about the person’s beliefs. It’s not like Luther expressed a desire that Cicero would be in Valhalla.
But if you like, I can drop in the quotes from Turretin, Hodge, and Edwards. They have a far more scholastic clarity than Luther and Calvin, so I think they would leave far less room for interpretive doubt.
I agree that the Sermon on the Mount is a restatement of the Law, but that’s one of my points. You think the Sermon on the Mount is “the minimum standard of behaviour” and we can go beyond it? Please give some examples! The idea that the Law is the floor and ethics is able to transcend what the law requires would seem to be close to the Catholic idea that there are counsels of perfection that go beyond what God requires of people and so transcend the standards by which God will judge. We are capable of doing better than the standard God will use to judge.
As far as how ‘law’ is used, well you’re a Presbyterian, you are going to have to get used to the variation. Given your view about the fluidity of language and words that shouldn’t be an issue, I would have thought. This view of ‘law’ is there in the Westminster Confession and the Catechisms and Reformed theology in general. When they talk about the three uses of the law, you don’t think they mean ‘three uses of the Mosaic Covenant’? Or even ‘three uses of the moral laws of the OT?’ – as though a preacher needs to be constantly going back to the Pentateuch to restrain sinners, give a knowledge of one’s sinfulness, and to stimulate the godly to greater godliness? That these things can’t happen when someone is reading the wisdom literature? Or James? Or Ephesians 4-6?
It goes back to Augustine’s basic distinction between what God requires of us, and what God gives us – law and grace. That’s where the idea of using the word ‘law’ for this category comes from, it seems to me. Now, if you don’t like that, and want to use the word ‘ethics’ for ‘what God requires of us’, that’s well and good. Just, when you interact with most Reformed theology you will need to take out ‘law’ and put in ‘ethics’—‘three uses of ethics’, not ‘three uses of law’ to get the meaning.
Hi Brian,
What you are getting at is part of what I was trying to describe in my first paragraph. My impression is that at least some of the position seems to hang on definitions. It seems that psychology, as a whole, seems to be saying that, for their purposes, a pedophile is someone who is primarily orientated to children, a homosexual someone who is primarily orientated to adult males. And then concluding, in various studies, that there is no connection at all between homosexuality and pedophilia. And on those definitions it is hard to see how there could be. Almost by definition someone who is primarily attracted to adults will be underrepresented among those primarily attracted to children.
What I haven’t seen – and maybe you could direct me to it – is why one would divide the two categories of ‘which gender you are orientated towards’ and ‘what age you are orientated towards’ so completely.
Inasmuch as it is saying ‘people with same sex attraction who are attracted to adults and not children are not a risk to children’ I agree, and tried to say same strongly in one of my comments.
But there could be a link between same sex attraction and lower age attraction in that that combination is (putatively for this discussion with you now) a higher proportion of all those who experience same sex attraction than with those who experience other sex attraction. I don’t know if I’ve made that clear, but that seems to me to be one of the things that’s harder to see addressed, and seems fairly pertinent.
I’ve been sick at home with the flu this week, otherwise I could have accessed the two articles you mention. I’ll read them Monday and offer my thoughts.
As far as hebophilia and priests, my hunch is that Ray Blanchard’s 2009 article might show the link between gender orientation to adults and gender orientation to teenagers, but I’ll read that too and let you know. Given that sexual characteristics are now forming in that age group, I think it’s more the case as to whether you know of any reports that indicate no link – homosexual men can be attracted to teenage girls, and heterosexual men can be attracted to teenage boys with reasonable degrees of frequency.
Unless you have evidence to indicate that sexual orientation does not affect the gender of one’s attraction to teenagers, then if 80% (I’m happy to go with the John Ray report) of the sex abuse cases are male, then homosexual clergy did abuse more frequently unless they comprised 80% of the clergy, or unless the rate of abuse
by a homosexual clergy abuser (number of victims they created) was significantly higher than for heterosexual clergy abusers.
Not sure how clear all that is, but I think those figures work.
It is probably a vain hope that Tom is going to read my arguments more carefully any time soon. That’s not what I ‘originally advanced’. When the issue of pedophilia was first introduced I said “society broadly endorsing homosexuality” would likely have the effect of causing a rise in sex abuse cases. Hence, my later comments were not a modification of the position but a further explanation of the logic there.
Yes, when taken with my statements that a higher putative rate of pedophilia among homosexual men shouldn’t be directly linked to a negative assessment of homosexuality in general, and that my view would be unchanged even if rates were much lower among homosexual men because the issue is the problem with having men. adopt. without women. One would hope that no-one finds it defamatory.
Color me surprised though, that it is Brian who put that thought out there.
I’m sure that using the law to prevent people uttering views about homosexuality that homosexuals and their supporters find offensive will be attempted at some point, and Canada certainly seems to have been a frontrunner in that experiment. Hence Nathan’s position that what we need to be fighting for now is stiffer freedom of speech laws to prevent precisely this attempt to control what can be said without fear of civil or criminal action.
Hi Mark,
Perhaps the fashion in which the argument is defined and put forward could be modified. The question could be defined with more clarity. The arguments could be articulated more coherently.
Throwing up the pedophilia argument in any shape or form to me is really clutching at straws. And as far as your part in that, I would only suggest that when making what could be construed as inflammatory (or defamatory) statements, it would be better to ensure that the facts were certain.
The spectre of pedophilia seems just one of the grab bag of points raised as part of what appears a consistent attempt throughout the debate to demonize homosexual conduct and by clear implication homosexual people. This is done either deliberately, or carelessly.
If you say that social endorsement of homosexuality will lead to a rise in sex abuse, that proposition does make a prejudicial and negative statement about the inherent characteristics of all people of homosexual persuasion. Denying that does not change it.
“of all people of homosexual persuasion”? Or “some”?
Brian, I wouldn’t have thought that the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality would much care what age people are involved. Do you think any passages support your view?
Hi Tom,
And when I said that allowing heterosexual men to adopt singly or as pairs without a woman in the mix would lead to a rise in sex abuse, that proposition did make a prejudicial and negative statement about the inherent characteristics of all people of heterosexual persuasion?
Do you think that as well? Why or why not?
When I said that having two women adopt would lead to less sex abuse than having a couple made up of a man and a woman adopt, that proposition also made a prejudicial and negative statement of the inherent characteristics of all heterosexual couples?
Do you think that as well? Why or why not?
On your logic I think I’ve made a prejudicial and negative characterization of everyone except homosexual women. If you think it is only homosexual men, or (somehow) only homosexual men and women that I’ve only made it of, I’d be interested to hear the logic of that.
If I may quote a post from a week ago –
Let me put it another way. While I am preaching the gospel and encouraging people to turn to Jesus, I will also be taking opportunities to love them in practical ways. It does not seem loving to allow the world to drift into patterns of life and laws that will ultimately be harmful to society. If I have an insight into the way that God has designed marriage to work, for the good of human beings, and in particular for the good of children and mothers, I should take the opportunity to say so.
I realise that there have been various reasons posted within this trail, for opposing SS marriage. But if love is posited as the primary reason, as in the above post, I still find that a very selective or obscure expression of love.
He who follows this line of thinking that the command to love extends to detailed focus on
civil laws, must be an incredibly loving person, if they are balanced in their expression of this apparently very far reaching requirement to love. I imagine that such a person would want to be tuned to talkback radio constantly, and would phone in regularly to offer advice to anyone whom they feel might be doing anything in life that might cause themselves harm. The person probably photocopies information about the harm that can be done by smoking, and delivers these to letterboxes from suburb by suburb though their city, as a loving act seeking to help people not suffer ill health. At dusk when lifeguards pack up, the person takes over patrolling beaches lovingly seeking to prevent any stragglers from possibly coming to harm in a rip.
Okay, yes I suggest those behaviours tongue in cheek, and dont mean to belittle or be offensive. And, yes I can see that the person who made the above post is well intentioned, and that advocating biblically aligned civil laws could be understood as a loving act. But hopefully my illustrations highlight how the above post seems to be advocating such an obscure expression of love, that I wonder whether it’s off track from what the Biblical call to love is supposed to be about. The gospels offer specific illustrations on expressing love. These illustrations seem to me to focus on helping the underprivileged and the neglected, not about advocating ‘loving’ laws.
I hope you are feeling better Mark.
I agree that defining the two orientations as you describe begs the question – and I’ve see it expressed like that in popular discussions. But, in my reading, this is not a feature of the major studies in this field. Without using ‘primary orientation’ as an operational definition, they nonetheless find that adult homosexuality is largely exclusive of paedophilia – that the proportion of paedophiles who are also sexually attracted to men is the same or perhaps lower than the parallel case in heterosexuals. The data demonstrates that there is very little overlap between adult and child attraction in homosexuals.
That these studies show there is not a disproportionate behavioural link between the adult and child orientations in homosexual men – perhaps less than that found in heterosexuals – is one reason to divide the two categories so completely.
Another reason to divide the categories (at least in terms of paedophilia) is that these two orientations seem to have mutually exclusive psychological characteristics. Groth & Birnbaum (1978) conclude from their studies that “the reason [that these two orientations tend to be exclusive of one another] is that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child’s qualities are more feminine than masculine.” This view was shared by other major researchers in the area – Freund and Marshall, explicitly. I’m not sure if it is still the consensus view.
I don’t fully understand your point in your fourth paragraph.
I don’t know of any direct evidence about the homosexuality of hebephile priests. Blanchard’s later phallometric studies support the view that similar patterns of attraction to children and youth are found in homosexuals as heterosexuals, and these conclusions have been used to deny that priestly hebephilia involves a higher proportion of (adult attracted) homosexuals than in parallel heterosexual cases. Prima facie, this doesn’t seem to be a strongly supported inference, but I haven’t read much of the debate. Nonetheless, perhaps more importantly, in regards our discussion, I don’t think we can generalise from the small, non-representative sample of hebepohile priests to conclusions about homosexuality and hebephilia in the population as a whole.
Cheers
Brian
Hi Mark
I’d like to ask a question related to my original interest in this thread, before I got side-tracked. From your theological point of view, if some type of behaviour is unacceptable on purely theological/biblical grounds, is it always the case that there will also exist a valid non-theological reason to reject it? Put another way, is it possible that there could be is a sound ‘utilitarian’ case for the overall social benefit of some type of behaviour, yet it is deemed unacceptable for theological/biblical reasons? That is, does theological acceptance/rejection of something always coincide with the valid conclusions of a purely social benefit analysis?
Thanks
Brian
Hi Nathan,
I’m a loooong way behind in this discussion – in the middle of a relocation!
I just want to comment on one thing from a week back:
Opinion polls indicate between 60-78% of Australians support the change.
As I’m sure you know, opinion polls can give you whatever result you like. The one quoted was done for two gay rights groups, apparently. So the result’s hardly surprising. If the issue’s presented as one of justice, equality and non-discrimination, this is the result you’ll get. But what if the issue had been, what our kids are going to be taught is “normal”? And whether parents will have the right to withdraw their kids from this teaching? I think the percentages might have been a bit different.
But I do agree, the media is totally on their side.
Cheers, Michael.
Hi Mark,
The idea of choosing one of the many sentences you have written and following you down the rabbit hole into Logic land for a game of ‘pass the semantic parcel’ is not one that appeals.
Rather than doing that I would say that predictions of future criminal conduct, particularly conduct as emotionally charged as child sexual abuse should only be made by those well qualified in the field, and based on peer accepted data. Your efforts in that department, whether they identify homosexuals or any other class are not helpful to the debate in my view.
If there was any credible science that suggested same sex marriage or some other conduct specific to homosexual men was strong enough to justify going outside of our societies legal norm and prejudging an entire class of people so as to justify restricting in some or any way the activities of homosexuals, then I don’t recall it. Presumably if it existed linking directly the ‘elephant in the room’ (ie the allegedly high rate of pedophilia amongst homosexual men) with the question of same sex marriage it would have been referenced.
Playing the man not the ball, no matter how subtly only demonstrates the weakness in the argument. That is always the case.
Hi Craig,
It seems fairly clear to me that you are struggling to balance the call to love thy neighbour with that of the doctrine of the pious harangue. But I am sure you will find they are not inconsistent, and can in fact be practised together with only the slightest smidgen of unease.
I have had a quick search but alas cannot find any printed literature recognising the existence of this doctrine. I pointed to it myself during this particular discussion and am thinking of writing a book on the doctrine, thanks in no small part to the insights I have received while reading certain points of view.
At the moment and you must forgive me as this is very gestational, I envisage the doctrine would involve certain pious people sallying forth and smiting the infidel hip and thigh with their misdeeds. It will be a metaphorical smiting primarily, but perhaps subject to the development of it, an actual physical smiting may be required to maximise the love.
Of course, we cannot allow just anyone to do it, so as to avoid the obvious counter charge of hypocrisy. Thus only a select band of the most righteous would be chosen. When pointing out a person’s faults, I find it very helpful not to be standing in a glass house. So only the most pure should apply. I would think a special cloak would be issued, together with a ring, and some other appropriate paraphanalia.
But keep at it Craig. I sense that you are on the cusp of gaining an understanding of both the existence of the doctrine of the pious harangue, and why it is important to the Christian church.
Regards.
Hi Craig,
Okay, I have just read McConaghy’s 1998 article reviewing the literature on paedophilia. Groth and Gary’s 1982 article would require a lot more work to get hold of, so I’ll pass on reading that one. Unless there’s reason to think otherwise, I think that McConaghy’s article is likely to be in the same kind of ballpark as theirs – as it is a review article McConaghy does touch on studies with some anomalous findings.
My summarising thoughts on McConaghy’s article are:
1. It seems very good to me as someone with academic training, but no specialised knowledge of the area. Clear, well-reasoned, came across as non-partisan. Possibly someone with more knowledge of the area could see how he was jumping on issues of debate in the discipline.
2. The difference in pattern of child sex-abuse between primarily opposite gender pedophiles and same gender pedophiles was interesting.
a. Opposite gender appear to prey on girls in their own home or families they are friends with, and are interested in adult women. The real danger appears to be lower IQ males, low social-economic class, alcoholic and unemployed, psychopathic, who are stepfathers of girls. They have only a few victims and there are good chances of not repeating the offence.
b. Same gender pedophiles prey on boys quite widely, not linked to their own families. They have up to hundreds of victims. Their IQ is average, they’ll have stable work, they’ll be seen as ‘immature’. They have no interest in adults of either gender.
3. Like other articles I’ve seen referenced he appears to give a fairly straightforward denial of any link between homosexuality and same sex pedophilia. He provides the statistics that lead him to (I presume) agree with the finding of some researchers that there are likely to be about 11 opposite gender pedophiles for every 1 same sex pedophile.
My reflections on that are:
First, again, It’s interesting the differences between the two basic types of pedophile. But again I’m not sure of the implicit step that says that because the same gender pedophile is not interested in adult men, therefore he isn’t a homosexual. I agree that it means that where you have a man who is interested in adult men he is likely to not be interested in boys, and I think that’s worth being said clearly and loudly, but that just because a man is interested in women does not mean that girls are safe around him. From a child safety point of view, that information seems important. But I’m still unclear (and unconvinced) about separating out the chronology attraction and the gender attraction this strongly.
Second, some of the figures used to get to the final figure of the ratio of 11:1 surprised me. 30% of all women are victims of pedophilia? That figure seems a bit high to me, I wouldn’t have thought we had enough men in blended families that fit the profile McConaghy puts down. And when it’s based on 5% of men being pedophiles (the figure he comes to), that suggests six victims per pedophile, which seems somewhat higher than his discussion on opposite gender pedophiles seems to indicate. If most of these guys are offending in their family, I would have thought it would be hard (in a modern western family) to find six girls. So something in those figures doesn’t sit right with me. But, maybe I’m not being as pessimistic as I should be about the effect that the sexual revolution has had on the experience of women growing up in low socio-economic blended families.
If we take the 11:1 ratio, then what we make of that will come down a lot to what is the right figure for homosexuality in the general population. Off the top of my head: If you take something like Kinsey’s figure of 10%, then the rate is about half that of heterosexuals. If you take 5% of the population are homosexual then rate is about equal. If the figure is more like 3% or even closer to 1% then the rates will be higher than for heterosexuals. Depending on whether you think the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual men is around 11:1, more than that or less than that, will be what you think the ratio of 11:1 (if it’s in the right ballpark).
So I think we’re probably not going to see any common mind even on something as simple as rates of homosexuality in the general population any time soon. Those figures seem to factor into too many debates for them not to be contested by people with views on the topic, whatever those views are.
I think it still reinforces my view that there are some ‘elephants in the room’ here. Sexual activity with teenagers isn’t addressed in the article as that’s seen to have a different set of psychological characteristics (and that’s fine), but the way I was speaking of a rise of child sexual abuse very much included that as part of my concern (although I’ll agree that that wasn’t clear). I have some other questions as I’ve outlined.
Hi Craig,
There’s a lot of things that could be said in response, and I won’t recover ground that’s already been said in this thread in response to your point. I’ll add another point that seems germane.
It seems to me to be in part a question about how you see the Bible’s teaching on the relationship of church and state.
Some Christians see that there should be little or no relationship between the two – the church shouldn’t be involved (or even interested) in the functions of the state. That line of thinking is usually grounded in appeal to the Gospels and to some degree the Epistles in the New Testament, as there is little interest in such matters there. The position of the church in the first century of being a despised and persecuted minority in a low-civil rights empire establishes how the church is to function even in other contexts.
Other Christians think that the Bible does have a place for a more constructive relationship between church and state. That’s often grounded more on reading the NT in light of the OT’s interest in creating good national laws and deciding that that reflects an interest in laws, not only an interest in how God’s people live. That would then get some support from the way the OT prophets spoke out about the behaviour of Gentile nations around Israel, and John the Baptist’s preaching.
So I agree with your point that the Gospels don’t push in this direction, but that simply ties us back to a bigger question in Christian ethics, and that’s the relationship between the OT and the NT. And a secondary question, what does the Church do when its not a persecuted minority in a low-civil rights empire?
Hi Brian,
Speaking for me, and what seems to be the basic pattern of Christian teaching that I am aware of, there would be an expectation that a correlation should occur. The moral order – what we should and should not do – reflects the nature and purpose of things, so is grounded in the way the world has been made. So it would be a surprising result if “the good” and “what is right” are opposed, or strongly at odds.
However, the Bible indicates some internal tension on this point. Proverbs asserts the link regularly in both directions (good linked to right behavior, and bad outcomes to wrong behavior) in quite straightforward a manner. Ecclesiastes suggests that the link is often more hidden than the impression Proverbs gives, and Job suggests that at least sometimes the link can appear inverted. Similarly the NT doesn’t say, “Live God’s way and have a great life” so much as “Follow Jesus and take up your cross” – where the cross is symbolic of otherwise avoidable suffering, humiliation, and death. Jesus doesn’t so much say, “If you want great social outcomes, then come follow me” as, “If you don’t hate everyone close to you, and are prepared to die, then don’t follow me.”
So from a theological view, I do expect general patterns to occur, but I don’t think they should be our fundamental motivation for doing what is right. At an individual level, someone can easily find that their life is much harder as a result of following Christ by most objective indicators.
I am also, as I’ve indicated, not uncritically receptive of social science findings. I think that even more than the hard sciences, the social sciences can just reflect cultural norms (as social scientists seem to be aware of when looking at research of fifty or more years ago, but less self-critical of when it comes to their own conclusions), and current theories in vogue. Like history (my first degree) it seems to do better at examining the past than the present, let alone anticipate the future. It’s also hard to know at what point to look for the consequences of patterns of behavior – sometimes things seem to have little effect until you track it for a decade or three, and a generation or two, and then it can seem to have a surprising unexpected effect somewhere. That’s a big reason why I don’t like utilitarianism – you just can’t cast the net widely enough in advance to know the outcomes properly.
I’m always interested in social science findings, but always hang back a bit on them. I always expect a basic correlation between doing well and doing right, but I expect lots of counter examples.
So I would be surprised but not shocked to find some kind of utilitarian outcome versus theological (or moral) principle conflict. In those situations the latter will always win for me, and I’d advocate that others should see it the same. If you have to choose, it is always better to do right than to get ahead. It would an ‘orange light’ for me – I’d be relooking at the theological principle to see if it was indeed right, and querying the utilitarian outcomes to see if they were as well grounded as they seemed (and whether they were encoding some a priori assumptions as well). But until they lined up, theology would trump.
Thanks for your responses, Mark.
Cheers
Brian