As Christians across the land protest against the proposed amendments to the Marriage Acts of 1961 (i.e. the desire to remove all gender distinctions from the definition of marriage and hence allowing gay partnerships to be called marriage) Luke Mac raised an interesting point.
He thought "we should separate the state's concept of marriage from the Church's concept of marriage. Our understanding of marriage is already fundamentally different to the world's anyway."
In other words, in these debates we must be careful that we are not expecting non-Christians to behave like Christians. The Kingdom of God will come by people surrendering to Christ as their king, not by legislation that tries to make people behave the way we think they should. (Luke's right by the way.)
However, the danger with this argument is that it has been used by Christians in the past to justify our withdrawal from politics. On issues like this we must not try to create a theocracy, but we do have a responsibility to speak up for what we think is best for our society.
Hence I think the key issue in the current debate is the role of children in marriage. The definition proposed by the new bill does not mention children at all. This is slight of hand. It is made to look as if it is all about giving gay couples the same rights (in expressing commitment) as straight couples. However, the definition of family is being changed by default. Marriage has traditionally included the possibility of children. If this bill is passed then we will have accepted that two mums or two dads are just as healthy as role models as a mum and a dad, and we will have accepted that without a public debate.
That is why we should be submitting our objections to this bill to the senate committe for legal and constitutional matters.
He thought "we should separate the state's concept of marriage from the Church's concept of marriage. Our understanding of marriage is already fundamentally different to the world's anyway."
In other words, in these debates we must be careful that we are not expecting non-Christians to behave like Christians. The Kingdom of God will come by people surrendering to Christ as their king, not by legislation that tries to make people behave the way we think they should. (Luke's right by the way.)
However, the danger with this argument is that it has been used by Christians in the past to justify our withdrawal from politics. On issues like this we must not try to create a theocracy, but we do have a responsibility to speak up for what we think is best for our society.
Hence I think the key issue in the current debate is the role of children in marriage. The definition proposed by the new bill does not mention children at all. This is slight of hand. It is made to look as if it is all about giving gay couples the same rights (in expressing commitment) as straight couples. However, the definition of family is being changed by default. Marriage has traditionally included the possibility of children. If this bill is passed then we will have accepted that two mums or two dads are just as healthy as role models as a mum and a dad, and we will have accepted that without a public debate.
That is why we should be submitting our objections to this bill to the senate committe for legal and constitutional matters.
9 comments:
This may seem tangential to your post in some ways, but we're not expecting non-Christians to act like Christians; we're letting them know how to act like humans.
The moral standards expressed in the Bible aren't for Christians only. They're for all humans. I'm assuming it's on that basis that God can judge. It's not like he'll say to unbelievers, "Well, you committed adultery most weeks, but that's okay — you weren't a Christian, and that rule only applies to Christians."
Also, if we think sin is self-destructive (e.g. Romans 1:27), then it's only merciful to try to help people sin less so that they hurt themselves (and others) less.
I suspect the day will come where there'll be a big gap between the state's definition of marriage and God's definition of marriage. But I reckon it's worth fighting to delay that day as much as possible.
Ah, but are we "letting them know" or are we resorting to the Law to 'force' them to behave like humans?
For example I am glad to hear the church frequently pointing out greed in our society and yet I've never heard calls for legislation directly against it ... even though Paul tells us that the greedy are wicked and will not inherit the kingdom of God.
I think we are actually both agreed that marriage is a humanitarian issue. I also agree that it is worth fighting to delay the day too.
I just think that sola fidei Christians often appear to display a works-based righteousness when it comes to politics. (Or that's what I think it must sound like in a non-Christian's ear.)
I say "letting them know" in this case because I was thinking of the protest (and my submission to Senate) rather than the law itself. Having said that, the law does have some didactic function. For example, for those of us who've grown up in a culture where 'no reason' abortion is legal, it is almost impossible to imagine that a foetus might be a real human being. The implications are unthinkable.
Legal codes tend to be a fair way from moral righteousness. That is, laws generally only provide an ethical floor, not an ethical ceiling. They tend more towards restraining vice than promoting virtue. (And perhaps this is why Paul can say that he was "blameless" with regard to "righteousness under the law" (Phil 3:6) — perhaps he wouldn't have said "blameless with respect to the righteoussness of God's moral order"? I'm as tentative as possible on this :P)
Most societies would hope that their morality is of a higher standard than their laws. For example, in Australia, lying is not illegal (except in special, defined circumstances). But most people still think lying is immoral (in most circumstances) — at least, it's immoral when other people lie.
Likewise with marriage. Morally, we might have all kinds of aspirations for marriage, which will be bound up with self-denying love, conflict resolution, servant headship and submission, wise child-rearing, and so on. Such things can hardly be enshrined in a legal code. But the legal code can provide an ethical floor for what is 'acceptable' in marriage. In Israel, it was "Do not commit adultery"; for us, at least at present, it's "the joining of a man and a woman".
While I would expect Christians to disagree about how much morality can be written into a legal code (e.g. Should heresy be punishable by death? Should we fine people for looking lustfully at celebrity magazines?). But somehow many have slipped from this idea that "you can't legislate for morality" into "only Christians have to follow the Bible's moral code". I'm not entirely sure why, but the ideas do often seem to be linked.
You are absolutely right Stuart.
I'm a big fan of Gordon Wenham's floor and ceiling view of the OT law.
As you say, the grey area is the bit in between ... the windows maybe?
But somehow many have slipped from this idea that "you can't legislate for morality" into "only Christians have to follow the Bible's moral code". I'm not entirely sure why, but the ideas do often seem to be linked.
Yep, that was the danger with Luke Mac's point that I raised in my original post.
I suppose that the difference here is that we expect Christians to follow the Bible's moral code because God said so. However, we try to convince non-Christians to follow the Bible's moral code because we believe that it is the best way for society. Hence there will be a difference in rhetoric even if the same end point.
Thanks John and Stuart for these perspectives. I find this a very thorny issue, and while I made a submission concerning the Marriage Equality Bill, I think I would have a hard time convincing a gay rights activist (or anyone) that my views weren’t merely an expression of my beliefs, with no possible authority, in an avowedly secular society, over those who don’t hold those beliefs.
I think we are always going to struggle to convince the majority on a subject such as gay marriage, where the pros and cons are not clearly arguable. At least with issues such as abortion and euthanasia it is – quite literally – a matter of life and death (though of course many will not concede that a foetus is a human being…) Of course we can bring up issues such as children and role models, but that will not even be relevant in many such unions.
John, your final point about the bible’s moral code being “the best way for society” makes sense to me…but would it to the majority of non-Christians who don’t see anything wrong with same-sex unions? “Where’s your proof?”, I can hear them say. The best way to argue our case is probably to come up with, as I say, arguable concerns about same-sex unions. Apart from vague notions about it being a potentially dangerous experiment in social engineering, and the children angle, I’m not sure what I could say. Any concrete ideas?
Regards,
Greg
Here's another comment from someone else that I'm posting because they weren't able to:
“what about the children that exist and will continue to exist regardless of what the legislation says. Do we deny them the rights our children have – inheritance from parents? superannuation from parents? child support?
I am an evangelical Christian but I wonder what we gain by resisting recognising these children. They exist. there are 2 such families at my sons day care. what are we saying to these kids is that their families are abhorrent. do you think these kids will be receptive to the gospel – which is the message the need to hear – later in life?”
katja
Greg - I think you are right Greg we would have to discuss the impact on the children from a same-sex couple parenting. Anecodtally same-sex couples sometimes speak of looking for a 'male / female role-model' to complement their parenting. But that is just ancedotal so we'd need to look into that more fully.
Katja - thanks for the question, but I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously same-sex couples are not able to have children unless by adoption or surrogacy.
Are you talking about children who have been adopted by same-sex couples? If so then we are not saying that their families are abhorrent but we are saying that it is different from how society has traditionally defined family.
(That is the sneaky thing about this bill - it doesn't mention anything about children or families but it will automatically change our definition of families if it goes through... even though the definition of family is not under discussion.)
Being an immigrant to Australia myself I'm not up on child law but as far as I know children legally adopted would receive inheritance and be eligible for child support regardless of this new legislation.
I'm trying to make a distinction between equal rights for homosexuals to express commitment (with which I tend to agree) and legislation which says that same-sex couples are the same as married couples. Equal does not always have to mean the same.
As a couple of side notes, someone I heard recently discussed the fact that with divorce rates going up in both Christian and non-Christian circles, rates of affairs and extra-maritial activities increasing, children born out of wedlock and often remaining that way and finally many people not bothering with marriage and just staying in either an open or de facto relationship, there is no sanctity of marriage anyway so what are we all arguing about. His main point was that while the legal definition of marriage mightn't have changed over the past how-ever-many years, societies views on it have and this is merely a reflection of the fact. I'd be interested to hear your views on this.
The second tangent (not wholly related to the issue) is that, as far as I was aware, marriage (especially in terms of a ceremonial thing) as it is recognised is another of the tribal traditions that the Christian church has adopted. Previously it was a case of essentially living with each other but with the recognition of their community, known today as a common law marriage. How do you see that?
Good questions Alphonse - thanks for asking.
His main point was that while the legal definition of marriage mightn't have changed over the past how-ever-many years, societies views on it have and this is merely a reflection of the fact.
Isn't this what democracy is all about? There is no doubt that our society is changing its view about marriage - the question is whether or not we think that is a good thing or not.
In fact I think this line of reasoning is what worries me most about most western politics at the moment - namely that we are constantly fed self-fulfilling prophecies. We are told that legislation needs to be changed in line with public opinion without ever being definite over what public opinion really is. Every government report is accompanied by a poll of three people which (allegedly) proves whatever they want it to prove!?
As human beings we are frequently happy to live with contradictions. I have no idea where the truth lies but I would not be surprised if people would uphold a different morality (as a nation) to that which they personally live by.
Previously it (marriage) was a case of essentially living with each other but with the recognition of their community, known today as a common law marriage. How do you see that?
Another good question. I think my basic response would be that society has changed since then.
In English law the Hardwick Marriage Act of 1753 changed everything. Before that, it is true, what was essentially common law marriage was frequently practiced. However, the industrial revolution changed all that. In a rural village a common law marriage was largely enforced by the community. (If someone committed adultery then everyone soon got to know of it, plus significantly father's were corporately held responsible for the welfare of their children.) Urbanisation brought far greater migration and 'broke up' the bond of common law marriage. Such commitments needed to be publicly formalised. It is impossible to return to such an age where they would be meaningful again.
Likewise, we need a positive reason to return to common-law marriage. For whatever reasons our society decided several hundred years ago to institutionalise marriage the way it has. If we made a positive decision to do so then we need to make a positive decision to change it now. Simply saying that we did it then is not (ISTM) good enough. Surely it must be demonstrated why it would be for the good of society to return to this practice?
Post a Comment