Fielding Questions on the OPC Discussion List
February 28—March 6, 2002
============
Introduction (by Misty Irons)
Three days into the controversy I wrote to the moderators of the OPC Discussion List, asking for permission to field questions for one week. Permission was granted, so on the morning of February 28, 2002 I signed onto the list and introduced myself.
Represented below are all the questions and comments that were directed to me (including those I left unanswered) in order to show the range of concerns expressed by members of the list, as well as all rebuttals to my responses. To keep this document a manageable length, I unfortunately had to edit out many of the interesting posts that were only indirectly related to the discussion. What you have below is the bare bones of the debate from 2/28/02 to 3/6/02.
Some of these posts have already been published, complete with signed names, on another website that has been in existence for some time now. Nonetheless, I have chosen to edit out all names, names of places and any other type of personal information in order to protect the privacy of those individuals who participated in this discussion. My own posts and all references to me and my husband, however, I have left intact.
I placed an asterisk (*) next to the initials of those list participants who were not OPC members or office holders.
I have put titles in bold at the beginning of the posts to which I responded, to enable the reader to keep track of the various discussion threads.
============
2/28/02
9:54 a.m.
Hello everyone,
I see that my article, "A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex
Marriage" has stirred up much animated discussion this week. I have been
doing my best to keep up with all the posts through my husband Lee's list subscription,
so I think I have read just about every response. Only yesterday I signed
myself onto this list so that I could present myself to you this morning for
questions about what I have written. My only concern is that my time is
somewhat limited. I am a stay-at-home mother to my two small children (4 years
and 20 mos.) so I have limited time on the computer, whether it is to read
posts or answer them. I will do my best to answer what I can and would be
grateful for your patience and understanding if I am a bit slow in getting out
my responses. I also thought I should limit my availability on this discussion
list to, say, one week, since I anticipate that it will be a labor-intensive
week for me, and given my responsibilities here at home that may be about all I
can handle.
One point I would like to make clear, which seems to have been misunderstood by
some, is that my article is a case for civil same-sex marriage, that is,
same-sex marriage as a secular, non-religious institution. I oppose gay
marriage in the church on the grounds that the Bible teaches that homosexual
activity is a sin and flies in the face of God's creation order. In fact the
main point of the article is that, as a political position, Christians should
respect other people's civil liberties because from a political/societal
perspective that is the argument for why we have the right to ban gay marriage
from our churches, proclaim our belief that same-sex relationships are a sin
against God, etc. Whether this is a sound political strategy that Christians
should take is certainly a matter of debate, and I do my best in the article to
make the case for why I think it is sound. But I think it should be pretty
clear from the article that I am not advocating gay marriage as something that
is approved by the Bible, and that the entire case is presented from that
perspective.
Some pertinent quotes from the article:
"Since the church believes gay marriage is wrong for religious reasons, it
is in the church's best interest to support gay marriage for civil rights
reasons." (First sentence of the article)
"What they [gays and lesbians] want is a secular marriage granted and
recognized by the state, and we can keep the religious institution of marriage
homosexual-free if it makes us happy, they say."
"Perhaps we should even sit down at the bargaining table with the gay
movement right now and say, we will respect your right to same-sex marriage in
the civil arena as long as you respect our right to exclude it from our
churches."
I think that is everything I wish to say for now. I will be looking forward to
your responses!
Misty Irons
Member, Redeemer OPC
Encino, CA
* * * * * * * *
2/28/02
9:56 a.m.
I am preparing a full length response which I plan to submit in the next few days.
B. H.
* * * * * * * *
Question from R.
2/28/02
9:18 p.m.
I have a question. I see the article is copyrighted 2000. Has it been up on that site for very long? I chanced upon it on Sunday, and then I posted it on my weblog. The next thing I know, people are writing about it left and right. By Wednesday I have a response by Gary North in my email inbox, and today I hear about people wanting to take action against you in the OPC.
*R.
My Response to R.’s
Question
2/28/02
10:24 p.m.
The article has been on the Upper Register website since January of this year.
I wrote the article as a result of some thinking and studying I did on the
topic of civil same-sex marriage during the summer of 2000, after I read a book
called Virtually Normal, by Andrew Sullivan. I have since received feedback and
criticism of the article from both gay and Christian contacts I have made via
the Internet, and have read and reread it many times over the course of a year
and a half. It has stood the test of time in my own thinking, which is why I
allowed it to be posted on the Upper Register site last month.
Misty Irons
* * * * * * * *
Advice from R. Z.
3/1/02
12:17 a.m.
Misty:
My response combines the two posts you have written so far. In your first post,
you say that you favor civil "marriages" for same-sex couples based
on their supposed (but, in actuality, non-existent) civil liberty on this
subject. Yet, in your next breath, you state that you are opposed to church
"marriages" for gays because you recognize homosexuality to be sin,
as stated many times in Scripture.
To which I respond: you can't have it both ways. God's moral norms apply to
believers and unbelievers alike (even though unbelievers neither recognize nor
acknowledge this). There is no "right" or "civil liberty"
for same-sex "marriages" precisely BECAUSE God forbids homosexuality
in his infallible, inerrant Word. You cannot say that God's moral requirements
do not apply to unbelievers just because they are unbelievers. The police
arrest unbelievers for murder every day. They don't get a pass just because
they do not recognize God's moral standards. Using your same logic, should we
suspend the civil penalties against murder so they will listen to us when we
speak of Christ. I think not.
In your second post, you say that you have been influenced by a book by Andrew
Sullivan. To which I can only respond: as a Christian, it is absurd, on its
face, to allow an unbelieving homosexual writer (as Sullivan is) to carry more
influence with you than Scripture. Any opinion Sullivan has on the subject of
homosexuality is to be automatically rejected precisely because his views do
not comport with Scripture. Why are you giving Andrew Sullivan more authority
in your writings than God?
For Christians to approve of civil "marriages" for gays is to
capitulate to the culture, plain and simple. This, we are not allowed, by God,
to do (see the Book of Daniel, for starters). My advice to you is to utterly
reject Meredith Kline's wacky theology and start taking Scripture a lot more
seriously. God is the standard, not Meredith Kline.
R. Z.
Moderator P. M. Responds to R. Z.
3/1/02
1:31 a.m.
[R. Z.],
In all fairness, is Misty saying that we should "approve" of gay
"marriages?" Or is she saying that in the civil state outside of the
church we need to be even-handed? Let's at least debate the point she is
making. At one point in correspondence she makes the point that we uphold civil
liberty for pagans to worship false Gods, e.g. Buddhists. Yet we do not endorse
or approve of their idolatry; that too is sin and evil. But I think she is
arguing that in the real world if we oppose civil liberties for anyone, we risk
losing it for the church as well as being perceived as unjust by
non-Christians.
I also do not think remarks like "reject Meredith Kline's wacky theology
and start taking Scripture a lot more seriously. God is the standard, not
Meredith Kline" really serve the discussion at all. I may be misunderstanding
you, but such remarks seems merely to vent irritation without engaging her
reasoning. Let's try to discuss the matter before we give way to indignation,
and give our sister the benefit of charity even if we think her conclusions are
incorrect.
I would note that though Paul makes it utter clear that idolatry and all manner
of sexual sins are utterly evil (Rom 1:24-27. 1 Cor 6:9-11), I see no call for
the churches to engage in a political campaign to persuade the Roman government
to outlaw either practice. You mention Daniel. His witness was instrumental in
challenging pagan gods and in bringing Nebuchadnezzar to faith. Is that not our
calling? Are you sure that Mrs. Irons is not witnessing to Christ to
homosexuals? Paul's calling was to live Christ and proclaim the gospel to
pagans of all sorts (Rom 1:14-17), not to engage in Roman religious politics.
Is ours not the same?
P. M.
[Discussion List Moderator]
My Comment on Moderator P. M.’s Response to R. Z.
3/1/02
8:49 a.m.
> In all fairness, is Misty saying that we should "approve" of
gay
> "marriages?" Or is she saying that in the civil state outside of
the
> church we need to be even-handed? Let's at least debate the point she is
> making. At one point in correspondence she makes the point that we uphold
> civil liberty for pagans to worship false Gods, e.g. Buddhists. Yet we do
> not endorse or approve of their idolatry; that too is sin and evil. But I
> think she is arguing that in the real world if we oppose civil liberties
> for anyone, we risk losing it for the church as well as being perceived as
> unjust by non-Christians.
Yes, that is the point that I am making. I would only add that I do not support
the civil liberties of people to practice any kind of sinful behavior that they
wish. Some have misunderstood me on this point and supposed that I would
support theft, murder, marriage between man and goat, etc. What I am simply
saying is that for Christians to oppose the rights of gays to marry in society
on the grounds of Scriptural prohibitions is inconsistent, because we actively
support people's religious freedom in the civil arena even though that
essentially means we support the practice of idolatry in this country. There
may still be legitimate reasons why Christians would want to oppose gay civil
marriage apart from simply appealing to Scripture, and I think Christians would
be more honest and consistent to try to argue the case from that angle. Frankly
if someone could make a convincing case from that perspective, I would be eager
to adopt it. But so far in my studies of this issue, it really appears to me that
the case against civil same-sex marriage apart from an appeal to Scripture is
pretty weak, not the mention that I think there are a number of positive
reasons why allowing it will benefit society in morally significant ways, which
I mention in the article.
Misty
* * * * * * * *
3/1/02
3:26 a.m.
Well, Misty, I don’t want to
ask you anything as much as I want to argue with your conclusions and with your
tone toward Christians ... [snip] ... The thing that has angered me so much
about this article of yours is that you have made the Christian out to be the
immature, selfish, ogre and the homosexual to be the, fair-minded, beleaguered,
sweetie-pie. This is exactly backwards ... [snip] ... You did not encourage
mean-spirited Christians or even confused and overly zealous Christians to lay
their rights and their lives down as Christ laid his down. Instead you
encouraged us all to compromise with sinners so we could be comfy and they
would like us. Why didn't you call us to love the homosexual as Christ calls us
to love our enemies? Who exactly was your audience? Were you writing for the
two eloquent gay men you cited? You spoke glowingly of them while you tore
Christians up. Very confusing stuff, Misty. (But, no, I don't think anyone was
confused about the fact that you were advocating homosexual civil unions and
not homosexual church marriages. That was clear in your article. In fact, your
whole article was very clear. That was what made it so bad; there was no mistaking
what you were saying.) ... [snip] ...
S. A.
* * * * * * * *
Three Questions from P. Ma.
3/1/02
8:04 a.m.
I think it would be helpful for all if you would answer a few questions. I have
noticed that the various warring camps within the OPC are warring due to each
respective group starting from two very different theological premise. And the working
out of these premises have two very different outcomes as pertains to the
"Law of God". So if I may get beyond the premises and ask a few
simple questions before the melee' begins. I think that this is important for
those who see that "Law" in a different light than you and your
husband.
Questions:
1. From your understanding of scripture is homosexuality a sin?
2. How should the church then respond to those who are active homosexuals who
are in the church (local) and outside the church (unconverted)?
3. Do you believe unrepentant gays and lesbian should participate in all the
means of grace within the local church?
Part of the problem as we deal with this and other topics is I believe is that
we have wrapped our politics so tightly to our theology that anyone who
disagrees with our politics must also disagree with our theology.
P. Ma.
My Responses to the Three Questions from P. Ma.
3/2/02
3:56 p.m.
> 1. From your understanding of scripture is homosexuality a sin?
According to Genesis 1-2, God originally created sexual union to be between a
man and a woman prior to the Fall. Thus, heterosexual unions are God's moral
standard and ideal for mankind. I view homosexuality as a post-fall condition,
rooted in man's sinful nature passed on to him as a son of Adam, that flies in
the face of God's original creation order. That is why the Bible condemns
homosexual activity in passages such as Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, 1
Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11.
> 2. How should the church then respond to those who are active
homosexuals
> who are in the church (local) and outside the church (unconverted)?
Those who continue unrepentantly in homosexual activity should not be allowed
to be members of our churches. The church should preach the gospel of Jesus
Christ to active homosexuals outside the church, call them to repentance for
their homosexual activity and proclaim the forgiveness and redemption available
to them through the cross of Christ.
> 3. Do you believe unrepentant gays and lesbian should participate in all
> the means of grace within the local church?
If they are unrepentant about their homosexual activity then they shouldn't be
members of our churches, which obviously means we wouldn't allow them to
partake of the Lord's Supper.
> Part of the problem as we deal with this and other topics is I believe
is
> that we have wrapped our politics so tightly to our theology that anyone who
> disagrees with our politics must also disagree with our theology.
You have a point there.
Misty Irons
P. Ma. Comments On My Responses
3/2/02
5:31 p.m.
It would seem then from these answers below that Mrs. Irons holds to an
orthodox view of salvation and that her understanding of the sin of
homosexuality is in accord with our Confession. I think that answers like these
below should stop the tsunami that is directed at her. The fact that some see
her politics as strange and in the minority should make her right at home in
the OPC.
P. Ma.
* * * * * * * *
Two Questions from S. C.
3/1/02
9:14 a.m.
1. Is your position that the
church should be calling sinners out of the kingdom of darkness, while making
no effort to change the fact that outside the church will always be the kingdom
of darkness? Is your position that the church ALONE is the kingdom of God, and the
only place where Christian morality should be enforced?
2. I understand your opinion on how Christians should vote on the issue of
civil liberty for same-sex marriages. Is your position that the Bible is not AT
ALL written to tell Christians how they should organize political societies?
That the Bible tells us how to make the church holy, which may indirectly
influence society in a "positive" (in quotes because it looks more
like it upholds God's laws, but there is no religious conviction behind it for
the unbelieving members of society), but that is only an after-the-fact reality
about which the Bible is unconcerned?
*S. C.
My Responses to the Two Questions from S. C.
3/1/02
9:26 p.m.
> 1. Is your position that the church should be calling sinners out of
the
> kingdom of darkness, while making no effort to change the fact that
outside
> the church will always be the kingdom of darkness? Is your position that
> the church ALONE is the kingdom of God, and the only place where Christian
> morality should be enforced?
I need this question to be
restated more clarity. To my understanding "kingdom of darkness"
refers to an unseen spiritual realm, and I'm not sure I can make much definite
comment regarding it. Also "Christian morality" is a vague term on
which I need more clarification.
> 2. ... Is your position that the Bible is not AT ALL written to tell
> Christians how they should organize political societies?
Sorry, I am having a bit of trouble understanding this question too, but I will
say this regarding the purpose of the Bible. I believe the Bible is a covenant
document that is addressed to the covenant community revealing to them the
gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ; that is, the OT speaks of Christ's coming
(promise) and the NT speaks of Christ's death, resurrection and ascension
(fulfillment).
Luke 24:44-47: "Now [Jesus] said to them, 'These are My words which I
spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written
about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be
fulfilled.' Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He
said to them, 'Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again
from the dead the third day; and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should
be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.'"
So I would infer from the above passage that the purpose of the Scriptures is
not to tell us how to organize political societies.
As for Christian politicians, legislators, activists, voters, etc. who wish to
do good for society, I would say that the Bible can give them wisdom to
accomplish that good, in the same way that biblical wisdom can help a Christian
surgeon to perform a successful heart transplant, a Christian lawyer to argue
the best case for his client, or a Christian housepainter to do the best paint
job on a house.
Misty Irons
* * * * * * * *
3/1/02
9:29 a.m.
Misty, I would like to congratulate you. For you are taking modernist
Presbyterians towards the logical direction of their pluralist premise, similar
to the way full preterists are taking partial preterists towards the logical
direction of their (erroneous) preteristic hermeneutic ... [snip] ...
*P. Mc.
* * * * * * * *
C. C. Objects to Being Called a Pluralist
3/1/02
11:49 a.m.
> What I am simply saying is that for Christians to oppose the rights of
gays
> to marry in society on the grounds of Scriptural prohibitions is
> inconsistent, because we actively support people's religious freedom in
the
> civil arena even though that essentially means we support the practice of
> idolatry in this country.
Concerning your above statement, I would simply like to point out that there
are a significant number of reformed Christians who do not actively support the
"rights" of other religions in the civil arena, and rather believe
that per the original WCF 23:3 it is the duty of the Civil Magistrate
"that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be
kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all
corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all
the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed."
Now you may not agree with me at all on this view of God's prescriptions for
the civil government per Scripture as articulated in WCF 23:3 (original
version) and as such that is a good and healthy debate for a different day, but
I am speaking rather to your observation of our consistency based upon your assumption
that we are all pluralists.
Because we live in the world that we do, my efforts with the lost are
personally spent for the most part in proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ to
all men everywhere as I am able to do so in the circumstances God has given me,
and except for "in-house" theological discussions such as this or in
various debates at school, the "Establishment Principle" is something
I rarely if ever share with pagans, not because it is unimportant, but because
until the nation would see massive conversion to Christ, it is too early to
press; All things in their proper time, so as one does not feed steak to
infants, but rather supplies them with the milk which is necessary for their
growth, so I do not start off with the reformed view of the Civil Magistrate,
but rather with the Gospel of Christ and man's need of such.
So I can understand if you have perhaps (as seems to be the case) overlooked
the number of confessing reformed Christians who do not uphold pluralism, as in
such an age of unbelief it is not the first thing many of us would proclaim to
a nation lost in unbelief. Yet we are here all the same. So please, when
speaking of Christians who oppose same-sex civil unions based upon God's moral
law, remember that it is incorrect to impute this view of pluralism to many of
us, and your charge of inconsistency at that point is simply inapplicable save
to those who actively uphold such a pluralism as you state in your article.
C. C.
My Response to C. C.’s Objection
3/1/02
4:56 p.m.
> Concerning your
above statement, I would simply like to point
> out that there are a significant number of reformed Christians who do not
> actively support the "rights" of other religions in the civil
arena, and
> rather believe that per the original WCF 23:3 it is the duty of the Civil
> Magistrate ....
I see your point, [C. C.]. I
am actually not unaware of the existence of Reformed Christians such as yourself.
I just figured my line of argumentation of confronting some people's
inconsistency made it pretty clear that I was not addressing those who made a
more consistent profession on that point.
But I see consistency problems with your position too. I am not sure how you
justify the fact that having religious liberty in a pluralistic society is what
protects your right to work toward eliminating religious liberty in the first
place. It seems you are enjoying a liberty that depends upon striking a deal
with idolaters, so that in order to establish the principle you believe in you
must necessarily compromise on that very principle. That strikes me as not only
inconsistent, but unprincipled. Perhaps I am missing something?
Misty Irons
C. C. Responds To My
Response
3/2/02
11:07 a.m.
> I see your point, [C. C.]. I am actually not unaware of the existence
of
> Reformed Christians such as yourself.
I am glad to hear this above.
> But I see consistency problems with your position too.
I will refrain from making a **lengthy** defense of the Establishment Principle
here, and rather refer you to several works which would help to explain the
scriptural, intellectual, and theological basis of the Presbyterian arguments
for religious intolerance: Samuel Rutherford’s two key literary works: "Lex
Rex, or The Law and the Prince: A dispute for the Just Prerogative of King and
People" and "A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of
Conscience" as well as George Gillespie’s “Aaron’s Rod Blossoming.”
Perhaps you have already read through these early Presbyterian works? At any
rate, these are wonderfully written explanations of the scriptural, intellectual,
and theological basis of the Classically reformed Presbyterian arguments for
religious intolerance.
> I am not sure how you justify the fact that having religious liberty in
a
> pluralistic society is what protects your right to work toward eliminating
> religious liberty in the first place.
I would not ever seek to justify such a proposition, because I disown the
notion that political pluralism is the primary cause of my religious freedom,
or a necessary precondition at all for my views to
prosper ... [snip] ... In fact, providentially speaking, all that is ever
necessary for this prosperity to occur is the sovereign blessings of God upon
his word being preached and administrated, and we see that in these times of
Christian prosperity, the minister of the word preached the whole counsel of
God as applicable to individual, church, and state.
> It seems you are enjoying a liberty that depends upon striking a deal
with
> idolaters, so that in order to establish the principle you believe in you
> must necessarily compromise on that very principle.
Because I have struck no such deal with the idolaters, your speculation is
inaccurate concerning the execution of and outworking of my view. Again, I do
not support political pluralism, or the first amendment, as I believe both when
taken and applied consistently, violate the first commandment of the moral law
and have as a unique and key feature and distinction the inherent self
contradiction that (by good and necessary consequence of the stated view) both
require the Civil Magistrate to protect and uphold and establish civil “rights”
that specifically define and protect how one may openly sin against the first
commandment ... [snip] ...
> That strikes me as not only inconsistent, but unprincipled. Perhaps I am
> missing something?
Misty, I would have to answer that yes ... Rather than looking to the laws of
the unregenerate as a basis or principle of conduct ... I believe we are to
strive rather to base our actions upon the revealed will of God, as our
confession states amongst the uses of the moral law per WCF 19:5 “The moral law
doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience
thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also
in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither doth
Christ, in the gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.” I
believe that this duty applies and carries over into the civil realm as well.
The Civil Magistrate is not exempt from his obligations to obey the moral law
of God ... [snip] ...
C. C.
* * * * * * * *
3/1/02
8:59 p.m.
Dear Misty,
I should not take the time for this, but your association with Vos’s Biblical
Theology runs the risk of ringing tar and feathers upon all of us who hold his
writings dear. Given Vos’s love for the Wstds., I cannot conceive of him
supporting your thinking here, but I will not seek to press that issue. I think
that he surely understood its system well enough to have been able to see that
your view of the moral law and that of the Wstds are rather different.
I will comment on and raise questions about a few key weaknesses and then
discuss a general principle where I believe you are (unintentionally) tending
to lead God’s people away from his Word.
1. “Since the church believes gay marriage is wrong for religious reasons,
it is in the church's best interest to support gay marriage for civil rights
reasons. Wasn't sure you heard me the first time? Then let me be absolutely
clear: Conservative Christians should support gay civil marriage.”
Reply:
The premise appears faulty. Precisely what is meant by “religious”? It appears
that you are using it in contrast to “civil.” I.e., the OED’s def. 3a “of the
nature of . . . concerned or connected with, religion” In this sense, I don’t
agree that such sexual perversions are wrong “for religious reasons.”
My understanding of marriage and I believe that of the WCF and the Bible is
that, unlike the view of papism, marriage is not religious, it is civil. For
this reason “It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with
judgment to give their consent.” The duty for Christians to marry “only in the
Lord,” is religious and is to be enforced by the church, but marriage per se is
civil not religious.
Further, there is but one marriage. There is not ‘civil marriage’ and
‘religious marriage’—that, too, is a papist concept,--only one single
institution ordained by God, and defined by our church’s confession from the
Bible “Marriage is to be between one man and one woman.”
Thus, according to my only infallible rule, marriage is defined by God, just
like the rest of civil government under which it rightly falls. The Christian
must hold fast to the view of civil government revealed in Scripture; likewise
its view of marriage. No matter what human legislators may do or say, this and
this alone is marriage. I cannot, in public or private, take a position which
directly or indirectly denies or mutes this conviction without having
compromised myself.
2. “maintaining a respect for people's civil liberties in this country is
always to the church's advantage. In fact, it is absolutely essential for the
church's survival in a pluralistic society.”
How precisely do you define “civil liberties”? What is their source? God given?
Constitutionally mandated? Mandated by the ACLU, the Libertarian Party? Your
very precise and explicit answer to this question, too, is crucial.
But no matter how you answer, I certainly do not agree that “it is absolutely
essential for the church's survival in a pluralistic society.” The church’s
survival is in no sense dependent upon any sort of civil rights that you might
have in mind; those who maintain this may have been hoodwinked by the so called
pluralists into forgetting the church’s only certain foundation: “I will build
My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.”
“The future of the Christian church in America lies with the preservation of
civil liberties, not with the dogged pursuit of our Christian moral agenda to
the annoyance of everyone else.”
Same reply. While I certainly do not seek persecution, I do not believe that
the true church can be persecuted from existence. Nero’s Rome and Mao’s China
are historic evidence for the extrabiblical maxim, “the blood of the martyrs is
the seed of the church.”
On a pragmatic level (much of your paper is appeal to political pragmatics), I
have about as much confidence in those nonChristians trumpeting pluralism as I
do in the religious liberty clause in the Red Chinese constitution. The ACLU
types, etc. will sound that tune until they are firmly in control and then
figure a way to exclude biblical Christianity from the list of protected
religions.
The 1st amendment protection of our religious liberty is a marvelous providence
of God, but our existence as a church is not dependent upon it. (Given what our
20th century Supreme Court has done to the clear meaning intended in the
constitution—including of course duly approved amendments--we should be most
thankful of this!) Consistently maintaining our confession of the Biblical
faith in public as well as private is absolutely necessary for the church to
flourish, and perhaps even to survive.
Our confession includes “The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to
mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual
conformity and obedience thereunto . . .” and also from that moral law: “The
sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties
required, are adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural
lusts;”
If the church gives up or publicly throttles her steadfast confession of the
whole counsel of God, then she will be seriously if not fatally weakened. She
cannot be broken by the state, but if she chooses to muzzle herself in the face
of the world’s depravity, she will do to herself what the most oppressive,
pagan state cannot do.
I could go on at length; the errant premises in your paper were numerous.
Finally, on the broader level.
Theonomy says the whole of Biblical law applies to all the nations. Kline says
the NT, and parts of Biblical law (sort of) apply to the church, as the church
and only the church.
There are elements of truth in both, but neither is right.
On the one hand, the Bible (including all the Law and the Prophets, says Jesus—Bahnsen
is partially right, here) is the covenantal document of the people of God,
alone. On the other hand, it binds them (us) not only to worship and homelife
that is biblical, but to submit their thinking about all matters to Christ, “we
are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” All matters includes
the way we view civil government.
Civil governments are “a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the
one who practices evil.”
As a Christian, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in these texts must be defined by God in his
word, that is true precisely in the ‘civil’ affairs with which civil government
is rightly concerned—including marriage.
That said, I certainly agree that in democratic politics compromises are
needed, but no compromise is worth the 'family jewels'. I believe the
compromise you propose would replace gems in our Christ given crown with paste.
W. L.
[Discussion List Moderator]
* * * * * * * *
3/2/02
8:02 a.m.
Mrs. Irons,
There is nothing "conservative" about your article. The title is a
misnomer, if nothing else. Without addressing the points of your article -
which, IMO, are the logical outcome of your faulty hermeneutic - your are
irresponsible to publish such a controversial position without the blessing of
your denomination, and your husband is irresponsible for allowing it on his web
site.
I am not in the OPC, but am a member in good standing of a sister denomination.
I am extremely embarrassed and ashamed that you would freely express such
radical nonsense.
I sincerely pray that you will apologize for your indiscretion and, barring that,
you and your husband will come under church discipline.
*P. N.
* * * * * * * *
Arguments and Call to Repentance from G. M.
3/2/02
10:00 a.m.
Open Letter in response to Misty Irons' article on same-sex civil marriages,
My pastor gave me a copy of your article and forwarded to me your response
(below). I am a member of an OPC in [place withheld], a former political
correspondent for the Associated Press and writer/editor for several journals
dealing with the Christian world view and theology. I have followed both the
religious and political debate over homosexuality for many years and feel
compelled to respond to your arguments.
I have been aware for a long time that many in the so-called Christian church
hold views that are radically dualistic, but I am disturbed to find such a view
being espoused by someone in our conservative denomination. To be frank, your
seemingly effortless ability to establish an unbreachable dichotomy between the
sacred and the secular is truly breathtaking and your cutting-edge
antinomianism is staggering! To put it as plainly as I can, the Law of God
categorically cannot be categorically applied - as if to say it must be applied
in the religious world but has no claim to governance of the secular world. The
Law of God is God's comprehensive will for the universe, and there is no
enclave in that universe which is free from its propositions and demands. A
thing is wrong or right according to its conformance to or transgression of the
Law of God, without exception or reservation in any part. And no attempt to
compromise or negotiate with any segment in the universe which may be in
rebellion and denial will change that fact. The church and the Bible do not
hold, as you plainly do, that gay marriage is wrong "for religious reasons."
It is wrong for any and every reason and in any and all circumstances, because
God says so in no uncertain terms and without caveat. (He finds it so wrong,
may I remind you, that He demands immediate death for those who practice it
because they and their abominations are a defilement of the land.)
Equally disturbing is your tacit argument that it is legitimate and advisable
for Christians to bargain with the devil for the right to be left alone in the
practice of our beliefs. Politically speaking, this is nothing short of naive
and laughable. But that such an argument could come from an articulate leader
within the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is absolutely astonishing. I am not
overstating your position, I am convinced, since you say in your email response
that the main point of your article is that Christians should respect gay
marriage in the civil realm so that gays will respect our right to condemn it
in the religious realm (again your runaway dualism is shockingly evident). I
hardly know where to begin to point out the craziness of such an argument, both
politically and biblically. To cut to the chase: it is neither right nor safe
for Christians to make a bargain with sinners whereby we will not interfere
with their right to sin with impunity if they will not interfere with our right
not to sin. You have, in effect, argued that we will not interfere with the
homosexuals' right to destroy society (and do not doubt for a second that
"civil" gay marriages will destroy society) as long as they do not
interfere with our right not to destroy the church (by accepting
"ecclesiastical" gay marriages into it). What possible basis,
acceptable to a biblical Christian, could any civil law have if it is not the
Law of God? If there is some other legitimate basis for law, it must be
concluded that there are two gods in this world, one for religious people who
must obey their God's law and one for secular people who are free to obey their
god's law or lack thereof. My mind absolutely boggles when I contemplate the ignorance
and iniquity of your argument...and the political naivite you simultaneously
exhibit.
The beauty of the American constitutional system is that religious people are
never required to negotiate their beliefs or practice. The presence in our
Constitution of a guarantee of freedom of religious belief and practice makes
us free from the necessity to negotiate, bargain or compromise. My father
recently pointed out that "All people have religious views which color
their political thinking. Therefore all political decisions favor the majority
religious root." Historically, that would mean that the political thinking
of American public life would be Christian, since that has been the majority
religious root. The nature of the national religious root, however, may be
changing to a non-Christian one, and when the majority comes to hold a
religious worldview which favors things anathema to the Christian worldview, we
who will then be (or are already) in the minority will become subject to the
dictates of the majority political thinking. And our Christian society will be
destroyed. This is why the Founders insisted that their experiment in civil
self-government would be a disaster unless Americans maintained their Christian
religious root. But they wisely foresaw that it might be possible that this
root would be lost. Therefore, they guaranteed the freedom of religion, and
this guarantee means we have no need whatsoever to bargain or negotiate any
aspect of our belief, including our beliefs about the Biblical moral and
ethical basis of our civil laws. We are guaranteed the right to clamor like
champions in defense of those laws and their foundations. To wimp out of such a
battle in the face of a militant group of sinners, as you advocate, is an
insult to the God who calls us to obey Him and administer His laws in our
world.
A book could be written to answer your paper, but mostly what needs to be said
is this: Repent as soon as you can, retract what you have written and rectify
the error you have spread into the church and world. You must urgently ask God
to forgive you of your transgression against His command to "take every
thought captive" to the Word of God, to name just one of your central
errors.
Sincerely,
G. M.
My Response to G. M.’s Arguments and Call to Repentance
3/2/02
5:44 p.m.
> I have been aware for a long time that many in the so-called Christian
church
> hold views that are radically dualistic, but I am disturbed to find such a
> view being espoused by someone in our conservative denomination. To be
frank,
> your seemingly effortless ability to establish an unbreachable dichotomy
> between the sacred and the secular is truly breathtaking.
You seem to be taking the
position that the Law of God and the laws of society should be coterminous, and
that to believe otherwise makes one antinomian. But would you support having
the civil government enforce laws against lusting in one's heart, daydreaming
at work, eating too much for dinner, overspending at the mall, arriving late
for one's doctor's appointment and the like? I doubt you would support having
such laws in civil society, which means you would have to agree that society
should not be ruled by the Law of God. I personally think the Law of God and
the laws of society have two very different purposes. The Law of God is an
ultimate moral standard designed to show every human being to be an utter moral
failure in thought, word and deed before a holy God, so that people would be
convicted of their sinfulness and be driven to seek forgiveness and redemption in
Jesus Christ. The laws of society, on the other hand, have a more narrow
purpose of punishing criminal activity and protecting the freedom and rights of
citizens. Far from being coterminous, the latter is clearly a subset of the
former.
Your point that gay marriage is a transgression of the Law of God is not, for
this reason, a compelling argument for why it should be legally barred in
society. There may be good reasons why civil same-sex marriage should be
legally barred, but simply appealing to the Law of God does not make the case
in my opinion.
> Equally disturbing is your tacit argument that it is legitimate and
> advisable for Christians to bargain with the devil for the right to be
left
> alone in the practice of our beliefs. Politically speaking, it is nothing
> short of naive and laughable.
The church has already made
"a bargain with sinners whereby we will not interfere with their right to
sin with impunity if they will not interfere with our right not to sin,"
because the church supports religious freedom in this country. Religious
freedom is striking a deal with idolaters which says "we won't interfere
with your right to worship demons if you don't interfere with our right to
worship the true God." Idolatry is certainly a sin for which God demanded
death in the Old Testament (I am referring to the previous paragraph where you
say regarding gay marriage: "[God] finds it so wrong, may I remind you, that
He demands immediate death for those who practice it.") As you know, the
entire history of Israel tells of the slaughter of idolaters without (holy
wars) and the slaughter of idolaters within (Elijah and the prophets of Baal,
the reforms of King Josiah). Since idolatry is also a sin deserving immediate
death according to God's Law, I am wondering if that means you would oppose
religious freedom in this country?
Now I have been reminded that some Reformed Christians do not accept this
pluralistic bargain we have entered into with idolaters, and those Christians
are working toward eliminating the freedom and tolerance of idolaters in this
country. But while such Christians are working toward eliminating the bargain
that they think is so wrong, they are enjoying the very religious freedom that
comes from making a "bargain with the devil" in the first place; in
fact, they are depending upon it, otherwise how can there be time to work
toward their anti-pluralistic goal? In order to establish a principle, they
must necessarily violate it. From a moral standpoint I really don't know how
one can defend such a practice.
I am in favor of striking deals with sinners and idolaters in society, because
due to God's common grace which restrains sin in the world, unbelievers are
capable of keeping their side of the bargain. It is not an absolute guarantee,
we are ultimately depending upon God's grace to protect us from outright
persecution, but we have been enjoying religious freedom for quite some time
now even though we are in a bargain with Jews, Muslims and Buddhists, all of
whom can potentially be very hostile toward Christians.
The gay community is no different and, I would argue, has even greater
potential than the Jews, Muslims and Buddhists. If you would bear with me, I
will make my case:
As someone has already pointed out on another discussion list, there is a big
difference between a person who is a homosexual and person who is a radical gay
activist. Homosexuals are simply people who are sexually attracted to those of
the same gender. Radical gay activists are those homosexuals who have adopted a
radical leftist political agenda; they are sometimes called "queer
leftists." Some history: the queer leftist movement was touched off by the
Stonewall riots in 1969 in which patrons of a Greenwich Village gay bar
resisted a routine police raid of the place, an event widely recognized by the
gay community as the birth of the gay activist movement. This event symbolized
rebellion against the authority of "the establishment," in which
homosexuals weren't going to remain silent about their homosexuality anymore,
inspiring a mass "coming out of the closet" movement. In the free-sex
climate of the '60's and '70's this also translated into rampant promiscuity,
one-night-stands, and generally a gross and perverse culture of throwing off
all sexual restraint. Politically this translated into radical leftist
politics, in which intimidation, threats, harassment, rioting, destruction of
property, and smearing the reputation of one's enemies were all fair game
tactics to getting one's way. A queer leftist named Larry Kramer is famous for
founding numerous radical activist groups, such as ACT UP during the AIDS
crisis of the '80's when the gay community felt angry over society's seeming
indifference to their plight. Queer Nation is another such activist group,
known for their dirty political tactics and their cultural agenda of seeking to
subvert established norms about marriage, gender, sexuality and the like.
But the AIDS crisis of the
'80's and early '90's also significantly impacted the political and cultural
direction of the gay community, for it graphically illustrated to them the
consequences of their adolescent sexual rebellion and made them realize they
needed to grow up a bit. Sexual responsibility was forced upon them since
promiscuity and free sex meant, potentially, death--especially for gay men.
People started realizing the value of sexual restraint and the protection of
entering into a monogamous relationship. The AIDS crisis also taught the gay
community that they needed the help of the rest of society to fight this
plague, which meant it was time to start being politically cooperative and quit
throwing temper tantrums, because that stuff turns people off. (I have never
heard anyone admit this, maybe because it is too painful an admission, but if
their political radicalism hadn't isolated their community from regular society
so much, perhaps they might have gotten more immediate assistance when the AIDS
crisis hit.)
The '90's were a time of transition for the gay community as they began to
understand that they needed to calm down, be responsible, get a job, and act
like grown ups. What facilitated this transition was recognizing that there
were vast numbers of homosexuals in their own community who were already doing
just that--regular folk who worked 9 to 5 or served in the military or went to
church--only those homosexuals hadn't "come out of the closet"
because they were too embarrassed to identity themselves as gay because of the
way the infantile queer leftists made all gay people look to the rest of the
society. In 1993 "A Place at the Table" by Bruce Bawer came out in
which the author described this dichotomy between the queer leftists who
claimed to speak for all gays, and the reality that most homosexual people did
not identify with queer leftist politics or culture, but held to more
mainstream values and opinions. The book touched off a new "coming
out" movement among more mainstream homosexuals, who felt it was time to
let their friends and family know that most gays are regular people who
couldn't care less about Queer Nation, and in fact opposed what such groups
stood for.
The climate of the '90's of embracing greater sexual responsibility and identifying
with mainstream culture and society is what has given birth to the civil
same-sex marriage movement, which is a markedly conservative movement within
the gay community compared to queer leftism. In 1995 Andrew Sullivan wrote
"Virtually Normal" (the book I read) arguing the case for gay civil
marriage from a political standpoint of civil liberties. The greater
conservatism of the civil same-sex marriage movement is evident in advocating
that gays ought to commit themselves to sexually responsible, monogamous
relationships, and in purposely confining itself to the civil arena in order to
respect the right of the religious community to bar such marriages from their
churches. The movement is despised by the queer leftists who, due to being
permanently stuck in the 1970's, despise any kind of sexual responsibility and
have the utmost contempt for any gay person who desires to work respectfully
with the religious community. Sullivan, who is a practicing Roman Catholic and
one of the chief advocates of the civil same-sex marriage movement, has for the
last ten years been persecuted by the queer leftists, receiving harassing phone
calls, excrement in the mail, death threats, and just last year was the target
of an organized smear campaign in which queer leftists called to have
Sullivan's "skull cracked open." The reason for their venom is that
Sullivan is an outspoken gay conservative who criticizes the hypocrisy and
fascism of queer leftists, takes a pro-life stance on abortion, opposes hate
crime laws and hate speech laws, praises George W. Bush, defends gender
distinctions, and advocates respecting other people's religious beliefs. He
even defended the Boy Scouts' right as a private organization to exclude gay
scouts from their membership. What scares the queer leftists about gay
conservatives like Sullivan is that he has gained a significant gay following
in taking these positions.
He is just one of many gay intellectuals who openly oppose queer leftism and is
attempting to forge a new movement within the gay community of cooperation,
responsibility, and respect for others. A bunch of these gay and lesbian
intellectuals even got together and formed an online coalition called The
Independent Gay Forum. You can check out the list of contributors at <www.indegayforum.org/authors.html>.
Also check out their position statement at
<www.indegayforum.org/about.html>. Richard Tafel,* one of the IGF
contributors, is also president of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican
organization.
I think this movement brings new hope to ending this intense political
hostility between the gay community and the conservative Christian church,
which has been a tremendous barrier in simply trying to befriend gays and
lesbians, let alone speak to them about the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gay
writers and intellectuals at the Independent Gay Forum are not only interested
in ending the political hostility, but each of them is taking a personal risk
by taking our side against the queer leftists and standing up to them. Frankly,
it impresses me that they are taking such a risk to reach out to us. It tells
me that they are really serious about this, and that there is potential to get
along with the gay community at some level of political understanding. And once
we learn to get along, respecting one another's civil liberties and peacefully
co-existing together, that will open up doors for the gospel. In fact, it has
already opened doors for me. My studies of these issues over the past year and
a half has enabled me to talk to quite a number of gays and lesbians and form
friendships with them even though they know that I believe that homosexuals
relationships are a sin against God. I am not saying that supporting civil
same-sex marriage is necessarily what every Christian must do to build bridges
with the gay community, but I think we can certainly start by educating
ourselves about what is really going on in their community these days, do our
best by God's grace to put aside the bitter hostilities of the past, and
realize that it is time to start responding to their attempts to be civil and
respectful toward us by being civil and respectful back.
So in conclusion, that is my case for why I think we can succeed in striking a
civil liberties deal with the gay community, just as we have had success in
striking a religious liberties deal with Jews, Muslims and Buddhists, by God's
merciful grace.
Misty Irons
[* Note: Subsequent to this post, I learned that Tafel is not an IGF member.]
Footnote to My Response to G. M.
3/2/02
6:46 p.m.
Dear List,
Lee just pointed out the following confusing statement I make in my last post,
which I wish to clear up. I write:
"I am in favor of striking deals with sinners and idolaters in society,
because due to God's common grace which restrains sin in the world, unbelievers
are capable of keeping their side of the bargain. It is not an absolute
guarantee, we are ultimately depending upon God's grace to protect us from
outright persecution, but we have been enjoying religious freedom for quite
some time now even though we are in a bargain with Jews, Muslims and Buddhists,
all of whom can potentially be very hostile toward Christians.
"The gay community is no different and, I would argue, has even greater
potential than the Jews, Muslims and Buddhists. If you would bear with me, I
will make my case:"
To clarify, the case I wish to make is that there is greater potential to GET
ALONG with the gay community, not greater potential for them to be hostile to
Christians. I didn't realize I was using the word "potential" in two
different ways in subsequent sentences. My apologies.
Misty Irons
G. M.’s Response to My Response
3/3/02
6:30 p.m.
Misty:
My daughter has a pro-life-message T-shirt which asks: "How can a moral
wrong be a civil right?" The question seems appropriate to raise in the
context of your argument for recognition of same-sex civil marriages. It's
obviously intended to be a rhetorical question, having for its answer an
implied: "It can't." ... [snip] ... For this reason, no
Bible-believing Christian can sanction, advocate or tolerate it ... [snip] ...
You know that gay marriage is wrong. Why do you feel obligated to offer it to
them anyway? The only possible explanation which seems to emerge from your
proposal is this: You seem to believe that if we help to secure this civil
right for them, those who engage in this moral wrong will be willing, politically,
to tolerate us in return ... [snip] ... This is essentially, then, a POLITICAL
deal. Actually, it is entirely a political deal ... [snip] ... There is no need
to bargain with anyone to secure our religious rights because they are already
ours, unalienably, due to a grant from our Creator ... [snip] ... Civil order
is not (must not, according to God) be built upon negotiations among men of
goodwill. Civil order built on this theory is very shaky, indeed, because, as
we Biblical Calvinists know, there ARE no men of goodwill. There are only
depraved sinners bent on evil ... [snip] ...
I am tempted to ignore your silly suggestion that I seem to believe that the civil government should legislate and enforce against "lusting in one's heart, daydreaming at work, eating too much for dinner, overspending at the mall, arriving late for one's doctor's appointment" and similar moral wrongs. Of course, I don't. Besides inappropriately comparing apples (gay marriage) and oranges (your list of moral laxities above), you have entirely missed the principle of jurisdiction, as I have outlined it previously. Civil government may not legislate in these areas of moral wrong because God has not granted it jurisdiction over such things. God HAS given to the church the duty (jurisdiction) to be guardians of the heart in these and all other moral areas. God HAS given to the church the right and duty to testify and proclaim to civil authorities and civil society concerning God's moral requirements (the church in the public square). God HAS granted to civil government the duty to protect the family and divinely ordained social structures, and it therefore has a right and duty to prohibit same-sex marriages ... [snip] ...
G. M.
* * * * * * * *
R. L. Proposes a Natural Law Argument
3/2/02
10:15 a.m.
> There may still be
legitimate reasons why Christians would want to oppose gay
> civil marriage apart from simply appealing to Scripture, and I think
> Christians would be more honest and consistent to try to argue the case
from
> that angle. Frankly if someone could make a convincing case from that
> perspective, I would be eager to adopt it.
Do you mean by this that if you could develop a reasonable argument against
homosexuality and civilly endorsed homosexual marriages based solely upon
"natural" law that you could support, that you would adopt it?
I agree wholeheartedly with
your basic premise that we don't want to produce the Scriptures (special
revelation) to a "common grace" court as a legal basis for what is
morally right and wrong. I agree that the Scriptures calls us to be pluralistic
society in this common grace kingdom of man. However, I also think that we should
use general revelation/natural law/common sense as the basis of law and
morality.
I think I would want to proceed in this direction of developing an argument
from natural law in the same way that we would want to argue against murder or
stealing by the use of natural law or the law written on men's heart.
How about something like this: if a society were to permit or sanction a homosexual
union, and if that civilly endorsed union became the norm of society, then by
nature that society would cease to exist because of the lack of children.
I would suppose that an answer to this would be that with medical technology
developing, we will probably be able to produce children apart from the human
womb in the years to come, which would make male-female sexual unions unnecessary.
However, we might also look at the comparison and contrasts between the
benefits heterosexual unions and homosexual unions: longevity of union,
benefits upon society, ability to give their children full
nurturing, etc.
R. L.
My Response to R. L.’s Natural Law Argument
3/5/02
10:57 a.m.
> How about something like this: if a society were to permit or
> sanction a homosexual union, and if that civilly endorsed union
> became the norm of society, then by nature that society would cease
> to exist because of the lack of children.
Yes, that is an issue I have had to consider. It seems to me the question is
whether legalizing civil same-sex marriage would cause people to choose
homosexual marriage over heterosexual marriage, thus resulting in a significant
decline of heterosexual marriages and endangering society as you describe. In
my own studies, I have come to believe that this problem isn't likely to arise
since I believe homosexuality isn't a choice and isn't something people are
"recruited" into. Gays and lesbians in society would simply marry
each other, leaving the rest of the heterosexual population to continue
marrying and procreating as we have been.
> However, we might also look at the comparison and contrasts between
> the benefits heterosexual unions and homosexual unions: longevity of
> union, benefits upon society, ability to give their children full
> nurturing, etc.
Yes, I think those are good questions to consider for this debate.
Misty Irons
* * * * * * * *
Five Questions from A. P.
3/2/02
10:42 p.m.
Misty,
1. How do you distinguish between a civil marriage and a church marriage?
Marriage in and of itself is a civil institution. That is why the minister (who
is actually, in this unique setting, acting as an agent of the state) says,
"By the power vested in me by the state of (your state's name here), I now
pronounce you man and wife." Also, the officiating minister usually is
responsible for the signing and witnessing of the marriage certificate and
sending it in to the appropriate civil authority.
2. On what basis do you claim that there is a civil right to same sex unions? On
a moral basis? On a legal basis? Or, simply because Gay Activists claim that
they have the right? The moral teaching of the Bible teaches that homosexuality
is an abomination before God. While some municipal governments are enacting
"domestic partner" laws, there is not, as far as I know, any
recognized legal right for same sex "marriage". Even the use of the
term "domestic partner" indicates that it is not a marriage. Does the
present situation exist because Christians have deprived homosexuals of a civil
right? Or, does it exist because no civil authority has acknowledged that such
a right exists?
3. I'm glad you clarified that you actually believe homosexual activity to be a
sin. Is the homosexual orientation a sin? Or, is it just the activity? Does
Romans 1 teach that only the one, but not the other is sinful? You mentioned
that homosexuality flies in the face of God's creation order. If it does, why
should the church advocate the legitimization of that which is sinful and
contrary to the Creator's will?
4. How can the church testify against the sin of homosexuality in order to
bring conviction of sin to the homosexual, while at the same time testifying
that homosexuality should be legitimized? Wouldn't such an uncertain sound
undermine any true gospel witness to homosexuals?
5. Westminster Confession of Faith XIX:V states: "The moral law doth
forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience
thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also
in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither doth
Christ, in the gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this
obligation." Do you agree with the Confession? Does the Confession
recognize Meredith Kline's (and Lee's) Cult / Culture distinction in its
application of the moral law? Under what circumstances should Christians give
their approval to the breaking of the moral law?
A. P.
My Responses to the Five Questions from A. P.
3/5/02
2:14 p.m.
> 1. How do you distinguish between a civil marriage and a church
marriage?
> Marriage in and of itself is a civil institution.
That is an interesting question that I would like to explore more, but here are
my current thoughts. I don't quite agree that "marriage is in and of
itself a civil institution." My own understanding is that marriage is an
institution ordained by God at creation. After the Fall God reaffirmed the
marriage institution (Gen. 3:16, 9:1) but as a common grace institution for all
mankind, that is, for believers and unbelievers alike. Both the church and the
state have the authority to recognize and regulate the marriage institution
according to their own interests. I think the authority of both church and
state is recognized in the 2000 edition of the BOCO, in which the suggested
pronouncement after a marriage service is: "By virtue of the authority
committed unto me by the church of Christ and the law of the state, I now
pronounce you...etc." (p. 169). The state's recognition of marriage is
simply about granting the couple certain legal rights, benefits and protections
in society: visiting rights to the hospital if a spouse falls ill, rights to
inherit property if a spouse dies, rights to receive a pension if the spouse
died while serving as a policeman or fireman--that sort of thing. The church
blesses only those marriages that are in the Lord, which are a picture of the
relationship between Christ and the church (Eph. 5:22-33). I think Christian
marriages ought to be a testimony to the unbelieving world of God's will for
the marriage institution harkening back to creation, and should serve as a
rebuke to how far the unbelieving world has fallen from God's ideal creation
order.
I think the reason the officiating minister sends the marriage certificate to
the appropriate civil authority is so that the state knows to grant the couple
their legal rights as a married couple, since presumably one or both of them
are citizens of this country; but I don't think the reason is because marriage
is strictly a civil institution.
> 2. On what basis do you claim that there is a civil right to same sex
> unions? On a moral basis? On a legal basis? Or, simply because Gay
> Activists claim that they have the right
I guess I don't view the present situation in terms of whether there is or is
not a civil right to same-sex marriage, because it sort of begs the question.
Obviously at the present time the state has not recognized that such a right
exists, but that is because the case for civil same-sex marriage has only been
recently made. No one had ever before considered whether gay couples have the
right to have their unions legally recognized by the state, and so the question
is still being debated. Obviously my position in this debate is that the case
in favor of civil same-sex marriage is a valid one, based on my understanding
that the vast majority of homosexuals do not choose their homosexual condition,
and on my understanding that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man according
to the U.S. Supreme Court (1967, "Loving v. Virginia"), as I have
already presented in my article.
> 3. I'm glad you clarified that you actually believe homosexual activity
to
> be a sin. Is the homosexual orientation a sin? Or, is it just the activity?
Yes, I believe that homosexual activity is a sin. And even though I believe the
homosexual orientation is an involuntary, unchosen condition, I believe it is
also a sinful condition that is a result of the Fall. Since I am a Calvinist
(and not a Pelagian) I believe in original sin, meaning I believe that all
mankind descending from Adam by ordinary generation have been imputed with the
guilt of Adam's first sin, want original righteousness, and have inherited a
corrupt nature (see SC #18). Hence I think it is consistent with Reformed
doctrine to believe that God holds human beings to be morally culpable for a
sinful condition that they did not personally choose, which I believe is the
case for the homosexual. I think Romans 1 speaks of the manifestation of
original sin in the lives of fallen mankind as SC #18 states: "together
with all actual transgressions which proceed from it."
I would say that Christians can support the legitimate constitutional freedoms
of unbelievers in society, even if those freedoms involve committing sins that
are contrary to the Creator's will, in the same way that we can advocate the
freedom of idolaters to worship false gods (i.e., religious freedom) even
though idolatry is a gross violation of the Creator's will.
> 4. How can the church testify against the sin of homosexuality in order
to
> bring conviction of sin to the homosexual, while at the same time
testifying
> that homosexuality should be legitimized? Wouldn't such an uncertain sound
> undermine any true gospel witness to homosexuals?
Again I point to the example of idolatry. Supporting the rights of Buddhists
and Muslims and Jews to meet and worship is not the same as saying we think
idolatry is okay. As far as I know, no one has mistaken the church's support of
religious freedom as a sign of our approval of idol worship. Respecting and
supporting civil liberties is simply about getting along with others in a pluralistic
society and letting them know that we wish to coexist with them peacefully.
That in itself is a help to our gospel witness, not a hindrance in my opinion.
> 5. Westminster Confession of Faith XIX:V states ...
> Do you agree with
the Confession? Does the Confession recognize Meredith
> Kline's (and Lee's) Cult / Culture distinction in its application of the
> moral law? Under what circumstances should Christians give their approval
to
> the breaking of the moral law?
I agree with WCF XIX:V.
Unrepentant homosexuals are certainly accountable to God's law, and apart from
salvation in Christ they will be judged for their transgressions on the Day of
Judgment. I can't comment much on the relationship between the Confession and
Meredith Kline's cult/culture distinction, since I have not studied the
Confession at that level, being only a member (as opposed to a minister/elder)
of the OPC.
As for giving approval, once again I personally think Christians should give
approval to legitimate constitutional freedoms in this country, even if it
means those freedoms involve the breaking of the moral law as in the case of
idolatry. But Christians should not approve of the breaking of the moral law
itself, and as a church we should call all men and women to repentance for
their idolatry, homosexuality, adultery, drunkenness, and whatnot.
Misty Irons
* * * * * * * *
Moderator P. M. on My Naivete About Homosexuality
3/3/02
5:17 a.m.
As you know, homosexuality is a hot-button issue, and when any Christian sounds
somewhat tolerant of gay and lesbian ways, the reaction is apt to be viscerally
indignant without necessarily being careful reasoned. I suppose we all do it,
but I object to simply making an assertion and tagging it with a proof text of
Scripture when the connection is not necessarily obvious. I personally do not
agree with all Misty's conclusions, but I believe those who have condemned her
outright and asserted that the OPC will be remiss unless it lays charges
against her (and her husband) are out of line. In any case, this forum is not
the place to try anyone, but only to discuss and debate ideas.
Misty, those who have a theonomic or Puritan (Westminster) perspective will in
particular disagree with your proposal that Christians should support the civil
government's legalizing homosexual civil "marriages." Of course, we
all recognize our current government and culture differ sharply from Knox's
Scotland, Puritan England and pre-Civil War America, and nowhere more sharply
than in our religious culture. As American concepts of religious freedom have
evolved, pluralism emerged, which I think was inevitable when the first
amendment began to be understood with modernist assumptions. If we are to
proclaim the gospel, we have to address the society in which we live. And that,
among other things, means witnessing and ministering with grace and truth to
gays and lesbians as we would any other sinners. How did those Corinthians who
used to live in wickedness become saints (1 Cor 6:9-11)? Only the washing of
rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit can make those changes, and he works by
the proclamation of the gospel. And you have been witnessing the gospel to
them, and I thank God for that witness.
Nevertheless, Misty, I think your political proposal is both unrealistic and
without biblical support. The fact that not all homosexuals are leftist
political radicals does not prove that homosexuality can be treated as benign,
in part because of its perversion of created human relationships, in part
because of the disease it encourages, and in part because of divine judgment.
We know those things to be true even if the secular world refuses to accept
them. As to judgment, though judgment in this age begins with God's own people,
he also judges the pagan world. Sodom and Gomorrah were not covenant
communities, yet God condemned and destroyed them. When the Canaanites' cup of
iniquity was full, they were divinely judged. (One could say that the
eschatological judgment intrudes in a preliminary way into the present.) By
God's decree even fallen people retain the image of God in some respect and
therefore have some sense of his reality and law (Rom 1:19-20, 32; 2:14-15),
and he holds them accountable for that knowledge whether or not they
acknowledge it or attempt to conform to it.
Gay propaganda maintains that homosexuals are born that way naturally,
"made that way by God," though the scientific community by no means
unanimously supports that contention. Perhaps in a fallen creation some people
may not be "naturally" attracted to the opposite sex (Mat 19:12?)
just as some people may naturally be more susceptible to alcohol addiction or
depression. However, a far more significant contributor is the fact that
"the Gentiles. . .are darkened in their understanding and separated from
the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening
of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over
to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust
for more." (Eph 4:17-19).
The practice of perversions or obsessions involves choices of conduct, and
civil law is designed to sanction conduct resulting from such choices, not
"natures," or feelings or attitudes. Gays or drunks or Buddhists or
liberals or conservative Protestants are all human beings and citizens, with
rights guaranteed to them under our civil covenant. But they have no
constitutionally guaranteed right to protection for behavior that would injure
the public good. American law places sanctions against private and religious
practices which are repugnant to the community or dangerous to other people,
like child pornography, sexual abuse, Muslim jihad, human sacrifice, plural
marriages (at least at the same time!), prostitution, use of hallucinogenic
drugs to gain "spiritual visions," etc. Moreover a culture that
sanctions one form of perversion soon has to contend with others, since natural
moral restraints have been formally rejected. In the end homosexuality, like
these other things is harmful, and not least to homosexuals themselves. Is it
Christian love to urge legal sanction for destructive behavior?
When our gay neighbors complain that the government is unjust not to legalize
gay civil marriages, Christians can reply that we love them as people but we
cannot support behavior that our Creator condemns. The gay community says that
those who do not support their agenda, hate them by definition, just as some
Jews and Muslims charge Christians with blaspheming God by proclaiming the
gospel to them. Such charges go at least as far back as Jesus, Stephen, and
Paul, and we need not be embarrassed by them. Nothing we can "give"
them will satisfy them about what the church represents as long as we maintain,
as we must, that homosexuality is evil and that those who persist in it without
repentance fall under divine judgment. The lines are drawn by homosexuals as
sharply as by Christians. Gays have attempted to hijack the status of "a
persecuted minority" in order to advance their agenda to gain social and
legal legitimacy.
Yes, we must treat gay people with love and speak the truth with gentleness and
grace. As God gives us opportunity to know homosexual people, we need to seek
to understand and encourage them to faith and repentance. But in that process
we must be honest about God's opinion of their chosen lifestyle. If they are
seeking freedom from bondage to sinful habits and fantasies, we should counsel
them biblically, pray with them, fellowship with them and encourage them to
walk by faith in Christ. We may need to walk alongside them, perhaps even
weeping with them. If they are Christians who still struggle with fantasies and
temptations, we may have to help them find forgiveness and renewal when they
fail. And as in our witness to all people, we also must have the honest
humility to acknowledge that "we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived
and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and
envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God
our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done,
but because of his mercy." (Tit 3:3-5)
Misty, you plead for consistency, and that may be true, but the difficulty is
that our civil society itself is fraught with all manner of contradictions and
tensions. We can only attempt to be consistent guided by the Word God, but
complete harmony only lies in the eternal kingdom. Yes, most Christians support
the civil rights of idolaters to worship false gods while they also oppose gay
marriages. Yes, Buddhists and Mormons and Jews practice idolatry for
themselves, but they do so without acting out in ways that pose a risk to
society's general health, liberty and stability. On the other hand, while some
homosexual individuals may be harmless to others, I think you are naive to
think that homosexuality generally is harmless to society, especially to
children. Immediately after gaining the legal right to "marry," their
next desire is to adopt and raise children. The gay community generally seems
desperate to "normalize" what will always remain a perverse
lifestyle. In a similar way, some consider prostitution a "victimless
crime" and argue for its legalization, but those idealists either do not know
prostitutes and the people they "serve" or do not care; everyone
suffers. "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such
things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also
approve of those who practice them." (Rom 1:32)
A further problem with your proposal that conservative Christians support the
legalization of gay civil "marriage" while maintaining the behavior
is perverse and sinful, is that clear communication is virtually impossible. No
matter how carefully you nuance your proposal, the message to the gay and
lesbian community (as well as to most in the Christian community) would be
approval of a lifestyle that God condemns in Scripture. Does that not set forth
a major confusion that would hinder evangelism? "If the trumpet does not
sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?" How can we say that we
will support gay "marriage," and at the same time call them to repent
from a practice that is inherent in such a union? That inconsistency seems more
harmful to our credibility than a supposed inconsistency over civil rights.
Even if you could work that out in theory, I seriously doubt it would be
communicable to very many people.
Will Christians' refusal to support gay civil marriages undermine our political
freedom? Frankly, I doubt it, at least not by itself, but even if it should, in
God's providence that would be our calling to suffer for Christ's sake. The
early church publicly opposed the deification of the Roman emperor in spite of
the fact that they and most pagans knew the cult of the emperor was merely
political charade. Nonetheless many Christians refused to participate as
required by civil law lest they compromise the glory of Christ, King of
emperors and empires, and confuse the clear call of the gospel. Many paid a
heavy price in slander, legal persecution and blood for opposing the emperor's
cult. While civil marriage for homosexuals does not necessarily rise to the
level of emperor worship, calling Christians to support it will, in my judgment,
only confuse the gospel message to the world, including gays, and to the
church.
In the end, Misty, it is not the gospel of grace on which a number of us differ
with you, nor on the Bible's assessment of homosexuality and those who practice
it, but we do disagree with your assessment of the homosexual agenda and on the
church's relation to it in the civil arena of a pluralistic society. So while I
concur with your desire to minister the gospel to gays, I think your proposal
that conservative Christians support the gay political agenda to legalize
homosexual marriage is neither effective nor justified.
P. M.
[Discussion List Moderator]
My Response to Moderator P. M. on My Naivete About Homosexuality
3/5/02
8:44 p.m.
> The practice of perversions or obsessions involves choices of conduct,
and
> civil law is designed to sanction conduct resulting from such choices, not
> "natures," or feelings or attitudes... Moreover a
> culture that sanctions one form of perversion soon has to contend with
> others, since natural moral restraints have been formally rejected. In the
> end homosexuality, like these other things is harmful, and not least to
> homosexuals themselves. Is it Christian love to urge legal sanction for
> destructive behavior?...
First, I would like to say that even though I have only been on this
discussion list for less than a week, I have come to respect the care with
which you process the issues at hand, and I greatly appreciate the time and
thoughtfulness you have put into this one. I find such interaction to be
clarifying for myself, and I hope to everyone who has an interest in this
discussion.
From the above snippets I gather that much of your perspective on the issue of
civil same-sex marriage rests on the belief that homosexuality is a chosen
lifestyle. On this point I strongly disagree, which is perhaps one of the
reasons why we differ in our conclusions. If I believed homosexuality was a
chosen lifestyle I would not support civil same-sex marriage either, because
then the civil liberties argument would no longer be about the right to marry
(that is, against no legal right to marry at all); it would be about the right
to do whatever morally irresponsible thing one wishes in society, which is not
a right that deserves protection in my personal political view. Since viewing
homosexuality as an unchosen condition is the key to the entire argument of my
article, I feel I ought to explain more about why I believe so.
As I have explained in a previous post I do not think it is a contradiction to
believe that human beings are morally culpable for a sinful condition that they
did not themselves choose. I believe homosexuals are people who did not choose
to have a homosexual orientation, and yet they can be rightly judged by God for
violating His creation order simply by being homosexual, regardless of whether
they act upon their orientation or not. As Reformed Christians we understand
that this is the very definition of original sin, namely, that we come into
this world as sons of Adam, having been imputed with the guilt of Adam's first
sin and having inherited the corruption of his nature before we ever got out of
the starting blocks of life. Before self-awareness, moral awareness or
awareness of our own ability to choose began to form in the earliest stages of
our lives, we were already condemned and corrupt, and were doomed to work out
the fruits of that condemnation and corruption in living a sinful life (Shorter
Catechism Q. #18). No amount of good works on our part can reverse original
sin, which is why the gospel tells us that we must be saved through
justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ, having been pardoned of our sins
and imputed with the merit of Christ's own righteousness to our account (SC #
33).
I did not always believe as I now do about homosexuals. I used to believe
homosexuality was a choice due to a perverse sexual lust that homosexuals
refused to control, and that "sexual orientation" was merely a
political euphemism calculated to divest the issue of homosexuality of any
sense of responsibility. Furthermore, since I saw that the Bible condemned
homosexuals, the plumbing didn't match up, and radical gay activists were off
in the deep end, the question of choice seemed like a pretty open and shut
case.
Five years ago two gay men moved in next door to our apartment, with whom I
tried to build a friendship for the purpose of sharing the gospel with them.
They were courteous to me and were actually very good neighbors to us, but
nothing ever got off the ground friendship-wise, and it seemed that nothing I
did could break down the wall they seemed to put up. Two years later one of
them died of AIDS complications, and I felt extremely bad that God had put it
on my heart for two years to witness to them, but because I didn't know how to
befriend them, someone died perhaps without knowing Christ. Also, the man who
died of AIDS never let on that he was sick, and so I felt bad that perhaps he
was afraid to tell me about his situation because I was a Christian, and he
didn't want to be judged.
It was for that reason alone that I began reading books by gay authors. I
wanted to see what I could learn about "gay culture" so that I would
better understand what to talk about with gay people. Obviously with AIDS going
around their eternal destiny might depend upon my ability not to be so
clueless, as I was with my neighbor. I was not expecting to be enlightened
about anything, and was bracing to be pretty disgusted by what I would
encounter. Instead the more I read, the more convinced I became that these
people did not choose to be homosexual. I was expecting to hear people talk
about sexual curiosity and experimentation in their youth which led them down
the homosexual path, or stories of sexual molestation which resulted in sexual
disorientation and destructive behavior. Instead I read childhood accounts of
people growing up under very normal circumstances in a traditional family
situation, in some cases even religious conservative families, but who knew
from as early as four or five years old that something about them was
different. One man described memories of wanting to share an emotional bond
with other grade school boys that seemed more than the kind of friendship they
reciprocated back to him, and that confused him as a child since he didn't
understand it. He talked about how in middle school, still puzzled and on a quest
to discover what was different about him, he stole off to the library to study
a book on human physiology to see if perhaps he was lacking some essential part
of the male physique. Another man said his elementary school friends all went
through the "girls have cooties" stage except for him, then when he
went through puberty around age 12 he was completely horrified to discover that
he dreamt about boys instead of girls, and would wake up feeling dirty and sick
and frightened at what was happening to him. For others who moved through the
adolescent years, great amounts of time and energy were spent concealing their
difference from their high school friends, completely terrified of being
ostracized or getting beaten to a pulp if other kids were to find out they
weren't having feelings for the right gender. As adults they would devote years
to trying to change, spending thousands of dollars in psychotherapy or
hypnosis, joining fundamentalist churches in an effort to straight-jacket their
feelings, marrying opposite sex partners hoping they would learn to like it,
and quite often after coming to the end of their rope and hitting rock bottom,
they end up on drugs, on the street or committing suicide.
Just this past Sunday night I received a call from a gay friend of mine who
told me in tears that he would gladly cut off his right arm if he could only be
straight. He wished he weren't gay but felt helpless to change, and he wanted
to know if life was still worth living. All my gay and lesbian friends know
that I am a conservative Christian who believes in a traditional understanding
of what the Bible teaches about homosexuality, but they don't seem to mind.
What they care about is that I listen to their stories, and that I believe them
when they talk about how they have really, really tried to change, which is
usually the point in the conversation when we both break down and cry. Over the
past year and a half I have had long email exchanges, talked on the phone, met
over lunch, cried with people, and sat in the car and talked long and late into
the night. Sometimes I think my gay friends are actually glad that I am a
conservative Christian, because deep down they know that their homosexuality is
a sin against God, and they can hardly dare to believe that God could ever love
someone like them. When they see that a conservative Christian loves them, it
gives them hope that maybe God loves them too.
I want to tell my gay friends that the Reformed faith has answers for them.
Most evangelical Christians can only offer them the Pelagian answer that all
sin is a choice, and since homosexuality is a sin, it too must be a choice, and
unless they can choose it away they will perish. I want to tell my gay friends
that even if they didn't choose their homosexuality it is still a sin, and they
will still be judged by God because their plight is the plight of all mankind.
We are all doomed to perish not because of our sinful choices but because of
the imputation of Adam's sin to our account and the inherited corruption of our
nature. The doctrine of original sin is extraordinarily difficult for most
people to swallow because it says that we had no choice in the matter of our
eternal fate. It speaks of our utterly helpless and hopeless condition before a
holy God, and people don't want that. Instead they want to fool themselves into
believing that they can still choose to be moral. But the homosexual is not
fooled. He knows differently. He experiences every day what it means to be
truly powerless to morally redeem himself, and every day he must live in the
misery of that condition. I want to tell gays and lesbians about the good news
of justification through the imputation of Christ's righteousness to their
account, exhort them to take hold of Christ by faith, and like Abraham who contemplated
his own body to be as good as dead, to look away from themselves and ahead to
the promise of the resurrection of the body (Romans 4:19-25).
Telling them that I support civil same-sex marriage is just a small way of
reaching out to them. It's a way I can communicate to them that I know they
don't choose their condition. And it's a way of exhorting them to try to move
in the right moral direction, that at the very least on a purely social level I
would like to see them to put away their promiscuity and be in committed,
sexually responsible relationships. No gay or lesbian person has ever made the
mistake of thinking that I approved of their homosexuality by taking that
political position; rather they are taken aback that a conservative Christian would
actually support their civil rights in society, and they have all expressed
their deep respect for that position. Like I said before, many doors have
opened up as a result, and I have made many gay and lesbian friends whom I have
come to love dearly. To my mind, the case for civil same-sex marriage is not
only completely valid, but supporting it is a small price when you consider the
doors that can be opened for the gospel of Jesus Christ in this atmosphere of
extreme hostility between our two groups. But I think probably even more
important than the issue of gay civil marriage is understanding where gay
people are coming from, which I have honestly tried my best to do, and which I
hope I have been able to explain to you here, even if you might disagree with
my conclusions.
Misty Irons
Moderator P. M.’s Response to My Response
3/6/02
10:26 a.m.
I think you may be partly right that the key point on which we differ is the
"belief that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle," but maybe we are
not as far apart as it seems. From my own reading and conversations,
particularly with Christians who minister to gays in the Seattle area, has led
me to conclude that many gays are that because of a combination of environment
and personal choices to satisfy lusts. If we grant that some have a
"natural" orientation other than normal hetereosexuality, that still
would not make the fantasies and behavior moral; it would have to be understood
as an aberration caused by the fall. Jesus might have included such folk when
he spoke of those who are born "eunuchs." The great weakness for that
argument is that Scripture never even suggests that this explains, much less
justifies, homosexual behavior. Some have argued that for those for whom
homosexuality is "natural," it is not perverse, but that is special
pleading, which again fails the test of Scripture.
Another aspect of the homosexual community's claim that this is
"normal" for them is the notion that nothing can [change] that, just
as nothing can change an African American into a Caucasian. The analogy is
false because race is a creational category while homosexuality is in a moral
category. Christ, according to our gospel, delivers from the bondage of sin.
And our message to the homosexual who thinks he is bound to this lifestyle,
must be to magnify the power and beauty of Jesus Christ as Redeemer and Lord.
Nothing we do should compromise and weaken that witness.
In any case a homosexual lifestyle is still a choice, whatever a person is
"naturally," just as it is for a heterosexual choosing fornication or
adultery. I have a sad friend whose spouse is mentally and physically incapable
of continuing to fulfill her role in the marriage as a companion and lover though
she remains very much alive. Does her condition give him the moral right to
choose to abandon his marriage and find a new wife? I can understand and
sympathize with his frustration and loneliness, but I could never justify such
a choice biblically. On a "normal" level people with strong heterosexual
desires make evil choices, e.g. adultery and prostitution. In most places
adultery is no longer illegal (or the laws are not enforced), and many people
are politically campaigning to legalize prostitution.
Should the church politically support legalizing prostitution? Would that be an
expedient way to reach out to prostitutes. Jesus certainly gave us an example
that we should be reaching out to such folk, even socializing with them, but
because he loved them even in the misery of their lives, his goal was to bring
them out of such lifestyles, and they clearly understood that. Yes, he
condemned the self-righteousness of the Pharisees and scribes--and those sins
are all too "natural" to our flesh! But Jesus does not suggest that
prostitution should be accepted so long as the person was an unbeliever. As I
said earlier, legal support to permit something is tantamount to approving the
thing and eventually encouraging it. In the popular mind, what is legalized usually
becomes "moral" to society, and if the church has approved or
supported its legalization, it is not going to be able to credibly teach that
it is evil. You agree that God the Creator has revealed his condemnation of homosexuality
as evil, and it is the church's responsibility in preaching the gospel to call
men and women to repent of this as well as other sins. Since the church's
interface with the world is the gospel, calling people to faith in Jesus Christ
and repentance toward God, to call on the government publicly to legalize an
immoral practice would accomplish little except confuse the world about our
message.
So, I applaud your commitment and practice in reaching out to gay
people--indeed, many of us should be convicted by your example. But on this
aspect of it, we do disagree. Those people with a "homosexual
orientation," need to be called to and supported in a chaste lifestyle as
part of the repentance in response to the gospel. Chaste single men and women,
who have "made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God," (though
not literally as Origen reportedly did), have had happy, productive lives and
deep and holy friendships. Of course, non-Christians cannot have holy lives
regardless of their sexual orientation, but in reaching out to gays, we can
hold out this kind of friendship as one blessing in Christ. If their orientation
is a matter of environmental conditioning and lust, many can change to have
happy marriages. The ministries of those Christian groups who work specifically
with gays report they do.
P. M.
[Discussion List Moderator]
* * * * * * * *
3/3/02
8:04 p.m.
Misty,
I think that this 'pragmatic line of appeal'-thinking borders on surreal.
Your comment, "just as we have had success in striking a religious liberties
deal with Jews, Muslims and Buddhists, by God's merciful grace" implies
that the liberty we enjoy is the result of "striking a deal" with
non-Christians. I think that notion, frankly, is at the very best, more
rewriting of history.
The liberty in America that has survived is the result of Christians who had no
reason to bargain with these others since the others were at best tiny
minorities at the time.
When Mohammedism runs things, Christians have no liberty (Saudi Arabia, etc.).
When the Jews run things, we have little liberty (Israel's ban on Christian
evangelism). When the Sodomites ran things, righteous Lot "was
oppressed," says Peter. The notion of religious liberty was solely the
product of disestablishmentarianism within a Christian majority.
What I have seen of the American culture of perversion since the days of Mattachine
(spelling?) in NYC in the circa 1970 tells me that, like the feminists in the
UPCUSA, liberty and true 'liberalism' lasts only as long as it helps them
promote and protect the "the sensual conduct of unprincipled men." As
soon as their viewpoint dominates, our purported freedom dries up.
Thus, I am thoroughly unpersuaded by even your pragmatic line of appeal.
W. L.
[Discussion List Moderator]
* * * * * * * *
3/5/02
8:33 p.m.
Misty,
Foundational to your case for the recognition of homosexual civil
unions is Kline's cult/culture distinction. I would like to ask you
to specifically address some points Dr Kline raises in his book,
Kingdom Prologue.
On page 172 (of the Two-Age Press edition)Kline begins a discussion
of the functions and limitations of the state. He takes care to
demonstrate the fact that the family and the state in the common
grace order are not identical to those intstitutions as they were
originally given in Eden, although there may be a degree of
continuity in form and function between them. In defining the family
under the common grace order Kline writes:
"The common grace family is still structured by the marriage
ordinance and it continues to be the institution for procreation and
the primary institution for the nurturing of children and the
cultivation of the world" (173).
Kline procedes to argue that the fact that in the common grace era
the family came before the state,demonstrates that the family also
has priority over the state. He wirtes "the state was to provide a
supportive framework for the life of the family" (174). As to its
limitations, "Clearly the state was not introduced to challenge the
previously existing family, whether by usurping its God-given
functions or in any way undermining or eroding its sphere of
authority" (174).
On page 176-177 Kline continues "For the state to thus move towards
the suppression of the family is to repudiate the very grounds and
purpose of its own existence, which are found in its origin as a
supportive institutional companion to the previously existing family
within their shared framework of common grace."
My question to you is this: In redifining marriage (which Kline puts
in continity with the man/woman union in Eden even in this common
grace era) to allow for the recognition of homosexual unions is not
the state engaging in an attack against the family which is not
within the bounds of its authority to do? Put another way: According
to what I understand the implications of Kline to be, the state as a
supplematary institution to the family cannot redifne the divinely
given paradigm for marriage without acting contrary to its founding
charter.
If somewhere in the midst of all these posts I missed your answer to
this question I do apologize =) I believe it would help clarify your
position for me a great deal if I could see exactly how you deal with
this issue.
A. K.
* * * * * * * *
3/5/02
9:07 p.m.
Misty:
You can listen to all the sob stories you want from gay friends and others, but
the fact remains that homosexuality is a perversion in the eyes of God -
Scripture is clear about that. The fact also remains that there is no legal
"right" or civil "liberty" for same-sex "marriages",
no matter how loudly gay activists scream that there is - whether in those
books you read or otherwise.
Although it may be difficult for them to do, homosexuals must repent of their
sin and, at the least, refrain from gay sexual activity - forever, God helping
them.
You are naive to think that, if conservative Christians were to support such a
bogus idea as these "marriages", then gay activists (and other
liberal types) would make nice with us and "dialogue" with us and
we'd all be one happy family. Nothing could be further from the truth. Once
they were to gain that victory, then they'd start pressing for whatever is next
on their list. They would not stop until, for them (again, not just gays, but
others, too) any Christian influence on the culture would be effectively neutralized.
What you are proposing is kowtowing to the culture, Misty, which is something
Christians must never do. Our light is supposed to be on the lampstand,
remember? Not under the bushel.
R. Z.
* * * * * * * *
B. H.’s Disappointment in My Lack of Response
3/6/02
4:04 a.m.
Misty, it was quite good, I think, that you saw fit to visit the group in order
to clarify your thinking on the subject. I am somewhat disappointed, however, that
you have ignored my response to your article. That completed
response, BTW,
is now uploaded in the files section of presbyterians-opc at the website at yahoogroups.com,
and additionally is available at my website, URL below.
I note that the majority of your responses have been simply repetitions and
some expansion of what you claim in the article, and that you do not address
many of the counter-arguments that have been offered.
B. H.
My Response to B. H.’s
Disappointment
3/6/02
6:22 p.m.
I have read your paper and I appreciate the time you have taken to interact
with me on these issues. I too have been tiring of being repetitious, which is
partly why I'm not sure what else to say in response. Basically, you hold to
the position that 1) the Ten Commandments should be enforced in society, 2)
that sinful behavior should not be protected as a civil right, 3) that homosexuals
are a threat to society, and 4) that the homosexual agenda is a threat to
religious freedom. I would simply refer you to my previous posts regarding
these concerns. Particularly with regard to concerns 1 and 2, the reason I keep
bringing up idolatry because if you really believe in enforcing the moral law
on society, it seems to me you should support proactively denouncing the right
of idolaters to meet. I have never known any Christian to make it a top
political agenda to undermine religious freedom in this country, even though it
seems that ought to be the practical outworking of your position, and since
Romans 1 directly connects the sin of idolatry with the sin of homosexuality.
Idolatry is the "mother sin" and the rest flow from it. Quite
honestly, I simply do not understand this seeming inconsistency, not only in
your theory, but in your political practice. Maybe I just need it explained to
me again.
However, I think you (and others) have persuaded me to reconsider the question
of whether the church as the church (as opposed to individual Christians)
should support civil same-sex marriage. Actually, I plan to post a list of
issues I am reconsidering as a result of my interaction with you and others on
this list (as well as those who have emailed me privately).
I think you best summed up our differences when you said:
"In this case, I have proved myself to be largely Kuyperian ... I
believe that Mrs. Irons is simply drawing to its natural conclusion thinking
influenced by the eschatological approach of Meredith Kline ..."
Although I don't sign off on everything Kline has written, his understanding of
the state as a common grace institution is certainly assumed in my paper. I am
not at all familiar with the particulars of Kuyperian thought, so I doubt I
would be qualified to interact with you about that. Perhaps you would find
Lee's paper on "Reformed Theocrats," posted just above my civil
same-sex marriage article, to be a more thorough and in-depth treatment of the
differences between our respective views of the state.
Misty Irons