Post by the Moderator of the OPC Discussion List

December 31, 2002

What disturbs me more than what [S--] raises is that a number of us took
much time and effort (and a few of us patience) to try to 'educate' Mrs.
Irons as to why the problems with her thinking are not simply political
adiaphora, but that her thinking is really at odds with the OPC's
constitution. She seemed to have been convinced by some of our remarks
(e.g., "I find this point persuasive," "Another criticism I have taken to
heart ..."). Please note the full text of her last post to the list in
March:

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:28 PM
Subject: Final post/some reconsiderations


> Dear list members,
>
> I have found our discussions profitable and I simply want to thank everyone
> who has posted to me on this list, as well as those lurkers who have written
> to me privately to discuss my article on civil same-sex marriage. I have
> tried to read almost everything sent my way, though I haven't succeeded in
> getting through all of it, and I apologize for my limited time (and energy)
> if I can't get back to everyone. However I have given what I have read some
> thought, and you have challenged me on all sides and have caused me to
> rethink some of the statements I have made in the article. Here is where I
> stand right now, in response to the concerns you have raised with me both on
> this list and privately:
>
> Many of you have raised the concern about my use of the term "marriage" with
> reference to gay marriage in society. If marriage is a creation ordinance,
> isn't it inappropriate to apply this term to something that isn't really
> marriage? This is a legitimate concern. I did not use the term "marriage"
> because I think gay marriage is a part of the creation ordinance. The reason
> I did use the term in my article is because the state as a common grace
> institution often applies the term "marriage" to unions that aren't really
> marriages by the standard of the creation ordinance, such as those who
> remarry after getting a divorce for grounds other than adultery. By the
> state's definition many such non-marriages can be legalized as marriages. I
> have argued for civil same-sex marriage from a purely political perspective.
> I assumed that we have allowed the state to botch up the definition of
> marriage already, and so if we're going to allow that then to be fair gay
> civil unions can be called marriages too by the state, because of the
> arguments outlined in the article.
>
> However I did not consider the question from a theological perspective, which
> many of you have brought to my attention. Isn't the word "marriage" itself
> invested with religious connotations, which I would wish to keep separate
> from anything that has to do with homosexual unions? Perhaps society doesn't
> care, but certainly the church wants to be clear about its use of the term,
> which harkens back to creation. I find this point persuasive, and maybe
> "civil unions" is a better term to use. The whole point of such legalizing
> such unions is so that gay couples can receive state benefits, so I don't
> think accommodating that label takes anything significant away from their
> social equality.
>
> Another criticism I have taken to heart is that I say that "the church"
> should support civil same-sex marriage. It is one thing for individual
> Christians to hold to my political position, but quite another for the church
> to adopt it as their official stance. I do agree with many of you that asking
> the church to take a political stance is not a good practice. The reason I
> made such a proposal in the first place is that the church has been so vocal
> already on political matters in opposing gay civil rights. My proposal is
> that we should reverse our position and undo the damage by saying we now
> support their rights for the reasons I outline in the article. So it is not
> that I think it is a good idea for the church "as the church" to take public
> political positions--I would rather that the church didn't vocalize any
> political position at all--but I simply thought that in this day and age
> taking this stand is the only way to make clear that we are calling for a
> political truce. However, I agree with many of you that this stance can also
> be confusing, that taken out of context it can be misunderstood as saying
> "the church" supports gay marriage in a way that we don't wish to communicate.
>
> As you now know, I have been mulling over these things for some time now in
> an effort tackle the very difficult problem of how to evangelize to
> homosexual people. I have sought to try out new things, to push myself and
> challenge myself in this task, because even though I believe the homosexual
> is in sin, I do not believe he/she is beyond the reach of the gospel message.
> But my own thoughts are limited in scope, which is why I have needed many of
> you to challenge me further and make me consider things I never thought of
> before. I am still learning and growing and changing in my thinking. Thanks
> so much for your input. I would also like to extend my thanks to moderators
> [Mr. L--] and [Mr. M--] for permitting me to field questions on this
> list. I plan to remove myself from list membership tomorrow, and take some
> rest.
>
> Misty Irons
> Member, Redeemer OPC
> Encino, CA


Despite this apparent admission of theological problems in her Nov 19, 2000,
article, "A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage" ("I did
not consider the question from a theological perspective, which many of you
have brought to my attention"), that article--still bearing the same date,
hence presumably unedited--remains on her website. While she apparently
found the time to write and to post this new piece, she has not taken the
time to correct the errors she acknowledged (9 months ago) in the old one
(or better yet, simply to pull it off the internet; in my view her errors
are fundamental ones, fatally undermining her thesis--see the copy of my 3/1
post below). This seeming lack of hesitancy to continue to promulgate
publicly positions she realizes (as of 3/12) are out of accord with our
primary and secondary standards suggests something other than a concern to
be biblically faithful is motivating her. In other words, it appears her
desire to reach the Sodomite community with the gospel (with which I fully
agree) is something she sees as so important as to sacrifice our
confessional-biblical standpoint (if necessary) in order to achieve it.

As a Christian husband, father and household-head, I would not permit my
wife or children to maintain this sort of public stand against the bulk of
the OPC (after the household member in question had acknowledged errors in
the document promulgating that stand). While our families ought to have
liberty to stand on the Bible and our confessions (we should not expect
cookie-cutter copies of our thinking), we men need not give them liberty to
take positions they have admitted are at least partly contrary to those
standards. No Christian has that kind of liberty before God.

For everyone's information and convenience, here (again) are the texts of
two of my March posts, one critiquing her Nov, 2000, article and another
interacting with one of her posts trying to defend it. (All of the posts
may be found easily by list members in the list's archives.

[W. L.]

C.c. Rev.&Mrs. Irons