“Protect Marriage by Banning Divorce!” Or “Christian social ethics with a hammer.”

Every once in awhile, in the world of American politics, someone comes a long and shows us how absurd we all we are. To paraphrase Neitzche, some one does politics with a hammer. The activist with a hammer today is John Marcotte who is starting a grass roots campaign to rescue marriage from the evils of divorce.

Marcotte is confident that those who defended traditional marriage with Prop 8 last year will be just as supportive of his ban divorce. To do otherwise, would be hypocritical.

I am sure many Christians out there don’t appreciate the joke. Snide remarks on his website like “hell is eternal, just like your marriage was supposed to be” are likely to get under people’s skin. Yet he has a point he is trying to get across and it wouldn’t be right to ignore the issue that his project raises. Such would seem to affirm his accusation of hypocrisy. Instead, I think maybe we need to think carefully about the problem reflect on our own social ethic. While I don’t think the charge of “hypocrisy” really sticks, I think there is a serious question about consistency on this issue.

The problem is this: What exactly does defending marriage mean? Conservative Christians have fairly clear idea of its definition: marriage is between man and women. Thus, many Christians felt that it made sense to vote “yes” on Prop 8 because that affirms the traditional view. The reasoning behind the social ethic was fairly simple for most:

1. Christians believe that marriage is between man and a woman.
2. Therefore, we should make sure that is the law.

Now, there are many other arguments that were added, but I don’t think there is much doubt that at the root, it Christians defended traditional marriage because this is the way God intends it. Defending it means protecting it with secular law.

So why not do the same thing with divorce? Jesus condemns divorce explicitly in the Gospels. While we all know many divorced Christians, few Christians say that divorce is concept we want to endorse any more than gay marriage. So consider this reasoning:

1. Christians believe that marriage should not end with a divorce.
2. Therefore, we should make sure that’s the law.

What is preventing us from taking this route? If defending marriage means making secular law that affirms what Christians think about it, then legally recognizing divorce is just as much of a problem as legally recognizing gay marriage. Many of the anti-gay marriage arguments apply here too. Non-divorce is clearly better for procreation and raising children. How might this charge of inconsistency be resolved?

I know that many thoughtful Christians will offer good reasons of how to resolve this issue. Here is mine: Traditional, Christian, ideas about the religious sacrament of marriage cannot be defended by appeals to secular law. I do not think that secular law has the right to define marriage at all, whether “marriage” accepts gays or not. I would happily take a "civil union" if that means my religion -and only my religion- defines my marriage. It was on this principle that I abstained from voting on Prop 8 last year. If Christians want to defend our religious practices, than we need to do it with our own religious institutions and not hold hands with secular law.

This may not be convincing to some, and that’s okay. My way may not be the best way. But I still feel there needs to be a way out of the inconsistency. If you have another and better way, please post it!

After all, someone has to shut up the activist with the hammer.

And if you liked this little blog, go ahead and re-post on facebook!

Rick Warren Good Doublespeak?

As many of you know, Rick Warren recently denied, on Larry King, that he ever supported California’s prop 8. Yet it is quite obvious that he did when he, was very clear about it that he did. You can read a whole article about it here*

His denial very much bothered me. He seemed to be back-pedaling from a corner he stuffed himself into. He wants away from the gay issue now (not on his “agenda”), which one can completely empathize with, but still a lie is a lie. I can understand him if he wishes to recant some statements, re-think some actions and opinions, or apologize to those he may have offended. This isn’t it though. He seems to by lying and trying to play politics in order to appease the masses.

Some have suggested a nice, charitable reading of this action: maybe Rick Warren forgot what he said. This seems unlikely. Churches run like companies, and Warren is the CEO. The issue of gay marriage probably came up many, many, times in meetings. He and others likely spent either a long time discussing this issue. The prop 8 question could not have escaped Saddleback church. How likely is it that he could ‘forget’ what he communicated to his congregation on this incredibly hot issue, which was campaigned for and debated about for months?

Maybe by never making a public statement, Warren had something in mind like a press conference or some kind of “on the official record” court testimony. However, but a pastor of his influence should understand that he is under public scrutiny, whether by pulpit or press conference. These days, youtube is enough to make anyone eat their words.

Of course, I have never been a fan of Rick Warren. Neither do I count myself as one of his detractors, but if he continues to pull dishonest, insincere, political double talk, I believe that he will find himself disliked by the sides he tries to appease.
============
*thanks, Allison

Responses to readers, flamers, facebookers and others.

Several people have asked me questions about stuff posted in my blog. It makes me happy to know that people are reading this little project of mine. Here they are, in no particular order.

Jonathan Says says concerning my Open Theism Blog

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, J. One question. Could you explain this, a little further?
1. I sin
2. God foreknows
3. Therefore, God foreknows my sin
4. Therefore, we do not regret

Could you help me follow from 3 to 4?

I am really glad you asked, because I don’t think I was clear on this point. My point is this: Under Arminianism, God knows exactly what each of my free actions will be, including sins. If God knows exactly what they will be, they are no longer contingent (could have been some other way) because God can’t be wrong or surprised. If my actions are not contingent, it is difficult to have any real regret about them. The sinner can use God’s foreknowledge to cover up the negative feeling of regret. It makes an apology very strange.

Pete Garcia says, concerning my position on Prop 8.:

I don't think Christ would care that much about this law, personally I think He would have been upset with it being passed as even a law... but I think he would vote yes, because if not passed, what could be tolerated and excepted is the bigger concern. Our job is to hold up a standard for others to see, popular or not popular it is to be set apart, "salt" we preserve, i am not trying to preach but Joel are you being salt?

In a specific way, I feel that I am being “salt” in this case. It is like this: when Jesus came on the scene there were several different types of Jewish religious/political groups all struggling for popular support and their own goals. The Pharisees said that everyone should keep their head down when it came to Rome. The Zealots thought that open war with Rome was God’s will. Many other Jews thought their God went over to the Romans. Finally, there was Rome itself.
When Jesus came on the scene, he did not side with anybody. He was non-political in this sense. He said “no” to all parties, including time-honored religious establishment (i.e. the religious right in our country; the many Jewish communities back then). As he, and the early Christians, saw it everyone was wrong.

Because of this, I feel perfectly justified in thinking there might be some times when the best way to be “salt” is to not vote at all. I think “the secular left” has it wrong and I think “the religious right” has it wrong. I protested against both of them, and I stand by religious conscience in doing so.

Heidi asked, concerning this blog about death

I really like that last line from the Nicene Creed. I'm curious though if you believe we should be buried, and not cremated...

I can’t speak for all Christians, but I for sure want to be buried, not burned. All of our rituals communicate things about what we believe without using words. If a body is carefully preserved and placed in the ground, it sends a message that there is something still important about this body. If it’s burned, it seems hard to say “I believe in the Resurrection of the body” because we destroy it intentionally. This is not to say that God can’t raise ashes, but I still think it sends a wrong message about bodies.

Thanks to all of you for reading!

Soulforce Epilogue: Why I Love to Hate Prop 8

Much of Mel White’s article talks of civil liberties. Prop 8, the prop to ban Gay marriage (again) in California, is on the next ballot here in California. I can kill two birds with one blog, as well as hammer the Gay-issue done for now, at least for purposes of this blog. When I go vote, I am not voting “no” on prop 8. I am not voting “yes” either. If I do anything with that section of the ballot, it will be to take a black pen and scrawl “category confusion” across it. The best thing I can do is abstain on Prop 8.

Let me frame it in some context and background. There are two competing groups with two competing, but not necessarily mutually exclusively agendas. On one side of the ring, we have the homosexual couples that would like all relevant economic, medical visitation, and other legal benefits afforded to heterosexual married couples. On the other side, are religious conservatives who believe that their definition of marriage should protected against secular encroachment. What I think, along with a few others, is that both groups should be reconciled according to a certain principle of liberty –“one group may believe, speak, and practice whatever it wants to, as long as it does not intrude on what another group wishes to believe, speak, or practice.”

Additionally, I also think that definition of marriage is the proper domain of religion, not government. I have never like this scenario: when at a wedding the pastor is obligated to say “by the authority of the State of California” in the same breath as he says “by the authority of God.” Am I really the only Christian who thinks this is strange? Whenever I get married, I don’t really care for the “authority of the State of California” since I think marriage is a sacrament from God, administered to Christians, for the life of the Church. It is not a driver’s license or passport. The state has no authority in this matter anymore than it does to legally define a Baptism.

This is part of the reason why I refuse to vote on 8. Either way I choose, I imply that I believe the government has the right to do something it doesn’t. When people ask the government whether or not gays should marry, (or whether or not only heterosexuals should marry), the government should scratch its head and reply, “Why are you asking us? Go to a church.” This places the religious sacrament where it belongs. Churches/Denominations can then decide the gay-marriage issue according to their own polity, ecclesiology, and leadership.

Now of course, there are several legal aspects attached to marriage as it understood right now. If a couple is married, they file their taxes differently. They also have hospital visitation rights. There are plenty of other aspects that need not be expressed here. For all these, I support the parallel concept of a civil union. I believe that homosexual couples and heterosexual couples should have to get these civil unions for whatever legal benefits need be. I think that the rights in question should be the same for both. There is no reason to deny a homosexuals hospital visitation rights or force them to still file as “single.”

In the end, this model is simple. Do you wish to be married? Find a church for your wedding. Do you need legal benefits? Go to the courthouse for your civil union. This reflects the principle of liberty I mentioned earlier in this blog. Both groups do as they please so long as they do not intrude on other’s toes.
Some may object to this because it still reflects anti-gay bigotry. After all, I have not allowed gays to get married. This is a misunderstanding, as I want gays to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals. Yes, I think they should be legally barred from marriage, but that is because I think that marriage is not legal concept. If homosexuals want to be married, there are plenty of churches that will do it. But even if homosexuals can’t find one, they will have to accept that they are not accepted. Legislation cannot change the beliefs of religion. But I think that most of the homosexual lobby is concerned with getting the legal rights. I don’t think they really want to “change marriage” or trespass on someone’s religious beliefs.

Others may say that even though I don’t like it, I should still vote “yes” on Prop 8 to “protect marriage.” There are many reasons for this: the proper rearing of children is a common argument. Another is that marriage will simply lose its meaning if homosexuals get married.

To this I reply that I don’t think gays getting married could harm marriage any worse than heterosexuals already have -especially evangelical heterosexuals. Even though there are plenty of great Christian marriages out there, the divorce rate among evangelicals is actually higher than it is in the general populace. I have not even hit thirty yet, and I have had to see half a dozen divorces in between Christian couples younger than me. Furthermore, simply because a marriage gets the genders right, doesn’t mean it is everything a marriage ought to be. Does anyone out there doubt the occasional sham of a Christian marriage does less harm than two gay people? I think not. Maybe instead of blaming the judicial branch or the “gay others”, Christians should look at their own community and figure out what it is that we are doing so wrong that it causes these problems.

So there is my explanation. Neither a “yes” nor a “no” vote on prop 8 truly reflect my views. Both of them imply something I disagree with. I believe that people should have the legal rights conferred to them regardless of their orientation. Above all, I think the definition and defense or marriage is the role of the church.

---

With this blog, I mark the end of the homosexuality discussion. Feel I’m completely wrong? Totally full of it? A bigoted religious blowhard? A spineless liberal Christian? Then feel free to email me at uberbeanmail@gmail.com I plan to post responses in a later blog.

Soul-force Part I: The Rhetoric

As promised, I have will now be dealing Soul Force’s article on Christianity and Homosexuality. Dr. Mel White is no fool, and I respect him and think what he is doing important, as I implied previously. I hope to be as fair as possible to him in these next few blogs, but let the reader be the judge. In this blog, I will deal with his first three premises.

White’s first premise is very well put: “As you know, Biblical ignorance is an epidemic in the United States.” He goes on to say that his relates to homosexuality in particular. On this, I am in complete agreement. Biblical ignorance is an epidemic in American Christianity. This ignorance does show its head quite well in the homosexuality debate.

I offer your average Christian retail store as evidence. Like any businesses, a Christian bookstore sells what the public is buying. The books that sell the most are something like a “Christian Self-help” or devotional books for prayer life. You may also find books that target people by their strata in life: college student, parent, teacher, man/woman, businesses professional etc. However, commentaries, hermeneutics books, etc are almost always in a small section in the back –if indeed at all. Bottom line, if you look at the simple volume of what a Christian book store presents, it’s evident that most Christians are more likely to buy “Power of a praying wife/husband/child etc” than they are “Social World of Ancient Israel.”

No one is saying the former “popular literature” is wrong. No one is saying that all Christians need to become great exegetes. What I am saying is that I am doubtful whether most Christians are even aware of the complexities of interpretation. Thus they are not in a position to discern what is written in the more popular books. Much more could be said on this point alone. For purposes of this blog, it is enough for me to reiterate that I think that Mel White is correct in this assessment.

White’s second premise is “Historically, people’s misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering, bloodshed, and death.” He then goes on to cite the various tragic examples from church history. He believes that the tragic hate-crimes against homosexuals are also an extension of this same trend.
This is a highly emotional appeal that must be dealt with carefully. Clearly, I am not in doubt that these things have happened, nor do I think that they good. Hate crimes against homosexuals are not right, on any grounds. They are not justified, no matter what scripture says or does not say about sexuality. This goes the same for racism and such. These emotive appeals give the hetero-sexual Christian community insight into how the homosexual community sees the issue.

The problem is this: it takes a lot more than an interpretation of scripture (right or wrong) for someone to commit acts of hatred or even to endorse them. Does White really believe that anytime someone disagrees with homosexuality that he also wants to go out and shoot homosexuals? No, in fact he says so. Therefore, I think this premise is mostly a rhetorical fear appeal that adds little to the real weight of his argument. Truthful though it may be, it serves only to grab the reader’s attention through sympathy.

Finally, there is White’s third premise: that we must be open to new interpretations of scripture. To this premise, I think all Christians can give a qualified yes. More importantly, we should be humble enough to be corrected. The conservative wing should be careful about their own viewpoints, bias, and prejudices and not simply recourse to “the Bible clearly says…” But this should go both ways, correct? The “liberal wing” should also be aware of their own viewpoints, bias, and prejudices. Appealing to the Holy Spirit “leading us to all truth” will not erase these things, and neither will the few fear appeals that White sprinkles in here, as he did with the previous premise.

I think White’s first few premises were more rhetorical than logical. The purpose of these things is to get the reader’s attention and subtly move the reader towards agreement with soul-force. He does this largely through appeals to fear and sympathy. While I do not think these things are wrong, I think it is very important to point them out. While we certainly should all recoil in aversion to the hate crimes other things, we should not automatically recoil in aversion to the conservative position. Sympathy and understanding are important, but they are not the sole arbiters.

Of course, I think the author knows this. His further points show this. They are specific views about scripture and about science. I will deal with both, but I will deal more strongly with the latter.

Some first thoughts on Homosexuality

I didn’t want to do it, but I have to do. Homosexuality is too much of a hot button issue to avoid. I need to make a few blogs about homosexuality and Christianity. With prop 8 on California’s ballot next month, I have to say not just something, but several things. The first of these, will be some ground work on the subject.

First, I am primarily concerned with homosexuality debate within the Christian church. This eventually spills out into politics, but what these blogs will be mostly about is homosexuality and a Christian conscience and from Christian symbols, traditions, and other authorities. To this end, I’ll be responding to Soul-force article I recently read.

Secondly, within this context, I believe the burden of proof is on the “liberal” or “pro-homosexual” group. Both sides of the debate believe in the authority of Holy Spirit, traditions of the church, and Scripture and the complex interplay between them all. The “liberal” side of the argument has not only the majority of history against them, but the majority of the Christians world-wide against them. This debate takes place primarily in America and Europe. It is not taking place in Africa. As far as I know, the liberal side is not willing to deny that the Holy Spirit moves in both of those sources. Note, neither of these reasons mean the “liberals” are wrong, only that they have the burden of proof.

Third, I do not hate homosexuals. Is it is understandable that many people believe that if you disagree with homosexuality that you are hateful to homosexuals. After all, there have been highly publicized hate crimes on the subject. I am sure many people reading this have perhaps experienced hatred or anger. Despite these highly emotional and tragic experiences, it is still unfair to generalize the hatred to all Christians, or to assume that the conservative position must lead to such hatred. I do not generalize that all homosexuals started off as psychologically troubled teenagers (perhaps “troubled teenager” is redundant), even though I’ve meet plenty who were. All conservative Christians should be afforded the same courtesy.

Furthermore, members of the “liberal” group should not be derided or falsely caricatured. Accepting gay marriage does not make someone un-Christian. It does not someone make stupid, sinful, or brainwashed by the sexual revolution. The liberal group is trying to live out the Gospel as best as they can in relation to one of the most difficult issues the Church faces. The debate about homosexuality is one that is needed and should be handled charitably.

Fourthly, I am going to avoid the use of the word “tolerance.” I am going to avoid this term because I am never sure of what it actually means. Some say it is “accepting people who practice a life style you do not affirm.” But is it possible for me to “accept” someone in the sense they desire without also “affirming” their lifestyle? I do not know. Rather than wrangling over this definition, I will instead use one of my own: liberty. I will use this is the classical, John Stuart Mill sense. Liberty means that “One can speak, believe, or do whatever one wishes to do so long as it does not interfere or prohibit what someone else wishes to speak, believe, or do.” Notice that this is a two-way street. The logical implication of this principle is that we all have to put up with people whose opinions we find frustrating and perhaps abhorrent. Our commitment to such values goes only as far as we extend them to those we do not agree with.

Finally, I need everyone to understand that this will not be the entire content of this blog. My blog is for personal reflection on Christian spirituality, philosophy and theology. The gay marriage issue is only one subject. God forbid it should be otherwise.

So that’s my ground work: I will discuss the homosexuality issue within Christianity, but with some secular political principles. I will write at least three articles in response the article from soul force. Of course, my next update will be a review of "Watchmen." You know, I really don't want my blog get bogged down...

Thanks for reading!