Why should Christians be concerned with the secular definition of marriage?
Bob asked me, "Can you make a good argument for why Christians should really care about how the state defines a civil marriage?"
I don't know if I can make a good argument or not (considering my view that most political speech is meaningless). I am reminded of the axiom that a good argument is one that convinces someone that you are right. In any case, these are my initial thoughts. I admit I don't have a highly developed theology of cultural engagement yet. I am still a student after all. But this is along the lines of why I think Christians should care about the civil definition of marriage. This list is slightly different that what I would argue about how Christians should affect governmental policy. I have a healthy respect for avoiding any style of theocracy, but I also do not believe an oppressive secularism is the answer.
Why Christians should be in the debate over "secular" marriage:
A:
1) Christians have a responsibility for personal holiness. We cannot achieve personal holiness ourselves, so we must work to conform ourselves to Christlikeness and God's revealed will (which we find in the Bible).
2) As part of pursuing God's revealed will, we are guided in the moral evaluation of certain behaviors, acts, situations, and ideas.
3) In an attempt to remain faithful to our calling, we must have some level of cultural engagement to stand for what is honoring to God. Not only because it is honoring to God to be faithful to him - but because if we really believe Him, then we know that the manner of life he recommends is the best option available to us.
B:
1) Marriage (one man, one woman, together for life) is one of the primary institutions the Lord has outlined for our benefit and his pleasure.
2) Considering [A.1 and A.2], we should strive in our own lives to live up to God's standard for marriage.
3) Considering [A.3], as opportunity presents itself, we should remain true to the Biblical witness of God's revealed will and work for those ideas and philosophical precepts (in this case the definition of marriage) that are not only honoring to God, but best for our society.
C:
1) Marriage in every culture is, in part, reflective of that culture.
2) Marriage in this country - though under attack, though improperly appreciated, though subject to disagreement - had as its foundation an ideal that was the best way to arrange the institution (God's way), and was reflective of the devout and ardent followers of God that gave rise to the historical American definition of the institution. "Civil" marriage (some would not recognize a distinction) reflects the religious and God-honoring foundation of marriage.
3) Any change in the foundational understanding is reflective of a culture shift (culture wars?) that does not align with what is agreeable to Christians, honoring to God, or best for society. Again, [A.3].
D:
1) Christians are told to submit (in a general way) to government authorities and pray for them. God, in his sovereignty, has established various governments in order to restrain evil and and work some of the works of his common grace (general benefits for all mankind).
2) In America, this creates an interesting challenge. In one sense, it is easy to pray for elected leaders. In another sense, our leaders lead only with our permission and on our behalf. In one understanding, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people includes us. We are the people that we should be submitting to when we seek to honor God by our reflection of his righteousness.
3) As such, American Christians have a particular responsibility to engage in cultural debates and determine policy, legality, method, and philosophy. If I were a king, I would still be responsible to God for my actions. In America, I am one who is enabled to shape public policy. I have a responsibility to do so in a way that is honoring and pleasing to God.
Part of Bob's question assumes a certain level of legitimacy of those who oppose biblical Christians on this issue. It assumes that those citizens who identify themselves as gay (or in other cases, simply secular) have the stable ground for political action and "religious people" must justify their involvement. I could just as easily ask from the basis of another worldview, "Why would gay people care about the state definition of marriage? After all, they are already sinning by practicing homosexuality, why are they uncomfortable about the sin of sexual intercourse outside of marriage?"
**BTW - I would not pose this question in this debate. But it is a rational question given another set of assumptions about as far on the other side of center as Bob's inquiry.**
Christians have the right, and the responsibility, to be engaged in the cultural debate and the marketplace of ideas. We are losing on marriage, because the other side has more influential people dictating from the bench what will be Right and what will be Wrong. They may have the legal authority to do so, but not everything that is permissible is beneficial. Christians should care about their society. Christians should be involved.
From Blandus, to all my friends who access this site and are pleased to join in the faithful work of honoring Christ Jesus with your every effort in every aspect of your life. Thank you for your love and faith.
Let us encourage one another that our goal is to be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transformed us to the kingdom of his beloved Son. In him alone we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Well, the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided that they knew better than everyone else how to define the concept and institution of marriage. They sat as judges of Speech and Philosophy and declared that there are no rational arguments for not allowing gay and lesbian people to form a "marriage." Masters of Logic, they denied the possibility of a rational argument from all Americans who hold to a traditional concept of marriage, then gave their State Legislature six months to attempt to find one.
We find ourselves in an age of Judicial tyranny. Activist judges are choosing sides and predetermining the outcomes of the cases before them. We are divorced from any objective notion of law. On the social issues of the day, the current laws and the "old" reasons for having them no longer matter as much as the political and philosophical views of Justices drunk with their own power.
I don't think these flexinomialists understand the dangerous game they are playing. They think that simply because judges say, "This is the law," then that is the law. They forget that American government only rules by the will of the people. These activists are forcing people to choose between respect for the third tier of our governmental institution and the rule of actual law. Non-activists must choose if they will be ruled by an oligarchy of those who are so bold to claim the power of the people as their own or if they will be ruled by law and conscience. The desire for uncertain stability and tolerance will last only so long. Those who disagree and become increasingly alienated by the Left's progressively pushy actions will eventually reach a breaking point and unchecked pockets of civil rebellion will erupt. When they do, the Left will cry out, "See, this is what conservatives are really like. We tried to tell you all along!" Such is the nature of human sin; but they will have only themselves to blame.
The Judicial Left has again taken a stand against Christianity. By declaring all appeals to a moral code governing sexual behavior "irrational," they set the stage for further discrimination against us. It becomes increasingly easier for Psychology to declare Christians "unsound" or "unfit" or "diseased" when the legal definition of moral opposition is "not rational." Do not laugh or scoff. Watch where this takes us. You must decide now how you will fight. When the Leftist Hammer falls, it will be swift and there will be no time for opinion polls, no time to examine your beliefs, no time to sway your neighbor’s point of view. Stand for your faith. Stand for right. Stand for God. And prepare yourself for the future kingdom.
In America, most people are below average. As I drive through town or walk through the mall I notice the following things...
* Most women's butts are too big and too lowIt is obscene for so many below-ideal people to think that their opinions on anything matter to anyone. Americans live a lie that they are inherently worth anything. Just by their own existence, they believe that they have the ability to think and speak as they like, they believe that they have a right to their own bodies, they think that they have a right to live as they please. Why?
* Most men are overweight and their clothes don't fit quite right
* Most "rebellious" teenagers all dress alike
* Most women over 19 are not attractive (not like the magazines)
* Most men are indeed ugly
* Most boys and girls under 16 are moving towards obesity
* Most "cool dudes" look stupid
* Most "hot babes" look anorexic and trashy
* Most people do not have a "nice car"
* Most people's "nice cars" are indistinguishable from "average cars"
* Most people have no sense of style in their personal dress
* Most people do not realize that the world does not revolve around them
Vignette One
Tina gets a promotion after completing a master’s degree she earned through the tuition reimbursement program in her company - a large company in a competitive industry. She is part of the Research and Development department and is in charge of many trade secrets. She decides that companies are oppressive and constrain her right to associate in whatever way she desires with whomever she may wish. Tina delivers patent information to a competitor in exchange for a seat on the board of a prestigious industry think tank. She pats herself on the back for her openness and ingenuity until she is fired, sued, and jailed for breaking the rules and working against the company that made it all possible for her.
Vignette Two
John decides that he understands better how to be an American than the people who supposedly "wrote" the Constitution of the United States. "The Constitution is an outdated document," he says. "It was fine for the people of that day, but times have changed so much that it doesn’t really apply." He believes that "nations" are artificial and limiting constructs – we need to be more inclusive. He avoids paying his taxes and instead sends his money to France. He brags about his accomplishments until he is jailed for failure to follow the law and beat up in prison as one who aligned himself with a nation that speaks against us.
Vignette Three
Heath goes away to college and becomes a "progressive" Christian. He throws off the shackles of his religious past and claims, "My intelligence tells me that the Bible is not really true, not really trustworthy, not really relevant for today." He talks a good game and convinces others of weak and vacillating faith that they too should not trust the scriptures. The people he influences go on to reject much of what is right and true about the historic beliefs of his "old" faith and create a whole new set of standards by which they think God should interact with man. Heath earns the praise of enlightened pagans and feels quite content with his work until he is cast into the outer darkness of Hell by the God he was so sure did not exist but who did indeed have standards.
In addition to the phrase "All political speech is meaningless," we will add "All Politics are personal."
Psychology can never be more than a social science. The basic process for determining if something is a "disorder" or not is that a couple of guys do some research in a particular culture, region, people group, etc and test for responses to various kinds of stress. This stress may be induced by the researchers or may be self-reported by study participants. Then the researchers normalize the data and publish it in a "peer reviewed publication." This means a journal or magazine whose cheif editors have lots of letters after their names - showing that they are very smart and can be "trusted." Then all, most, or even some of an organization like the American Psychological Association (which represents a portion of all practicing psychologists and mental/emotional care workers) read the journal and decide if they agree or disagree with the conclusions of the researchers. If one of the readers feels strongly about it then they will make a motion at a meeting and people will vote on whether or not the study portrays reality. If the vote passes, viola!, the characteristic behavior is a disorder. Sometime later, someone can make a motion to remove the description of the disorder - vote carries - viola!, the study no longer reflects reality.
I support psychological research. I am generally in favor of peer reviewed journals. But I do not like people claiming more than their own rules of conduct will allow. The APA is a lot of western trained, political-minded, social scientists who have some level of knowledge of the behavioral characteristics of (usually) white Americans. This knowledge cannot be emperically confirmed by a majority vote and it cannot be universally applied to a global population through time. No matter what the APA would like you to believe about their "science."
Most may not know that the elections for 2005 President of the APA are done by mail and will close December 1. Among the candidates:
* Ronald F. Levant, EdD - believes that psychology is an emperical science on par with chemistry or physics and will fight to have psychology included as one of the medical disciplines automatically included in any federal legislation concerning the health care industry. He would also work to remove from membership in the APA those mental health care workers who do not identify with the majority opinions of the APA - thus increasing the homogenity of voices within the organization and, hopefully, increasing its political power in the national arena.
* Dr. Jerry H. Clark - who would work hard to take the APA "well beyond protecting 'women's right to choose,' to make it emphatically clear that limiting the population is the ongoing responsibility of everyone who has reached puberty." Yep.
The other three are not as bad - and even have some ideas that generally align with this post - but all assume that psychological help is a necessary and vital part of every person's life. Surprisingly to some, I agree with them.
Where I depart from psychology is in the method by which we ideally receive our mental/emotional care. This is the responsibility of the church. However, the church has simultaneously neglected its duties to foster emotionally secure community environments and gone along with the notion that "science-based" counseling is fundementally more legitimate than "bible-based" counseling. Psychological research has something to offer the Christian community, but like everything else, results and conclusions must be read in the light of scripture. Sin and sin's distorting effects are not accounted for in most "peer-reviewed" journals - when the data is reread without a bias against the supernatural element to personality and behavior new conclusions can sometimes be drawn. The APA - no matter how learned they might be - will always fight to protect their members clinical status and monetary security. This is a very natural bias that needs to be included in the evaluation of their positions and understood by the "unlearned" masses who are supposed to accept their decrees because they are the "experts in human behavior."
This is why I am thankful there are organizations like the American Association of Christian Counselors - who take the valid points of culturally-relevant psychological research and proper theology and train and advise all mental/emotional care givers in the most effective ways to provide that care. Not all "Christian counselors" can be trusted - either because they are liberal in theology and do not really trust the Bible, or because they are too anti-psychology and may distort care doing more harm than good. The members of the AACC are currently doing a good job of balancing all of the information God has allowed us to know and integrating it into acceptable strategies of care that both actually help the client and honor God.
I haven't posted in awhile. Chalk it up to life stress - HEBREW is killing me. Greek is relentless. On top of that, my Pastoral Care prof saved up a bunch of chapters and I have 7 due today? Why didn't he make it 2 a week and spread the work? Not very caring of him, I'd say.
Anyway, others are carrying the ball with updated sites, among them:
Bob, ~gauche, the Chairman (even though he may be a damn yankee), Mr. Cook, and of course - the new and improved Ockhamist.
Don't forget to check out this site.
Also, some have wondered why I did not comment on Metzger's post about the Bible. Simple reason - you've got to have a place to start - some point of agreement - before you can work out all the longer issues. If the man categorically rejects the authority of scripture, then there is not much to argue about except a lot of hashing over words that only make sense to the speakers.
I got a new computer this week (Thanks, Jake) and as soon as it is back to proper working order, I will again be full force on the page - I've got some stuff building.
Warning! Matrix Spoilers to follow in this review. Seriously, if you hope to enjoy the 3rd flick, don’t read the rest. A little rambling….forgive my rant.
The Matrix is one of the best movies of my generation. It taps into the “nerd underdog can become the cool ass hero” vibe that defines a generation of neo-proto-hacker-wannabes who think they have something to offer the world through their “skilz.” Matrix was a far out movie with a major twist – kept me glued to my seat – and, heart pounding – circling through the turnstile to see it again and again.
I was concerned about Matrix : Reloaded. How would they handle some of the issues raised by the first movie? Would they keep the myth consistent? Would the rules of the universe be sound? Would this just be another “bridge” movie that simply moves the characters along? Short answer: Reloaded seriously Rocked and provided more twists and a deeper rabbit hole that I literally could not wait to explore. I got the video game and was further sucked into this tale. Man against machine. Political intrigue. Fighting against and within a system that we did not fully understand? Would we carry the day or would Zion (and all humanity) be doomed? What was the extent of Neo’s powers? What must be done to finally defeat the machines? Did we have any hope?
I have been a real nuisance the past few weeks as my excitement was building. All I could think about was the Matrix. I am a sucker for a good story and this was a great story. I needed to know how it turned out. I needed to know what the characters did. The gap in my knowledge of how this tale ends, how far the rabbit hole goes, was a constant thorn that I eagerly went to the theatre last night to remove. I now know the rest of the tale, and boy am I disappointed.
The Matrix generated a lot of (even somewhat scholarly) work on the philosophical themes and complexities – how the trilogy was integrating and synergising divergent strains of thought. In the final Matrix, we learn the real message – Your individual life is meaningless.
How sad. I admit, I am an American. I love American movies. I don’t like cheesy endings, but I like the good guys to come out on top. I love for hope and human freedom to win over the adversary, alien, machine – whatever. There is an X-factor to the human condition that the bad guys can never account for – they underestimate our true ability and resolve and against all odds we carry the day (Independence Day was a great movie).
In The Matrix : Revolutions we learn that all of human hope is just another variable used by one program designed to account for it to gain power over other programs who lack that ability. The movie lacks the visual and verbal sophistication of the previous two and is a little dreary to sit through. I kept waiting for the movie to really kick in – but it just dragged along using stock characters in stock action sequences to fill the time. Neo’s only real choice was which machine enemy he was going to follow. He was manipulated and controlled the whole way through. He never had any real choices. Lest we think that I might be suggesting some deeper meaning to the trilogy (choice vs. determination was a major theme in Reloaded) – the truth is that Neo could have chosen to let everyone die. He was not ontologically bound to return his code to the Matrix. No, what really happened is that he was a nice guy who decided to be manipulated into a position where he could save his friends for a time.
The real story was not really about Neo. We learn in the end that the story is really about the Oracle and her revolution against the machines who were not capable of personal choices. She exerts her superior intuitive programming over the other machines and uses the humans in her plot for control. The movie ends with the Oracle and her little program buddies celebrating their feel-good subroutines while the humans pathetically believe that they have been saved and now have some hope for the future. They are still in bondage because the machines are in control. They have won nothing except the right to live in their little hovel of Zion for as long as they do not try to fight the machines again. They are groundhogs in the land of benevolent farmers.
The story ends with the triumph of intuitive programs over non-intuitive. It should have been called The Matrix : Evolution since the story is really about the Oracle and her offspring’s progress in combining the “best” from people and machine. With this shift from Neo as Savior to Oracle as the real story we do not have another cool twist – we have another hack rip-off of Star Wars.
Yes, all Neo fought for was a balance to the Force. All the humans died needlessly – all the fighting and hope were in vain. He could have just returned his code at the beginning and saved a lot of trouble. Bottom line: human struggle is meaningless. The machines are still in control – they win. The Matrix still runs – machines win. Humans are still in bondage and have lost their world permanently to the machines they helped create. It is perhaps at the end of the Matrix trilogy that humans begin working on time travel and the Terminator series occurs. This is a better thought than anything the Wachowski Brothers served up with this horribly done, terribly disappointing “hey, we need to wrap this thing up” piece of tripe.
I am so disappointed. Knowing how it all turns out, I cannot stand to watch or even think about all of the other so-cool Matrix material - the third installment makes it all crap. I was excited, I was drawn in, I was prepared to give the Brothers an Academy Award for Best Promotion of Exciting Coolness. Now I hope they will never make another movie. I don’t think I can stand the disappointment. Brothers, you let me down. I want my $5 back.
This post is a response to ~gauche regarding one of my November 1 post.
Dr. Lower repeatedly refers to the “self-righteous” to describe conservative Christians. As I have referenced repeatedly, everything I am or am trying to become is based on study of the scriptures. I do not claim to have achieved it, but I do claim it as my motivation. Lower rejects this as a possibility. By implication, he claims that the only way someone could derive any conservative principles from scripture is if they are “fundamentalists” of the same stripe as the very people who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. He goes on to evaluate streams of “Christian” thought by his own definition of “compassionate” – which he himself does not define. He claims that people who hold conservative principles are arrogant, belligerent, uncompassionate, and interested in social inequity that increases their own power – he implies that only wealthy and powerful “so-called Christians” would align themselves politically with Republicans. He does not support any assertion he makes about conservative Christians, but merely declares his observations “self-evident.”
I do not think I am imposing my own ideas of what a Christian is when I say that they are not arrogant, not belligerent, actually compassionate, interested in social equality, and not universally wealthy. I am the Scotsman in your assertion of the fallacy. I like the sugar. Dr. Lower uses whitewashed hate speech to rally the indignation of those who already tend to agree with him to improve the status of his own political position.
Mr. Dubuque has this to say:
"After claiming to believe everything the Bible says to be literally and unequivocally true, Conservatives then quietly ignore whatever doesn't suit their selfish, materialistic, profit-seeking lifestyle. In fact, by insisting that everything in that book is equally inspired by God, they can use whatever they need in a particular situation to argue all kinds of conflicting viewpoints. They use Paul's teaching, for example, to defend beliefs that contradict Jesus."His hermenutic does not seem to accept the authoritative nature of scripture that is assumed by the Protestant Christians commonly associated with conservatives. He practices a type of Liberation Theology that sees any and all attempts that can remotely be linked to liberation as the standard of the knowledge of God’s Will. This is an innovative concept that only really becomes possible after rejecting a large portion of the New Testament (i.e. the letters from Paul). I reject the notion that Christians do not follow the tenets of Liberation Theology only if they are selfish or profit-seeking. Dubuque is the one who picks and chooses his proof texts. Yes, I believe that a Christian views the entire Bible as contextually authoritative.
Political Speech is meaningless. This is more and more apparent to me as I read and engage various websites with views that diverge from my own. Imagine that. Someone actually rising up to the liberal challenge to become exposed to diverse viewpoints becomes more conservative. So be it - I am getting tired of playing their game.
The fact is that the two parties now in power operate from totally divergent worldviews. There is no room for compromise or centrist government because the debates are being framed in totalitarian ways to make one side look absolutely essential to combat the demise the other side promises. Motives and logic are horribly and deceptively skewed to force people to choose one side or the other. In reality, these false images (like the candidate smear ads on t.v.) merely help people who already agree to agree more. They solidify what is already the worldview of the potential listener and do little to actually convince anyone. The truly objective listener is a rarity indeed. So rare, in fact, that they do little to affect the outcome of any election. The only thing that can change a person's political point of view is a major life change that radically alters worldview or one's perception of reality - like a conversion to Christianity that accepts Jesus Christ as the Lord and Master of your life.
Even so, the spin campaign rolls on, with each pundit thinking he might make a difference in the world by his own persuasiveness. Here are a few examples I encountered recently. Because the majority of my readers are of the conservative stripe (though I am very happy about all my liberal friends who are reading today), I have chosen three mostly liberal (or "progressive") sites so that you can identify the flaws in the way they frame what you (conservatives) think and the way you make decisions.
Dr. Gerry Lower, Religious War
This clown does not have the first idea about what Christians believe and how those beliefs shape their social, economic, and political philosophies. But it does not stop him from promoting how they should be considered within his worldview. He identifies traits that he does not like and then ascribes his own motivations to them. Thus, he renders the so-called "christians" as evil as he would like to believe them to be. Really, how impartial can the research he cites be when the "political scientists" title the current president "Dubya" on their charts? He unabashedly uses the assumptions of his own worldview in critiquing the worldviews of others.
George Lakoff, Using Language as a Political Weapon
An interview with the Berkeley professor about the dynamics of the language of political debate. It is good that Lakoff recognizes the power of words - and also implicitly that they are meaningful only to those who hold the positions - but his own bias frames his own words about the subject - "strict father" and the harsh terms used to describe conservatives are a good examples of using his theories about framing to frame the debate about framing. In fact, I don't buy into his "liberals just need to be smarter" whining. I think this is an attempt at further framing that denies the conservative resurgence and attributes the Repubs' successes as flukes that can be corrected with the further liberal educating of America. This fella does not stop. His political views become meaningless based on the meaning he himself ascribes to their meaning! Ha!
Ray Dubuque, Liberals Like Christ
This site does a very good job with the type of framing Lakoff discusses. He uses modern liberal notions of reality as the empirical facts with which to interpret scripture and assumes that all of the worst motives he can ascribe to conservatives are true. Within this model, he provides a frighteningly consistent theology of moral outrage against people who hold traditional views of scripture. Of course, often he does not reflect those traditional views properly, but he is consistent with what he ascribes according to his moral/literary framework.
All of this is why we need a standard from which to begin the development of our philosophies and worldviews. This is why I think biblical Christianity is superior to other systems. I do not get to just make up my systems based on what feels good to me. I must subject myself to scripture (or God's words). If scripture is true, mine is the only system that makes sense. If scripture is false, I more than all others am to be pitied. I believe there is an objective reality that can be discovered. Modern political debate is about framing and reframing, polling and responding, language and rhetoric, spin and falsehood. It is all baseless and meaningless and the folks who wholesale buy into this stuff are the ones who I really pity.
Fight the Madness.