Juris Naturalist

Comment (1)

1. John Mark Reynolds wrote::

   Thank you for a thoughtful response to my post. That is rare on this topic. Usually one gets only timid agreement or f-word letters . . .

   However, I think you have misunderstood parts of what I am saying. Some of our disagreements are (of course) philosophical. I don’t share your philosophy of government (as I understand it from reading your site). As a traditional Christian, I prefer more Burke-like or Book of Common Prayer formulations.

   Now to what you have said . . .

   You said:

   John Mark Reynolds confuses causation and correlation.

   He says, “Growth in marriage was a good sign of civilization. Breakdown in the monotheistic idea of marriage was a good sign of coming decadence and social decay.”

   He’s god it backwards. Breakdown in marriage is a sign that decadence and social decay has already occurred. Done deal.

   But I believe:

   That the relationship is bi-conditional. In other words, what I said could be true . . . and it still be the case that decadence and social decay are in our midst and also be causing the breakdown in marriage.

   IOW: the breakdown in marriage will speed up social decay, may (may!) by a tipping point to loss of anything like a livable culture for traditionalists. It is also (partially) a product of the porn culture (to give but one example) in which my students are immersed.

   Believing, I think, that any deal is “done” in a culture is naive. Traditional religion was “done” in Russia in 1917. Forms of atheism were hailed as forever triumphant. Whatever is true of Russia now, what seemed inevitable in 1917 is not now.

   Things go in cycles. Traditional Christians are losing now . . . but that does not mean we will always be losing.

   Decay is (usually) caused by decay and causes more decay.

   You say:

   If it is the Christian’s responsibility to be salt and light to the world, and it is the Christian’s influence which helps keep us away from social decay – all ideas which I am skeptical of – then it is because the Church has failed to do its job that social decay is occurring.

   I say:

   There is nothing in this that contradicts anything I have said. Your statements are not very nuanced . . . Christian influence may be one factor keeping us from social decay . . . and often is a major one . . . but not the only one.

   Since bi-conditional relationships exist (as I am sure you know), what you say could be true and what I say could also be true. You have just emphasized one conditional (in this brief blog post), I emphasized the other.

   Of course, you can argue that the relationship is only one way . . . but that does not seem very promising to me.

   You say:

   Here enters the confusion about what the Church’s job is. Is it to oppose changes in laws to preserve the legal definition of marriage?

   I say:

   That is an uncharitable read of my position.

   Direct political action is not the job of the Church (I belong to a very, very traditional Church which is clear on its job after centuries of thinking about it), but it may be the job of individual Christian citizens. These citizens may act collectively.

   I have written about this distinction often (especially as it related to the candidacy of Mitt Romney).

   The Church (as people as diverse as the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Pope, and the head of the Southern Baptists) has the duty to pronounce on moral issues with her collective wisdom . . .sometimes it is useful shorthand to say “Christians” or the “Church” should oppose such-and-such an act.

   This shorthand means Christians-as-citizens.

   You say:

   I don’t think so. Political action by Christians is the at the most the lowest of their responsibilities.

   I say:

   This may be true (I suspect it is), but often the lowest and least important tasks become the most important if shirked.

   One of the lowest duties I have in my marriage is keeping the potty clean. Its importance is (in the metaphysics of marriage) of almost no importance in itself. However, when I don’t do this small and least of things . . . it often shows deeper problems and can lead to Big Fights.

   Just because we must recognize (as all traditional conservatives do) how relatively unimportant our job as citizens is does not mean we can shirk it.

   You say:

   I have to say that the primary way Christians act to preserve the idea of marriage is by practicing good Christian marriage.

   I say:

   I have said so many time. You are right. So?

   The fact that A is primary and B of little importance does not make B of no importance.

   In fact, bodily exercise, for which we have good authority as Christians to think is of little importance, can (under some circumstances) be of great importance . . . as I know all too well.

   Ignoring it utterly would be folly . . . though becoming a gym rat at the cost of soul health would be greater folly.

   You say:

   Why is there a decay in the “institution” of marriage in America? Because Christians are not doing marriage right. They enter into it for the wrong reasons, and fail to make God the center of it.

   I say:

   I don’t see any reason to argue with that or anything in it being true that makes me celebrate further decay.

   Suppose x is mainly caused by y. Y is the big, big problem. (I write much more on failure to understand godly love than homosexuality.) That does not mean z is not a contributing factor or that we should let z pass by (if it is a contributing factor) with no outrage.

   It also does not mean that some poor soul might not be called to mostly counter z. Soul health is more important than bodily health, but somebody has to be a physical trainer!

   Gay marriage is bad from a traditional Christian perspective. It is not the worst bad, but at some point somebody should point out that it is bad.

   You say:

   Reynolds goes on to make one of the most common errors in Christian circles – making a consequentialist argument for a peculiar ethical standard. He tries to say that relationships between opposing sexes are different from those among the same sex, and this somehow proves that marriage should be reserved to the man-woman definition.

   I respond:

   You are a bit confused. The argument is simple:

   1. Marriage was conceived as being “between a man and woman.”

   2. Men and women are not interchangeable.

   3. If we broaden the definition of marriage, then we will need a new word to describe the old idea.

   That is a morally neutral position which I would hold if I thought gay sex good and gay relationships moral and worthy of state sanction.

   The IDEA of traditional marriage (two deeply Others coming together) is not the same as the IDEA of gay marriage.

   Conflating the two is confusing and not helpful. I don’t see any social reason for the state to help buttress the second (even if it is moral) and some reasons for it to encourage the difficult task of the second.

   This part of the argument is actually neutral to any moral arguments about homosexuality.

   I am sorry if this was unclear to you.

   You say:

   Then he gets defensive, saying that “Christians have lost the word, (and) will have to start over with a new word to describe what men and women are doing.”

   I say:

   Well, yes. We have lost the word marriage to describe an idea. It is like the word “gay.”

   Gay was a word good for describing a certain feeling that was something like happiness. It is no longer useful that way with young adults.

   That is a morally neutral thing . . . though I am sad about it since gay was useful in ways other words are not.

   So the quest for a new word to describe an old idea (traditional marriage) need not depend (as I pointed out) on my moral views of homosexuality.

   You say:

   Why not focus on the difference between covenant and contract? If Christians really want to make their definition of marriage peculiar they will stop applying to the state for marriage contracts. They will start ignoring the state, and excluding it from their uniquely religious institutions. That would be peculiar and fraught with significance. If Christians can make marriage work without the threat of force which is incumbant in the application to the state for a license, they will then be demonstrating that they are staying together in order to witness to the world and thus honor God, rather than for the temporal benefits a state-sanctioned license provides.

   I say:

   I would be willing to do this, but the temporal benefits are helpful in doing a hard job. It does not seem immoral to take them.

   My marriage does not depend on the state of California, but the state of California does seem to have an interest in my sort of “marriage” they don’t have in any gay marriage as a gay marriage.

   The production of happy future citizens overwhelmingly depends on strengthening my kind of relationship.

   However, I am open to states giving no advantages at all to any relationships. I certainly prefer it to the present state of things in California.

   If the state got out of marriage altogether, I would not cry too hard, but I don’t think it necessary.

   Marriage has worked pretty well in the West for centuries as it was. It did not work perfectly, but then (like Aristotle) I am not an ideologue about my politics.

   I always worry about anyone with a Big Philosophy of Politics who tries to shoe horn every single thing into.

   History is not kind to those folk I think.

   If marriage (in the US) was a bit of a church-state muddle, it was (like much of church state relations) in US history a happy muddle. It allowed the state to help an institution that benefited it, admitting the moral views of the vast majority of citizens, while providing room for dissent and no “officially” religious grounds for marriage.

   I am sorry to see ideologues triumphing anywhere in politics. The “muddle through” approach (based in Aristotle!) has served the Anglo-sphere really well.

   You say:

   In one paragraph he calls marriage a sacrament, and then two later he involves Christian civilization, duly noting that “advantages have been lost,” due to the redefinition of marriage. Precisely. Marriage has been defended by Christians, and other incumbents, as a privilege they don’t want extended to others. First, there is no such thing as Christian civilization unless you are talking about the church alone.

   I say:

   This is a bit simplistic and again our blog has commented on it a great deal.

   There is, of course, no perfect or “Christian” civilization. The Kingdom of God is not yet.

   Of course.

   However, Christians live in the world. We create art, movies, and vote. In nations with overwhelming majorities who are most deeply influenced by the Christian “myth,” who call themselves Christians, and who, even if they are not themselves practicing the faith, live in such a time . . . it is useful to call the imperfect result a “Christian civilization” in the same way one can refer to a (mostly) Islamic civilization.

   I go to a church that is historically mostly Arab. Admitting the important contributions of Arab Christians to Arab nations, we still do not hesitate to say that most of the contributions were made by Islamic persons . . . that the civilizations are the (imperfect) outgrowth of the majority Muslim populations and governing classes.

   In that sense, and only that sense, for most of its history, the US (for good and bad) has been a Christian nation. There are many others.

   You say:

   The idea that the church ought to dominate a civilization is frightening to me.

   I say:

   Sigh.

   This is a straw man argument.

   The church should not dominate a culture, the ideas of its citizens should and will.

   Christian citizens have no reason to keep what they know out of their voting habits. When most citizens are Christians (as sometimes happens) a culture will (justly) be different than when most Christians are atheists, Muslims, or Hindu.

   Given a proper view of government, one hopes that the majority will draw lines as broadly as possible to allow freedom from those who dissent from the philosophical or religious majority.

   I do not, however, think that those who proclaim Jesus as Lord on Sunday need to ignore His words on Tuesday when they vote.

   All of this is altogether different than the Church as an institution . .. which is not a citizen (as an entity). It is both free from the state (the best reason it should not pay taxes) and should not control the state.

   Christians before Jesus comes are in a dual rule . . . but my views on this (as a traditional Christian) are just an outgrowth of centuries of thought following Saint Augustus.

   You say:

   It imbues the church with authority to use force and destroys those pacifist elements which make the church unique.

   I say:

   Nonsense.

   Nothing I have said gives the Church any authority over the state except as free citizens have chosen to give it in their personal lives. These citizens then take their views to the public square.

   As for pacifism, I am unclear what you are talking about. Nobody is arguing the Church should take up arms itself (that did not work out well historically) or form a political party itself (that also has not worked out well).

   I am saying that Christians as citizens can fight things they opposes . . . using their Christian ideas. They will have to accept losing, if they lose, in the public square . . . but that does not give the Church any direct role at all.

   I would also point out that the “religious right” did not invent “Church militant” language. . . and that neither the Bible nor traditional Christianity were particularly pacifist in their relationship to certain ideas.

   You say:

   Second, the idea of Christians attempting to protect a privilege, especially a legal privilege, is downright ugly. It is not anything like what I would call Christian.

   I say:

   If homosexuals now campaign in the fall to protect their newly won privilege (marriage), is that ugly . . .downright ugly?

   Marriage was not a privilege for Christians only, but to all heterosexuals regardless of religion. The fact that one argument in favor of this was Christian does not make the benefit exclusive to Christians.

   I would not favor tax exemption only for Christian religious institutions . . . but one reason I am in favor of exemptions is Christian . . . though not the only one.

   You say:

   Finally he asks, “Why was our institution hijacked?” and blames the ominous “left.” He ignores the fact that whenever and institution affords some individuals a privilege over other individuals an incentive is create for the “out” to get “in.”

   I say:

   Yes. And not letting them in keeps the one important social benefit alive.

   Good. I feel the same way about voting.

   When everyone is “in” then one big social advantage of the benefit is destroyed.

   If heterosexual marriage was of great benefit to the state, and strengthening it also of benefit, then excluding people from it (those co-habiting) was part of the good it did.

   One can defend this (even if you don’t like the defense) without any recourse to Christianity. One can also defend it (as a citizen) with recourse to the knowledge one thinks one gets from Revelation.

   If you lose, then you lose, but there is nothing weird or unChristian about this position which is just an extension of traditional Christian ideas.

   You say:

   Privileged franchises always will be expanded, especially when they enjoy the sanction of the state.

   I say:

   Nonsense. A thing can be expanded without being expanded to everyone. A thing can exclude and successfully resist pressure to include if the majority (or the rulers) of a just state see no interest in expanding the privilege.

   Two examples are: voting and citizenship.

   Both are state privileges, but they need not be infinitely expanded and will not be.

   Of course, there has been a long societal pressure to expand both and both have been expaneded . . . given the great benefit that both grant. However, the benefit need not be expanded to everyone who wants them.

   Some Canadians may wish to vote for our President, given the power the US has over what happens to Canada. However, we need not expand the franchise to them, just because they wish it or would directly benefit from it (or avoid perceived harms if they get it).

   It is the worst sort of reasoning to say that just because there will always be pressure to give more of something to someone . . . states will always or must grant that desire.

   You say:

   If Christians want the franchise to remain limited, take away the privilege. Instead of fighting over whether California should be allowed to sanction marriage for homosexuals, the church can stop accepting the state’s sanction of marriage among Christians, and work to eliminate the franchise altogether.

   I say:

   There is much merit to this approach.

   However, one could also argue that at some fundamental level there is a vested state interest in “traditional marriage” that does not exist for “contract marriage.”

   If that is wrong (as you seem to think), then the state should in fact get out of the marriage business. It should also, however, not force private citizens to sanction relationships they think vice ridden.

   Christians in such a state should not be forced to approve of “gay relationships” in their hiring, renting of property, or church business (such as student life in religious schools).

   If the state were truly to get out of everything (in the Utopian world of some of my ideologically libertarian friends) and just leave me alone to be a traditional Christian, then I would be happy.

   Since that is an utterly unrealistic pipe dream, I must (as a citizen) live in the world as it is.

   I must protect my Church from future law suits and from an inability to run adoption agencies (to give one example) as our creed demands. We must help the orphan, but the state will soon (and nearly certainly) force us to get out the “business” or compromise our moral beliefs.

   As a Christian citizen, therefore, I do not live in the Utopian world of the University seminar room (if only!), but in the practical world of imperfect politics.

   In voting against “gay marriage,” I am reacting defensively to the attack on normal church work (feeding the poor) that will surely come if my church keeps doing it according to their moral lights.

   You say:

   He says in conclusion that marriage “came from God to man.” But then we tried to involve the state, which came from Satan to man,

   I say:

   This view of the state is condemned by most major Christian groups. It is is certainly not the Catholic or Orthodox view.

   It gives Satan too much credit.

   No state is perfect, but politics is not inherently diabolic. Bluntly, this is close to the Manichean heresy.

   You say:

   and we finally forgot about the covenant definition and spent all our time fighting over the legal definition.

   I say:

   Even a quick read of our blog will show the neutral reader that this is not true.

   My marriage is not fundamentally about state benefits. I would marry if the state forbade it. In fact, I can promise that if Christians were 2-6 percent of the population and suddenly could get legal benefits for a relationship we had already entered on other grounds, there would be a far bigger rush than we see today in California!

   I suspect, after all, that “gay marriage” is less about marriage than about the state saying (officially): Homosexuality is not only not a vice, it is good.

   That is the real danger. I have little concern about giving contract rights to gay people if they want them. Good for them.

   I do have a problem if in my public life (which the state is making bigger and bigger) I am forced to condone what I think wrong. . . while only being allowed the ever shrinking space of my private life (soon to be just my thoughts?) in which to dissent.

   You say:

   The Church, for this reason among many others, really needs to step away from the state, and center down on being the Church.

   I say:

   The Church, as Church, should alway center on being the Church.

   We agree.

   The Christian should have as his priority being a good citizen of the City of God. However, as a dual citizen, who in this life is also a citizen of the American republic, he must also give some thought (though less) to what it will mean to be a good American or what America will be.

   So the Church as Church will continue (even if persecuted) to tell the truth about sexuality. This truth will be hardest on straights, since we are the majority and so responsible for most of the ills of our time by sheer force of numbers! It will also offend those who struggle with homosexual desire.

   The Christian citizen will weigh what he or she knows about sexuality and try to get a society which is the most supportive of what he or she believes to be true using all his or her perspectives.

   She will not, of course, overemphasize her political role. She will approach all her duties in this hard time of dual responsibilities praying, “Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.”

   Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 1:16 pm #