Can There be a Christian Society?

My last several posts have strongly indicated what I believe the best general social response to the current question of how to address homosexual relationships in society, now I would like to address the Christian rationale behind my position.  My position hinges on three concepts: the order of God, the necessity of love, and the reality of sin.  Because God has designed the world with a specific order in mind, one that is physical, logical, relational, and moral, there is an optimal social and moral order that is best for all humans to live under.  Because of God's mercy he has revealed to us the best way to interact with one another, and that is through loving relationships.  But, because of the reality of sin love cannot exist without both confrontation and correction, and so we as Christians should embrace these aspects of relationship and work to build up one another and society.  There is a specific rationale that leads me to conclude that culture is best served by strengthening marriage as an institution and limiting it to monogamous heterosexual couples, and I intend to demonstrate that this rationale is derived from the Word of God and not simply my personal preferences.

Is there evidence in Scripture that God has designed the universe with certain physical, logical, social, and moral laws?  Certainly there is no doubt that God has designed the universe with certain physical and logical laws.  For instance, in Genesis 1 God creates light, the separates light and darkness, so that the two are not intermingled, he then does the same with the waters, (the exact meaning of this event is disputed, maybe food for a future post?) and then does the same with the oceans and the land.  Likewise we see in Jeremiah 51:15 that God created the earth with power, wisdom, and understanding.  The world was not made to be chaotic, but to have form and function, and God, as a   The world was not made to be chaotic, but to have form and function, and God, as a God of order, placed within creation certain physical and logical laws that cannot be broken.

But, just as God created the world with certain physical and logical laws, such that we ignore them at our own peril, (you cannot jump off a building and claim it is God's fault you got hurt because you ignored either the laws of gravity or the laws of logic that dictated that your jump would result in pain) so also he created the world with certain social and moral laws.  For instance the 10 Commandments, and the law as it is explained to the people of Israel, explain not only forms of worship, but also social norms that should govern them.  Theft, for instance, is not only a religious wrong, it is also a civil wrong, and so the laws discussing theft deal primarily not with the right sacrifices for atonement before God, but how the thief should be made right with his neighbor.  Likewise with the other commandments.  What we see is not necessarily that we should adopt the law and punishment system that was dictated to Israel, which was given to a certain nation at a certain time and assumed a covenantal relationship that we do not have with God, but that the principles behind the system--that there are social and moral laws that we should seek to uphold--these apply to all people at all times, whether Jewish, or Greek, or Christian or pagan.

I do not want to go into a long examination of exactly what principles we can derive from the law so as to govern our behavior, but I would be willing to bet that most of us in the West today would be able to quickly agree on the majority of those principles.  For instance, who would want to argue that theft, adultery, chattel slavery, (yes the bible condemns man-stealing) and arson should ever be acceptable?  We may cite certain extreme situations, such that an immoral action was compelled from an individual under threat of torture, death, or some other horror, but in such situations we still recognize the evil of the person who compelled the action.  Immorality is generally easily recognized and we do not debate it, even though some may wish to argue for moral relativity, no one actually lives in a committed fashion as though morals were anything other than absolute.

Well, what do we do with this then?  How do these principles dictate that Christians should engage with society?  For an answer to that, we look to what Christ said about the law.  In probably one of the most over quoted and misused passages of Scripture (second to John 3:16) Christ says, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'  This is the great and first commandment.  And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'  On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."  In addition we read, "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."  Thus, as a quick shorthand for any situation, we can understand that our obligation, as Christians, is to love others; and what love looks like is doing to others what we would have them do to us.


While we practice love, though, we must be aware of the reality of sin.  For instance we read in Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," and in Romans 1:28, "God gave them up to a debased mind, to do what ought not to be done."  What we must conclude, therefore, is that even if we act in love, people will not always receive what we do as loving.  And, even if something is wrong, that does not mean that culture will always recognize that it is wrong.  Moreover, if culture does recognize that something is wrong, it is possible that our culture will act in a manner that is far harsher than we should act, such that even though the culture is right in proclaiming something to be immoral, the response is wrong.  I would argue that the latter is what we see in Muslim societies when a thief has his hand cut off, which further prevents him from being able to work to provide for himself or to repay society for his theft.  Likewise, I would argue that those who argue for things like killing homosexuals, killing adulterers, and similar arguments, are going beyond what the Scriptures would have us do and are abandoning the requirement we have to love one another.


Yet, because humans are sinful, we will produce societies that encourage at least some level of sinfulness.  For instance, who could argue that modern American society encourages promiscuity, lust, and covetousness?  All of these are seen as immoral from a biblical perspective, yet our society embraces them and lifts them up as either virtues or, at best, non-moral issues.  Our response to such situations ought to be both loving and honest.  In fact if we are not honest, if we do not tell those with whom we have the opportunity to engage, can we even say that we are being loving?  Therefore, what is the best society that we can promote for the sake of love?



The best society we can create is that society which most recognizes sin as sin, but, at the same time, promotes love as the highest standard for interpersonal relationships.  For instance, I would maintain that Christians are best served, society is best served, and all individuals are best served, by promoting a society in which homosexuality is still seen as immoral, but at the same time promotes a loving response to homosexual individuals.  What this loving response means will vary from situation to situation: in families it may mean a loving confrontation and in church it may require discipline to bring about repentance, while at work and in most civil areas, such as shopping and engaging in day-to-day life, it should be no one's business.

The reason that this is the best society is because it most promotes our opportunities, as Christians, to share the gospel, while also allowing for the greatest amount of personal freedom for individuals to live that does not restrict the rights of others.  Our opportunities for sharing the gospel are maximized because we do not have to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to prove to people that they have sinned.  By promoting a strong ethical code people will be able to recognize sin in their own lives and others.  This then allows us to quickly move on to the reality of the sacrificial death of Christ, that he died for sinners, that whoever places their faith in him may be saved.  From that, of course, we can move to the resurrection and the promise of this new life to those who come to Christ, that the sinner may be reborn and enter into a right relationship with God.  Conversely, if we promote a society with loose moral values then we promote the idea that people are innocent, they have done nothing wrong, and there will be no future judgment for sin.

Every man who lives in a society with a strong ethical foundation will still be a sinner, but at least more people in such a society may recognize sin.  In a society wherein the ethical code is very lax and most people have rationalized away the reality of sin, Christians will have to spend more time proving the reality of sin in order to make people understand the necessity of salvation.  It is because of our sinfulness that we need Christ, and to offer salvation without first getting someone to realize that there is condemnation seems backwards.  After all, what is it the man is being saved from?  For what purpose has he placed his faith in Christ?  A man may know that Christ lived, died on the cross, and rose from the dead, but, if that man does not know that he has sinned, then how can he ask for forgiveness so that he can be made right with God?


My argument is not that this is how society has been, nor it is that this is what we can bring society to be, but that this is what we should see as the ideal, and therefore is that for which we should aim.  That society which best conforms to the reality of the world as we see it in Scripture is going to be the best society.  Because we are called to love one another, we should promote a society in which love between individuals is encouraged.  Because all people are sinful, we should promote a society that recognizes sin and hold people accountable for their sin.  As Christians in America today we have the opportunity to exercise influence in society in many ways, shouldn't we aim for the best society possible?

A Solution to the Puzzle

In the last few posts I have attempted to illustrate that redefining marriage would have significant impact on the church in future, that homosexuality, as it exists in the West, has never been successfully normalized, that attempting to normalize homosexual marriage (which is only one step in normalizing homosexuality) requires significant cultural alteration leading to major social problems, and that homosexuals are not in fact precluded from any marital rights as they exist today.  The point in the last post, taken in conjunction with the other posts, was to demonstrate that an honest appraisal of the situation can only lead us to conclude that those who wish to allow for homosexual marriages are doing so as an attempt to normalize homosexuality in all forms in the culture, not in response to legal injustices.  But, in laying out the evidences for these points, in my last post I did indicate that homosexuals are not enjoying all the privileges of married couples in the United States.  Here I intend to ask the question of whether or not homosexuals should be given access to these privileges.  More precisely I intend to demonstrate that this question, "Should homosexuals be given access to the benefits married couples have today?" is best answered with the statement: "The situation as it exists today ought not be, and should be changed leading to greater justice for all people."

The situation as it exists today is that married couples have access to benefits and privileges that the average person does not have.  In order to lay out some proper boundaries I think it is important that we admit that marriage, as an institution, deserves special legal and social protection.  The reason marriage deserves special legal and social protection is because it is essential to the formation of a healthy society.  Marriage, as it should be, allows for the easy transference of property, a healthy and safe environment for the raising of children, and is the institution that has the greatest impact on the moral and intellectual health of society (in the form of parental influence on children).  I think these points are self evident, anyone who disagrees can go live in any inner city neighborhood where large numbers of children are born out-of-wedlock and grow up in single mother houses with little family support to see their error.  (Yes, it is possible for a single mother to effectively raise children, but again we are looking at the situation as experienced by most people in this situation, in which we see marked increases in illiteracy, drug use, crime, and violence.)

So, marriage deserves protection from a purely social perspective.  But, what about the benefits of marriage?  Should those benefits be given to others?  My answer to this is somewhat more ambiguous, because I do not think many of the benefits that exist and are given to marriage today should exist in the first place.  Allow me to give some examples.

Social Security provides spouses with financial benefits based purely on marital status.  However, I maintain the question should be raised as to whether the government should be involved in programs such as Social Security at all.  Think of it this way: if the government was not involved in Social Security, and individuals were able to keep the portion of their pay that goes to the government to pay for it, then they would be able to determine who to support with that money.  If individuals were able to make the choice on their own, and the question of whether the government should recognize homosexual couples claims to spousal benefits would be completely moot.  Government interference into private concerns, such as providing for life in old age, creates additional complications in which the government must always be granting one group privileges which are not enjoyed by others.

The same complaint can be raised against government involvement in almost every social program.  When government gets involved the state must make the decision of what will be done with the resources available.  By making the state responsible we create a situation where inequality is almost unavoidable.  For instance: if a polygamous group decided that they wanted to be able to have full social benefits for their children, as those benefits are enjoyed by others, then they would be able to claim that the government has discriminated against them by not allowing those benefits.  You may argue that society has a right to discriminate in that way, but the question can be raised why is it right to discriminate against them and not homosexuals?  To argue that polygamy inherently harms children could be countered by polygamists claiming that polygamy has always had a second class status in the United States, and that it is this second class status that has constantly caused harm to children.

My point in making this argument is only that government involvement is what creates the current discriminatory claims that homosexuals raise.  Many of the activities that government is currently involved in, including welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, and other social programs were at one time unnecessary in society.  Prior to the advent of these programs some 70 years ago families were able to survive and even thrive in America, so, as the current form and reach of these programs is even more recent than that, why would it be impossible for individuals to survive again without those programs?  If the government were to remove itself from attempting to care for individuals, then it would return personal responsibility for actions to individuals, and would encourage greater social awareness in society as a whole as people would have to actively help others in times of need.  As it stands America is one of the most generous countries when it comes to aiding others, why should we assume that Americans would not help the needy, poor, and disabled in their midst if the government made it the responsibility of individuals?  (This tendency toward generosity and pity is, I think any honest person would have to admit, one of the greatest influences Christianity has had on the American psyche throughout the years.)  More than that, consider the amount of aid already given by churches throughout America.  Do we think that churches would not be able to handle the needs that would arise if government were to remit the resources used on social programs back to individuals?  (I know, not all of those resources would go to churches, because not everyone would want to give to churches.  But, think of what more churches would be able to do with the increased funds that would be available to assist those in need, especially considering what they are able to do with the funds they have now.)

The best course of action for those complaining of inequality in government treatment of homosexual relationships and marriages is to agitate for less government involvement in all areas of day-to-day life, so that there would be less inequality between married couples and cohabiting groups of any kind.  That does not mean the government must entirely abandon its interest in protecting marriage though.  Nor does this mean that Americans must necessarily see any moral equivalency between different kinds of relationships.  Instead, less government involvement would mean that private relationships would be allowed to remain largely private.  If homosexual activists wish to prove that homosexual unions are just as good as marriages, in terms of mental, social, and physical well being, then this would give them an excellent opportunity to prove it, as they could enjoy more freedom from officially sanctioned bias of all kinds, and build strong public support for full equality in the future.  (Or, this would protect society from sanctioning homosexual unions if future evidence demonstrates that homosexuality should not be encouraged in the populace.)

In conclusion, the social benefits of marriage are hard to over exaggerate.  So in those areas in which government will necessarily be involved, such as taxation and property law, there should still remain incentive for couples to marry.  However, if government were to become more limited and allow for greater personal freedom and responsibility in all areas of life, it would promote greater equality among the nation as a whole, including between marriages and homosexual relationships.  At the same time this would largely address the complaints of those advocating for homosexual marriage and would allow for the reduced benefits of marriage to be examined so as to determine whether there are other relationships that should enjoy them.  Marriage as an institution in the West has been weakened over the last 40-50 years, as can be seen from data in both the United States and Europe, and this has not led to a better society, but has instead given rise to a various number of problems.  To redefine marriage now, so as to include homosexuals, will not result in stronger marriages or a more equal society, but will be a continued weakening of the single most important cultural institution there is.

Inequalities, Percieved and Real

Previously I have hinted at the possibility that homosexual couples do experience real inequalities in the United States today.  In this post I would like to examine some of the general arguments made in regards to those inequalities, and what can be done about the inequalities.  This post will examine the question purely from the stance of whether or not rights are being denied.  I intend to deal with the issue of potentially denied privileges, along with what can or should be done about that situation, in future posts.

In general, most people argue that homosexuals who cannot marry are being denied access to certain rights.  I have previously used the word, "privilege" to indicate what is denied to homosexuals, and I will stand by my use of that word.  The fact is that rights are derived from God, hence why the founders of our nation said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  Therefore, we must ask what "rights" are granted by marriage that are given by God, not by government, and whether these rights are being denied to anyone.  If it can be shown that these rights are being denied to any group, then it is in the benefit of all people, particularly Christians as we serve a just God, to defend the rights of that group.

What are the rights given in marriage then?  As of 2004 the GOA determined that there are "1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges."  The problem with this statement is that not all of the things listed in the report are what could be defined actual "rights."  Notice that included in this list are benefits and privileges, to which someone may be entitled through marriage.  Let us set aside, for the moment, the question of whether it is appropriate to deny those benefits to others and examine only what "rights" someone may claim have been denied them by not allowing marriage.

The report listed 13 different categories as follows: Social Security and related programs, housing, and food stamps; veterans benefits; taxation; federal civilian and military service benefits; employment benefits and related statutory provisions; immigration, naturalization, and aliens; Indians; trade, commerce, and intellectual property; financial disclosure and conflict of interest; crimes and family violence; loans, guarantees, and payments in agriculture; federal natural resources and related statutory provisions; and miscellaneous statutory provisions.  The report was an updated version of a 1997 report on the same subject, which determined that there were 1049 laws that were affected by marriage in the United States .  Therefore the 2004 report only contained the updated statutes from the 1997 report, however it used the same categories.  What, in these categories, would qualify as a "right," a "benefit," and a "privilege"?

An excellent example of this is Social Security.  The 1997 report notes that, "Once the law sets forth the basic right of an individual participant to retirement benefits, it prescribes in great detail the corresponding rights of the current or former spouse."  The reason this is an excellent example is because the use of the word "right" here seems to imply that the spouse of the individual has a God-given claim to the retirement benefits of the "current or former spouse."  Thus, homosexuals may argue that in order to exercise their "right" to claim retirement benefits from one another they must have the ability to marry.  The problem is that this is not the correct use of the word "right."

Strictly speaking, those things which government grants, and which are brought about entirely through statutory enactments, are not rights.  Rights are endowed by our creator, privileges are granted by the government.  Privileges, speaking in a purely entomological sense, means private laws.  Laws which the government passes, which affect a certain aspect of the populace so as to give them benefits not enjoyed by the rest of society are not rights, they are privileges.  Rights are those properties which are enjoyed by all persons at all times unless the government or another individual acts so as to prevent them from exercising their liberty.

The use of the word, "right" in regards to an individual having access to the retirement benefits of another, as governed by the Social Security administration, is misleading.  The government cannot create rights or grant rights, and so denying individuals access to the retirement benefits granted through Social Security, or any other government program, is not denying that person a right.  If the person had worked their whole life and the money stored in the system was legally and socially recognized as their property, then denying them access to their own property would be a violation of rights because it would be theft.  But, extending benefits from one partner to another, so that one partner receives benefits they would otherwise have no claim on, is not a right, it is a privilege created by the government.

The fact is the vast majority of what the GAO has listed in its report are privileges and benefits that the government has created over the years and to which married couples are entitled, or which are effected by marriage statutes.  Denying these benefits to homosexual couples may be immoral, or may be perfectly understandable, I intend to address that issue in the future.  But, the rights of marriage, as given by God, are, the rights of physical intimacy, (Genesis 2:24) the rights of mutual care and support, (Exodus 21:10-11, Ephesians 5:22-24) the rights to attempt procreation, (Genesis 16:2; 30:9)  and the rights of autonomous home life and the raising of children (Ephesians 6:1-4).  I realize we are not a Christian nation, and that those who do not believe in the Bible are not obliged to take the word of Scripture on this, but I challenge others to think of what other natural and inherent rights anyone might have in marriage.  Let me put it this way: If you were stuck in a tropical paradise where you were able to marry someone with no interference from any government, what rights would you enjoy with that person?  Are there any I have not included here?

If these are the rights given in marriage, what of these rights have homosexuals been denied by not being able to wed one another?  Certainly in our culture though Christians may hold that sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral, no one can claim it is illegal and that they have been denied that "right".  Similarly, no one is saying that homosexuals cannot care for and support one another; perhaps they do not enjoy all of the benefits and privileges that make it easier for married couples to do so, but that does not mean that they have been denied a right to care for and love one another.  Likewise homosexual couples cannot claim they are denied the right of procreation, because there simply is no right for two men or two women to bear children, it is a biological impossibility.  The only right which a homosexual couple can conceivably claim is the right to raise children, but the only children they would be able to raise would be those they would have to go outside their own union to acquire, either through adoption or some other process involving at least one person who is not part of the marriage.

The fact is that when it comes to raising children there are two methods by which a child has been placed with a family, historically speaking, either natural childbirth, or adoption.  Homosexuals have not been denied natural childbirth any more than men and infertile women have been denied natural childbirth, it simply is not possible.  In the case of adoption, there is no natural right.  What I mean is that anyone can apply for an adoption, but the state, or whatever adoption agency is attempting to help someone have a child, is under no necessary compulsion to place a child with anyone who asks for the child.  Adoption, throughout U.S. history has rightly been seen as a privilege, and therefore the states and federal government of the United States have acted to regulate (follow the link to find information on laws regulating adoption) who may adopt in order to be sure adopted children are properly being placed with those best able to care for them.

Proponents of homosexual marriage generally claim that homosexual couples are being denied equal treatment to heterosexual couples.  They are correct, homosexual couples do not enjoy the benefits and privileges granted by law to heterosexual couples.  However, their claim is that homosexuals have been denied the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples.  I have attempted to show that this is not the case, that homosexual couples enjoy the same rights that everyone else enjoys, though they do enjoy fewer privileges than heterosexual couples.

Should only monogamous heterosexual couples who have registered their marriage with the civil authorities enjoy the privileges they have been given?  Should those privileges be broadened to apply to others?  If so, who should enjoy those privileges, and what is the rational behind extending them?  These are the questions that we should be asking.

Marriage and Culture, part 2

I previously mentioned that full normalization of homosexuality would require a full legal and social recognition of homosexual relationships as well.  I would like to now address that point by examining what that would entail, and demonstrating that there are significant potential dangers that must be considered.  In addressing the potential impact of the normalization of homosexuality I intend to examine what information is available from those currently existing nations that have legalized homosexual marriage.  In particular I will be focusing on the Netherlands as it is the country which has had full legal recognition of homosexual marriage the longest, stemming from 2001 (see link for dates of when different countries legalized homosexual marriages, Netherlands was the first).  (So no one can accuse me of twisting the truth: there are other countries that have recognized homosexual unions longer.  Sweden is one of the first to give full equality to homosexual unions, and I do address some of what we see in Sweden in this post.)  While simply accepting the full legalization of homosexual marriage is not, in itself, full normalization of homosexuality, it is one of the most significant cultural steps that can be taken in that direction.

One of the things that must be conceded in the case of the Netherlands is that marriage has been in trouble there since the 1970s.  A second point that must be conceded is that the United States is not the Netherlands.  Differing nations can have differing results after implementing similar, or the same, policies, depending on the cultural influences of each of those nations.  However, that being said, humans are humans wherever you go, and we would be foolish to ignore evidence from a society just because it is not our society.  While the current events and social interactions of one country cannot be called absolute predictors for how our country will react to similar social stimulus, ignoring that information is foolhardy at best.

So, what has the overall effect of the normalization of homosexual marriage been in the Netherlands?  Since the only information we have is from 2001, (maybe you can push it back to 1997, since that is when the vote for normalization of homosexual marriage was taken) the information is currently limited, but it is not good.  Stanley Kurtz, in 2004, wrote an article in which he examined three ongoing statistics in the Netherlands: 1) A decline in marriage, 2) An increase in out of wedlock births, and 3) the effect of the normalization of homosexual marriage on these statistics.  I recognize that the article is now 6 years old, and that when it was published it had to rely on statistics for a very short period of time, however, I have yet to see a convincing refutation of the article, and the more modern statistics I have found seem to indicate the trend has worsened (note the marriage rate was about 4.5/1000 in 2005, with a divorce rate of nearly 2.0/1000).  (Here are the Netherlands out-wed-lock birth rates for 2007, approximately 39% in the Netherlands, over 50% in most other Nordic nations, and 2008, now at 40%.  I am assuming the statistics for the last site are correct, I cannot find information for 2008-2009 anywhere else online.  I am also assuming the statistics are for 2008 as the article was published in 2009.  A more informative note to ponder: the increase in out-of-wedlock births in the Netherlands is not due to teenage births, which have decreased since 1980 according to the OECD.  Therefore, I would assume these births are more intentional and this trend does not simply reflect growing sexual activity among youth.)

Kurtz' first point is very interesting.  He notes that all Scandinavian countries are experiencing a decline in marriage.  Some sites, such this one, a site run by proponents for homosexual marriage, argue that marriage rates in Scandinavian countries actually improved after the normalization of homosexual unions.  However, Kurtz' argument is that the statistics are skewed by the number of divorcees remarrying.  His argument has some significant merit, as can be seen in this study done in 2007 by OECD.  What we see in this study is that no Scandinavian country has a first time marriage rate of higher than 80%.  That means that, taking Sweden as an example, (having the highest crude marriage rate of about 5.5/1000) the actual number of first time marriages is only 4.2/1000, (using a 77% first time marriage rate as indicated by the study) which is a significant drop from the near 8.0/1000 of the mid 1960's (when challenges to marriage really began).  When combined with a crude divorce rate of 2.5/1000 per year you can begin to see the actual state of marriage in a country like Sweden (again compared to about 1.25/1000 in the mid 1960's).  Thus we see a nearly 50% decrease in first time marriages, and a nearly 50% increase in divorces over the last 40-50 years in Sweden.  This is a significant change as it shows the affects of assaults on marriage over only one generation

The importance in the weakening of marriage becomes even more clear when you consider that the crude marriage number in Sweden in 1900 was approximately 6/1000 with a nearly 0 divorce rate (thus almost no second marriages if there are no divorces), and today stands at approximately 5.5/1000 with remarrying couples making up 1.3 of of those marriages.  But, it is not just a decline in marriage that must be considered, there is also an increase in out-of-wedlock births.  Kurtz notes that somewhere between 40-50% of all births in the Netherlands are out-of-wedlock.  I note this in particular to press the cultural impact that this will have in the years to come.  There is simply no denying that an increase in out-of-wedlock births will lead to a rise in poverty, a decrease in educational opportunity, and a great number of other potential problems.  (Yes, there are exceptions to this, however, it is the norm that most people will have to live under.)  The question really is whether or not there is a correlation to the number of out-of-wedlock births and the normalization of homosexual marriage in the Netherlands.  If there is a correlation between the two, then the United States could reasonably expect to begin to see some of this same effect if homosexual marriage is normalized here.

Kurtz article takes on real force when he gets to his third point: there is a correlation between the normalization of homosexual marriage and out-of-wedlock births.  He notes that the Netherlands is the only traditionally low out-of-wedlock birth nation that has open access to contraceptives, and that was not directly affected by the collapse of communism in the last generation, that has seen a direct and sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.  His ultimate point is not so much that the normalization of homosexual marriage that led to this cultural shift, it was the fact that the traditional understanding of marriage had to be significantly weakened in order to achieve this normalization.  Thus, it is not homosexual marriage, per se, that could also cause major social and cultural transformation in America, but that marriage must be attacked, redefined, and separated from its traditional moorings (the raising of children and establishing grounds for family) in order to allow for homosexual marriage.  To argue for homosexual marriage necessarily weakens the traditional understanding of marriage, and promulgating the new definition will necessarily have significant impact on society.

The fact is that marriage in America is not as strong as it once was, its purpose has been largely forgotten, and the movement to redefine it has been going on for over a generation now.  However, being that marriage has been the traditional building block for Western civilization for thousands of years, are we wise to capitulate to those who wish to overturn it entirely?  Christians recognize that God established marriage as a good for all people, but along with that establishment came a certain definition and purpose, and we would do well to defend both of those, both theologically and culturally.  If we, individually and collectively, (as churches and a society) do not attempt to strengthen the institution of marriage, we will be responsible for widespread harm for generations to come as the family structures that have been integral to our civilization are dissolved and poverty and single parent households increase.

If the worst case scenarios predicted by some come true and culture breaks down over the next 100 or so years, will the cultural dissolution lead to some kind of apocalyptic future where people will turn into raving cannibals intent only on murdering one another?  Of course not.  If Western civilization sufficiently breaks down, then another civilization will take its place--after a period of chaos, this has long been the pattern throughout history.  But, if we recognize that there are inherent dangers to what we are doing, and that the results of our actions have potential to be quite damaging, why would we sit silently on the side and watch it happen?  I am not saying that anyone should persecute those who live in open homosexual relationships, but I am asking, "Is marriage, as it has been traditionally understood, important enough to be worth preserving, and strengthening, even while we give serious consideration to the arguments of those who claim they are suffering social inequality?"

Marriage and Culture

Previously I discussed one possible effect of the redefinition of the word "marriage" on the church, that is a necessity of additional teaching for the sake of clarity.  I would like to discuss in this post one of the arguments given for normalizing homosexuality in our culture.  What I mean by "normalization" is the argument that practicing homosexuals should be given all the same cultural privileges that non-homosexuals have.  Further, normalization means accepting that homosexual relationships should be seen as exactly equal to heterosexual relationships.  Thus, normalization is not just an argument that homosexual individuals should be given the same social considerations given to heterosexuals, but that homosexual relationships be given the same consideration of heterosexual relationships.

One argument for the normalization of homosexuality in the United States and the West is that there are cultures that have normalized homosexuality with no detrimental effects on their culture.  This argument is made by pointing to certain American Indian (the article entails a an example from a sociologist arguing that homosexuality was widely accepted within certain American Indian groups) groups or other populations (small and relatively unknown as they may be) throughout world history.  However, it is important to note that even these people admit that those who engaged in openly homosexual marriages did not live as two women, or two men.  Gender roles in society were always upheld through one of the partners taking on the role normally held by someone of the opposite sex.  In addition those engaged in homosexual activity are often noted as having special religious roles, such as acting as shamans or healers.

Even in ancient Western and Near Eastern culture there was open homosexuality within religious rites and practices.  However, these practices were generally recognized as limited to only this sphere of life.  Thus the argument for full cultural normalization of homosexuality cannot be established from either the religious practices of ancient cultures, or those of American Indian populations.  Moreover, those that argue for normalization of homosexuality must recognize that in making their arguments they are calling upon cultures that are vastly different from modern Western culture.  Thus, the importation of any practice from those cultures directly into our culture must be seen as a clear example of cultural change, and those who seek to establish cultural change must establish that the change they are seeking will lead to a superior culture.

I have yet to see an example where any culture has actually normalized homosexuality.  In the above mentioned cases where homosexual marriages were allowed, homosexuality was not normalized because the culture still enforced specific gender roles on the two partners.  For instance, in a homosexual union between two women in American Indian societies, one of the two women had to take on the traditionally male role of the household, including hunting and fighting in war.  Thus, while it may be argued that these cultures allowed individuals to engage in what we in the modern West call homosexuality, culturally these relationships would not have been seen as "homosexual" because of the strict enforcement of gender roles.  Those who seek to normalize homosexuality within Western culture have to accept that no culture has ever normalized homosexuality as it is defined today, and recognize that there are potentially good reasons for this.

There are potentially good reasons not to normalize homosexuality in modern culture.  Western culture has led to the greatest increase of wealth and freedom of any culture throughout history.  Ancient Western, Near-Eastern, and even far Eastern cultures that accepted limited homosexual expression were also extremely structured, so that gender roles and family connections generally limited the level of success any individual could expect.  Similarly, even today, those countries that would be considered part of Western culture enjoy the highest levels of freedom and individual wealth in the world (especially for openly homosexual individuals).  Thus, what are the overriding arguments that should require a significant cultural shift, such as accepting the normalization homosexuality?  And, if homosexuality were completely normalized, are there potentially unforeseen consequences that could lead to significant harm to modern culture?  We are under no obligation to assume the post-modern concept of cultural equality so as to quickly change our culture to another.

There can, perhaps, be an argument made that certain privileges which are granted to married couples in the United States, could be broadened to apply to others.  However, the case must be made for each privilege individually.  For instance, if a group wants to argue that the tax benefits given to married couples (whatever tax benefits may exist) should also apply to other relationships, the question must be asked, "Why are those tax benefits given?"  Likewise the privilege of automatic inheritance between married couples, such that a wife is the assumed heir of a husband, needs to examined in light of its purposes for those who would like to see this privilege extended to others.

No culture has ever normalized homosexuality as it is understood in modern Western culture.  Those cultures that have had some standardization of homosexual activities have also had religious and ideological structures that specifically allowed for this standardization.  The question that must be answered by those advocating for homosexual normalization in the United States today is whether or not the principles of these other cultures can be added to or assimilated by Western culture without leading to larger social breakdown and unforeseen consequences.  The article I linked to specifically notes, "Indian society did not conceive of the universe as being composed of absolutes and polarities of black and white, male and female, good and evil. Nor did it automatically equate gender identity and sex roles with biological sex characteristics."  This author's assumptions may be overstated (I have yet to see a culture that really did not have absolutes of "good and evil") but he does make an excellent point, and that is that Indian society had dramatically different assumptions as to the natural world and humanity in general than exist in Western culture.

Have we really considered all of the possible cultural consequences of normalizing homosexuality?  Are we willing to face those consequences?  What are the actual benefits to society?  Are the potential benefits sufficiently superior to the potential consequences, such that we are willing to risk the consequences?  Is there a more desirable solution than full normalization that will result in equitable treatment of individuals (if inequality can be proven) and not lead to cultural reformation?  (Remember, full normalization of homosexuality means not only granting homosexual individuals all of the same social considerations given to heterosexuals, but also granting full social and legal equality between homosexual and heterosexual relationships as well.)

Marriage is Redefined? So What?

C.S. Lewis said, "Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it."  Therefore, though I know a thousand others (perhaps a thousand times a thousand, maybe even a million) have posted on the subject of marriage in modern America already, particularly in light of the recent decision out of California, I feel compelled to do so as well.


My question is this: what does it matter if the word, "marriage" is redefined in society?  More precisely my question can be asked in this way: If Christians accept a redefinition of the word "marriage" to allow for homosexuals to get married what does it change?  If it changes things, should we fight the new definition?  If culture at large accepts the new definition, then how do Christians move forward?


Redefining marriage would dramatically change how we read Scripture (hermeneutics).  Allow me to explain.  If we look at verses like Genesis 34:9 (Make marriages with us. Give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves.) and we accept a redefinition of marriage, then we are obligated to explain that, when the offer was made to Jacob's son to marry with the men of the area, marriage meant something different to them than it does to us.  We are obligated to explain that marriage at that time only meant between a man and a woman, this was not an offer for Jacob's sons to marry the men, but only to give and take their daughters in marriage.  If we fail to explain that point then some might think that the men of the area are hitting on Jacob's sons.  (Then again maybe that would explain the violent reaction of Jacob's sons as found in Genesis 34:25, On the third day, when they were sore, two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took their swords and came against the city while it felt secure and killed all the males.  What an insult to offer marriage and then say, "Well I really meant I wanted to marry your daughter, not you.")


Okay, if you don't buy that it would require us to be more clear in the passages above, how about, in 1 Timothy 4:1-5:  "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer."  If marriage is redefined, couldn't anyone who can marry according to the state definition, claim that churches are sinning by forbidding them to marry?  Couldn't they claim that since marriage was created by God, and they are simply engaging in marriage, their marriage is made holy  through thanksgiving and prayer?  A cultural redefinition of the word would require teachers in the church to make clear that what Paul means by marriage here is only a union between one woman and one man, no other union, regardless of whether called marriage or not, can be made clean.


Further we see that additional teaching would be required for verses such as Hebrews 13:4, "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous."  What are we to keep pure?  What is marriage?  Is the church sinning by not honoring the civil marriages as granted by the state?  If you doubt for a minute that there would be activists insisting on these readings within the next generation then I would encourage you to study history more closely.  As a word loses meaning, or takes on new meanings, people always have a tendency to anachronistically read that meaning into the original use of the word.


Consider the use of the term "make love."  C. S. Lewis uses that term in The Silver Chair to indicate how Jill acts in a cute and disarming way around the "Gentle Giants".  But, when a modern reader sees a statement about a little girl "making love" to everyone in the room, our minds are not drawn to innocent imagery, but rather a horrible case of child abuse.  While we may certainly be corrected by context, what would we think if we did not have that context?  So likewise, in two generations, or three, or four, what will the average reader of a section like Hebrews 13:4 or 1 Timothy 4:1-5 think?


While it may be generations until there is general confusion stemming from these verses, what are we to do about it now?  This concept is one I look forward to reading your thoughts on, and addressing in a future post.  For now I ask you to simply consider this: If we accept a redefinition of marriage so that it means anything other than the biblical definition, it can lead to radical changes in what we think of as sinful, and thus what we allow within our churches.  If we redefine marriage then we risk becoming those of whom it is said, Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!