Recently (a couple of weeks ago) my pastor asked me to read this section of Scripture and lead the congregation in prayer as part of our worship service. Reading this passage, and the sermon of that day, both changed the way I have looked at sin since. I wanted to address this passage of Scripture and share a few of the things that really impacted me. A couple of the points come from the Hebrew in this passage, so I beg your leave to discuss those, and I ask that you trust what I'm going to say. Alternatively, I hope that my reading of this passage might encourage you to do some research on the passage yourself, that you may be challenged and transformed by the Word of God.
First, the English of this passage:
In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:
"Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!"
And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"
Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for."
And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here am I! Send me."
The first thing that struck me was the declaration made by the Seraphim: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts!" (A better rendition might note that he is called the Lord of armies, but that's a secondary point.) The reason this declaration struck me is because of the triple repeated, "Holy!" In the original Hebrew and Greek there was no punctuation. No exclamation marks, no periods, no commas, no way to separate or accentuate a word other than either its placement in the idea, or a play on its form, or a repetition of the word itself. Thus, when we see a repeated word or term it is there for one specific reason: emphasis.
For the Seraphim to call God "holy" three times indicates a serious emphatic statement. It would be like standing in the midst of a courtroom and suddenly the bailiff picks up a bull horn and screams as loud as he can that the judge is honorable and just. If you miss the implication, it is because you choose to ignore that which has been screamed at you.
God is holy! He is utterly, indescribably holy! His holiness is to be shouted, it is declared by those beings which are in his presence day and night. This is the first and most important descriptor of God. His holiness defines his other attributes, because it puts them in proper perspective.
God's holiness is his transcendence above and beyond this world. He is like nothing in this world, utterly distinct and incomparable. It is for this reason that Scripture says of God, "Who is like the Lord?" (Psalm 40:5; Psalm 89:6; Isaiah 40:18, 25; 46:5) And here, you have heavenly beings, flying above the throne of God, which is itself a high and loft throne, and they are declaring this holiness, over and over again, yelling it loudly to one another. That's how important it is that we get that God is holy, the seraphim yell not to creation, but to one another, even though they dwell in the presence of God.
This point only began to really come home to me when I began to consider the rest of God's attributes in relation to this holiness. Think about it this way: God demonstrates his power so that we can understand that his power is beyond what we can comprehend, it is holy. God works great and wondrous miracles so that we can understand that if God is able to do things which amaze us, how much greater are his works which we can not fathom! His holiness, his indescribable nature, is declared by comparison with that which we can understand. Likewise of any of God's attributes, his anger, his patience, his justice, and particularly his love. We cannot really comprehend any of these attributes of God, because his holiness puts them beyond our grasp. We can witness a declaration of his love or justice, but that only gives us a glimpse into the reality that we cannot fully grasp, because God is beyond us.
But, here's what blows me away more than anything else, what made me really begin to consider the beauty of God's holiness: he does not do his great works for himself! What I mean is that God is holy, by his very nature, and there is nothing that adds to or takes away from this holiness. Thus, when God shows his glory through his great works, he does not add anything to himself, but simply shows us, mere humans, how wonderful he is, out of a great love for us. Remember, God has seraphim declaring his holiness, he already knows his holiness, he does not need us to praise him, but he gives us the opportunity to praise him for our good, because he loves us.
God is the only being who deserves this praise, because his beauty is perfect. So, for us to be able to praise God is a gift to us, because being able to praise God means that we are getting some glimpse of perfection, some participation in the amazing glory of the one who defines everything good and beautiful. It's like getting an invite into the most amazing art gallery ever. God is not changed or made more amazing by our worship, but we who witness his holiness are changed, because we experience that which is truly beautiful. This is the situation Isaiah found himself in: ushered into the presence of glory, confronted with that which left him dumbfounded (literally) because of how wondrous it was.
God is holy, he is awesome, and he shows his holiness to us because of his love for us, but this is only the beginning of this passage. Add to that the very beings who are declaring this: seraphim. (In the Hebrew the "im" ending is simply a plural ending, hence some translations read "seraphs" as a valid plural form of the term, since the Hebrew "seraph" is the singular form.) The word itself means "burning ones". Thus, here are "burning ones," or beings whose own glory makes them appear to be on fire (or who really are made of fire), who are declaring how holy God is. His glory is made manifest through comparison with their glory, because they are declaring his holiness, and not their own.
Then, Isaiah gives utterance to words that simply do not translate into the English with the same nuance which they have in Hebrew. Isaiah looks to the Lord and says, "Woe is me! For I am [compelled to be silent, brought to silence, made silent, or undone, ruined, destroyed]." (Everything within the brackets could be viable interpretations of this passage.) Thus, when we read from Isaiah, "I am undone" what he is saying is, "I am brought to silence." Here the idiom of silence represents the idea of death or total destruction. This ties the statement in with the rest of what Isaiah says, "For I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips."
The idea of unclean lips goes far and beyond simply the words of the people, it goes to their lives, their very being. Thus, as Christ declared, "For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." (Matthew 12:34) For Isaiah, for his mouth to be silenced was a condemnation of his very life. So, likewise, when Isaiah complains of the uncleanness of the lips of the people, he is condemning the way they live. They are unclean in word and deed. And he is one of those people, he is not innocent, he is not holy, he is not good. I realized as I read those words what a condemnation that should be to me: though I might know how to say the right things, though I might appear to be a "good Christian" to the world, my heart ought to be condemned before God because of my sinfulness. I am in the position of Isaiah, and I need to declare, "Woe is me! I am compelled to be silent, I should be destroyed before my holy God!"
Yet Isaiah was not left there. Here the Hebrew again plays on words and imagery: one of the burning ones takes a "glowing coal" and touches Isaiah's mouth with it. One of those who is on fire takes a coal of fire and touches that which symbolizes Isaiah's wickedness, his lips, and declared Isaiah to be clean. Imagine that scene for a minute, a flying being of fire holding a burning coal in his hand reaches out to you and touches your lips with a searing fire, and declares you to be clean.
Here the full imagery of the situation is brought out: Isaiah is not simply standing in the temple, he is standing in the middle of a sacrifice. Remember, the temple was filled with smoke after God's holiness was declared. Why would the temple be filled with smoke? Because a sacrifice was taking place. We know this because the smoke is not merely from the altar of incense, but there is a burning coal, which came from the altar, which means that a sacrifice was burning on the altar of God.
Here we tie into the imagery of Christ, because he is the lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world. (1 Peter 1:19-21) He is the sacrifice that God accepted to quench his anger, which allows a guilty people to approach a holy God. Isaiah was standing in the presence of the God who makes redemption for his saints, offering up a sacrifice to himself which we could not offer up. And Isaiah was made a participant of that sacrifice. A coal from the fire of God's sacrifice was taken and placed upon Isaiah's lips, so that he became a participant in this symbolic sacrifice that would one day be fulfilled in the death and suffering of the Messiah.
And look what happens to Isaiah because of his exposure to the sacrifice of Christ: the man who was brought to silence, who was compelled to recognize the sinfulness of his life before the holy God of the universe, suddenly has the courage to speak up and say to God, "Here I am, send me!" Because Isaiah saw the holiness of God, he was brought low, he considered himself already dead. But, because Christ died on his behalf and he was able to participate in that sacrifice, his words, the actions of his life, were made acceptable before God. Isaiah was given a boldness to go from laying on his face to standing before the awesome God of all creation, all because of the sacrifice that God prepared for himself.
The more I studied this passage, just in preparation to read it at church, the more I was faced with the reality that I had lost sight of the holiness of God. I had forgotten his glory, and I had forgotten that when I sin I am transgressing that holiness, that glory, that awesome and amazing attribute of God that cannot be fully understood here on earth, because it is the reflection of how utterly incomprehensible and beyond us God really is. But, in addition to that, my sins made light of the sacrifice God prepared for himself. Instead of allowing the coal from the altar of God to touch my lips, I would draw near to it, I would feign to touch it, and then I would go back again into the secret realms of my heart, and I would not let myself be singed by the purifying fire of God.
For this reason, for the last two weeks, I have been continually thinking to myself, "Would it glorify God for me to do that? Would it glorify God for me to go there? Would it glorify God for me to watch that, think that, or listen to that?" The seraphim constantly declare God is holy, so how could I, who have enjoyed the benefits of the death of Christ, do anything less in my own life? Do I really think God is that holy? In being confronted with these questions I was forced to reconsider how I was living, so that I could be like Isaiah, transformed by my experience of seeing the holiness of God.
To be honest, for those who have read this far, I can only apologize. There is something about being exposed to an experience that cannot quite be captured by simply writing about it. Particularly when it is the Word of God that we are confronted with, there is an intrinsic and personal challenge that is hard to express to others. I can only hope that you will be challenged by this section of Scripture as I was. I can only hope that as you have read of my experience of going through this passage, you will be able to appreciate the imagery, the nuances, and the power of this passage more. I hope you are challenged to think about the awesome holiness of God a little bit more, so that you can too can live a life changed by meeting the God of Isaiah, the God of the universe.
Showing posts with label Language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Language. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Do You Know What You Believe?
Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, from which I graduated in May, recently got involved in another scuffle regarding his statement that yoga is not Christian. The complaint has come back, of course, that many devout and well-meaning Christian's practice yoga and do not find it incompatible with Christianity. Dr. Mohler has, effectively, made two responses to this. His responses are that the individual is either involved in a form of syncretism, in which yoga is being adapted to Christianity, or that what is being adapted is not yoga at all. It is worth looking at these two responses further.
Can yoga be adapted to Christianity? Dr. Mohler contends that yoga is necessarily non-Christian because of the mind emptying meditation involved in it, and the focusing of sexual energies through the body as a means of communing with God. I think Dr. Mohler makes an excellent point with this statement. The mind emptying forms of meditation that are common among many Eastern religions are simply not compatible with Christianity. The reason is because Christians are called to meditate on God's Word, his deeds and actions. It is impossible to empty the mind when filling it with thoughts of God's law, his holiness, his love, and everything else that a Christian might meditate on.
Scripture never commands Christians to empty our minds, but only to empty our minds of sinful thoughts and selfish desires, which ought to be put far away from us. Even Paul commands us to think of whatever is good and lovely. To seek to escape from ourselves or reality is not a form of Christian meditation. To be reminded of God, to find his holiness and awesomeness surrounding us constantly, that is Christian meditation.
Likewise, Scripture never says that we are able to commune with God in any way other than through his Son, Christ Jesus. We cannot approach the throne of God through focusing sexual energy, personal energy, or even spiritual energy. We approach the throne of God through prayer, according to faith in Christ, who died for our sins. Regardless of whether we feel God's presence more or less, the Holy Spirit is poured out upon us at all times, we are never separated from God. Therefore, we do not need to enter some specific pose or focus some mystical energy to hear from God and speak to God, we have his Word, written to us to tell us how to live, and we have the right to come before him in prayer to thank him, praise him, and petition him for our needs or wants.
On these two points, making up Dr. Mohler's first reaction to those who claim Christianity and yoga can be harmonized, it would seem that Dr. Mohler has said nothing controversial, what then of the second reason he gives? If you strip the meditation and other religious elements out of yoga, is it still yoga? On this point it is purely a matter of convention as to how we answer this question. What I mean is that words can change meaning over time, and often times the actual meaning of a word is purely a matter of the convention of the society in which it is used. Therefore, the question is simply, "What is yoga?"
For many people yoga does not involve any spiritual activities whatsoever. Many people go to yoga lessons and stretch and talk and smile and get a good, low impact, workout. In fact, if you were to ask most of the people across these United States, "What is yoga?" most of them would not include any discussion of "spirituality" or "religion" in their definition. (This, of course, is based purely off of my own experience, I did not go out and conduct a survey for the sake of a blog post.) Therefore, it would seem that when people use the term "yoga" to mean "a form of exercise that involves stretching, flexibility, and holding various positions that place strain on the anatomy" they are correct in saying that yoga can be practiced by Christians without a conflict of faith.
While this may very well be the common use of the term, "yoga" it is not the only use of that term. A quick search of the web reveals that if you look up the definition of yoga you find that the most relevant websites all recognize either the Hindu origin of yoga, or they discuss yoga as a means of attaining greater spiritual consciousness. Thus, it seems, that most teachers of yoga and most of those who have done research into yoga agree that it is not best defined as simply a form of exercise. The best definition of yoga must acknowledge the spiritual aspects that go along with serious yoga practice.
It would seem, therefore, that Dr. Mohler is correct in saying that if what you do when you do yoga is simply a form of exercise, then fine, just don't call it yoga.
My point in bringing all of this up though is that it is interesting to me that Christians would actually complain about Dr. Mohler saying that yoga and Christianity are not compatible. I really think the issue is simply that most of us simply do not know what we believe, or why we believe it. When Christians think that the spiritual aspects of yoga can be adapted to Christianity, my thought is they simply do not know what Christianity really teaches about our communion with God. Why would anyone seek to draw closer to God through physical and mental acts of will, when God has revealed to us that the way to grow closer to him is through his Word and his Son?
When Christians seek to redefine the term "yoga" to mean simply "exercise" then they are guilty of not understanding what the term really means, they are guilty of not understanding that words have meaning. Even in this Christians are guilty of not really knowing what they believe, because, in redefining a term, they open themselves to adapting more than just a series of poses and an exercise routine into Christianity. It is always important that we know what a word means, and that we understand that when we say we are doing something like yoga, the word means a lot more than merely sitting on a mat with our legs crossed. When we understand what we believe, then we understand that changing what we do is not a light matter, because our actions are a reflection of our beliefs.
Where do you stand on this subject? What do you really believe? Only once you have figured out what you believe can you really understand why you believe it. Have you given thought to the terms you use, the things you do, and whether those things are really compatible with your Christian faith? If you aren't a Christian, have you ever taken the time to think about what you believe?
Can yoga be adapted to Christianity? Dr. Mohler contends that yoga is necessarily non-Christian because of the mind emptying meditation involved in it, and the focusing of sexual energies through the body as a means of communing with God. I think Dr. Mohler makes an excellent point with this statement. The mind emptying forms of meditation that are common among many Eastern religions are simply not compatible with Christianity. The reason is because Christians are called to meditate on God's Word, his deeds and actions. It is impossible to empty the mind when filling it with thoughts of God's law, his holiness, his love, and everything else that a Christian might meditate on.
Scripture never commands Christians to empty our minds, but only to empty our minds of sinful thoughts and selfish desires, which ought to be put far away from us. Even Paul commands us to think of whatever is good and lovely. To seek to escape from ourselves or reality is not a form of Christian meditation. To be reminded of God, to find his holiness and awesomeness surrounding us constantly, that is Christian meditation.
Likewise, Scripture never says that we are able to commune with God in any way other than through his Son, Christ Jesus. We cannot approach the throne of God through focusing sexual energy, personal energy, or even spiritual energy. We approach the throne of God through prayer, according to faith in Christ, who died for our sins. Regardless of whether we feel God's presence more or less, the Holy Spirit is poured out upon us at all times, we are never separated from God. Therefore, we do not need to enter some specific pose or focus some mystical energy to hear from God and speak to God, we have his Word, written to us to tell us how to live, and we have the right to come before him in prayer to thank him, praise him, and petition him for our needs or wants.
On these two points, making up Dr. Mohler's first reaction to those who claim Christianity and yoga can be harmonized, it would seem that Dr. Mohler has said nothing controversial, what then of the second reason he gives? If you strip the meditation and other religious elements out of yoga, is it still yoga? On this point it is purely a matter of convention as to how we answer this question. What I mean is that words can change meaning over time, and often times the actual meaning of a word is purely a matter of the convention of the society in which it is used. Therefore, the question is simply, "What is yoga?"
For many people yoga does not involve any spiritual activities whatsoever. Many people go to yoga lessons and stretch and talk and smile and get a good, low impact, workout. In fact, if you were to ask most of the people across these United States, "What is yoga?" most of them would not include any discussion of "spirituality" or "religion" in their definition. (This, of course, is based purely off of my own experience, I did not go out and conduct a survey for the sake of a blog post.) Therefore, it would seem that when people use the term "yoga" to mean "a form of exercise that involves stretching, flexibility, and holding various positions that place strain on the anatomy" they are correct in saying that yoga can be practiced by Christians without a conflict of faith.
While this may very well be the common use of the term, "yoga" it is not the only use of that term. A quick search of the web reveals that if you look up the definition of yoga you find that the most relevant websites all recognize either the Hindu origin of yoga, or they discuss yoga as a means of attaining greater spiritual consciousness. Thus, it seems, that most teachers of yoga and most of those who have done research into yoga agree that it is not best defined as simply a form of exercise. The best definition of yoga must acknowledge the spiritual aspects that go along with serious yoga practice.
It would seem, therefore, that Dr. Mohler is correct in saying that if what you do when you do yoga is simply a form of exercise, then fine, just don't call it yoga.
My point in bringing all of this up though is that it is interesting to me that Christians would actually complain about Dr. Mohler saying that yoga and Christianity are not compatible. I really think the issue is simply that most of us simply do not know what we believe, or why we believe it. When Christians think that the spiritual aspects of yoga can be adapted to Christianity, my thought is they simply do not know what Christianity really teaches about our communion with God. Why would anyone seek to draw closer to God through physical and mental acts of will, when God has revealed to us that the way to grow closer to him is through his Word and his Son?
When Christians seek to redefine the term "yoga" to mean simply "exercise" then they are guilty of not understanding what the term really means, they are guilty of not understanding that words have meaning. Even in this Christians are guilty of not really knowing what they believe, because, in redefining a term, they open themselves to adapting more than just a series of poses and an exercise routine into Christianity. It is always important that we know what a word means, and that we understand that when we say we are doing something like yoga, the word means a lot more than merely sitting on a mat with our legs crossed. When we understand what we believe, then we understand that changing what we do is not a light matter, because our actions are a reflection of our beliefs.
Where do you stand on this subject? What do you really believe? Only once you have figured out what you believe can you really understand why you believe it. Have you given thought to the terms you use, the things you do, and whether those things are really compatible with your Christian faith? If you aren't a Christian, have you ever taken the time to think about what you believe?
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, August 9, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
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?"
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?"
Saturday, August 7, 2010
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.)
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.)
Friday, August 6, 2010
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)