Posted on 08/15/2012 7:38:20 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
I appreciate the responses to my previous posts on this issue and, after reading some of the questions, thought somewhat pressed to write this last one. OK, so we know what Christian marriage is. We preach that, teach it, and expect believers to embrace Scripture’s instructions regarding sexual conduct, although we are still sinners who must continually repent, trust in Christ, and receive his pardon. Got it. But what about the public argument?
As I said in the last one, we aren’t authorized to speak in God’s name where he hasn’t spoken, but we are commanded to do so wherever he has. This is where it gets dicier, though. I’d like to frame my response, first off, in terms of two extremes that we have to avoid:
1. Treating references to homosexuality in the Old Testament as either irrelevant or directly applicable to the current question.
You see this in public debates of the issue, where extremists on both sides talk over (and past) each other. One thing they often share in common is interest in quoting passages from the Old Testament on the question. Then the person on the left reminds us that the sanction mentioned is stoning. “Do you want to stone gays?”, one shouts. “No, but I believe what the Bible says about homosexuality.” “Well, right next to that verse it says that you should stone disobedient children—Oh, and not eat pork, and not touch a woman who is having her period.” Bottom line: the skills of biblical interpretation are about equally as bad on both sides of the table.
The statements in Leviticus are part of the Mosaic covenant. They pertain uniquely to the covenant that God made with Israel as a nation. The laws that governed every aspect of private and public life, cult and culture, were a unique episode in redemptive history. Their divine purpose cannot be rationalized in terms of sanitation, public health, or personal well-being. The whole focus was on God and his desire to separate Israel from the nations, preparing the way for the Messiah to come from her womb. Therefore, there is no more biblical warrant for stoning homosexuals today than there is for avoiding Scottish cuisine.
If there’s every reason to distinguish these two covenants, we have to be very careful nonetheless that we don’t make the opposite interpretive blunder of contrasting the Old and New Testaments on the question of homosexual practice itself. I’ve heard of late several times committed Christians acknowledging that the Old Testament forbids it, but the New Testament is silent. It’s “mean Moses” versus “nice Jesus”: a familiar but completely baseless contrast. Affirming that the the civil laws are now obsolete doesn’t mean that the rationale explicitly given for some of these laws should be disregarded, especially when God singles some acts out not simply as dependent on God’s will for that time and place, but as “abominations.” Homosexuality is included in that list, as it is also in the New Testament (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10—right up there with “murders, enslavers, liars, and perjurers”). The church does not have the power of the sword in the new covenant. Nevertheless, God’s statement on the matter is pretty clear: he hates homosexuality. It violates the natural order—reflecting the extent to which fallen humanity will go to suppress the truth—even that which can be known by reason—in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18-32).
Jesus brings forgiveness of sins, not a new—supposedly easer, happier, more fulfilling law. In fact, he upbraids the lax view of divorce tolerated in his day. Jesus does not ground marriage between a man and a woman in the Mosaic covenant—or in the new covenant, but returns to the order of created nature: “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate’” (Mat 19:4-6).
It should be added that Paul’s point in Romans 1-3 is to sweep the whole world—Jew and Gentile—into a heap, condemned under the law, in order to announce that Christ is the Savior of all, Jew and Gentile, and justifies the ungodly who trust in him. We are all called to repent—lifelong repentance, in fact. In this, as in everything, we fall short; our imperfect repentance would be enough to condemn us if we weren’t clothed in Christ’s righteousness. However, to repent is to acknowledge that God is right and we are wrong—on the specifics of precisely where we want to assert our sovereignty.
2. Allowing same-sex marriage because since this isn’t a Christian nation, we should not seek to make the traditional Christian view public law.
Yes and no. The argument sounds like a “two-kingdoms” approach, but I think it’s actually more on the historic Anabaptist side.
First, it is certainly true that America is not a Christian nation and in any case Christians should not seek to promote distinctively Christian doctrines and practices through the properly coercive power of the state.
Second, however, I believe that we have to carefully distinguish general and special revelation, common and saving grace, the kingdoms of this age and the kingdom of God. Traditional Roman Catholics and Protestants are the vanguard of the pro-life movement, but in addition to witnessing to the depth of Christian conviction on the subject they also make arguments that can appeal to the conscience of non-Christians. The goal is certainly to legislate morality (just as the pro-abortion lobby attempts). However, it is the attempt to include the unborn in the category of those to whom the most basic right to life applies (namely, human beings). It is not a distinctively Christian view that the unborn are human beings (many pro-abortionists even agree, but rank the mother’s choice and happiness higher). Nor is it a distinctively Christian view that human beings shouldn’t be murdered—regardless of the parents’ economic or psychic well-being.
I think that the same can be said here as well. Marriage is not grounded in the gospel, but in creation. Special revelation corrects our twisted interpretations and gives us a better map, but general revelation gives sufficient evidence at least for minimal arguments from antiquity. Knowledgeable people will disagree about the strength of those arguments, since, for example, Greek elites often had teen-age boys entertain them on the side—with the approval or at least the awareness of their wives. Yes, others reply, but that was part of the downfall of the Greek civilization. In every case, it will be a debatable point—not to say that it isn’t worth arguing, but in the light especially of recent studies, it probably will not change a lot of minds.
Third, in my own wrestling with the political debate, love of neighbor looms large. Some on the right may offer arguments that reflect more the same demand for special rights as those on the left of the issue. The legal aspects of that are beyond my pay-grade—and they are important. Others may treat this issue as irrelevant: “Look, it doesn’t affect me. I just don’t want to live next door to some creepy home like that.” However, in terms of specifically Christian witness, love of neighbor (as God’s image-bearers) should be front-and-center. We have to care about our non-Christian neighbors (gay or straight) because God cares and calls us to contribute to the common good.
The challenge there is that two Christians who hold the same beliefs about marriage as Christians may appeal to neighbor-love to support or to oppose legalization of same-sex marriage.
On one hand, it may be said that if we can no longer say that “Judeo-Christian” ethics are part of our shared worldview as a republic, then the ban seems arbitrary. Why isn’t there a campaign being waged to ban providing legal benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples? Or to make divorce more difficult? It just seems more symbolic than anything else: it looks like our last-gasp effort to enforce our own private morality on the public. On the other hand, we might argue that every civilization at its height, regardless of religion, has not only privileged marriage of one man and one woman but has outlawed alternative arrangements. Same-sex marriage means adoption, which subjects other human beings to a parental relationship that they did not choose for themselves. Are we loving our LGBT neighbors—or their adopted children—or the wider society of neighbors by accommodating a move that will further destroy the fabric of society?
I take the second view, but I recognize the former as wrestling as much as I’m trying to with the neighbor-love question. Legal benefits (“partnerships”) at least allowed a distinction between a contractual relationship and the covenant of marriage. However, the only improvement that “marriage” brings is social approval—treating homosexaul and heterosexual unions as equal. Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security. However, the “marriage card” is the demand for something that simply cannot consist in a same-sex relationship. Human love is defined not by a feeling, shared history, or animal attraction, but by something objective, something that measures us—namely, God’s moral law. To affirm this while concluding that it’s good for Christians but not for the rest of us seems to me to conclude that this law is not natural and universal, rooted in creation, and/or that we only love our Christian neighbors.
At the end of the day, what tips the scales toward the second view is that I can’t see how neighbor-love can be severed from love of God, which is after all the most basic command of all. Even if they do not acknowledge “nature and nature’s God”—or anything above their own sovereign freedom to choose—reality nevertheless stands unmovable. Like the law of gravity, the law of marriage (of one man and one woman) remains to the end of time—not just for Christians, but for all people everywhere.
Thanks! And sorry about the misunderstanding again. ^^;
I could not agree more. There is no worse prescription for the rapid destruction of Western civilization than the decline of the gold marriage standard.
I did my master's thesis in the mid-90s on the SCOTUS's enthusiastic dismantling of the institution of marriage since the 60s. It was astonishing to read what passed for "reasoning" in the decisions that resulted from the constant legal assaults on marriage and family by feminists, Marxists and the birth control and abortion lobbies.
It is ironic that I went into the process as a default liberal fully expecting to agree with the Court and feel smug about the "progress" towards fewer restrictions and more "freedom." Instead, I became a "born again conservative" from reading in those judicial power spews just how ludicrous human meddling in God's design can be.
The Apostolic, pre-Luther understanding is that they are means not just of absolution, but also salvation and sanctification.
marriage was instituted before sin entered the picture
Marriage prevents sin, as St. Paul explains, in that it sanctifies an act which would otherwise be sinful outside of it.
He gave our first parents everything they needed in order to avoid sin, including marriage.
Okay, sanctification and salvation too. They’re all wrapped up in a neat little package called ‘grace.’ Because they all go together. *Shrugs*
Dr. Horton's post and my response on the Christian Observer message board for the United Reformed Churches in North America are here:
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/co-urc/message/25457
Additional discussions of this issue and the case of pro-gay blogger Misty Irons (PCA member and wife of a former OPC minister) can be found at these locations on the Christian Observer discussion groups for the United Reformed Churches, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Warfield List, and the Puritan Board:
Misty Irons responds to Presbyterians-OPC at Gay Christian Network:
CO-URC: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/co-urc/message/25368
Presbyterians-OPC: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/presbyterians-opc/message/44926
Westminster-West prof “could affirm domestic partnerships” for homosexuals:
CO-URC: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/co-urc/message/25435
Presbyterians-OPC: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/presbyterians-opc/message/44942
Warfield Group: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/36040
Puritan Board: www.puritanboard.com/f54/westminster-west-prof-could-affirm-domestic-partnerships-homosexuals-75516/
“Old Reformed” views and “Escondido 2K” views of politics
CO-URC: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/co-urc/message/25367
Presbyterians-OPC: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/presbyterians-opc/message/44925
Warfield Group: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/36000
Puritan Board: www.puritanboard.com/f54/old-reformed-views-escondido-2k-views-politics-75448/
For those who don't know, Elder Mark Vander Pol is the clerk of consistory of Dr. Horton's local church, a member congregation of the United Reformed Churches, and he has been forwarding correspondence between Dr. Horton and the United Reformed discussion group. He is also the webmaster of the White Horse Inn and stated clerk of Classis Southwest United States of the URC.
Dr. Horton is a brother in the Lord and an ordained minister of a confessionally Reformed church. We need to remember that, and treat him accordingly, which certainly includes listening to what he has to say. It is possible to be right on the Gospel and wrong on politics, and I think that's what's going on here.
Regards,
DTM
_____
Response from Dr. Horton:
Dear Darrell,
Thanks for your note—and for your remarks defending my “overall” orthodoxy.
I don't regret anything I said, interpreted in the context in which I said it. The Free Republic simply misinterpreted my point and extrapolated, without the slightest foundation, that I would be willing to officiate at a same-sex union. How ridiculous! When I clearly and repeatedly argued against homosexual practice of any kind, much less a union!
Being open to affirming a civil arrangement that allows partners inheritance, insurance, and other economic benefits, is NOT being open to same-sex relationships!!! My point was to say that the gay lobby is not really interested in equal rights, but in equal affirmation of gay and heterosexual marriage. So Christians should NOT treat the marriage debate as if it were equivalent to civil rights. Some Christians do argue that we should allow a pagan state to honor “life commitments” regardless of marriage, but to argue that this should be called MARRIAGE is ultimately not a question of civil rights but of the meaning of marriage itself.
I cannot help the fact that some have apparently overlooked the distinction I've made—and the fact that it's part of an argument AGAINST gay marriage. I can only hope that people would not spread false impressions based on where they think it will lead rather than what I actually argued.
In Christ,
Mike Horton
(Forwarded by Mark Vander Pol/Elder, Christ URC, Santee, CA)
Thank you, Elder Vander Pol, for passing on this response by Dr. Horton.
Dr. Horton, I'm listening carefully to you when you say that until my comments, nobody had expressed similar concerns, and on the contrary, some people had said you were being overly negative toward homosexuality.
I'm also listening carefully to Dr. Gerhard Visscher, head of the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary, who objected to the way I addressed you in my initial post. I'm going to try to write this post with the tone, length, and attention to detail that I would write if it were being submitted for publication in a Christian magazine.
(For those people who will remind me that the internet likes short snappy responses — sorry, this isn't a Twitter feed. This is a serious discussion about serious issues, and we're Calvinists who value serious discussion of theology. Let the broad evangelicals go have their short discussions; we're Reformed, and we write books on things about which broad evangelicals write paragraphs because we care about getting to the meat of what the Bible says. Furthermore, Dr. Horton is a respected theologian of the top ranks and deserves to be treated as such.)
Dr. Horton, I'm glad that you wrote that “being open to affirming a civil arrangement that allows partners inheritance, insurance, and other economic benefits, is NOT being open to same-sex relationships.” It clarifies that you continue to believe same-sex relationships are sinful, which was never something I doubted.
Unfortunately, it also indicates that I did understand you correctly that you are “open to affirming a civil arrangement that allows partners inheritance, insurance, and other economic benefits.” I had hoped I misunderstood you or that you had written something without due caution. It appears on that point that I understood you correctly.
To see a respected Reformed leader say he could affirm civil domestic partnerships is a problem.
It is especially a problem in our current political context where they are being used as a half-way step toward full government recognition of homosexual marriage, or what in some ways is worse, privatization of marriage as a personal contract between people in which the state is not involved.
You're a very smart man, Dr. Horton, and you already know that inheritance benefits can be provided by wills. Insurance benefits are usually a private arrangement between an employee, employer, and insurance company, and government has no business regulating most aspects of private property. You didn't mention hospital visitation, which is often an emotional issue raised by homosexuals, but let's ask this — should a Roman Catholic or Baptist hospital be required to give hospital visitation rights to a “domestic partner” of a patient? I personally wouldn't advocate hospitals denying visitation to a domestic partner, but as long as you're concerned about the coercive power of the state, what are the implications of a formal “domestic partner” law for people who have conscientious objections to recognizing that domestic partnership?
There are many things which could be said to engage your position, but let me begin by saying that I sincerely believe that you are on the right side of the fight for orthodoxy. You have done tremendous good in the Reformed world.
I believe our differences on whether we could affirm domestic partnerships for homosexuals stem from a fundamental disagreement with you on your view of political engagement — in your words, that “Christians should not seek to promote distinctively Christian doctrines and practices through the properly coercive power of the state.” I believe all legislation reflects someone’s view of morality, that there is no neutrality in the civil realm, and that it is not Reformed for Christians to leave their faith outside when they enter the statehouse door or the voting booth. We're called to live 24-7 for Christ, not restrict our faith to what we do in church.
However, while that is an important issue, it is also a secondary issue. It is entirely possible to be right about the Gospel and wrong on politics.
Furthermore, from my own political background, I am very much aware of the need to get to 50 percent to win, and that means I want to find ways to agree with people when I can, and that includes trying to find a way to agree with you, Dr. Horton. On most things we will agree. This is an exception.
I believe it does Reformed people no good to divide into minuscule narrow camps of “true believers” who spend most of their time fighting over minor points with the people with whom they have the closest affinity. In the minds of some conservative Reformed people, that comment makes me suspect as someone who is not sufficiently “TR.” My response is that John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Knox, and the Puritans in England and New England would never have succeeded if they had not learned to build coalitions with those who shared common core values, even when they disagreed on important but secondary issues. We're not going to agree completely on this, but I do believe we're going to be in agreement on the need to oppose sectarian divisive infighting. Some battles are worth fighting, some are not, and still others need to be conducted as polite conversations between brothers, not full-tilt battles for blood.
With that preface said, Dr. Horton, let me move on to my main point — that it surprised me when you said that nobody had expressed concerns similar to mine until now.
To quote your words, “I've received criticism from evangelicals (and others) who thought I was too hard-line on the issue. So this one is a first. Until this one, I haven't seen any responses that see any of the dangers that Mr. Maurina raised here.”
I understand your point that your essay was intended to defend the importance of saying that marriage is only between one man and one woman, and that a homosexual marriage is not a marriage. I also understand that your essay would attract significant criticism from those who demand that government recognize same-sex marriages.
While it does not surprise me that your comments were criticized for being overly negative toward homosexuals — as you acknowledged in your original essay, those who advocate the gay agenda will keep pressing until they get what they see as full equality under the law — I do believe your comments cross an important line into places where most conservative Calvinists will strongly disagree with you.
I've received a number of emails either attacking you for having gone off the rails or asking me how the great Dr. Horton could possibly say such things. Obviously I have no inside insight into your mind, but I think what may be happening is that your view of political engagement is leading you to say things which are uncomfortably close to what political and theological liberals say.
That's not good, and a lot of people, not just me, don't react well when we see people saying they “could affirm domestic partnerships.” Many conservatives see that as a sign of weakness or willingness to compromise, and it is a major red flag given current cultural issues.
I realize you may not want to fight the culture wars, but the culture wars have now come to you in the form of this “homosexual marriage” and “homosexual civil union” debate.
Dr. Horton, I realize you don't live and work in the same world as most conservative Calvinists, who tend to live in some of the most conservative socioeconomic groups in North America.
First, you're in Southern California. That might as well be a different planet compared to the Bible Belt where I live and work, and is even more removed from the Dutch subcultures in which most churches of your denomination are rooted.
Here is just one example of how what you may consider to be common sense principles which are commonly assumed are not at all commonly shared in places where most Reformed people live.
Your essay includes, almost as an assumed fact, the statement that “we can no longer say that ‘Judeo-Christian’ ethics are part of our shared worldview as a republic,” and then asks whether, if that's true, we can validly be accused of being arbitrary in demanding that homosexual marriages be banned but not promoting efforts to “make divorce more difficult” or a “ban providing legal benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples.”
The lack of a shared Judeo-Christian worldview in America may be assumed in Southern California, but that sure isn't a given in a lot of the rest of the United States.
Also, Dr. Horton, with respect, there **ARE** people talking about things like “covenant marriage.” I wish there were more, and I think we can agree that the “easy believism” of too much of evangelical Christianity and lack of church discipline is not helping our case in the gay marriage fight. The divorce rates among evangelicals are a scandal and the gay marriage battles could very well be a punishment by God of the American church for our weakness on the issue of heterosexual marriage. On the other hand, if by “benefits” to unmarried couples you mean insurance benefits, which is what that term typically means in the context of homosexual partnerships, I grant that a private corporation or insurance company can do what it wants. Government has no business intruding in most matters of private property rights.
Second, much of your training has been in some rather rarefied circles of elite academia, and that creates a risk for you of being viewed by your liberal colleagues as so much of an ultra-conservative that you may inadvertently slip into some liberal views that don't get challenged by more conservative friends and acquaintances. It's very easy for conservatives in academia to say to themselves when criticized, “What do you mean, I'm a liberal? I'm one of the most conservative person I know outside my Westminster Seminary faculty, and I regularly get attacked as a right-winger by academic and evangelical colleagues.”
Dr. Horton, I saw that myself when attending Calvin and then dealing with the Christian Reformed fights. The temptation to compromise for acceptability is powerful, and a number of ministers and elders had to privately pull me aside asking why on earth I was conceding ground to the liberals on areas where Scripture and the confessions have direct teachings or clear implications. “Go along to get along” gets taught to children beginning with kindergarten by both precept and example, and it's not a good thing to learn. We're supposed to be testing everything and holding fast to the truth, not trying to be liked.
I have seen far too many conservative evangelicals who do not have a confessional foundation fall into moderately liberal positions precisely because they do not have a confessional foundation, while still reassuring themselves that they are staunch conservatives because most people around them are much more liberal.
When “conservative” is seen as a relative term rather than adherence to the plain text of a written confession, the slippery slope can quickly become very steep.
You already know that from your study of history. You're a confessionalist and have fought for confessional integrity.
Dr. Horton, I've said repeatedly that I believe your core orthodoxy is sound, even though you've gone in some strange directions with this essay. I urge you to carefully rethink whether it was either prudent or necessary for you to say you “could affirm domestic partnerships” for homosexuals. In an area like homosexuality which the authors of the confessions never had a reason to address, I think the biblical principles are so clear that there can be no compromise by Christians.
The discussion of domestic partnerships is not happening in a vacuum. It is part and parcel of a homosexual agenda. To affirm domestic partnerships in the current context is to compromise — or at least to be seen as compromising — with the homosexual agenda.
I realize that Christians have to deal with the reality of the political systems in the nations where they live. The political actions of Christians in one nation may have to be different than those in another. Geneva was not Zurich, Scotland was not England, the Huguenot regions of France were not the Netherlands, and the Calvinists living under Turkish rule in Hungary had a different set of political problems altogether.
Maybe in a radically secular country I could imagine a Christian politician tolerating homosexual domestic partnerships. In the late 1800s, I can't imagine that any American conservative Christian would have ever imagined we'd have to choose between voting for a Mormon presidential candidate or a man who left a liberation theology church — Americans were actively using Christian values to prosecute Mormons on polygamy charges and refused to let Utah into the United States unless it outlawed polygamy. We're now forced to decide between the lesser of two evils, both of which evils would have been inconceivable to our forefathers.
Politics makes strange bedfellows, and if something isn't done quickly to fix what's wrong with America, we're going to be facing more and more hard decisions, of which homosexual domestic partnerships will not be the worst.
But what you said was not that you could tolerate homosexual domestic partnerships, but that you “could affirm” them. That raises a red flag with me, and with many others, I believe.
We don't live in France with a radically secular foundation for their Republic. We live in the United States, a nation with a Judeo-Christian foundation, and also a nation where outside the radical extremes of the West and East coasts, most of America still thinks of itself as a Christian nation.
Dr. Horton, please seriously reconsider whether, in a nation where we can still appeal to Judeo-Christian values that are shared by most Americans, there is any good reason to affirm domestic partnerships. I believe all that does is run the risk of having those who support the homosexual agenda cite your views and then say, “See, even Dr. Horton, a well-known conservative, thinks domestic partnerships could be okay.”
That's not someplace I'd want to go.
Regards,
Darrell Todd Maurina
I'm petty sure marriage must have broken down at other periods in the past, e.g. during captivity/slavery, during war when most able-bodied men were separated from their wives and families, and in the aftermath when they came home maimed, sick and broken or ddn't come home at all; and in times of plague. But in all those instances, the breakdown of the family was forced on people; they knew that they had been forced into a pit, and that it was the end for them.
This --- now ---seems to be the first time that it's all broken down in times of prosperity, and by (so to speak) "choice."
It's all so strange. Friedrich Engels, anti-marriage theorist, less than 150 years ago still saw both heterosexuality and monogamy as "natural" and desirable; he thought these traits needed only liberation from private property to truly flourish. Even 100 years ago, communists and socialists expressed repugnance for sexual perversion, and saw homosexual practices as, at best, twisted traits of a twisted capitalist society: Red Emma Goldman was one of the very very few to venture into a pro-homosexuality position, foe which she was denounced by the Left!
Now the flippin Girl Scouts --- and so-called "chuches" ---are mainstreaming doctrines more radical than those of Engels and Goldman.
Clearly Mr. Horton should have realized that the use of the term "affirm" implies a positive acceptance to the point of agreeing with the whole concept of homosexual domestic partnerships. But everyone knows (or should know) that positive acceptance of domestic partnerships was the first step towards the current insistence that Americans accept with open arms the idea that a homosexual marriage is nothing different from a heterosexual marriage and that the rights that they now want is to force churches to accept homosexual employees and pastors and to force churches and individuals to give their children up to homosexual couples for adoption as if there is no distinction between a family with a father and mother and a family with either two mothers or two fathers.
We didn't misinterpret what he said. If he actually meant to say that he believes that homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children with whom they are not directly blood related or that homosexuality is a sexual perversion and a grievous sin such that it should be discouraged at all levels including the church and society at large, then he should say so. He should AFFIRM the traditional view of homosexuality that it is a sexual perversion and is not to be viewed in any context as NORMAL behavior.
He was obviously referring to me when he said it was ridiculous that we should read between the lines to suggest that he might be willing to officiate at a domestic partnership ceremony, but these days, with all the formerly Reformed Churches slipping into apostasy over the abortion and homosexual issues, we cannot assume that Michael Horton is not capable of following that road into error. We are all sinners saved by grace and there but for the grace of God we would all fall into error.
Let us know if Mr. Horton answers your points. I'd like to see him own up to the error in his use of the term "affirm". I'd like to think that he would be humble enough to admit that the use of that word in that context was regrettable. It seems, however that up to this point he does not regret using that language. That is regrettable.
More explicitly, Darrell, thank you for your attention to the 'political' aspect of this conversation that you point to, because I believe there is cause for concern.
Dr. Horton is quite explicit in saying, "My point was to say that the gay lobby is not really interested in equal rights, but in equal affirmation of gay and heterosexual marriage." He also firmly states, "Being open to affirming a civil arrangement that allows partners inheritance, insurance, and other economic benefits, is NOT being open to same-sex relationships!!!"
Because I have been heavily involved in conservative politics for decades, I know that the phrase "affirming a civil arrangement" can easily become a tacit stamp of approval to help establish state and federal laws that allows "civil" marriage for homosexuals.
What needs to be made very clear is that Dr. Horton's reference to a 'civil arrangement' (for inheritance purposes) is in no way supportive of local, state or federal laws that establish homosexual marriage or any other type of domestic union.
Lastly - I wanted to point out that there are numerous homosexual churches that are conducting gay marriages frequently - all over Hollywood, North Hollywood and the surrounding Los Angeles area. They seek the approval of the public, as well as local, state and federal government - and most certainly from the leadership of any and all mainstream Christian churches.
May God richly bless you, and Dr. Horton - we live in what the Chinese curse refers to as 'interesting times.'
Indeed, without a discussion on what exactly a sacrament is, that should be a firm and common positions of all Christians.
Thank you.
The source of your astonishment is in the notion that the Left wing project is rooted in reason. It is not: it is a sustained over centuries act of vandalism when all methods would do. There is nothing to be gained by arguing with someone who wishes to destroy you.
My astonishment was not with the arguments of the left: it was with the contortions of the the Supreme Court justices to appease them.
But again, why do you think that the acts of the Supreme Court are driven by reason? They merely provide an intellectual veneer to the decisions drawn on their sociopolitical preferences.
It must be nice to be as intellectually superior as you are. You can see into the past with today’s knowledge and rearrange all the knowledge available at that time to meet today’s standards. Nice trick!
I'm more convinced than ever, DM, that Horton poorly wrote what he was trying to say. He seemed to be a bit more clear in his response to you than in his article.
I agree with you that "affirm" is the exact wrong word to use if you actually mean "I can follow the logic of".
I renew my call for Horton to be chastised for poor writing skills, and that because what he wrote didn't convey what he meant.
And sadly, what he wrote could be taken a number of different ways, so we'll never be certain what he meant, and especially if he was actually putting out a "civil union" trial balloon.
Although the reformed do write books when the rest of us struggle with mere paragraphs, the reformed also, when they slide away, slide into some of the "damndest" places you ever could imagine.
ping to #74
Right, obviously there are many Christians who don’t think it is a sacrament but hold the institution as a matter of faith in some regard. The problem, in my opinion, is with those who have been conditioned that marriage comes from and is defined by the state. Statists like that because it is a good way to control the culture, homosexualists like it because it is a good way to punish those who don’t buy into their nonsense.
Freegards
"I cannot help the fact that some have apparently overlooked the distinction I've made—and the fact that it's part of an argument AGAINST gay marriage. I can only hope that people would not spread false impressions based on where they think it will lead rather than what I actually argued."
All wise people are humble because they can truly understand how much they don’t know.
Ayn Rand embraced Natural Law Theory (with no God) and hated the irrational philosophy of the German Postmodernists —which swept away Natural Law Theory and the Age of Reason (the Modern Age which Founded the US). John Locke was the Father of Classical Liberalism and his philosophy was based on Natural Law Theory (Higher Power in the Rule of Law).
In the 1800’s—Godless philosophies (this is John Austin, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Jeremy Bentham, etc.) became the norm in Western Civilization-—first in Europe and then it swept into America with all the intellectuals fleeing the wars in Europe and taking over the universities—publishing companies and textbooks and Foundations. They literally are killing “Right Reason According to Nature”=Just Law-—they twist the meaning of words to mean NOTHING-—they are Deconstructing Western Civilization to “Kill God”—because the only thing all these people had in common was a vile hatred for Christianity (since Voltaire).
This irrational thinking-—for materialism does take “faith” but they “lie” about “knowing”. Religious people admit that ‘Faith” is needed—but Atheists never do when their “thinking” actually takes more “faith” than the Judeo-Christian Theology.
When you have no Standards-— ( we did for hundreds of years-—GOD) —for Right and Wrong (Decalogue), then you can have valid argument that you can Deduce from these “Truths”. It uses logic when you study nature and learn the patterns in human nature and the world-—get Common Sense. St. Thomas Aquinas in the 1200’s infused Catholic Theology into Natural Law Theory which was the basis of Cicero’s thinking (Just Law came from him).
There is no arguing with people who have no moral standards except what they “feel” is “good”. They use emotions to decide “truth” instead of the intellect. They also have Darwinism as their religion, so they BELIEVE that humans evolve-—and as such, they can “progress” or be perfected.
Now, ALL of history says that there can be NO perfection of man-—in fact, God is the only thing which keeps man from becoming, so inhuman like Stalin and Hitler and Mao. Marxists want utopia-—without a God. It is not possible—it is IRRATIONAL—in fact, it has proven Satanic and evil.
All geniuses in the past stated it is necessary to read all the Classics and philosophy of Western Civ to become Wise. You can NEVER know everything-—you need to continue LEARNING until you die FROM THE BEST MINDS. It is the purpose of life-—to be Wise (and then you will be happy). You need to get OUT of Plato’s Cave. Most people NEVER do. They “think” they are seeing “reality” but they don’t even come close to understanding the Truth of the world and what is REALLY going on.
(The Matrix illustrated Plato’s Cave that the masses live in....a fantasy-—they “feel” what is good==they can’t “think” because they know nothing worth knowing. They don’t study the Classics and philosophy to understand where all their ideas came from—and every one of your ideas have an origin. Best to find it.
I believe P-Marlowe hit the nail on the head with his comments that while Dr. Mike Horton “is a giant in theological circles, he is clearly a neophyte in the culture wars.”
I think some Freepers may now be seeing why for several years I've been getting requests from frustrated elders in the Reformed world to pick up my pen and challenge the Two Kingdoms theology, especially its more radical forms. There are very few people with significant experience in the media or in politics who have enough theological training to challenge men like Dr. Horton, Dr. Daryl Hart, Dr. David Van Drunen, Dr. R. Scott Clark, and others.
I don't think I'm adequate to the task. Dr. Horton would blow me away in virtually any debate on theology. My academic and writing abilities aren't anywhere close to those of Dr. Horton and I know that. I regret the need to write what I wrote; somebody else should be doing this work, not me.
However, some things simply cannot be allowed to go unchallenged, and enough Reformed people have been bugging me into publicly challenging the “Two Kingdoms” theologians that I finally decided I need to do so since very few other conservative Reformed people are doing it.
We all specialize. Nobody can be equally good in everything, and Horton has been pretty clear over the years in his opposition to Christians being, in his view, sidetracked into a focus on politics rather than preaching the Gospel. He's got a valid point — too many churches have placed their energies into something that is primarily the task of Christian laymen, not the institutional church — but we saw with this essay the sad result of a Christian citizen wading into the political arena when he wasn't prepared to do so. At the very least, his words could be seriously misinterpreted.
I have great respect for Dr. Horton in his ecclesiastical battles against broad evangelicalism which often claims to be anti-intellectual, anti-creedal, anti-historical, and anti-authoritarian, but out of ignorance has adopted positions which are outright Pelagianism. Years ago, Dr. Horton read a Roman Catholic statement of faith at a certain evangelical school without explaining where the statement came from, asked if they could affirm the statement, and was told that the Roman Catholic statement was “too Calvinist.”
Dr. Horton probably wouldn't like my use of his story, but I've used his narrative as an example of why evangelical Protestants who know their Bibles should cooperate with traditional Roman Catholics. At least committed Catholics know their history and their creeds; too many evangelicals barely know anything about the Bibles whose inerrancy they claim to affirm, focusing on feelings rather than sound teaching. We have a major problem with teaching and discipleship in the evangelical church world, and to his credit, Dr. Horton's focus has been on changing that.
Much of his ministry over the years has avoided politics or deliberately sought to downplay a distinctively Christian view of politics, arguing instead for a “natural law” approach to citizenship in the secular sphere. I have major problems with that.
Now that he's veered into politics... well... his essay didn't make much more sense than something from my pen would make on the subject of a Christian view of sports. I haven't studied the issues in adequate detail, I don't have actual experience in the field, and anything written by me on sports would quickly show I don't know what I'm talking about.
For conservative Reformed people reading this — remember that reformation and revival both require active involvement of laymen. Preachers have their jobs and we have ours.
Dr. Horton's job as a seminary professor is fighting aberrant theology, not political engagement. Let's do something to deal with this “Two Kingdoms” theology, compliment Dr. Horton on the good work he's done in the church, and politely but firmly explain to him and his colleagues that if they really believe what they say about keeping the institutional church out of politics, they need to stay quiet and let us laymen do our job of being Christian citizens fighting evil in the secular world.
I'm not necessarily a firm supporter of the concept that the institutional church has no role in politics — “cases extraordinary” do exist, according to the Westminster Confession, and I believe abortion and homosexual marriage are examples. By his own stated principles, however, Dr. Horton ought to focus on getting rid of advocates of homosexual marriage inside the church like Misty Irons (PCA member and wife of a PCA elder and former OPC minister) while letting us laymen fight political battles in the civil realm.
It gives me no pleasure to criticize Dr. Horton. First and most importantly, I'm not the right person to do so. For a hundred different reasons, I'm simply not qualified. Second, it's always hard to throw stones at someone who's done lots of wonderful work.
It has to be done, however, and I hope enough Reformed people contact Westminster-West to make it clear to Dr. Horton and the seminary administration that this is not a minor issue. Dr. Horton is a reasonable man and I believe he can be persuaded to at least back off from his position even if he doesn't change it. That was a poorly worded essay and as an academic I believe he can affirm the need to use words better than he did.
Marriage is understood as a union between a man and woman is from Natural Law Theory-—which evolved in Western Civ from before Sophocles and was basically totally formed by the time of Cicero—as we understood it in Locke’s time.
Common Sense comes from the Laws of Nature. Understanding HOW nature works—you’re able to predict things. It is why the West was so superior to other cultures-—we devised Common Sense (Logic) and thus, Wisdom.
Leftists have to destroy Logic-—Right Reason according to Nature. By promoting irrational concepts like homosexual “marriage” it actually destroys logic and reason-—especially in the foundation of children which will mean they will never be rational-—with a faulty foundation of Truth. Pushing socialism is also irrational-—because it is pushing theft—A Vice. Justice NEVER can push Vice by Law.
It is true that St. Thomas Aquinas inserted Natural Law into Catholic Theology around 1245-—he knew Faith and Reason shouldn’t conflict-—since Nature was created by God. One should be able to rationalize all material aspects of life through logic since God made man “Rational”—Faith” always exists in man-—no matter what belief system.....it is needed for the all supernatural “thinking”. As D’Souza wrote in his book, What’s so great about Christianity?—it is because it is the most reasoned religion in the history of man.
Natural Law theory posits that all things in nature have a teleological end-—and humans-—it is to procreate and raise the next generation. All based on logic and history —and the Romans had access to numerous cultures and they found Universal Truths in all cultures-—one—marriage/uniting of men and women to have children. Justice was enshrined also-—which is a Virtue (Nicomachean Ethics) and that for “Just Law” you have to promote Virtue.
All Virtue was deduced by observing Nature (Natural Laws).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.