NOTE: The content below expresses the views of the individual named as the author and does not necessarily reflect the position of the WRF as a whole.
WRF Associate International Director Sam Logan Offers "Some Reflections on the Recent Decision of the U. S. Supreme Court"
Everyone around the world seems to know what the U.S. Supreme Court decided about gay marriage on June 25, 2015.
Many are outraged and many are thrilled.
At the request of the WRF International Director, Dr. Flip Buys, I am sharing a few thoughts about this matter.
I recognize that these “few thoughts” are much lengthier than a regular blog. But I believe that the subject warrants greater attention and, besides, no one is going to be forced to read any of this blog!
I start with an affirmation of a previous blog on this subject by Clair Davis. As Clair said, the SCOTUS decision is a wake-up call which reminds us that, according to Romans 8, “ALL things work together for good for this who are called according to His promise.”
The recent barbaric events at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, provide one clear example of how the Lord may accomplish this. I have never in my life seen such an outpouring of respect in both the Christian and the secular press for the actions of professed Christians as has been evidenced in response to the Christian grace of those who lost loved ones in the shooting there on June 17. For an example of the former. see Rick Perrin’s superb blog on this subject entitled “Fingerprints of God in Charleston” - http://wrfnet.org/articles/2015/06/wrf-board-chairman-rick-perrin-describes-fingerprints-god-charleston#.VZMu8cvbIdU For examples of the latter, see The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/06/19/us/ap-us-charleston-shooting.html?_r=0) and USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/06/23/charleston-families-forgive-dylann-roof-columns/29113573/ ).
The USA Today article begins this way (the emphases in all three of the following quotations have been added):
When Christians are in the news, it's usually because they have done something wrong — they've gotten on the wrong side of a culture war or cheated on their wife, or worse. What the world rarely gets to see is the powerful grace that flows from a deep faith predicated on the belief that we are all sinners in need of forgiveness.
The family members of those slain at Charleston's Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church bore witness to this central tenet of Christianity last week as the nation gasped in awe. "I forgive you," one after another told the stone-faced and unrepentant alleged killer, Dylann Roof, at his bond hearing.
Tweeting about the incredible scene, National Review writer Charles C. W. Cooke noted, "I am a non-Christian, and I must say: This is a remarkable advertisement for Christianity." Thankfully, the circumstances requiring forgiveness don't always involve the murder of a loved one. But sometimes they do.
OF COURSE, the grace of those Charleston Christians does not make the sin of Dylann Roof any less heinous. But our God is so great that He can take even something as bad as the murder of nine Christians in their church and make it “work together for good to those who love Him."
Surely He can do that with the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court.
How will He do this?
That’s, of course, up to Him. But another response to the SCOTUS decision suggests a path for those Christians who want that to happen through them. ECO is a recently formed movement of evangelical Presbyterians in the USA. Here is the address of their website - http://eco-pres.org/ After describing why they oppose the SCOTUS decision, they deal with the matter of our response. Here is what they say:
How do we respond now? I think the answer to this question is easy. Preach and live the gospel! Whenever the church finds itself at odds with culture, we have the opportunity to thrive in new ways as we live out the gospel in a conflicted context. Let us be people who live the model of Jesus by being welcoming and transforming for all people, in all aspects of our lives. Each of us has places in our lives that need to come under the Lordship of Jesus and the transforming power of the Spirit. Can we be people that welcome and love one another wherever we are, and yet love one another enough to work for mutual transformation? I think we can, and I think that as we do, the gospel will flourish! Let's pray together to that end.
As with Emanuel Church, we can, and indeed we must, find effective ways of pointing the world to Jesus in the midst of a situation what we believe is bad. In the words of I John 4:
We love because he first loved us. Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.
Each one of us who believes that the SCOTUS decision about gay marriage was wrong must find ways of communicating the grace and love of Christ to those with whom we disagree on this subject, whether they be themselves a part of the LGBT community or a part of the “straight” community. To do anything less than this is to deny the Christ whom we claim to love and serve. He “incarnated” His love for us; we must do the same for others.
This is one of the senses of an excellent piece by David Brooks in the June 30, 2015, edition of the New York Times. See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/opinion/david-brooks-the-next-culture-war.html?_r=0 and note especially the several paragraphs which begin with this sentence – “We live in a society plagued by formlessness and radical flux, in which bonds, social structures and commitments are strained and frayed.” Brooks is, in this article, indirectly but powerfully commending to us both the testimony of Emanuel Church and the more specific advice contained in the ECO statement.
Showing gracious love does NOT mean that we abandon our beliefs about what Scripture teaches and I turn now to address those issues with specific reference to the matter of gay marriage. But what I have said above is, in my judgment, far-and-away the most important thing I can say.
First, it must be admitted that there are strong disagreements among committed Christians about all kinds of matters relating to sex. And, in some cases, even Christian charity requires us to recognize variables in the way in which we apply biblical precepts. However, some things are NOT variables and, as I read Scripture, these are the NONvariables:
1) All sexual activity outside a monogamous life-long heterosexual marriage relationship is sinful and this includes (but certainly is not limited to) homosexual sexual activity. Such Scriptural passages as Romans 1: 18 – 32 make this clear. I further believe that the Romans 1 passage builds upon numerous other such passages in both the Old and New Testaments and that the best discussion of this subject is still Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexuality. Yes, I have read numerous treatments of this difficult subject which seek to refute the traditional reading of Scripture on the subject of homosexuality but I simply do not find any of those treatments convincing.
2) Any activity proscribed by Scripture is sinful. I believe that the linkage of homosexual activity in Romans 1 with such other activities as covetousness, deceit, and gossip makes this clear. I further believe that one of the best explications of how the sin of homosexual behavior must be understood in the context of all other sin is Tim Keller’s YouTube interview which is posted at this location - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTwugmG4hoA . Dr. Keller expands on these thoughts in an excellent article which may be found here - http://www.redeemer.com/redeemer-report/article/the_bible_and_same_sex_relationships_a_review_article
3) Even the smallest single sin causes the committer of that sin to be deserving of the judgment of God. I believe that Romans 3:23 combined with Romans 6:23 makes this clear. I further believe that Jonathan Edwards’s explication of why even one sin OF OMISSION warrants God’s judgment remains the best discussion of this matter – see his Treatise on Original Sin, Part I, Chapter I, Section 3.
4) The most fundamental desire of any Christian’s heart must be that God receive the honor and glory and worship which He deserves. I believe that Matthew 6:33 combined with I Corinthians 10:31 make this clear. I further believe that Edwards’s Treatise Concerning Religious Affections (the most important work ever written by a human being!) provides the best defense of this biblical idea.
The above are, in my judgment, NOT variables. They have historically been affirmed by the Christian church and, in just the past five years, they have been re-affirmed by a wide variety of global Christian groups. The following are just three examples of this reaffirmation:
1. The Cape Town Commitment of the Lausanne Movement
http://www.lausanne.org/en/documents/ctcommitment.html See especially section II e. 2.
2. The Statement of Faith of the World Reformed Fellowship
http://www.wrfnet.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=20&name=DLFE-46.pdf See especially section XI. 4
3. The Church of England Evangelical Council Statement on Marriage
Nevertheless, many others – indeed, many other evangelical Christians – may disagree with the above statements and with my claim that the above four items are not variables. And it is, in my judgment, another NONvariable that I must not treat such individuals as though they are non-Christians just because they disagree with me on what is or is not a variable. This is where the “gracious love” mentioned above must begin to find expression.
But there may be variables in the discussion of gay marriage. [Please do note the use of the term “may be.” I amsimply suggesting that both those who favor and those who oppose gay marriage might want to take account of these matters.]
Here are a few of those possible variables, stated in the form of questions ( because I really do have QUESTIONS about these matters):
1) On what kinds of issues is it appropriate for a civil government to seek to regulate the actions of responsible, “consenting” adults? Of course, this is a HUGE field which has produced innumerable outstanding treatises. See, for example, this interesting discussion of St. Augustine and limited government - http://www.nhinet.org/raeder16-2.pdf. Here are some POSSIBLE areas for consideration (yes, I really do love the word “possible!”):
a. The use of certain drugs. The entire prescription system in most countries is based on the notion that even mature and responsible adults cannot be allowed to determine what drugs are best for them – whether those drugs be recreational or prescription. Interestingly, the rules for these matters differ from country to country and sometimes from state to state within a given country but I know of no country where there is no regulation of any kind.
b. The right to bear arms. Again, differences are HUGE from country to country and even from state to state. But whether countries are lenient or restrictive with respect to firearms, most countries do regulate what adults may and may not do with firearms.
c. The need to have automobile insurance in order to be allowed to drive. Not so much difference among nations here, although there are different ages at which one may even be considered for a driver’s license. Does this mean that 15-year-olds in one area really are more coordinated and responsible than they are in another area? Probably not, but it is clear that civil governments all over the world have assumed the authority to regulate which adults can drive.
d. The need to have (or to purchase) health insurance. This is another topic on which SCOTUS recently handed down a controversial decision but some other “Western” countries see it as a “no brainer.” So who is it who has “the brains”? Those societies which require more or those societies which require less? And what does a civil government have the authority to require in this (or any other) regard?
e. Marriage. This is the one I am supposed to be discussing so I will treat it in more depth by asking a series of questions about the government and marriage.
2) What has civil government often linked with marriage (especially in the U.S.) and is it necessary for such linkage to be maintained?
a. The tax benefits of marriage. I can think of no place in Scripture where it is explicitly commanded that married couples get tax breaks which unmarried couples do not get. Could evangelical Christians who agree on the NON-variables above also agree that granting to ANY unmarried couples the same tax breaks that married heterosexual couples receive would NOT violate explicit Scriptural teaching? Granted that some would say that the tax benefits provided to heterosexual married couples are a way of “affirming” traditional marriage. However, given that there are so many evangelical heterosexual married couples in other parts of the world that do not benefit from such breaks, is it necessary that we maintain this linkage?
b. The other financial benefits of marriage. I can think of no place in Scripture where it is explicitly commanded that each partner in a heterosexual marriage must have the kinds of financial “ownership of assets” rights that are commonly granted to partners in such a marriage. Could evangelical Christians who agree on the NON-variables above also agree that granting to ANY unmarried couples the same overall financial benefits that married heterosexual couples receive would NOT violate explicit Scriptural teaching? Granted that some would say that the other financial benefits provided to heterosexual married couples are a way of “affirming” traditional marriage. However, given that there are so many evangelical heterosexual married couples in other parts of the world that do not benefit from such benefits, is it necessary that we maintain this linkage?
c. The “care” benefits of marriage. I can think of no place in Scripture where it is explicitly commanded that only heterosexual married couples can make “end of life” decisions for one another. Could evangelical Christians who agree on the NON-variables above also agree that granting to ANY unmarried couples the same “end of life” authority that married heterosexual couples receive would NOT violate explicit Scriptural teaching? Granted that some would say that the care benefits provided to heterosexual married couples are a way of “affirming” traditional marriage. However, given that there are so many evangelical heterosexual married couples in other parts of the world that do not experience such benefits, is it necessary that we maintain this linkage?
d. Why did some of the original evangelical Christian settlers of North America distance the church completely from any involvement in marriage and are there any implication of this fact that may be relevant to our present discussions? Here is a quotation regarding those Christians who settled in Plymouth, Massachusetts: “The Pilgrims considered marriage a civil affair, not to be handled by the church ministers, but instead by civil magistrates.” [ http://www.newnorth.net/~johhnson/geneology/beliefs.html ]. No one that I know of has ever claimed that those women and men who founded “Plimoth Plantation” in Massachusetts were theological liberals. Maybe they had it right, after all. But exactly what would THAT mean for the subject of gay marriage? And the matter gets even more convoluted when we realize that the regulations of most local marriage bureaus stipulate that it is THE STATE which decides which CHURCH officials may conduct recognizable marriage services. Talk about a mixed up mess!!
3. In what ways have civil governments already sought to regulate marriage (between consenting adults)?
a. General marriage license laws. These can be overwhelming and confusing. I live in Pennsylvania and, if I want to know how my intended marriage may be regulated, I am first confronted by this statement: “Requirements may vary as each marriage license bureau in Pennsylvania could have their own requirements.” [Emphasis added, see http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/pennsylvania/ ] Immediately after this statement is a list of the SIXTY-SEVEN (67!) different marriage bureaus in Pennsylvania. Obviously, civil regulation of the marriage of consenting adults is not a new thing and reading the differing requirements in these different jurisdictions in an exercise in bewilderment and befuddlement. But clearly (at least to me!),civil regulation of marriage between consenting adults is not a new thing.
b. Unity within the diversity. There is at least one area on which, even before the recent SCOTUS decision, all fifty states agreed and that is with respect to prohibiting marriage among MULTIPLE consenting adults – the area of bigamy/polygamy/polyandry/polyamory. And in most states, these forms of "marriage" are regarded as felonies. Of course, this raises a fascinating question since President Obama, at least recently, has supported gay marriage while one previous candidate for that job comes from a religious tradition which, for many years, supported polygamy. It is a legitimate question to ask how the supporters of gay marriage why they would not support the polygamypolygamy/polyandry/polyamory where the participants are consenting adults. Increasing the confusion are the laws of places like the United Kingdom and Australia which do not permit polygamous marriages in those countries but which do recognize such marriages if they have been performed in countries where they are allowed. And all kinds of folks are now raising these questions, including some famous (or infamous) polygamists – http://www.eonline.com/news/marc_malkin/sister_wives_stars_support_gay_marriage/315316
c. Of course, the case might be made that gay marriage should be allowed but that bigamy/polygamy/polyandry/polyamory should not. I am not sure HOW that case would be made and I have not yet seen anyone try to make it, but I suppose it could be done. In fact, what got me thinking along these lines was a recent PBS special on the subject of “Mormons in America.” Much was made in that documentary of the process by which the U.S. came to determine that marriage between consenting MULTIPLE adults was not to be permitted by the civil government. And no one seems, at that time (which was between 1852 and 1890), to have thought that such regulation would violate the civil rights of potential polygamists. What exactly has changed? And why do those who celebrate the recent SCOTUS decision regarding gay marriage not now protest vigorously about the violation of the rights of consenting adults who wish to take multiple partners in marriage?
And so, finally, what is my conclusion after considering both NONvariables and variables? Two things:
1. We should make some adaptations in the linkages between marriage and civil benefits which I listed above. There seems to me to be no good biblical reason to insist that all of these kinds of linkages be maintained. Removing some (not all, but some) of these linkages might help to persuade a future Supreme Court to allow different civil jurisdictions to set standards for marriage which would exclude any marriages (whether gay or polygamous) which were not between one man and one woman. Evangelicals who urge such adaptations might just find their actions characterized as “a remarkable advertisement for Christianity” by all kinds of people!
2. We should maintain at least a minimal level of civil regulations of marriage (though it would surely help to try to get more unity among our various civil jurisdictions). On what basis do I believe this? That is an eminently fair question and one which everyone who wishes that SCOTUS had agreed to allow states to prohibit legal recognition of gay marriage must be prepared to answer. Marriage in any country should have at least some basic legal ramifications, though probably not as many as is the case in the United States today. And, therefore, it seems to me that, in countries which are not officially religious (as is true of the United States), the authorities in that society should exercise a basic degree of control over the definition of marriage. But such control should not contravene the fundamental teachings of Scripture which, as I have stated above, seem to me to include an affirmation that, from the time that male and female were created, marriage and the family and procreation are related to the union of one man and one woman. For similar reasons, I support very careful and thorough civil restriction (and possibly even prohibition) of abortion and capital punishment (though these are yet other hugely difficult subjects). Of course, not all that the government permits is sinful. But in light of the fact that the government does restrict marriage already and in light of the fact that it does use that power to restrict something like polygamy (and polyamory and polyandry, etc.), its failure to prohibit gay marriage does, in my judgment, constitute a kind of official approval of gay marriage and I believe that is, at best, unfortunate.
Therefore, I must be counted among those who regret the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court and I will do what I can to try to get that decision reversed or at least modified (as is slowly happening with respect to the Court’s decision in Roe vs. Wade regarding abortion). But that is not the most important thing I should be concerned to do.
I do not necessarily believe that this Supreme Court decision by itself means the end of America or the end of the Christian church in America. America, like every other nation in the history of the world (including the biblical nation of Israel) has allowed some bad things and has done some bad things. It has also encouraged some good things and it has done some good things. But even if this does not mean the end of America, it certainly does, despite Justice Kennedy’s assurances to the contrary, increase the possibility that those evangelical Americans who disagree with the decision may face additional hardships because of that decision. I think that is quite possible, perhaps even likely. None of us likes hardships . . . I know I don’t. But Scripture has this to say to any who are or who become “elect exiles”:
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls. I Peter 1: 3 – 9.
For good reason, Jonathan Edwards chose this passage as the epigraph for his Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. The trials he faced were different from those we face but the promise is the same. We evangelicals may indeed “suffer grief in all kinds of trials” because of what the U.S. Supreme Court decided on June 25. But neither such trials “ nor death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” That is, of course, another passage from Romans 8, which is where this blog began.
The ECO statement quoted above captures well our most important task: “We [now] have the opportunity to thrive in new ways as we live out the gospel in a conflicted context.” May we, like Emanuel Church, so powerfully “incarnate” the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord that our words and our deeds will lead the watching world to marvel and to exclaim of us, "We may be non-Christians, but we must say: ‘These people are a remarkable advertisement for Christianity.’”