With Proposition 8 on the ballot in California, it is important to stop and think about the issue of marriage and family in general and how these institutions relate to the state. How should a Christian (or anyone) approach the issue of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage from a philosophical and political point of view? Is there a case to be made for traditional marriage apart from the Bible? Is this simply an issue that should be left to the individual?
Dr. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary California addresses these questions on his blog. Without addressing prop 8 specifically, Dr. Clark attempts to sketch a foundation for thinking about the relationship between marriage and the state from a Natural Law perspective, drawing from both Christian and Pagan thought.
Here is a rather lengthy and meaty paragraph to give you the gist of his argument:
One of the areas in which the
magistrate has a legitimate interest is the regulation of marriage and
the constitution of the family. The family is constituted by marriage
as a male and a female and whatever children may issue from that
marriage or be adopted into it. It is a creational institution. The
state does not create families or marriages but it recognizes and
governs them. In the nature of things, the definition of fundamental
social institutions such as the family or marriage, which is the
beginning of the family, the social and civil recognition of the
covenant between persons to live together as a natural family. These
natural, creational institutions are fundamental to any society. If
marriages and families are defined in homosexual terms, then society
itself is redefined and its relations to nature are radically
re-defined. This is why the magistrate has an interest in marriage and
families generally. If nature or creational boundaries are no longer
normative for marriage and family then what norms are there? All social
relations devolve to mere convention (will), become arbitrary, and
constantly re-defined. When nature is recognized and obeyed, bestiality
is illegal because it is contrary to nature. If bestiality is defined
as mere convention then it can only be prohibited on the basis of will
or convention or in the interests of the animals. What if someone
decides or gives plausible arguments that his animal has given consent?
What then of pedophilia? Apart from the constraints of nature and
natural law, why exactly should civil society forbid it? This is not a
“slippery slope” (if this happens, then that will happen) argument. I
am merely pointing out questions that already exist (there are
advocates of both pedophila and bestiality) and the necessary
consequence of denying the existence of nature and natural boundaries.
The magistrate has a right and a duty to enforce marriage and divorce
laws in order to enforce natural, creational boundaries in the same way
he has a duty to protect a society from theft and fraud.
S. T. Karnick has written a piece for Salvo Magazine that is worth reading. It may be the most reasonable appeal to the Same-Sex Marriage camp I've ever read.
The issue, it’s important to remember, is not whether society will
allow homosexuals to “marry.” They may already do so, in any church or
other sanctioning body that is willing to perform the ceremony. There
are, in fact, many organizations willing to do so...
No laws prevent these churches from conducting marriage ceremonies—and
nearly all Americans would agree that it is right for the government to
stay out of a church’s decision on the issue. Further, any couple of
any kind may stand before a gathering of well-wishers and pledge their
union to each other, and the law will do nothing to prevent them.
Same-sex couples, or any other combination of people, animals, and
inanimate objects, can and do “marry” in this way. What the law in most
states currently does not do, however, is force third
parties—individuals, businesses, institutions, and so on—to recognize
these “marriages” and treat them as if they were exactly the same as
traditional marriages. Nor does it forbid anyone to do so.
In short, individuals, organizations, and institutions in most states
are currently free to treat same-sex unions as marriages, or not. This,
of course, is the truly liberal and tolerant position. It means letting
the people concerned make up their own minds about how to treat these
relationships. But this freedom is precisely what the advocates of
same-sex “marriage” want to destroy; they want to use the government’s
power to force everyone to recognize same-sex unions as marriages
whether they want to or not.
No doubt many will not find this article persuasive. But consider why. I have a feeling that it is because Same-Sex Marriage advocates think that Same-Sex Marriage is morally acceptable (even virtuous), and that it is morally obligatory for everyone to recognize it. But this is not the argument that the "No on 8" crowd is making. Their argument is based on the premise that gay couples are somehow being barred from marrying (which is untrue) and that the moral issue at stake is one of freedom of choice, tolerance, and liberty. But as this article adeptly points out, it is the radical Same-Sex agenda that is now threatening true freedom of choice and tolerance.
I'm a big geek. I don't deny it. I'm really exited about the new Star Trek film from director J. J. Abrams (Alias, Lost, Mission: Impossible III). Here's a sneak peek at the new look of Trek:
Eric Bana's Romulan villain, Nero, looks pretty cool. And the bridge of the Enterprise looks like the inside of an Apple store! We always knew the future would run on Mac. :)
Edit: In case you're wondering if this has anything to do with philosophy/culture/apologetics, it does. Here are a few quotes from this week's Entertainment Weekly:
"[The Star Trek] ethos may seem cornball to an America darkened by a decade's worth
of catastrophe, but after an election season that has seen both
presidential nominees run on ''hope'' and ''change,'' Star Trek just may find itself on the leading wave of a zeitgeist shift — away from bleak, brooding blockbusters and toward the light."
Director Abrams adds, ''It was important to me that optimism be cool again.''And Zachary Quinto (who plays Spock) says, ''This is a franchise that offers hope for unity — and so does Barak Obama.''
Star Trek has always been on the optimistic/humanistic side of things, and people have typically associated its ideology with liberal politics. At the same time, however, Abrams needs this movie to appeal to the widest audience possible. So will Star Trek push the PC envelope, or will it find a way to walk the cultural tightrope and become next summer's optimistic version of The Dark Knight?
Dr. Michael Horton's new book, Christless Christianity, is now available (with a DVD set soon to follow). I just got my copy and I'll be reviewing it in the near future. For now, here's a short preview of the DVD:
Well, for those of you who've decided that it's OK to lust after appreciate high quality Bibles, Mark Bertrand over at BibleDesignBlog.com has posted his extensive review of Cambridge's new Pitt Minion ESV. Here's an excerpt:
"What I love about the ESV is the way it splits the difference between
the traditional language I grew up with and the need for clarity and
comprehension today. No translation is perfect, but this one has served
me pretty well the past few years. In the beginning, there were so few
options, and now we're spoiled for choices. In a sense, the Pitt Minion
is a great vehicle for the ESV, because it represents a similar attempt
at compromise. No, it doesn't have the largest type, and it doesn't
have the most features, but for all around use, it cheats out the
competition more often than not. It's small enough to carry,
full-featured enough to use, and does one thing better than any other
leather-bound edition I've reviewed: it opens flat like it really wants
to stay that way. And Cambridge has made it available in an
unprecedented range of cover options."
For those of you who don't know yet, Cambridge Bibles (pretty much the best Bible maker in the world!) is about to release their very first edition of the ESV. The edition is a familiar one in other translations: the Pitt Minion. It's a small, hand-sized Bible with a center reference column. The type size is large and clear for such a small Bible. But the best part: it comes bound in beautiful, supple goatskin leather (of course, you'll have to pay a bit more for that!). The goatskin will be available in both black and brown, as well as a burgundy French Morocco leather and a two-tone imitation leather (see all 4 side-by-side in the image below). The nice thing about goatskin (besides the way it feels) is that it's extremely pliable and durable. So if you decide to spend the extra cash, it's well worth it, as you're likely to be keeping the Bible around for many more years to come.
I used to be your average Bible consumer. All of my Bibles were bonded leather. My first ESV was "tru-tone" (basically just imitation leather). Then I found this site. Ever since I first read the insightful aesthetic comments of J. Mark Bertand, I have been a "Bible snob." Unfortunately I am also a "poor graduate student", so that means I'm still using bonded leather bibles. However, when I learned of Cambridge's plan to release an ESV, I decided to save up and spring for my first really nice Bible. Mark will be reviewing all four editions of the Cambridge Pitt Minion ESV some time next week, so make sure to check back for that (in the mean time, browse his blog. He's probably written something witty and interesting about your Bible!).
Now that I've admitted to buying one of these expensive things, I have a question for you (and I'm a philosopher who probably overthinks things, so you can take this or leave it). I've found there to be something of a paradoxical conundrum to the "nice Bible." On the one hand, I can see how it would be far more worthy to spend $80 on a Bible than on useless junk I don't need. And further, buying a Bible that has obviously taken great skill and care to make seems to say something about how important God's Word is to you. But is there something all too modern and Western about the "Cambridge goatskin Bible" market? After all, the words are the words. I can be spiritually fed just as well by a paperback Bible, and give the other $70 to my church, or to a homeless shelter. Then again, is there something about that very sentiment that is equally "modern" and "Western"? Can anything be said for a Bible that is, in itself, a work of art?
So what do you think? Am I still a good Christian? :P
Teacher and youth pastor, Michael Ferber, has written a book that attempts to interact with current philosophical trends in Christianity and address them from a Biblical perspective, using Paul's first letter to Timothy as his guide. Part commentary, part theological guidebook, with a little philosophy thrown in, Pomo Timmy is sure to capture much interest and attention among Christians seeking a Biblical perspective on postmodernism (and modernism, for that matter). While I don't fully agree with all of Mr. Ferber's theological conclusions (he comes down on the egalitarian side of the gender debate, for example), I can heartily recommend this book!
I recently asked Mr. Ferber a few probing questions to help introduce us to the purpose and subject of his book:
1. "Pomo Timmy" isn't exactly like a typical Bible
commentary. Briefly, what IS this book, and what do you hope to
accomplish with it?
Pomo Timmy is essentially a Biblical commentary with a strong
philosophical bend. My hope in writing the book was to mine I Timothy to
craft a response to some of the philosophical challenges present today,
particularly the contrast between the relativism of postmodernity and the
fundamentalism of approaches to faith rooted in more modern paradigms (modern in
a philosophical sense).
2. You've worked in youth ministry for a number of years.
Is "Pomo Timmy" geared more towards a youth audience, or do you
hope to reach all ages?
Pomo Timothy is definitely NOT geared to a youth audience. Some
of the later chapters are concrete enough to keep their attention, but most youth
get bogged down in the introduction. However, it is appropriate for youth
leaders and pastors who are trying to help youth and young adults navigate the
various meanings of “truth” in our society.
3. Many Christian leaders believe that the church needs to adopt
postmodernism wholesale or it will die. Others simply dismiss
postmodernism as an irrelevant fad. Why do you believe that
postmodern thought poses a real threat to the church, and how serious do you
think the threat is?
I believe the “wholesale” acceptance of the relativism of postmodernism
does indeed pose a threat to the church. However, I find it ridiculous to
argue that much of life is not relative. The distinction I try to draw in
Pomo Timmy is that there is some truth that is as real as real can be, while
other aspects of “reality” are undeniably socially
constructed. I Timothy is a helpful tool to work through this
complexity. The church does need to embrace and study postmodernism, but
it needs to chew the meat and spit out the bones, so to speak. I believe
postmodernism is a threat only to the degree that we allow the absolute truths
of the faith to be replaced by absolute relativity.
4. In the introduction to "Pomo Timmy" you distinguish
between knowledge and actual reality, and you suggest that both modernism and
postmodernism simply collapse these two into each other. If my knowledge
of reality is not the same as reality as it actually is, what is left of
objective truth? How can I, as a Christian, claim to know anything as
being actually true?
I would argue that the frameworks with which we view the world and reality
are constantly changing and that “reality” or “truth”
can be viewed from many situated perspectives, which therefore generate many
different kinds of descriptions of the same reality. Yet, changes in
perspective do not negate the reality of the observed object. To argue
that I am finite, limited, and situated in a specific context at a particular
time is to make an argument about me – not the reality I am
observing. If enough people, situated in many different times in many
different contexts, also describe what I am observing eventually there will be
enough understanding to move toward objectivity – this is what critical
realists would call aletheic truth. I personally believe that God has
revealed Himself to enough people consistently over enough time that we can
trust the Biblical account.
To purchase a copy of Pomo Timmy, or find out more information, simply click the amazon.com link above.
Michael Ferber has served as pastor, youth pastor, Christian school
administrator, college professor, and development director at
organizations including World Vision, Regent University, and West
Virginia University. He is a Ph.D. candidate studying geography of
religion at West Virginia University. He holds a Master of Arts in
Education from West Virginia University and a Master of Divinity from
Asbury Theological Seminary. Michael lives with his wife, Christina,
and their children, Leah and Brendan, in Clarksburg, West Virginia.
