This Is What We Are Reading
Gay Marriage . . .
Al Mohler takes a look at the recent California Supreme Court decision and concludes:
Take a close look at that question. When the rabbi asks, “What in the world did people in the Bible time know about homosexuals?,” he clearly indicates that he sees the Bible as a human book that reveals no more then the attitudes and prejudices and limitations of its human authors. There is no acknowledgment at all that the Bible reveals what God would have us to know about homosexuality.
That, in the end, is the point. Is the Bible merely a human book? If so, then marriage can be anything we decide it should be. But, if the Bible is the Word of God, then we are bound by it. It’s as simple as that.
That is a fine, a very fine, sermon. But it is no way to argue in the courtroom, or in the court of public opinion. Frankly, in those arenas it is reason to get disregarded. We simply cannot stand on religious truth claims in politics and public policy.
Lowell adds: Mohler’s argument is an important one to make . . . in Sunday School. In the political arena, John’s right - that argument is Kryptonite to a productive discussion. To me, the important point regarding the California Supreme Court decision is that by the vote of a single unelected judge, the most fundamental element of our home life — the meaning of “marriage” — was turned on its head. For a host of reasons, such profound changes must be made through the political process. Instead, this change is being crammed down the public’s collective throat. That’s what drives people crazy, and that is the winning argument. Mohler’s argument, even though I think he’s right, is a loser.
On The Flip Side . . .
John Mark Reynolds looks at the value of faith in our culture.
Secularism, without Christianity, has never produced an attractive and viable civilization (at least yet) and so like all the work the lazy kid would have done, its good deeds must remain legendary. It has been content to be parasitic on Christian wealth, Christian ideas, and Christian labor.
The twentieth century produced several officially atheist regimes, but they were best known for mass murder. As for decaying Western Europe, it was religious in the lifetime of Pope Benedict XVI and is just about done eating up its seed corn. It has not had the cultural energy to reproduce itself in either babies or greatness. We will see if secularism has the power to save it, but the outlook does not look good. Instead of a thriving secular civilization in places like Sweden, many Christians and those outside Europe see effete secular people living on the heritage of their more godly ancestors unable to defend or reproduce what they made.
But interestingly, that has been not because faith made good policy, but because faith made good PEOPLE!
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Recently:
- I Guess This is Adieu
- Short and To-The-Point
- Since Lowell Brought It Up…
- Dems, Religion, Missteps - Even Mistakes
- When You Interrupt Normal Blogging . . .
- A Romney/Biden Debate - Warm Up The Laugh Track
- An Open Letter to George H.W. Bush
- A Little More on the “Mormons Lie” and “Mormons Are Not Christians” Memes
- The Evangelical Break-up?
- Sitting on Pins and Needles…
One Response to “This Is What We Are Reading”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
coltakashi on 21 May 2008 at 6:20 pm #
You have three issues involved:
(1) Who has the power to make such far-reaching changes to human society, a few judges sitting around a table or the people whose lives are actually regulated by the change?
(2) Once we establish that the people have the right to decide whether or not to make this change, we need to be able to persuade people to our way of thinking. For those of us who take our religion seriously, we are in fact susceptible to being persuaded that changing the law in this way would actually promote homosexual conduct as well as undermine our common understanding of what marriages and families are as a social institution that forms the foundation for our society and culture. If we fail to make this argument in terms of what our religious authorities teach, there are many people in our churches and synagogues who will say, “Why should I care what those people do in their own homes?” And it is perfectly legitimate to speak to people in the context of a shared denomination about the reasons those who share that common faith and principles have for supporting the traditional meaning of marriage and family. That may not persuade people who do not share our often complex understanding of the world and its purpose and our roles in it and what God wants us to be doing, but it is perfectly legitimate for us to speak to those in our own groups in that fashion.
(3) Then there are arguments about the specific question of whether or not to normalize gay marriage, arguments that have to share common ground with people who don’t share our religious beliefs. The argument I myself have offered to those people is this: I work in the laws and regulations that ensure protection of our natural environment. When a proposal is made that will have a major effect on the human environment, such as cutting down a forest or exploring for oil in the oceans or in a wildlife refuge, we insist that there be a full and complete study of the impacts the project will have on both our own health and the health of the animals and plants we share this earth with. We also insist that government err on the side of conserving the ecosystems that exist, that we know work and sustain life. We don’t want to experiment with the world we live in by spreading chemicals or exotic species of plants or insects with unknown side effects into our air and soil and water.
To change the meaning of what it means to be married is precisely an experiment with the social ecology of humanity. How can we plunge into it, experimenting with the lives of literally millions of adults and children, without full prior consideration of the potential consequences? If you believe in the evolution of biological communities, and of social communities, then you believe that social and behavioral aspects of human life evolved because they were advantageous for our survival and health as a species. They have tremendous value measured in how difficult it has been to develop them. Just as we don’t want to role the dice when what we risk is our health or the survival of our natural ecosystems, we should not roll the dice when it comes to the foundation of human life, our families, and the most important relationship that creates families, namely marriage between men and women. Men and women must have an incentive to invest their lives in the two decades it takes to create and raise educated and civilized children, so our civilization can survive and thrive. Our mental and emotional health depends on these fundamental relationships. Forcing a change in what these relationships mean will have unknown consequences for all of us. If we don’t want to experiment with our air and water and living species, why are we so ambitious to experiment with the human species?