By Lars Johnson

I have been following the debate about Mrs. Irons's paper with great interest. After reading her paper and the various responses, I thought that I would evaluate Mrs. Irons's paper on the basis of our confessional standards.

* * *

We should begin by examining the relevance of God's law to this matter. The Westminster Confession of Faith clearly indicates that the ceremonial laws are now abrogated (WCF XIX. 3) and that the particular judicial laws are no longer binding (WCF XIX. 4), although it should be noted that the confession indicates that the general equity of the civil law is still valid. The confession makes it abundantly clear, however, that the moral law of God is still binding on all mankind regardless of whether they are saved or not (WCF XIX.5). This moral law was given to Adam at the time of creation (WCF XIX.1) and was delivered to Moses at Sinai as the Ten Commandments (WCF XIX.2). I think that you could even reasonably say that God's moral law is part of His common grace for mankind.

As part of the moral law, God ordained marriage as a creation ordinance and regulated human sexuality. Marriage was first established by God between the first man and women, Adam and Eve, in part to provide for the perpetuation and growth of the human race — something same-sex unions would be unable to accomplish. The Westminster Larger Catechism 137­139 goes into some detail in explaining the implications of the seventh commandment, and thus God's regulations for human sexuality. One of the sins forbidden by this commandment, as indicated by WLC 139 is sodomy. Lest we think that homosexuality was not forbidden until Sinai, we should remember God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, at least in part, for the pervasiveness of homosexuality within those cities. Marriage is not an institution just made up by mankind as some sort of social construct that can be changed at will; it is ordered by God as part of His moral law.

Although I assume we all agree to the continuing validity of the moral law, we still need to evaluate what, if anything, civil government has to do with it. For that, we will need to look to WCF XXIII. This chapter tells us that the civil magistrate has been armed for the "encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers" (WCF XXIII.1) and Christian magistrates "ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace" (WCF XXIII.2). You will notice that these paragraphs contain several words with significant moral implications. How is the civil magistrate to know what good and evil or piety, justice, and peace are apart from the Word of God? I would suggest that it is the moral law of God, whether found specifically in the Ten Commandments or applied elsewhere in Scripture that should provide such guidance. Looking to the moral law will make it clear to civil magistrates that God's plan for marriage is for one man and one woman (also reinforced by WCF XXIV.1), and, therefore, they should never endorse the same-sex "marriage." To adopt Mrs. Irons's position would require the magistrates to endorse evil, rather than oppose evil.

Mrs. Irons criticizes efforts to have civil authorities maintain a biblical definition of marriage as the legal standard for marriage by indicating that we are inconsistent in our application of the moral law in civil society. She is correct in her assertion that Christians in America have not sought to effectively outlaw all violations of the moral law. My response is three-fold. (1) Some aspects of the moral law are generally maintained (i.e., laws against public drunkenness, perjury, murder, and theft). Which is more important to this discussion, those that are kept or those that are ignored? (2) The good should not be the victim of the perfect. Just because we don't argue for every aspect of the moral law does not mean that we cannot argue for the maintaining of biblical standards of marriage. (3) Not every aspect of the moral law is necessarily to be maintained by the civil magistrate. WCF XXIII.3 (as adopted by the OPC) appropriately states that "Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith." Therefore, I would argue that it is not within the civil magistrate's sphere of responsibility to suppress false religions, as long as they do not violate other aspects of the moral law or interfere with the ability of the true faith to operate.

There is an appropriate separation of church and state, which is established by God (not the ACLU and the Supreme Court). It is to the Church that Christ gave the Great Commission, not the state. It is the Church's responsibility to disciple and to teach the nations. It is our responsibility to exercise the keys of the kingdom. It is the state's duty, however, to ensure "that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance." (WCF XXIII.3)

Much else could be said and has been said about Mrs. Irons's paper, but I would argue that those who take her position are arguably in opposition to WCF XXIII.1, 2 and XXIV.1. In addition, it undermines WCF XIX.5 by giving comfort to homosexuals who would continue their violation of God's moral law through same-sex "marriage." Such "marriages" will never make homosexual relationships moral but will encourage gays and lesbians to remain in their sin.

Lars Johnson is a ruling elder of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Hanover Park, Illinois. The preceding is an excerpt from a response to Misty Irons posted in an Internet discussion group.

BACK TO MAIN PAGE

BACK TO "INDECENT PROPOSAL" RESPONSE PAGE

BACK TO ARTS AND ISSUES PAGE