THE GAUNTLET
 |
SEXUAL PLURALISM AND THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD By Charles A. McIlhenney My first problem comes from the very first line — the simplistic distinction between religious and civil: “Since the church believes gay marriage is wrong for religious reasons, it is in the church’s best interest to support gay marriage for civil reasons.” How does it follow that because we Christians say gay marriage is wrong based on religious reasons (God’s Word) that therefore we ought to support gay marriages for civil reasons? How is it logical that because it’s wrong religiously (religious realm), therefore it is right in the civil realm? Biblically the magistrate is also a religiously rooted realm. The Bible does not equate religion (which is God-created) to only the ecclesiastical sphere. Granted the civil realm is not the ecclesiastical realm, but the magistrate himself is a servant of God. The civil realm is a servant of God (Romans 13:1-8). As for saying, “religious reasons”: Religion is not another equal and separate category along side of a civil category. To think that arguing for gay marriages is not rooted in a religious presupposition is to fail to see the real meaning of something rooted in one’s religious presupposition. The conviction may manifest itself in the civil realm, but it has its source in the religious realm. The religious sphere is the place where the conflict between the supposed “civil” rights of gay marriage vs. heterosexual marriage should take place. But both are rooted either in the God’s law as the ultimate rule or man’s pragmatism as the ultimate rule. The question is not religious vs. civil, (e.g. faith vs. science) but rather, which ultimate religious source (e.g. faith vs. faith — two opposing faiths) will undergird or undermine civil society? Civil laws or rights come out of more fundamental religious roots: God’s law or rebellious man’s law! (Gay marriage is not a true civil right in the first place. Homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, etc., all have the same civil right to get married as everyone else. None are prohibited legally or scripturally from getting married. But homosexuals cannot marry each other, adulterers cannot marry their adulteresses if still married to their spouses and paedophiles cannot marry the under-aged victims of their assault!) My second problem with this paper is the assumption that we live in a “pluralistic society.” That just says we live in a society with differing opinions about everything. It’s as equally uncritical to say we live in a pluralistic society as saying we live in a Christian society, ergo such and such should happen. When someone uncritically asserts that our nation is a pluralistic society, and, ergo, we’ve now got to support ungodly laws and ordinances, we have to be careful to parse the meaning of “pluralistic” much more sharply than the paper cavalierly accepts. Yes, we live in a pluralistic society of sorts. But we also live in a “monolistic” society, too. We don’t have diverse marriage laws in our land. It is “monolistic” in that respect. We are “monolistic” as to the source of our laws, which historically come out of Biblical roots. Even though we as a nation don’t politically endorse the Bible as such, our laws, by and large, reflect our Biblical heritage. It certainly is not a “pagan” heritage. And while many of our founding fathers may have been Unitarian - Universalist - Modalistic - Pragmatic - Deists, these men, back then, still had a Christian “spin” on their opinions. Even though Thomas Jefferson rewrote the New Testament expunging the miraculous, he did it from within a Christian heritage context, not Muslim or Buddhist or Wiccan or Pagan. Our nation may be pluralistic in academic circles in teaching about marriage, or pluralistic in our spoken languages, but we certainly are NOT pluralistic when it comes to the marriage laws of the land. When it comes to national marriage and family laws, our so-called “pluralism” clearly excludes bigamy, polygamy, and any kind of marriage except the Biblical concept: heterosexual—between one man and one woman. We are not pluralistic in the particulars of marriage. That’s what must be taken into account. Should we as Christians become pluralistic in this non-pluralistic realm? If the pluralists want a pluralist marital society, let them argue for it; let them politicize. But not the Christian, i.e. the Bible-upholder. However, in our fair city of San Francisco, we are “gloriously” leading the way to melt down the archaic monolithic notion of the nuclear family as God’s creation ordinance has designed it. Our city and county ordinances stretch the historical Christian concept of marriage and family beyond creational bounds with the so-called “diverse families” — with “diverse” meaning ANYTHING!!! (Transgenders and cross-dressers are also included in the gay community.) In San Francisco, same-sex couples get preferential treatment in the adoption process. The Board of Supervisors in San Francisco is now demanding that minority labor contractors also include gay, lesbian, transgender and cross-dresser businesses. Years ago a group of us clergy fought against gay domestic-partner enactments. We won at the ballot box the first round but then lost in subsequent elections. Even when voters had rejected domestic-partner legislation at the county level, various city council subcommittees, the mayor, etc., continued to enact laws respecting domestic partners as though it didn’t make any difference what the voters said. (When this city rejects God’s law in one area, it tends to be as consistent as possible to reject God’s law in everything else.) I testified before a county commission, arguing that if we’re going to stretch the God-created concept of marriage and family to suit the winds of time and subject creation ordinances to a vote of the people [vox populi, vox dei – we’ve got it here], then why not include incest and consenting paedophilia and bestiality, which, by the way, are all current subculture practices in the community. Nobody on the committee objected to my suggestion, but then, again, I wasn’t serious about proposing that … but, hey, why not? What’s to stop these other sexual minorities from demanding and getting their “rights” protected by legislative fiat … and then, as as in the Irons paper, encourage conservative Christians to support such proposals, too? Does the Irons paper propose that the conservative Christians in San Francisco support gay rights because we live in a supposedly pluralistic city? (“When in Rome do as the Romans do?”) What about the conservative Christians who live in Bible-based monolithic communities? Should they reject gay rights in their communities? (In fact, why is it that Christians are said to “impose” their morality while non-Christians simply want their “rights?”) Which laws should Christians support? Those which reflect Christian values or non-Christian (i.e. anti-Christian)? And is it determined by the community that one lives in? If so, then what we ought to do is to be evangelizing our community as much as possible so that it may become a Christian community, lest other sexual minorities demand their “rights?” And, by the way, which “pluralism” should we be accepting? Christian pluralism or non-Christian pluralism? Should pluralism in this area of family/marriage be seen from the perspective of our monolistic state and national laws or from our local pluralistic city/county ordinances? Pluralism, in the abstract, does not exist. Pluralism, like anything, exists within a greater context. It is either Biblical pluralism or anti-Biblical pluralism. I, for one, will accept Biblical pluralism, but not the other. Saying because “we live in a ‘pluralistic society,’” therefore, we can invent any kind of marriage and family, is almost like saying because “we live in a ‘free society,’” ergo, we can do anything we want. But we also know from the Word of God that freedom exists within a greater context of God’s creation. We can either accept God’s creation and God’s context for “freedom” or deny it. If “freedom” exists, it exists as a creature of God, under His sovereign sway — His sovereign approval or disapproval. Even as a Calvinist, I believe in “free will,” if you mean a will that exists, and moves, and has it’s being within God’s creation ordinances (Acts 17:28). But I don’t believe in a “free will” that exists independent of this sovereign control of God. Such “freedom” or “pluralism” does not ontologically exist. We were sued 22 years ago because the city had passed an ordinance forbidding even churches from exercising their Biblical prerogatives within the confines of their own worship services. Don’t think that getting legislative exemptions for churches is a salve! Since that time, other churches and religious organizations have been threatened by these ungodly laws and have capitulated under the demand of social and political conformity in our diverse city. It is only the gospel of Jesus Christ when preached uncompromisingly from the pulpits (and in private, as well) that steels the hearts and minds to obeying God’s laws in all of life. When the church compromises, society has no reason to maintain creation ordinances, either. As the old adage says, “As the church goes, so goes the nation.” Charles A. McIlhenny is the pastor of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church in San Francisco. His church was sued and threatened with violence several years ago for firing a homosexual organist. This article was first posted as part of an Internet discussion group reacting to the Misty Irons paper. |