Feminism Wishlist

I’ve never really identified with feminism for various reasons. This, of course, doesn’t mean that I necessarily oppose all forms of feminism. I simply think that the most common forms which exist today are basically of the same essence as the most radical forms, and therefore any kind of feminism which isn’t fundamentally disordered is too small of a minority to warrant my identification.

But, hypothetically, I could identify with, or at least offer my affirmation to, a feminist subgroup if it abstained from certain key errors which affect the majority forms. Some people will undoubtedly say that any “feminism” which meets my criteria is not feminism at all, and if so I am fine with that. But I’m also sure that there are at least a few people who would say otherwise.

So, for clarification and for the fun of articulating myself, what follows is some criteria, a “wishlist” perhaps, which a form of feminism would have to meet for me to assent. These are in no particular order, except the order in which they came to mind, which probably indiciates some loose association with how important I find them. I will call this kind of feminism which I could hypothetically affirm a “natural feminism,” because I believe the problem at the heart of most forms of feminism is a denial of the natural order of creation.

  • A natural feminism would have no overlap with the LGBT movement. Instead, it would oppose it, recognizing its intrinsic hostility to the feminine, and to the entire order of male and female which makes it possible to speak of the feminine at all.
  • A natural feminism would recognize that not all differences in the behavior, customs, and social positions of men and women are due to artificial inequalities. Many instead emerge naturally and organically from human nature, and they cannot be removed except by the dangerous task of tampering with human nature.
  • A natural feminism would ensure that women are not confined to the home without encouraging them to leave it behind. It would recongize that mothers are the heart and life of home, that the tendencies of women to center life in the home are first rooted in their maternal natures rather than patriarchal oppression, and that the home today suffers from self-inclosure in a way that makes it overly restrictive and even oppressive to women who choose to take it up as their domain. Such a natural feminism would wrestle with the tension between the reality of the home’s limitations/complications in modern life and the pain which the natural dependence of the home on the woman for life and warmth.
  • A natural feminism would detest pornography and all kinds of sex work as degrading. It would understand that the commodification of women’s bodies desacralizes them, objectivizes them, and even consensually exploits them. No room would be made for the hypocrisy of a society that wars against rape and sexual harassment while simultaneously selling to men a lifestyle of viewing women as impersonal sex objects.
  • A natural feminism would not seek to put women into the pastoral office. It would recognize that the pastor’s role as a shepherd, contender for the faith, and most importantly representative of Christ are initmately associated with the masculine virtues and the masculine symbolism of God as Father and Son. Instead, a natural feminism would recognize that feminine virtue and feminine symbolism are most closely associated with the Holy Spirit as life-giver, nurturer, communion-maker, sustainer, and consummator, and with the congregation of God’s people as Daughter of the Father and Bride of the Son. It would therefore seek to enable women in the Church to robustly fulfill these roles using all of their gifts, taking back to the women some of the perrogatives and responsibilities which are often erroneously given to the pastor.
  • A natural feminism would see the contradiction inherent in trying to elevate women by making them more like men of fleshly glory. It would recognize that the action hero, the assertive and aggressive character, and the alpha corporate executive are not true role models for feminine virtue, even if they can somewhat (and imperfectly) function that way for masculinity. While it would protect the right and opportunity of women to fulfill such roles when the situation requires or even permits, it would not hold them up as examples, but instead would prefer role models who exemplify compassion, patience, grace, aethestic sense, nurture, tolerance, etc. (For more on masculine and feminine virtue, I recommend this post. For more on the problem with idealizing masculine women, see this Mere Orthodoxy post from Alastair Roberts.)
  • Finally, a natural feminism would entirely repudiate any project of making humans androgynous. It would allow the natural differences between men and women to function despite their various difficulties and problems. Instead of trying to solve gender problems by artificially elininating gender difference through state and social force, it would focus on mitigating the social and physical factors which turn the goodness of the natural sexual order into a burden and trial.

If anyone finds a feminism along these lines, be sure to let me know, and I’ll cheer it on.

Feminism Wishlist

The Nicene Nerdcast: Against Traditional Marriage

This post is the second epsiode of my new podcast, The Nicene Nerdcast. Again, there’s not much for me to introduce, and if the title has you prepared for outrage, I give you my kind-hearted laughter. This episode is the result of some recent reflections on the nature and purpose of marriage, along with its problems today.


Download this episode

The Nicene Nerdcast: Against Traditional Marriage

The Caleb Statement

Preamble

Time are tough. People disagree on lots of things. We Christians need to stand together on the big, important issues lest the rising tide of secularism sweep us all away and destroy the Gospel. To do this, I issue the following statement, and I hope that others will sign it to show their courage and solidarity with Christ. For He says, “whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.”

Article 1

I affirm that bow-ties are cool and are the proper attire for all men of class and virtue, day or night.

I deny that wearing a bow-tie is sufficient for salvation, though the Christian will certainly be rewarded in heaven for doing so.

Article 2

I affirm that lifelong celibacy is God’s will for more people than most would expect, particularly including my sister and most Game of Thrones fans.

I deny that lifelong celibacy is God’s will for pastors and priests. Take that, papists!

Article 3

I affirm that God might have created Adam and Eve in 3930 BC.

I deny that I (or most anyone else) have any actual idea how or when creation took place.

Article 4

I affirm that my wife is my superior in all respects except for the ability to do stupid things.

I deny that my wife, however much she appears to be, is actually a goddess. Because, you know, monotheism.

Article 5

I affirm that postmillennialsm is cool, amillennialism is cool, premillennialism is a’ight, and dispensational premillennialism is totally bunk.

I deny that panmillennialism is any fun at all, and that Nicholas Cage should ever be associated with biblical eschatology.

Article 6

I affirm that The Legend of Zelda is the most excellent console gaming franchise, over and above Mario, Smash Bros, or any of that dumb stuff on Xbox or PlayStation (with the possible exception of Lord of the Rings: Conquest).

I deny that recognizing Zeldine superiority is a test of orthodoxy for Christians, though whoever denies it should be admonished in love.

Article 7

I affirm that Windows 10 is really pretty alright.

I deny that any distribution of Linux, however sexy, will be qualified to replace Windows altogether until they get a version of Microsoft OneNote, or at least get it working on Wine.

Article 8

I affirm that white supremacy is of the devil.

I deny that white self-flagellation is any better.

Article 9

I affirm that my baby Jonathan is the cutest baby on the planet.

I deny that any mother should take this to mean her baby isn’t the cutest baby on the planet.

Article 10

I affirm against the papacy!

I deny that I’m being serious. Lol jk, I luv you guise!

Article 11

I affirm that it is our Christian duty to speak the truth in love at all times.

I deny that this leaves out the important truth that Hillsong music isn’t very good.

Article 12

I affirm that Joan of Arc was of God, and that she was flippin’ awesome.

I deny that anyone who says otherwise deserves to live.

Article 13

I affirm that Lord of the Rings and its related works are infinitely better than A Song of Fire and Ice, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.

I deny that the reasons for this can be limited only to LOTR’s lack of gore, profanity, and debauchery, however important those factors may be.

Article 14

I affirm that the afffirmations and denials of the Nashville Statement are basically correct.

I deny that the statement is itself sufficient for much good, but requires for usefulness a complete evangelical theology of the body and sexuality, which sadly is missing from the preamble or most of the commentary on the statement.

I furthermore deny that this qualifier means I stand in any judgment over any of the signers, many of whom I greatly respect. In particular, Alastair Roberts is a great resource for some of what the statement itself lacks.

Signers

Me

The Caleb Statement

Homosexuality Then and Now, in Theological Narrative Perspective

A lot of progressive Christians argue that the historical context of the New Testament restricts the scope of the so-called “clobber texts” about homosexuality. Jesus and the Apostles, they say, had no concept of the modern development of a loving, consensual, monogamous homosexual relationship. Therefore in places like Romans 1 where they seemed to condemn gay or lesbian practices, the condemnations were really only limited to the exploitative and/or idolatrous practices of the day, not all homosexuality. We can all agree that prostitution, pedophilia, and cultic sex are wrong, and those are basically the only kinds of homosexual practices the New Testament actually forbids.

My experiment here is to grant their argument and run with it. Let’s say that the progressives are right, that Paul and Jesus knew nothing of the kind of homosexual relationships which occur today. Let’s grant that their condemnation of homosexual practices was contingent on their historical context. In that case, our question for today can be framed as follows: in our present historical context, are the kinds of homosexuality practiced associated with something idolatrous or destructive? I think the answer to this question is still, “Yes,” so that even if the biblical condemnations of homosexuality were context-specific, applying biblical reasoning to our own historical context indicts today’s forms of homosexuality as well.

How do I arrive at this point? I place homosexuality then (Bible times) and now in narrative perspective. Where does homosexuality fit into the wider theological narrative of God, man, Israel, Christ, the Church, and the world? For all my disagreements with him, I think Andrew Perriman gets the logic of Romans 1 more or less right, so I will build from a foundation roughly corresponding to his his narrative account.

Why did Paul speak so strongly against homosexuality in Romans 1? In context, the kinds of homosexuality practiced in Greek and Roman civilization was part of the deterioration of Gentile civilization produced by idolatry. Since as early as Babel, the Gentiles had exchanged the glory of the immortal God for other gods, images of wood and stone. They served the creation rather than the Creator. By taking the Creator out of the picture in exchange for created gods, they paved the way for disorienting the use of all created things, human bodies included. They used their bodies in shameful ways to satisfy their shameful gods in open rebellion against the true Creator God. All of this became particularly acute in the Romans world as the height of pre-Christian, Gentile civilization. The Roman committment to false gods led to decadence and gross abuse of human bodies, which had been made to serve the true God. Thus they received in themselves the due penalty for their error, and God’s wrath was a-comin’.

The situation since then has changed. The pre-Christian Gentile world, the world of the pagan Roman Empire, has been destroyed. It was replaced by Christendom, a world order in which the nations confessed Christ as Lord (however imperfect and problematic this order turned out to be). The Church did its best to construct fitting new culture, new worldview, and new intellectual concepts for this order from reflection on Scripture and Christian tradition, and these came to dominate Christendom. So for a thousand years Christendom remained and the nations remained mostly submissive (at least nominally) to Christian thought and ethics.

But all this began to change around the time of the Enlightenment. The causes of the change are mostly unimportant here. What matters is that there was a new wave of rebellion. The old world rebellion began with worshipping false gods and idols, but the new rebellion was based on worship of man. It produced humanism, materialism, atheism, naturalism, and rationalism. Man no longer felt the need to serve a god, whether a true or false one. Rather, man decided he was able to accomplish all things by himself and be all things to himself. This has had to take a decidedly neo-Gnostic slant. The old pagans saw creation and nature as run by gods, Christendom saw them as the work of the one God, and modern humanism sees them either as shackles of givnenness to be broken or as raw material to be reshaped in man’s preferred image.

The transition from old Christendom worldview to the new humanistic one has been slow, but it has come, like the old pagan system, to express itself in sexual deviance. The Sexual Revolution neatly and naturally followed the rebellious, humanistic spirit of the age to assert human capacity and freedom over and against divine authority. The idea is that humanity is grown-up now: we don’t need old rules supposedly from God to tell us how to handle sexual ethics. We’re now all set to do whatever we please. This led to acceptance of contraception, divorce, sexual activity before marriage, and at this present stage the entire LGBT movement. The modern world’s neo-Gnosticism can be seen here, as well: the natural reproductive order was created before our wills, but for humanity to be all in all we must assert our wills over and against this basic physical component to human existence. Biological sex is unchosen, gifted from God, and if we are to escape God’s dominion we must be able to reconstruct and redefine gender and sex without reference to the realities of the body, or to reshape the body around our conceptions of gender and sex.


I think this narrative makes sense of what has been happening in modern history. The first rebellion put Gentiles under the dominion of false gods, and it led to the degredation of the body in idolatrous rites and decadent sexual arrangements. This new, post-Christendom rebellion puts mankind in the West under no one but himself, and thus leads to the attempt to self-transcend and redefine the body for our own ends and impulses. The old order acknowledged the givenness of reality but refused to honor God for it, and so honored false gods. The new order, in its own attempt to escape God, denies the givenness of reality and seeks to give humanity unlimited power over all things, our own bodies included. It is easy to see how the LGBT movement fits into this narrative.

If the narrative offered above is at all, the progressive argument that biblical prohibitions against homosexuality were only about the context-specific forms of homosexuality which plagued the ancient world does nothing to exonerate homosexuality today. On the contrary, a look at our context reveals how modern homosexuality can also be condemned in a context-specific way, as part of the modern rebellion of humanism, which contrasts with the rebellion condemned in Romans 1 of literal idolatry. Then and now, homosexuality is part of a larger human rebellion against the true God. And this (I think) suggests a deeper link between homosexuality and sin, so that homosexual practices would be likely only to emerge on notable scales in contexts of rebellion. But that would be another post.

Homosexuality Then and Now, in Theological Narrative Perspective

Brother Bill Is Gay. Now What?

Brother Bill has always been a pretty cool guy. He just celebrated 10 years as a deacon, and taught the youth Sunday school class for the past year after the last teacher moved away. You’ve had dinner at his house many times, and everyone loves his Christmas parties. Just last week he brought his friend to church and his friend repented of his sins and believed in Jesus. So today makes no sense. Today he came out and admitted that he was gay, and plans on pursuing a relationship with someone he met at work. Now you’re all wondering: what do we do?

The recent increased controversy over gay marriage has got me thinking again about what I suspect will be an important issue in the near future for conservative American churches. I specifically don’t include the so-called “mainline” denominations because they went the liberal route of making every essential Christian doctrine optional years ago and have no real opposition to homosexuality in general. Not so for the many evangelical denominations (and non-denominations) in the country. For the most part, we’ve stood against the tide towards accepting gay relationships the whole time.

Brother Bill came out and admitted that he was gay. What do we do?

Now we are slowly facing a new challenge, one that’s accelerating. This challenge is that of Christian progressivism. Unlike the liberalism which barely (if at all) deserves the name “Christian” due to it abandoning historic doctrines like Jesus’ deity, historical resurrection, etc., progressives continue to affirm the core Christian teachings outlined in, for example, the Nicene Creed. Many even affirm the five solas of the Protestant Reformation. But they do make very untraditional moves on social issues, including gay marriage. For the growing Christian progressive movement, there’s nothing wrong with LGBT relationships, and indeed for many progressives these are beautiful things to be protected and cherished.

This brings me back to the story about Brother Bill. With the growth of Christian progressivism, and with the increasing voice progressive bloggers and authors have even in the conservative Christian world, more and more Christians are coming to believe that Scripture does not actually condemn homosexuality. With arguments about the Old Covenant in Leviticus, pagan cult prostitution in Romans 1, and the difficulty of translating arsenokoitai, among others, they persuade many lay Christians beyond sympathy to moral acceptance of gay relationships. The arguments become especially appealing when you, like many people these days, know or have contact with people who are gay and don’t want to condemn them. So for a growing number of apparent believers, what was once a clear cut matter has become at strongest debatable.

Such a movement will likely only increase in steam in the near future, so now those of us in conservative evangelical churches will have to face a new issue: what do we do about people within our churches who think that homosexuality is not a sin, and still believe their position is completely faithful to Scripture? What do we do especially with those who, based on that belief, actually engage in such relationships?

For a growing number of believers, what was once a clear cut matter has become debateable.

Unfortunately, for many of us the first instinct will be to start making judgments about who is saved and who isn’t. They’re wrong on homosexuality? Probably not a real Christian. He’s an activist? Definitely not a real Christian. Honestly, I don’t believe this is within our calling or rights. Scripture records so much sin in the lives of believers, from Abraham’s deceptions to David’s adultery/murder to Peter’s denial, that it is hard to say any sin is outside the realm of a believer to fall. Moreover, justifying and accommodating sin has its own very visible history among God’s people, as seen frequently in the Old Testament, though also in the New. And while Scripture does frequently give us guidelines for discerning false teachers, there are no real rules or commands given to figure out which lay church members are “true” believers.

What then? Are we to ignore sin, perhaps aiding and abetting, and go with some kind of interpretive pluralism or moral relativism where we can’t make any definite statements about right and wrong? Can we make no stand in our churches? As Paul would say, by no means! But what I want to suggest is that we move the “gay issue” from the sphere of individual salvation—who is saved and who isn’t—to the sphere of church membership and discipline, from the sphere of soteriology to ecclesiology.

There are no real rules or commands given in the Bible to figure out which lay church members are “true” believers.

What do I mean? I think instead of trying to figure out who is saved and who isn’t, or what a Christian “can” do or “can’t” do, we should ask instead, “What should the church permit, what should the church discipline, and what should the church excommunicate for?” If we take this approach, instead of thinking, “I think Bill isn’t saved, but I think Jackson is,” then we can simply assume that the people who are in the church match up basically with the people who are saved. How do I think this can work? I’m basing this mostly on Matthew 18:15-20, 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Thessalonians 3, and some similar passages. So imagine this situation as an example:

You see Brother Dan getting drunk with his co-workers and visiting some less-than-appropriate entertainment. Following Jesus and Paul on this, you talk to him privately about the matter and encourage him to do what is right. Next week, you spot him again. He hasn’t repented, so you take him before another trusted believer, perhaps your pastor or a deacon, and confront him. He has another chance. But he continues his behavior anyway, so you bring him before the entire church and as a church you initiate church discipline, possibly ending with excommunicating him. Once he is removed from the church, you assume that he is not a believer, but hope for his restoration.

“What should the church permit, what should the church discipline, and what should the church excommunicate for?”

This, I believe, is how we ought to handle matters of badly behaving Christians. While we as the church can recognize the ongoing struggle of the Christian with the flesh, we can also recognize and discipline flagrant sin, rebellion, or crossing lines on Christian morality. When people live with their everyday pride and gossip, we might rebuke them as a church but know not to kick them out of fellowship and treat them as an unbeliever. But when people refuse to repent of straight immorality, such as the greed, idolatry, and sexual immorality that Paul often treats like the trio of death, we are commanded to remove the evil person from among us.

So how should we apply this to the current gay debates? First, I don’t think we should bother trying to judge who individually is, in the depths of his heart, a true or false believer. Instead, we look at their church membership initiated in baptism and a confession of faith. Those who are within the church we should treat as fellow believers, and those outside we treat as lost people in need of Jesus. But as a church we must make the following decisions:

  1. Will we discipline (up to and including excommunication) members in gay relationships?
  2. If not, will we allow them in positions of authority? Teaching? Service?
  3. Will we discipline members who are not in gay relationships but believe that such relationships are okay?
  4. If not, will we allow them in positions of authority? Teaching? Service?
  5. Will we discipline members who actively promote and teach that gay relationships are Biblically acceptable?
  6. If not, will we allow them in positions of authority? Teaching? Service?
  7. Will we recognize and/or cooperate with other churches or denominations who disagree on these questions? If so, which ones?

I think the entire debate should take place within these seven questions. On that basis, we can simply assume that people within the church are believers, and assume that people outside are not. Those who refuse to repent of what we have agreed as a church is Biblically prohibited can be disciplined up to and including excommunication if necessary.

Those who are within the church we should treat as fellow believers, and those outside we treat as lost people in need of Jesus.

How would I personally answer these questions? I’m not 100% sure, but I tend to think this: (1) yes, (2) none, (3) no, (4) service only, (5) yes, (6) none, and (7) I don’t know yet. What are your thoughts? Do you agree with my overall argument? How would you answer these seven questions? Comment with your thoughts if you don’t mind.

Brother Bill Is Gay. Now What?

Liberty Doesn’t Automatically Mean Gay Marriage

Does religious freedom equal gay marriage? Some people think so. I didn’t want to say anything else about gay marriage any time soon at this point. I feel that, for the most part, more than enough has been said on each side in the last three days. But watching Facebook (and a few other places), there has been this particular idea which I think deserves a response from a blog like mine (i.e. a blog which mostly reaches a few common folk the author knows).

See, some Christians have been suggesting that, even though they agree that homosexuality is wrong, the SCOTUS decision is still a win for liberty. After all, we have religious freedom here. So if gay marriage is only wrong from a Christian point of view, shouldn’t the government still allow it for people in general? Wouldn’t restricting marriage to a Christian view violate the religious liberty which Christians so enjoy? We don’t want the government forcing people to worship Jesus, so why should we want them forcing people to respect a Christian view of marriage?

I think there are a few problems with such an argument. The first is that it assumes something about marriage which should not be assumed, namely that it is something which can apply to both homosexual and heterosexual couples. It assumes that it means something for a male to “marry” another male, for example. Yet this cannot be a given. Someone must first question what marriage actually is and is about before we can assume that it makes sense to speak of two men or two women as married. An an analogy, we know we cannot speak of men as pregnant. Nothing a man can experience counts as pregnancy. If the government wished to pass a law which allowed some kind of male circumstance to be legally recognized as pregnancy, it would be absurd and everyone would know it. I suggest we should think twice before assuming that marriage does not work in a similar way when it comes to different or same-sex relationships.

Secondly, we have to ask, “Why does the government recognize marriage?” After all, most people still would think you can be in some way married even if there is no government. Marriage has a legal side and another side. So why is there a legal side? Once we ask that question, we can compare the answers to see if it even makes sense for government to recognize “marriage” in same-sex relationships. These days, people tend to assume that marriage is about nothing more than twue wuv and personal fulfillment. There is no significant reason for a government to care about such a union whether gay or straight. Legal marriage, if love is all marriage is about, has no purpose. But if there are other important matters which it makes sense for the government to support by recognizing marriage and giving it legal benefits, then we have to ask whether they apply equally to gay and straight couples.

As well, from a specifically Christian point of view, the original argument I’m countering smacks of Gnosticism. To say that marriage only needs to be heterosexual for religious reasons, but not in the rest of the world, is basically to say that what is right and designed by God has no important impact on the real world after all. We would be promoting a theology which separates God’s moral law from the way the real world works. Can we really say that homosexuality is only wrong for an arbitrary spiritual reason and has no tangible consequences? But if a Gnostic moral worldview is false, and homosexual unions are wrong, then we must admit that they do cause tangible problems. And if homosexual unions do cause tangible problems, then for the government to legally recognize and privilege them is for the government to promote what damages human society, which of course should not be done.

In fact, this all ties in to the silly idea that legally recognized marriages are a right. That’s simply wrong. To marry is a right, and the government must protect it, but the government is not obligated to legally recognize marriages and give them benefits. They have reasons to do so, but ultimately legal marriage constitutes a government privilege, not a right. If the government is to have legal marriages, they should do so because they have some vested interest in promoting marriage. And in that case, it is not a right they are dealing with. They are choosing to promote certain relationships for the benefit of society. This means that some form of discrimination is necessary, as not all relationships can serve that goal (certainly, for example, pedophilic, incestuous, or polygamous relationships we all agree do not serve that goal, and thus can be justly barred from government recognition). If we moved legal marriage from the category of “right” to “privilege,” where it belongs, then all of this nonsense about equality would be less powerful.

I may have rambled some, but I hope one point remains. As Christians, we do not need to agree that legalizing gay marriage is a good idea for the sake of religious liberty. There are various reasons that, religion aside, the definition of legal marriage can still in principle reasonably be restricted to heterosexual unions without violating any principles of religious freedom. The separation of church and state can still exist without gay marriage, and I daresay it should.

Liberty Doesn’t Automatically Mean Gay Marriage

An Obligatory Post in Response to the Legalization of Gay Marriage

I spent quite some time this morning working on my last blog post, and the moment I shared it on Facebook I noticed something else in my newsfeed. There was #MarriageEquality, and within moments the message was clear: after all this time and to absolutely no one’s surprise, the United States Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is a Constitutional right and is therefore legal in all 50 states. My immediate response: “Darn, I just finished a big blog post and now I have to write another today!”

On a more serious note, this is a pretty big event. June 26, 2015 will definitely be in the history books. Already there have been tons of extreme reactions on both sides of the main aisles. And of course this issue has occupied my thoughts for most of the day, even though I’m not worked up over it. I don’t have a major theme for my response. So here are my miscellaneous thoughts on the national legalization of gay marriage.

First, this battle was lost years ago. Nothing that new is happening. Public opinion has been moving steadily for decades towards acceptance of homosexual relationships as equal to heterosexual ones. More than that, the idea of gay marriage works perfectly as part of the conception of marriage in the modern world. The West started a very long time ago moving marriage from the sphere of commitment, responsibility, reproduction, social stabilization, etc. to the sphere of “twue wuv” and personal fulfillment. Once that became the dominant paradigm, which happened well before I was even born, gay marriage was a natural and reasonable outcome. To undo the damage, we would have to completely reformulate society’s understanding of what marriage is all about and for. Maybe that will happen, but politics won’t be enough and such a worldview change will take generations.

Next, real marriage is still untouched by legal fictions. If marriage is, as I believe, something with a distinct nature and a specific ontological shape, then it exists before and apart from any legal recognitions. This means that the government may be redefining “marriage” for legal purposes and as an example to society, but it still can’t change the leopard’s spots. The new legal unions between gay couples may be called “marriage” by our society, but that doesn’t make them in any way a real marriage. This means God, too, is unhurt. He will only recognize the marriage covenant as He pleases, whatever government may say.

As well, nothing has changed in our nation to invite God’s judgment. This legal decree is just the latest symptom of existing moral faults in society and government. Those are what fall under God’s “No,” not the enactment of a policy most of the nation was already in agreement with. If God at all intends to bring America down, it will be on the basis of many preexisting faults which led to this act. There is nothing new happening in the Supreme Court decision to affect God’s response to us for better or for worse.

For these reasons and more, Christians don’t need to panic or decry the end of the world. The truth is that, as I mentioned, America has been on this path for some time, so panic now isn’t necessary. Moreover, God’s purposes and the Church have survived far worse. The Church in Germany made it through Nazism. When the first Christians burst onto the scene of the Roman world, their society was even worse than ours was. Yet just in that place God turned the world upside down and Jesus was proclaimed everywhere with great results. Even the atrocious conflicts between Catholics and the Reformers, an evil which grew up within the Church, did not spell the end for God’s people. For God is faithful, and the gates of Hell will not prevail over those who share the Spirit which raised Jesus from the dead.

What Christians must do is prepare to address the new challenges for the Church. First and simply, we must prepare for churches and any Christian organizations to lose their tax-exempt status. That’s very likely at this point. Moreover, it’s not inconceivable that Christian colleges could lose accreditation from federally recognized agencies. Christians in many occupations, if they have any voice, may find themselves fired, suspended, or penalized in pay for opposing gay marriage. But most of that isn’t what I want to focus on. After all, if Jesus is Lord and the government is not we should expect such things. What concerns me far more is the challenge coming to the Church from within. For years there have been people within Christianity arguing that homosexuality isn’t actually condemned in Scripture. Some of them have decent arguments and are serious scholars. Voices for this belief will only grow louder now that gay marriage is a fact of American existence. This means that Christians will have to deal with people within the Church disagreeing on this issue moreso than ever before. Many of these people even have a genuine belief in the authority of Scripture and are convinced that this position is Biblically faithful. How should we handle that? Will we excommunicate them? Will we ordain them or not? Can they serve as deacons? Must we treat them all as unbelievers? To what extent should we feel the need to respond to their arguments, and how do we decide if they are “too wrong” on this matter of Biblical interpretation? We will find this issue confronting most congregations, even the more conservative ones. We need to be preparing answers now.

It is more important than ever for believers holding to the traditional view to live quiet and respectable lives full of grace. We are now, more than we even were before, on the “wrong side of history” in the eyes of most of society. As we go on, it’s probably time to focus on living peaceable and upright lives. If we are modest, reserved, and blameless, we cannot be faulted on character charges. If we are quiet (not silent!) respectful, we will earn a better hearing. But more than anything, if we show radical, unconditional love to all people as we try to live these unassuming lives, our actions will speak the loudest. We must in every way defy the stereotypes of people who believe in traditional Scriptural marriage by being too approachable and easy to get along with for anyone to get away with calling us “bigots” or accusing us of hate.

There’s probably other stuff I might say, but I can’t remember anything else right now. Nonetheless, I think these points are enough for today. We’re dealing with a major change, and who knows what all will happen but God? So these are my 2 cents. Feel free to spend them as you wish.

An Obligatory Post in Response to the Legalization of Gay Marriage