Theological Digest & Outlook

Selections from the March 2003 issue

NOTE: THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THE SIGNED ARTICLES ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHORS AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT ENDORSEMENT BY CHURCH ALIVE.

• Editorial (Paul Miller)
• Lament for a Palm Sunday Church: Reflections on the Political Captivity of Churches (Foster Freed)
• Conversation with John Irving (Peter C. Moore)
• Thoughts on Truth and Tolerance (Alan Reynolds)
• Some Basic Beliefs and Opinions Concerning Marriage and Law (Dr. Frank Lockhart)

Some Basic Beliefs and Opinions Concerning Marriage and Law

held by Directors of Church Alive: a theological and spiritual fellowship of United Church members and ministers and their friends and sent in March, 2003, to the Standing Committee on Justice at the general invitation of the Minister of Justice in November, 2002

1. "We believe that marriage is a holy union of one man and one woman in which they commit, with God’s help, to build a loving, life-giving, faithful relationship that will last for a lifetime. God has established the married state, in the order of creation and redemption, for spouses to grow in love of one another and for the procreation, nurture, formation, and education of children.

2. "We believe that when a marriage is true to God’s loving design it brings spiritual, physical, emotional, economic, and social benefits not only to a couple and family but also to the Church and to the wider culture", particularly to the nation. "Couples, churches, and the whole of society", including governments, "have a stake in the well-being of marriages. Each, therefore, has its own obligations to prepare, strengthen, support and restore marriages.

3. "Our nation" and particularly our children are "threatened by a high divorce rate, a rise in cohabitation, a rise in non-marital births, a decline in the marriage rate, and a diminishing interest in and readiness for marrying, especially among young people. The documented adverse impact of these trends on children, adults, and society is alarming" (from A Christian Declaration on Marriage, November, 2000, signed by Bishop Anthony O’Connell, Chairman, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Committee on Marriage and Family Life; Dr Richard Land, President, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention; Bishop Kevin Mannoia, President, National Association of Evangelicals).

4. We believe that there is no substitute and no alternative to marriage in its role as the basic building block of a society and a nation. Current culture has erred seriously in severing marriage between a man and a woman from the very nature of creation. According to Genesis 1, marriage is the first social institution, established as such by the Creator. According to the Lord Jesus Christ speaking in Matthew 19, marriage as a lifelong union of a man and a woman was established by God from the beginning. It is therefore the primordial institution among human beings. The long history of marriage among virtually all human societies is verifiable evidence of this truth. The failure of state-sanctioned undermining of marriage as in the Soviet Union is also evidence of this truth.

5. Since marriage is the basic building block of a society and a nation, government has a stake in its health. The option to leave marriage exclusively to the religions (by repealing all federal law on marriage and all references in federal law and programs to marriage) would be an abdication of Government responsibility and should be rejected.

6. We draw attention to the statement of Mr Justice La Forest in the 1995 Nesbit and Egan case, that marriage "is the social unit that uniquely has the capacity to procreate children and generally cares for their upbringing, and, as such, warrants support by Parliament to meet its needs... This is the only unit in society that expends resources to care for children on a routine and sustained basis... this is the unit in society that fundamentally anchors other social relationships and other aspects of society" (p. 538).

7. Since both God, British common law and the Canadian Parliament agree that marriage is between a man and a woman, same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms and should be dismissed as a serious option.

8. The experience of The United Church of Canada is a warning about revising the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions. The United Church has suffered a major loss of credibility and respect, as well as membership, by accepting the misguided proposition that all expressions of human sexuality are gifts of God. It has therefore in its official pronouncements rejected the historical understanding that human sexuality is God’s gift, while the expression of sexuality is a choice which each individual person must make for himself/herself. This confusion between "justice" and "morality" has caused untold damage within the United Church as well as the loss of a once respected moral leadership throughout Canadian society. In all of this the United Church has, as is the case increasingly within Canada, fallen under the tyranny of a minority. This very small but vociferous minority by their demands for "rights" deny the rights of the vast majority o! f the population with the absurd claim that two people of the same sex living together constitute a marriage, thereby disqualifying marriage as it has been from the beginning as a union between a man and a woman. If the Government of Canada allows itself to be victimized by the tyrannical behaviour of the "gay" lobby, it too will lose credibility and respect and be seen to have abdicated its leadership role.

9. The philosopher Allan Bloom stated: "In philosophy and morals the hardest and most essential rule is ‘You can’t eat your cake and have it too’" (The Closing of the American Mind, p. 229). Confident of the powers of technology, current secular humanist culture in general and homosexual militants in particular reject this most essential rule. Hence the absurd insistence on the part of some homosexuals that a homosexual liaison with all its freedoms is or should be accepted in law as a marriage.

10. The fact that two out of three provincial courts have ruled that the Parliamentary definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is unconstitutional is evidence that the Notwithstanding Clause must be used against their rulings now.

11. Moreover, the Notwithstanding Clause involving a review every five years as it does should be amended to allow also for no time limit on such blatant judicial highjacking of the law of God and the rights of Parliament. Moreover, if judges are going to change laws as they see fit, each judge should only be appointed after examination by a Parliamentary Committee and after a two-thirds vote by the House of Commons. Such constitutional changes are obviously required if this country is ever to return to being a Parliamentary democracy.

12. From our experience in the United Church we sense that the majority of our people, though sympathetic to homosexuals as persons, have strong feelings against linking marriage and homosexual liaisons, and these strong feelings do not change or disappear over time. Therefore any attempt to legislate same-sex marriage will lead to negative attitudes towards both homosexuals and human rights legislation. We believe in human rights, but we do not believe in the abuse of human rights by self-interested groups.

13.We warmly commend the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada’s brief of February 13, 2003, to this Justice Committee.

Respectfully submitted,

(Rev. Dr.) FRANK LOCKHART
President

There follow Annex "A" re the Minister’s Discussion Paper, and Annex "B" re the brief of the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto.

ANNEX "A" to the Church Alive Brief to the Standing Committee on Justice re: the Minister’s Discussion Paper: Marriage and Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Unions

1. Is marriage a ceremony? Is marriage an expression of commitment?

1.1 On page 5 we read, "Marriage is a ceremony..." and on page 7 we read, "People who see marriage as an expression of commitment..."

1.2 We want to make clear that we do not regard marriage as a mere ceremony. In Scripture there are countless marriages for which there is no recorded ceremony. For example, no ceremony is recorded for Adam and Eve or for Abram and Sarai. It is possible that the Song of Songs may preserve elements of a marriage ceremony. But it is obvious that Scripture regards marriage as essentially and basically a covenant. A covenant is a treaty, which is a very serious undertaking by two parties. The covenant between God and Israel is often treated as a marriage. See the prophet Hosea and many other passages likening Israel’s apostasies from the Lord as adulteries.

1.3 Marriage is more than an expression of commitment. It involves commitment of course. But marriage is commitment of male and female to each other. That God honours such lifelong commitment is seen in God’s setting aside Ishmael as Abraham’s heir. God said that Abraham’s heir of the covenant was to be the son of his wife Sarah (Genesis 17), not his concubine Hagar. (But even Ishmael was to be blessed.) The Bible records other commitments involving relationships, but they are not marriages. For example, the oaths exchanged between David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18) in no way constituted a marriage either to them, to anyone else or to God. Nor was their love homosexual; but even if it were, it was not a marriage.

2. Is the origin of marriage proprietary?

2.1 On pages 7 and 8 we read, "Others point out that the sociological and historical origins of marriage were not religious, but rather proprietary. Specifically, the institution of marriage was created to govern the transfer of ownership of property, including women and children, between wealthy families. Only later did this contract become sanctified by religion."

2.2 We challenge this speculative assertion. Scripture maintains that God instituted marriage (Genesis 1 and Matthew 19), not wealthy families. What historical evidence is there that wealthy families instituted marriage? Which wealthy families? From what region or country? What ancient texts say so? This seems to us to be sheer speculation that ignores such history as we do have in the Bible. The Bible’s history spans about two thousand years, from 1,900 BC when Abraham came to Palestine to 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed and the New Testament was completed (see J.A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament).

2.3 We challenge the inference that women and children were chattels. Perhaps in some cultures they might appear to be. But in Roman Law there was a clear primary distinction made between those who were free and those who were slaves (See R.W. Lee, The Elements of Roman Law [1944] 1956, pp. 46ff.). Slaves were property. Slaves were chattels. Yet even under such a regime slaves were eventually granted some rights. By contrast free women and children could not be considered as mere chattels or slaves.

2.4 In the Bible every human being is believed to be created by God in his own image, though sin obscures and defiles God’s image. The New Testament doctrine of the believer in Christ as a new creation led to the doctrine that free and slave are brothers (see Philemon). No doubt in Old Testament times and even in New Testament times there was more or less cultural captivity which led to the subordination of women. But in the primary witness of the Bible, for example the Ten Commandments, the Father and the Mother are both to be honoured (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16). Consider the honour accorded the Mother of the Lord in Luke 1, and the honour which the historical Church has consistently given her, even by the Reformers Luther, Zwingli and Calvin.

2.5 Moreover consider St Paul’s famous comment on baptism: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). This is no mere rhetoric. Consider: "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Corinthians 7:4). Does this sound as if the wife is a mere chattel? If she is, so is her husband! The submission passages of Ephesians 5 are basically mututal (see Ephesians 5:21).

2.6 Were children mere chattels? God tested Abraham in the binding of Isaac but forbade the sacrifice of the boy. One of King Mannaseh’s great sins was his sacrifice of his son (2 Kings 21:6). A child cannot be treated as if an adult, but he or she is nonetheless created in the image of God. That God the Word became an unborn baby, a child, a boy and a teenager shows how valued children are in their own right. Moreover the Lord taught that unless you are converted and become as little children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:3 etc.).

2.7 The institution of marriage was created by God to enable a man and woman to grow into maturity and fulfilment and to enable children to be brought up in a safe and loving family. Proprietary interests may well have been attached to marriage like barnacles on a ship, but it is simply not shown that they created marriage. Ceremonies may eventually have marked the importance of entering into the marriage covenant. But we regard marriage as primordial because Scripture says so and no one has proved otherwise..

ANNEX "B" to the Church Alive Brief to the Standing Committee on Justice re: the Brief of the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto (MCCT)

1. How many faith groups wish to perform same-sex marriages?

1.1 MCCT claims that it is one of "many" faith groups that wish to perform same-sex marriages that are legally recognized. We ask, How many faith groups? One lone diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada decided that it will bless same-sex unions, but such a blessing does not constitute a marriage. And although The United Church of Canada is officially in favour of recognizing same-sex marriages, most congregations simply are not in favour and will not perform them. Besides the few Unitarian congregations and the few Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC) congregations in Canada, how "many" faith groups want same-sex marriages? We suggest that "many" would not be an accurate answer.

2. Is the traditional Christian view that homosexual acts are sinful in error?

2.1 MCCT claims that it is. It presents no arguments other than generalizations about misinterpretations and ancient, unscientific and outdated beliefs. But all this begs the question. One would think that so recently founded a sect as the UFMCC would give some account of its novel belief. After all, Holy Scripture clearly teaches that homosexual behaviour is sinful and that the Gospel can change people who engage in homosexual and other sinful acts (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Moreover this tradition of the Church from the days of the Apostles has remained consistently the same in most branches of the Church, specifically in the largest, the Roman Catholic Church, and in the second largest, the Orthodox Church.

2.2 MCCT believes in the continuing process of revelation with respect to sexuality. Why only with respect to sexuality? Does this not sound like special pleading? Moreover, Christian revelation comes through the Holy Spirit, who "will testify of" Jesus (John 15:26) and who "will take of Mine and declare it to you" (John 16:15). Continuing revelation will not therefore be inconsistent with what Jesus taught before his sacrificial death and resurrection.

2.3 The MCCT analogy of homosexuality with slavery is invalid. The traditions of the Church have not supported slavery, as MCCT charges. To insist, as Scripture does, that slave and free are one (Galatians 3:28) and brothers (Philemon 16) is simply not supportive of slavery. The Christian doctrine of human dignity eventually resulted in the modification of and eventual abolition of slavery. Magna Carta of 1215, the basis for modern freedoms, was championed by Archbishop Stephen Langdon of Canterbury. The Popes condemned New World slavery: Paul III in 1537, Pius V in 1567, and Urban VIII in 1639. The modern abolition of slavery is the result of Christian teaching rooted in Scripture and tradition and of the influence of committed Christians (e.g., Wilberforce). But the notion that homosexuality is normal or even a gift of God has no basis whatever either in Holy Scripture or in tradition, but comes only from theories untested by time and propounded by the self-interested. !

2.4 The liberation of sexually compulsive men and women into freedom in Christ, maturity and holiness is due to the Holy Spirit operating in Christian teaching and influence.

3. Is the Christian teaching on marriage that it is between one man and one woman?

3.1 Yes. The Founder and Head of Christians stated with crystal clarity, "Have you not read that he who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matthew 19:4-6).

3.2 The MCCT position presumes to know better than Jesus Christ, who must therefore be either comparatively ignorant or downright wrong. Either way there is an implicit repudiation of Jesus Christ as truly God. It is difficult to understand how such a repudiation of Jesus Christ permits a group to call itself in any serious sense Christian. It would seem that its faith is less in Jesus Christ than in its own sexual identity.

4. Is the present definition of marriage in Canadian law infringing on MCCT’s religious beliefs?

4.1 It infringes obliquely on MCCT’s erroneous beliefs. But if the definition were changed as MCCT wants and allowed for same-sex marriages, then this change would infringe obliquely on the beliefs of more churches and synagogues than the present law does. It would also open the door to polygamy, with all the abuses that are evident in that practice.

4.2 MCCT is free to bless gay and lesbian unions. They need no permission from government to do so. What they want is to impose their beliefs on the nation. Their commitment to defend any clergyman sued for refusing to bless a same-sex union is significant and appreciated, but in no way changes the fact that they want their view of marriage imposed on Canadian law and the majority view of marriage rejected.

4.3 Moreover, MCCT does not speak for all homosexuals, many of whom have made it clear that they do not want their relationships to be modelled after heterosexual marriage. Many homosexuals are individualists and are prepared to make up their own rules on relationships without the slightest interest in what anyone, least of all the Government, has to say.

4.4 Bell and Weinberg’s study Homosexualities showed that only about 10% of the homosexual population practised long-term cohabitation. Current statistics indicate that homosexuals comprise about 2% of the population. To talk about same-sex marriage is to talk at most about 0.2% of the Canadian population. Does it make sense to change the definition of marriage to please a portion of such a small percentage of the population?