Given the high profile of the [Washington] Post, and Bishop [of Washington John] Chane’s standing as a bishop of a prominent (if recently beleaguered) Christian body, one should probably take his remarks seriously. Alas, as a short history his remarks cannot be taken seriously at all, but amount to a tissue of popular myths, used to promote a tired and unfounded historical perspective whose application now has a track record of political intolerance.
Bishop Chane first argues that traditionalists are inconsistent ”” maybe even hypocritical? ”” because Jesus was against divorce and traditionalists are not “demanding that the city council make divorce illegal.” Of course, Jesus did not proclaim all divorce wrong (cf. Matt. 9:9).More important, by begging his own question here ”” just what is the status of divorce, then? ”” Bishop Chane undercuts his case: the state’s accommodation of divorce has indeed encouraged and even created turmoil in social relations. If anything the failures of church and wider culture in this area are actually a good argument for restraint on further social confusion.
Second, Bishop Chane says that traditionalists are inconsistent in their defense of the centrality of heterosexual marriage because, after all, Paul thought marriage inferior to the celibate life. But, of course, the apostle Paul’s teaching does not claim that marriage is an inferior state, but rather that it is often an impractical one in comparison with celibacy. Bishop Chane’s disingenuous assumption that traditionalists ought to apply Paul’s teaching to all of human life was certainly not shared by other writers in the New Testament (or by Jesus), and such an attitude made only partial inroads into the Church’s practical life some centuries later. Most Christians, including Christian priests even in the Middle Ages, understood Paul’s teaching within a larger theological reading of the Scriptures that included a created sexual difference, the blessing of procreation, and the social responsibilities of church and state to nurture families. Within this reading, celibacy is a great gift, and an evangelical vocation for some, and it remains so.
Um, the citation of cf.Matt 9:9 is likely cf.Matt 19:9.
>”Of course, Jesus did not proclaim all divorce wrong”
That seems to be a very liberal and erroneous personal interpretation of scripture as Jesus did, in fact, proclaim all divorce wrong earlier in Matt 19:6. ” What therefore God hath joined together, [b][i]let not man put asunder[/i][/b].” is a very clear pronunciation that all divorce is wrong, since a divorce is man putting asunder what God has joined.
I believe that civil society does have an interest, outside of particular religious claims, in the character and shape of family life and thus in the ordering of public sexual expression. Such an interest is bound up with the very point regarding divorce that Bishop Chane initially uses in support of his claims, i.e. the social disintegration of two-parent families as a political goal, a development that has in fact gone far beyond the limited diversity and dysfunction of anything in previous ages. If this is the case he has to make, he is arguing against history itself.
Then Radner+ is advocating the changing of divorce laws to not allow divorce. Which is of course the same mistake that he accuses +Chane of making. The fact is that the State can show no compelling need for two parent opposite sex families.
And the State can show no compelling reason to allow marriage at all.
Timothy, good quote out of context and ignoring the rest of Scripture on this matter.
#2: While the evidence is not absolutely compelling, it is compelling nonetheless: there are very, very strong correlations over the past almost 50 years in a number of different countries between a host of developmental dysfunctions among certain children — with respect to learning, mental health, anti-social and criminal behavior, addiction, and lower female educational/economic success — and their being raised outside of two-heterosexual parented families. And the costs to societies on a host of levels is enormous. To be sure: these are correlations only, if backed by a host of related factors; they are not universally apparent, although generally so; and they do not yet include data on children raised with two gay parents (there is hardly any). Furthermore, several other steps are required to identify clearly the relationship of permitted same-sex unions and/or marriages, and negative pressures upon the heterosexual two-parent family, although to date there are correlations of such pressures more broadly. The point I would make is that the state probably does have an interest in the present time in supporting, protecting, and encouraging families led by two heterosexual parents; and yes, that would include making divorce more difficult from a civil perspective and, quite simply, reducing access to alternative options — until there is strong evidence that such options are not contributory to current problematic trends. And this seems to me sensible quite apart from any religious prejudices one might hold of one kind or another.
I do believe that there is a compelling social interest in making divorce far more difficult and would happily vote to enact changes in the law to that effect. I’ve never heard anything about the damaging effect of having same-sex parents, but I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the widespread practice of easy divorce during the last 50 years or so has damaged at least two or three generations of Americans.
The point about toleration of conservatives bears requoting:
[blockquote]
Bishop Chane writes that “the proposed legislation would not force any congregation to change its religious teachings or bless any couple.†Perhaps. But Bishop Chane’s own church sees the matter very differently in many instances when it comes to ecclesiastical authority. Episcopal dioceses and Anglican dioceses elsewhere in North America now routinely refuse to ordain candidates who oppose church blessings of same-sex marriage. Bishop Chane’s own former diocesan communications officer routinely called for the removal from church councils of Anglicans opposed to same-sex blessings. “For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?†(Luke 23:21): Chane’s assurances of “freedom†in the civil sphere ring hollow given his own stunning lack of support for theological and pastoral equality in the Episcopal Church.
[/blockquote]
And we have already seen in England, how the Roman Catholic church was forced out of the adoption process because it could not in conscience allow gay couples to adopt. Surely such restrictions are not far behind here.
On this subject I think there is far too much focus on the parents and far too little on the rights of children, who are fragile, defenseless and the direct and helpless victims of a society that devalues and denigrates traditional marriage. I would like to see more of such a focus on the youngest members of our society directed into traditionalist arguments. Children are the victims of the sexual revolution.
John B: “And we have already seen in England, how the Roman Catholic church was forced out of the adoption process because it could not in conscience allow gay couples to adopt”
No, John, the RC Church’s adoption services were funded by the British taxpayer, who has a right not to be discriminated against.
And the Roman Catholic Church has the right to oppose adoption by gay couples if it wishes…….as do all churches.