Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question — how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.--C. S. Lewis
Is there an argument for the legality of same-sex marriage along these lines?
62 comments:
There is an argument for the legality of anything and everthing "along these lines" Separate but equal?
It's interesting that a Christian should attack Christians for attempting to execute legislation as attempt "to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community". Should followers of Jesus Christ insist that Aztec human sacrfice be prohibited due to cultural sensitivity?
So, you object to Lewis's argument here? (Actually, so did Tolkien.)
"Is there an argument for the legality of same-sex marriage along these lines? "
Yes. No doubt in my mind.
There are different reasons for each set of rules. The laws of the state should preserve the universal human rights and the freedoms for which governments exist. The rules of the church should be aimed at lovingly (for God is love) encouraging and assisting christians to live as God would have them live. If the two conflict, the laws of the state prevail, provided the laws protect rights and don't oppress.
Thus we can answer questions about Aztec sacrifice, and they have nothing to do with christianity, but with secular law. Murder shouldn't be allowed as it infringes on human rights. If the sacrifice is truly voluntary, the question becomes (like assisted dying) more complicated, but I think most people would agree that it should be outlawed to ensure that unstable people aren't persuaded.
I don't oppose same sex marriage to the extent that I don't think the government should be in the business of telling me who I can or can't give my benefits to.
Yes Lewis allowed for divorce and Tolkien opposed it.
The "state" in Western countries until recently legislated marriage quite closely to Christian standards believing that marriage and the family was vital to the type of society they wished to propagate. There are still laws against polygamy, but is there now any principled reason to keep it illegal?
The law is always someone forcing their morality on others. Even the absence of a prohibition forces everyone else to live under that moral vacuum. All citizens are invited into the legislative process to express their values, even Christians. The Abrahamic covenant extended God's standards to be a blessing to all nations. Jesus pointed to righteousness as the pathe to happiness. The imposition of Christian standards is a blessing, not a curse except when the attempt. This is not always simple in application. It is easy to be either too lenient or circumscribe too narrowly.
"All citizens are invited into the legislative process to express their values, even Christians."
That is true, but their values relating to what? Surely not the imposition of a theocracy, or of personal taste in beverages, or of many other things that are personal values. Surely democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of choice, etc require the majority to only impose what is clearly beneficial for society as a whole?
Of course there are grey areas. But surely, in the case of same sex marriage, there would have to be a very strong adverse societal impact before we could rightfully take away people's freedom to marry who they wish? I don't see any significant clear disbenefit.
As christians, we should be guided by God. He gives us guidance but leaves us more or less free to choose to follow that guidance, or not. Surely we should do the same?
As christians, we should be guided by God. He gives us guidance but leaves us more or less free to choose to follow that guidance, or not. Surely we should do the same?
I'm following unkleE's advice by doing what God wants done. Not what unkleE wants done.
Hi bmiller, I think that is a most unfortunate comment - a cheap shot. I think I'll leave the discussion there. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss.
Why do you think it's a cheap shot?
I think it doesn't address the issue, but rather makes an unclear point via indirect and slightly derogatory words. I don't think it was terrible as these things go, but I think it is a "good" way to close down an interesting conversation.
I'm sorry if that seems very direct. But after many years discussing on the web, I have decided to bail out if I think the discussion ceases to be helpful or respectful.
unkleE,
You basically claimed that God guided you in your decision that gay marriage is OK and that we should be guided by God. You implied that any Christian who disagrees with you is not guided by God.
I agree that we should be guided by God. I don't think you are, just as you think those that disagree with you aren't guided by God. If you don't think your position is derogatory then why would you think my statement was?
"You basically claimed that God guided you in your decision that gay marriage is OK"
I don't think I actually said that - can you show me where? (I hope it is true but I don't think I claimed it.)
"You implied that any Christian who disagrees with you is not guided by God."
I certainly did NOT say that. Can you point anywhere I said it? I can't see it anywhere. Furthermore, I don't believe it. I recognise there is plurality on this question and I'm not claiming to be definitely right. I have shared my view, that is all.
" just as you think those that disagree with you aren't guided by God."
See above. I don't think this.
"If you don't think your position is derogatory then why would you think my statement was?"
I have treated you and your view with respect and dignity. I have argued against it in a respectful way. I haven't made nay throw away lines that assumed things about you that weren't true, then dismissed them without offering an argument, just a smart remark. It seems to me that you have done those things in that remark. There is no real comeback to such a remark, so it kills the conversation. I'm not angry about it or upset, just feeling that such a remark isn't worth replying to. But it seems that we are now having a different discussion, so your remark has stopped the original discussion, whereas my response has only opened up another :(
OK, I can see that I misinterpreted the intentions of your remarks. Sorry about that.
This was the comment that made me think you were claiming you were guided by God:
As christians, we should be guided by God. He gives us guidance but leaves us more or less free to choose to follow that guidance, or not.
In the context of whether society should celebrate or not celebrate what Christians consider sinful behavior it appeared to me that you were arguing that since God allows us to sin we should also allow sinful behavior to go on unchallenged.
God does indeed give us guidance and we indeed are not forced to accept that guidance. Since God doesn't force us to follow his guidance does that mean there is no harm in ignoring his guidance?
OK, thanks. Comments in blogs must be abbreviated, so it is easy to misunderstand or to write innacurately. I'm sorry if my response was too harsh.
"it appeared to me that you were arguing that since God allows us to sin we should also allow sinful behavior to go on unchallenged."
I am really questioning HOW we challenge behaviour we regard as sinful. (1) We may be wrong. Behaviour I thought was sinful 40 years ago I am not so sure about now. God sometimes leads us to change our views. Let's be humble about our opinions. (2) In a pluralist democracy, we challenge by living as loving servants (and being seen as such) and persuading by evidence that certain actions are beneficial or not to society as a whole, and especially to the poor and disadvantaged, and that the loss of personal freedom entailed is justified. I don't see that is true for opposition to same sex marriage.
"Since God doesn't force us to follow his guidance does that mean there is no harm in ignoring his guidance?"
Surely it depends on what criteria we are using. Pride can do spiritual harm, but it would be very hard to show that it did societal harm on a level that would justify prohibiting it. So while I as a christian try (less then perfectly!) to follow God's guidance, I shouldn't expect others to be motivated that way.
Behaviour I thought was sinful 40 years ago I am not so sure about now. God sometimes leads us to change our views.
Let's be honest, it's not only God that leads us to change our views. Did you ever think homosexual activity was wrong and now not? If this is the case, how do you think God changed your mind?
Do you really think that Christians should not use Christian arguments in any society pluralistic or not? The Christian message is either attractive or it's not. Seems like it was pretty attractive in pagan societies in the past. We're pretty pagan now.
So while I as a christian try (less then perfectly!) to follow God's guidance, I shouldn't expect others to be motivated that way.
If you think your faith is beneficial to you, why wouldn't you want to extend that benefit to everyone else. Isn't that what Christ wanted us to do? Isn't that what citizens in a democratic society want to do?
Hi, these are good questions, but I do think you are asuming things that I don't actually believe. So let me explain .....
" it's not only God that leads us to change our views."
No, that applies to how we form our views in the first place too, and it applies to you as well as me. So it doesn't really change the discussion, it's just an underlying afct in all discussions.
"Did you ever think homosexual activity was wrong and now not? If this is the case, how do you think God changed your mind?"
This is a very important question, and I can only answer briefly here. I will make some bald statements without trying to justify them to keep it brief, but feel free to ask for more.
1. There are many teachings in the Bible which christians don't actually accept literally (although each person's list varies). So we need a consistent hermeneutic to decide how we interpret the bible on these teachings.
2. There are many principles we may use, including old vs new covenant, how Jesus and the apostles interpreted the OT, the consensus of the church down the ages and/or today, understanding the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic usage of the day, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, etc.
3. Issues that have come under such scrutiny and been questioned and/or changed in my lifetime have included Sabbath observance, just war, prosperity teaching & materialism, the role of women in society and in the church, environmental management, attitudes to LGBTQI people, evangelism, etc. You and I will likely be on for some changes and against others.
4. Applying the principles in #2, I don't believe we should discriminate against gays and I am uncertain on how God feels about same sex marriage.
"Do you really think that Christians should not use Christian arguments in any society pluralistic or not?"
No. You missed that I said "persuading by evidence that certain actions are beneficial or not to society as a whole, and especially to the poor and disadvantaged, and that the loss of personal freedom entailed is justified".
"why wouldn't you want to extend that benefit to everyone else"
Again you have misunderstood me. I do want to, but subject to their wishes. I have maintained an apologetic website for 15 year for that purpose. I have worked with several people who respected my christian faith but told me quite clearly that they would ask the questions when they wanted to know.
unkleE,
I can't figure out if I received an answer to these 2 questions from your reply:
Did you ever think homosexual activity was wrong and now not? If this is the case, how do you think God changed your mind?
I still don't know if you ever thought homosexual activity was wrong. So of course the second question is moot. The closest your response comes to answering the question is #4, but that is entirely vague. Sorry, but these were straightforward questions and I did not receive straightforward answers. Consider what you would think if someone responded to your questions this way.
Your replies to how to spread the Christian message in society can wait. I do have questions regarding that also.
Sorry, yes I was taught as a young christian that homosexual activity was wrong and I believed it for many years. I am now uncertain.
Why?
Why am I uncertain? For many of the reasons I've given - "old vs new covenant, how Jesus and the apostles interpreted the OT, the consensus of the church down the ages and/or today, understanding the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic usage of the day, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, etc."
I can't tell from your description exactly what the reasons are so I have to guess if you won't provide more detail.
I'm familiar with the arguments activists make using Bible passages and strained historical interpretations. But I've also seen people use Bible passages and speculative history to justify just about anything.
I think you mentioned that your belief system is close to being Anabaptist. Is that right?
Here is a Jewish perspective on the question.
The case is made that only the Jews in the ancient world prohibited homosexuality and considered it an abomination. That is one of the things that made the Jewish faith unique.
Christianity carried that morality forward.
As a side note. I learned why milk and meat are separated according to kosher law. Some other historical details as well.
I think Lewis is performatively inconsistent. If you believe the Christian conception of marriage is 'ordained by God' then you must also believe that it is an unalloyed good. Good for men, women, couples, the children they produce, and society in general. Why would you want to allow some people to settle for a lesser good?
Good question David.
Hard to believe that someone of Lewis's intellect was unaware of that inconsistency. Maybe the will overruled the intellect in this case.
"I can't tell from your description exactly what the reasons are so I have to guess if you won't provide more detail."
Well I can hardly give a full outline of all my reasons in a blog comment, can I? I try to be brief ans see what needs further explanation. Here is a brief outline:
"old vs new covenant" - many things in the OT we don't accept today (e.g. stoning gays or adulterers) - this may be one of them.
"how Jesus and the apostles interpreted the OT" - they didn't interpret it literally as we do, but much more fluidly and flexibly; Jesus only dealing with sexual sinners avoided the law of stoning them - so maybe he would do the same here.
"the consensus of the church down the ages and/or today" - the consensus has been agains homosexuality as an orientation as well as activity, but today most christians don't condemn the orietation and many don't condemn the activity either.
"understanding the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic usage of the day" - there are arguments foir understanding the anti-gay passages in the NT differently - I don't have a lot of respect for those arguments, but they exist and convince many.
"the guidance of the Holy Spirit" - the Spirit today seems to be leading christians to change in a lot of areas, especially to show more love than judgmnent - and this may be one of those areas.
"I'm familiar with the arguments activists make using Bible passages and strained historical interpretations. But I've also seen people use Bible passages and speculative history to justify just about anything."
It happens on all sides and on all issues. Unfortunately sometimes, but sometimes it may be the Holy Spirit.
"I think you mentioned that your belief system is close to being Anabaptist. Is that right?"
I think so, but not rigorously e.g. Anabaptist classically were against political involvement but I believe in it.
" Why would you want to allow some people to settle for a lesser good?"
Hi David, not sure if you were addressing me, but my answer to the question would be - freedom. God allows us to settle for lesser goods all the time because he has given us the freedom to sin or not to sin, so how could I try to take away that freedom?
unkleE,
It's true that Christians have set aside the ritual/kosher rules of Jewish origin, but not the moral law. It's true we don't stone adulterers or disobedient sons now but that doesn't mean they are not sins. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more".
but today most christians don't condemn the orietation and many don't condemn the activity either.
I think some people have some sort of particular disgust for homosexuality. Probably because it is a perversion related to the generation of sacred new life. But ultimately all sin is a perversion of some moral good and, let's face it, we're all sinners. We should hate the sin, but love the sinner. Some Christians forget this either unintentionally or intentionally. BTW, if many Christians fall into hetrodoxy or heresy it's not a good argument for us to do so too.
Christians should always promote justice as well as love. If you are unjust you are not showing love to the victim. If you punish the guilty unjustly you are not showing love to him. Can you really separate love from justice or justice from love?
Hello unkleE. I was hoping someone would defend Lewis :-) I think there are two sorts of freedom here. Yes, there is God-given freedom of choice, and earthly law has no power to take this away. On the other hand the law introduces penalties for certain actions and those penalties will sway our choices and so might be said to restrict our freedom in second sense. But that is their purpose. Here is another oddity. Lewis seems to advocate Christian marriage for Christians, with more restrictions, harder divorce, greater penalties, I presume, and marriage-lite for non-Christians, with fewer restrictions, easier divorce, lesser penalties. But this seems upside-down. Wouldn't Christians, with their vows before God, make greater efforts to sustain a marriage (if that is Lewis's aim) anyway?
"It's true that Christians have set aside the ritual/kosher rules of Jewish origin, but not the moral law."
This is often how the issue is framed, but I don't see any scriptural justification for the distinction, nor do I think many issues can be so clearly defined one way or the other. Let me test this with these questions:
1. Can you give me any scripture which separates out the "moral law" from other parts of the law?
2. How do you overcome James 2:10
3. Do you agree that Jesus went against the law on a moral question when he didn't support stoning the woman in John 8 (assuming you accept that the story is historical)?
4. Would you classify the following as moral law or ritual/kosher law: rules about women's periods (including having sex during her period) and purification after childbirth, Sabbath observance, rules about infectious skin diseases and mildew, the list of sexual relations in Leviticus 18, don't mate different kinds of animals, no cutting bodies or tattoos, the year of Jubilee? Many of them seem to have some ritual/kosher aspects and some moral.
Conclusion: I don't see any justification for your distinction and I don't accept it.
"if many Christians fall into hetrodoxy or heresy it's not a good argument for us to do so too."
The matter you comment on is only one of half a dozen factors I try to weigh. Using the words "hetrodoxy or heresy" pre-judges the issue. But the guidance of the Holy Spirit in scripture often comes to the group, not the individual. So if I see christians taking a view, esepcially if they are christians I respect, it is possibly an indication that the Holy SPirit is teaching us something new. May be, may not be. Worth at least considering and praying about.
I think too many christians forget that the church has been changing and adjusting down through the ages. The Reformation wasn't the only time. So who knows if this isn't one of them? May be, may not be. Worth at least considering and praying about.
Hi David,
"I think there are two sorts of freedom here. Yes, there is God-given freedom of choice, and earthly law has no power to take this away. On the other hand the law introduces penalties for certain actions and those penalties will sway our choices and so might be said to restrict our freedom in second sense."
We are agreed here. This is christians submitting to the law of their country. The question we are discussing here is whether christians should try to make non-believers submit to christian morality, which is the reverse question.
"Lewis seems to advocate Christian marriage for Christians, with more restrictions, harder divorce, greater penalties, I presume, and marriage-lite for non-Christians, with fewer restrictions, easier divorce, lesser penalties. But this seems upside-down. Wouldn't Christians, with their vows before God, make greater efforts to sustain a marriage (if that is Lewis's aim) anyway?"
Of course christians would make greater efforts. That's why we set higher standards. I have been a life-long (well, since mid teens) CS Lewis fan and have and have read most of his writings, and I am familiar with his ideas here. He believes that God gives us all freedom, and we christians should extend that freedom to others, even though we disagree with them. There are two reasons for this.
(1) If the Muslims became dominant in a western coutry, would we think it fair if they imposed their law? On the principle of doing unto others what we'd want them to do to us, this means we should NOT impose.
(2) It is following the way of God, who gives freedom and responsibility. It is treating people with the respect they deserve as being made in God's image.
I think he got it completely right.
unkleE,
This is often how the issue is framed, but I don't see any scriptural justification for the distinction, nor do I think many issues can be so clearly defined one way or the other. Let me test this with these questions:
Fair enough.
1. No. It's an inference agreed upon at the the First Council of Jerusalem.
2. You didn't tell me what I need to overcome.
3. I'd say it's more likely that Jesus caught out the Pharisees being hypocritical.
4. Too many things to respond to.
However, I find it interesting that you find no distinction between ritual rules and moral rules when Christ seemed to make such a distinction.
But the guidance of the Holy Spirit in scripture often comes to the group, not the individual.
Thanks. This is why I was curious about your background assumptions wrt your religious commitments. Anabaptists spawned many different groups that have been prominent and surviving in the US for a long time. The state of Pennsylvania for instance was named after Quaker William Penn.
Quakers in particular think that the Inner Light guides each person. It helps my understanding for you to explain to me what factors you weigh when considering what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell you. There is a community aspect as well as the Inner Light. Thanks again.
"I find it interesting that you find no distinction between ritual rules and moral rules when Christ seemed to make such a distinction."
I don't see any explicit statement to that effect, can you quote one?
(1) You have agreed that there is no scriptural distinction between moral and ritual/kosher law and unless you have a clear statement of Jesus as above, this statement stands.
(2) James 2:10: "whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." Indicates that we cannot dismiss the ritual/kosher law (if we can identify such) unless we dismiss it all.
(3) Yes it's true that "Jesus caught out the Pharisees being hypocritical", but saying this means you haven't addressed the fact that Jesus didn't support the stoning of the woman as per John 8:4-5, following Deut 22:2 and Leviticus 20:10 (assuming the woman was another man's wife, as the accusation suggested). He didn't support the law. There are other examples in the gospels.
(4) Yes, there are a lot of examples there, but separating them into moral and ritual/kosher isn't easy and is probably impossible.
My conclusion is that either the whole OT Law applies to christians today, or none of it does. Jesus' actions suggest the latter. So does Hebrews 8:13, 2 Corinthioans 3:6 and Romans 7:6-7 (which includes one of the 10 Commandments). So if you disagree, how do you respond to these points?
"Quakers in particular think that the Inner Light guides each person. "
I claim no inner light. I am probably the world's least spiritual person.
So if you disagree, how do you respond to these points?
I agree that Christ gave us a New Covenant that replaced the Old Covenant. That doesn't mean there is no overlap. The Noahide Laws for instance apply to all people, Jew or Gentile, so it's not true to say that no part of the Old Covenant applies to Christians today when there are parts in common.
The question regarding if Gentiles that converted to Christ needed to follow the Old Covenant or not was worked out at the First Council of Jerusalem and that became the model for resolving disputes going forward. Christ gave the power of "binding and loosing" to his Apostles which is the authority to make those types of authoritative decisions.
I claim no inner light. I am probably the world's least spiritual person.
I thought I was! Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to have a revelation, but I suppose I'd make a mess of it so God, being merciful, spares me from it.
"The Noahide Laws for instance apply to all people, Jew or Gentile"
I agree that most of them are genrally true, but that doesn't mean that law code is binding on us. In the Abolition oif man CS Lewis showed that most of those commands are common to many ethical systems and races, but that doesn't mean those codes are ALL binding on us. THey are simply in common (I believe).
"it's not true to say that no part of the Old Covenant applies to Christians today when there are parts in common."
The key words are "in common". My argument is this.
1. You seem to have agreed that there is no Biblical command to split the law, it is all or nothing.
2. It clearly isn't "all" so it must be nothing. The NT passages I quoted also indicate this.
3. Trying to hold on to "some" is contrary to scripture and creates great problems and inconsistencies. Let it all go!
4. So our standard today are the teachings of Jesus and the apostles and the Holy Spirit.
5. This gives us a higher standard than the OT law (as Jesus outlines in Matthew 5).
6. Nevertheless, God is God, truth is truth and right and wrong are right and wrong, so there will be much in common.
These conclusions seem strongly taught and practical, avoid a lot of complications and inconsistencies, and set a high standard. I can't see any reason not to accept this.
"I thought I was!"
I guess we won't argue over this dubious disctinction! :)
I agree that most of them are genrally true, but that doesn't mean that law code is binding on us.
How can a moral law given to all people (as opposed to God's covenant with the Jewish people) not be binding on all people?
Regarding 1. You're right in the sense that Jews still follow the Law. Christians are not required to follow the Jewish Law.
Regarding 2. If the Law contains a provision against murder and Christians free from "all" of the Law then they would be free from the provision against murder. Christians are prohibited from murdering so they must not be free from that provision. It's due to the fact that both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant have things in common. Neither are free from those common elements.
Regarding 3. Are you suggesting letting go of the common elements like prohibiting murder?
Regarding 4. The teachings of Jesus and the apostles and the Holy Spirit are taught today as they have always been, by the Church. 1 Tim. 15-16.
Regarding 5. Christians have a different Covenant with God than the Jewish Covenant.
Regarding 6. Both Old and New Covenants have common elements it's true. So we are bound by some of those same elements rather than throwing them out because they are of the Old Covenant.
The last response is a reason to reject the formulation that the Old Testament must "all" be rejected. I'm sure there's a better way to formulate it that we can both agree on however.
Old Covenant, not Old Testament
I don't think you understand what I am saying. THis comment illustrates this.
"If the Law contains a provision against murder and Christians free from "all" of the Law then they would be free from the provision against murder. Christians are prohibited from murdering so they must not be free from that provision."
Yes, but the OT law doesn't apply to us any more (unless we accept ALL of it). The reason we don't murder isn't because the OT Law says not to, but because Jesus says to love our enemies and to not even hate.
"Are you suggesting letting go of the common elements like prohibiting murder?"
No, I'm suggesting we let go of the OT Law. If we don't let go of it, we have to hold on to all of it. We don't murder because of the NT.
" Both Old and New Covenants have common elements it's true. So we are bound by some of those same elements rather than throwing them out because they are of the Old Covenant."
We don't throw the common elements out. We reject the OT Law. (Or else we obey it all!) We follow the common elements because they are in the new coveneant.
When I say the OT Law is to be rejected, I don't mean we actually cut it out. It stands as a historical record of the old covenant. But we no longer accept it as binding on us because we are in a different covenant.
I have repeated myself there, but I did it for emphasis. I hope you see what I am saying now.
You're welcome to your locutions.
In the end we both agree that:
Jews prohibit murder and stealing.
Christians prohibit murder and stealing.
If you want to say that Christians rejected prohibitions against murder and stealing because they were part of the Old Covenant and then accepted prohibitions against murder and stealing because they were part of the New Covenant you're welcome to that formulation.
Likewise prohibitions against sexual immorality are part of the New Covenant even though it was similarly prohibted to the Jews in the Old Covenant.
"You're welcome to your locutions."
They're not just "locutions" to me, but important distinctions. At least partly because they help us let go of the past that doesn't belong to us and embrace the new that God is doing.
"If you want to say that Christians rejected prohibitions against murder and stealing because they were part of the Old Covenant and then accepted prohibitions against murder and stealing because they were part of the New Covenant you're welcome to that formulation."
I certainly DON'T want to say that. I think it would be very strange if someone followed that sequence of thought. I think the early christians struggled to work out what of the old they should take into the new (as we can see in the story of Peter and Cornelius) but in the end they let go of the old and embraced the new. Many things were similar in each, so those parts were easier.
As in the other conversation, do you want to leave all this here now? Thanks.
Many things were similar in each, so those parts were easier.
I've argued that many things were the same, not just similar, specifically prohibition against murder, stealing and sexual immorality. You're at peace with your formulation, but for me it leads to some logical problems. Either prohibiting murder is part of the Old Law or it isn't. If we insist that we can't follow any part of the Old Law without following it all, then that would mean we would have to keep kosher if we prohibited murder, which is part of the Old Law. Prohibiting murder is part of the Old Law. So Christians could not prohibit murder without retaining kosher laws.
It seems to me that James instead was attempting to tell Jewish converts cease to insist on things like circumcision for gentile converts. Gentiles were never under the Old Covenant to begin with so were never bound by the Law but they were apparently being looked down upon by Jewish converts. Both are under the New Covenant, but even the Old Covenant insisted that you should love your neighbor. So if you judge gentiles converts as being unclean and they are your brothers, you have violated the whole of the Old Covenant. In this case, before the Council of Jerusalem he is reminding Jewish converts who still considered themselves to be bound by the Law, that they were in violation of the Law by judging their brothers. It was finally settled that even Jewish converts were no longer bound by the Law, so circumcision and such were not necessary. Prohibitions against murder, adultery and sexual immorality still stood because they were common to both.
In any case, sexual immorality was prohibited from the beginning for all Christians and was considered the guidance of Christ and the Holy Spirit. If we believe that God created man and guides his Church, then it follows He knows the nature of man, his inclinations for both good and evil and provides guidance accordingly. If someone 2000 years later tells me that God didn't know what he was talking about and there is an "orientation" that people cannot resist that God forgot about or something, I'm going to raise my eyebrows. We already know that all of us have an "orientation" that is difficult to resist. Original sin. Christ and the Holy Spirit provide us the remedy to overcome our particular affliction of personal "orientation" issue.
Please don't feel you have to respond. From my perspective it's been a good discussion. I've had to research some things I haven't thought about for a long time and thinking more deeply about things is always good. Thank you.
"for me it leads to some logical problems. Either prohibiting murder is part of the Old Law or it isn't. If we insist that we can't follow any part of the Old Law without following it all, then that would mean we would have to keep kosher if we prohibited murder, which is part of the Old Law. Prohibiting murder is part of the Old Law. So Christians could not prohibit murder without retaining kosher laws."
WE really must clear this up before we finish. I'll start with an analogy. In the missionary book "PeaceChild", the suthor tells of a tribe in West Papua who valued treachery against other tribes as an admirable ethical value. They also valued the lives of children. Many in the tribe later converted. When they converted they left behind their old tribal values and took on christian values. That meant they stopped believing treachery was good, but continued to believe caring for children was good. They didn't stop doing that just because they'd l;eft their old tribal ethics behind, they kept doing to because it was a christian value. The fact that they continued to care for their children didn't mean that they were still following tribal law, they did it because it was part of christian ethics.
Do you see?
So let me repeat in the hope that you understand, whether you agree or not.
1. I believe the OT Law was for the old covenmant. Either we accept it all or we reject it all (Matthew 5:17-20, Luke 16:16-17, James 2:10)
2. The NT says in many places that we don't have to obey the OT Law, it has been superseded by the new covenant of grace and the Spirit (Hebrews 8:13, 2 Corinthians 3:6 and Romans 7:6-7). Jesus' hearers, being Jews, faced a choice whether they would stay in the old or come into the new (Luke 16:16-17).
3. Because there are some things in common between the old and new covenants, Jews coming into the new covenant would still live much the same in external behaviour, but their attitude and thoughts would be very different (Matthew 5, 2 Corinthians 3:6, Romans 7:6-7). So it is still a putting aside of the old covenant and a taking up of the new.
4. So it is totally misunderstanding to say: "So Christians could not prohibit murder without retaining kosher laws." They could and they did.
"If someone 2000 years later tells me that God didn't know what he was talking about ..... God forgot about or something"
I want to say this ain as helpful and friendly was that I can. From where I sit, it seems to me (and I know I can easily be wrong) that you repeatedly re-frame what I say to put it into simple categories that fit with your well-established view. That's not surprising, we all do it to somew degree. We couldn't process information if we didn't. But it means you repeatedly misunderstand me, and repeatedly put a barrier between understanding and possioble learning from (rather than just learning about).
Remember you say yourself "the guidance of Christ and the Holy Spirit .... God created man and guides his Church". The church has changed and grown down through the ages. Protyestants see this most in the Reformation, but there are many other cases (the Wesleyan Revival, the charismatic renewal, etc). If you are a Catholic (my guess) then you can see other revivals right from the early church fathers, the desert father, St Francis, the counter reformation, etc. God DOES guide his church through the Holy Spirit.
I wonder whether you'd be willing to consider and pray about these questions:
(1) Has the Holy Spirit stopped guiding, correcting and reforming?
(2) Is it possible, even remotely possible, that he is doing so today on some of these matters?
(3) If he was, would you be in a mindset that would recognsie and allow that guidance?
Thanks.
unkleE,
Do you see?
I understand how you see it. I don't think you understand how it can be seen any differently. That's OK. I don't expect agreement on everything.
The church has changed and grown down through the ages.
Yes, I'm a Catholic and I believe the Holy Spirit guides some changes in the Church just like you believe He guides changes to whatever your definition of the Church is. I think you will admit that, there are now and have always, been movements started by members of the Church that are not guided by the Holy Spirit. How do we distinguish between a development and a corruption?
It's too long a topic for a combox, but let me give you a brief Catholic summary and a reference.
1) There is a distinction between doctrine and discipline. A doctrine is what one has to believe (like the Incarnation) while a discipline is how something is done. For instance Catholic priests in the Latin order cannot marry but priests in the Oriental order can.
2) Disciplines can change, be reversed or be eliminated completely without affecting the Faith. Revealed doctrines cannot be changed, but can be studied and logical conclusions can be drawn out. But those conclusions cannot reverse or eliminate a revealed doctrine. For instance the doctrine that "Christ is the Son of God" meant that the Son was inferior to the Father to Arius and he successfully promoted that theory. It was a big controversy that led to the Nicene Creed we have today. It was a corruption to the doctrine that led to a more explicit definition without changing the doctrine.
Cardinal Henry Newman's book "Apologia Pro Vita Sua" gives an excellent explanation, but I'm sure you can find a shorter explanation by googling "Cardinal Newman development of doctrine."
Hi, thanks for that.
I think I do understand your position well. I held the same view for many years, and I'm still not certain about it all - as I've been saying all along, I am wondering, or tentatively concluding.
Yes I agree many movements in the church are not from the Holy Spirit. I outlined earlier how I think we can try to tell the difference.
Thanks for the explanation of doctrine and discipline - I am familiar with the ideas but not with the Catholic formulation. Yes, if you are a loyal Catholic it is very hard to change, and I can understand that. But it makes discussions like ours more difficult, because you may begin by arguing about what's true, but your Catholic beliefs prevent you considering alternatives if they go agaist Catholic doctrine, even if they seem to be more rational and evidence-based. I don't believe God wants us to be constrained by a doctrine that cannot change.
So I think that explanation shows further discussion is probably not going to get past this impasse. Thanks again.
I don't believe God wants us to be constrained by a doctrine that cannot change.
Fair enough. But do you think Christianity is constrained by the doctrine that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God? The Incarnation? The Trinity? If any and all doctrines can change then (rhetorically) can Christians start worshipping Satan?
But it makes discussions like ours more difficult, because you may begin by arguing about what's true, but your Catholic beliefs prevent you considering alternatives if they go agaist Catholic doctrine,even if they seem to be more rational and evidence-based.
I wouldn't say my faith prevents me from considering alternatives any more than your faith prevents you from having discussions with atheists because you are prevented from considering atheist alternatives. I assume that both you and atheists consider your positions rational and evidence-based. You both have biases against each other's position. Just like you and I have biases against each other's position. That doesn't mean we can't argue our positions and respect the rules of rational argumentation and avoid fallacies.
I think if you continued the discussion with me you'd find out that a considerable amount of what ordinary Protestants think the Catholic Church teaches just isn't so. But I respect your decision to end the discussion here. Thanks.
"But do you think Christianity is constrained by the doctrine that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God? "
There are people who follow Jesus but don't believe that. I don't agree with them - I think they are mistaken - but I don't know if I have the right to make a judgment about htem. I'll leave that to God.
"That doesn't mean we can't argue our positions and respect the rules of rational argumentation and avoid fallacies."
No, it doesn't mean that. And it doesn't mean I don't respect your viewpoint. But if I spend my time arguing from logic and scripture then find the key decider for you isn't either of those things, but Catholic dogma, then I would wish I had known from the start. But that wasn't the case here because I wasn't ever (except maybe in my second previous comment) trying to convince you, only answer your questions.
"a considerable amount of what ordinary Protestants think the Catholic Church teaches just isn't so"
Yes I'm sure that's so. I'm not anti-Catholic, it's just not what I believe myself.
But I'll leave it there. Thanks again.
But if I spend my time arguing from logic and scripture then find the key decider for you isn't either of those things, but Catholic dogma, then I would wish I had known from the start. But that wasn't the case here because I wasn't ever (except maybe in my second previous comment) trying to convince you, only answer your questions.
I wonder if you see that you've already concluded that Catholic dogma is based on neither scripture nor logic. I think Protestants base their beliefs on both those things and I believe the Catholic Church does as as well. I wonder what you think Catholics don't.
I have an idea.
How about you ask me anything about the Catholic faith that you have wondered about.
I'll give you an honest answer.
"I wonder if you see that you've already concluded that Catholic dogma is based on neither scripture nor logic."
Sorry, but I haven't made that conslusion at all. I've no doubt both were used in the formulation of doctrine. But we aren't talking about the formulation of doctrine, but your personal belief. And you have indicated to me that as a good Catholic, your own decisions on belief are constrained by the view that Catholic doctrine cannot change. If I have misunderstood you there, please correct me. But from what you say, you may apply logic and scripture to better understand Catholic doctrine, but you are unable to depart from Catholic doctrine (unless you decide to no longer be a good Catholic). I am not criticising you for this - you must believe whatever you think is true - but I am explaining why a discussion where you are constrained by unchangeable Catholic doctrine and I am not is somewhat difficult, especially if I think Logic and scripture might be persuasive.
"How about you ask me anything about the Catholic faith that you have wondered about.
I'll give you an honest answer."
Thanks for the offer, but I won't take it up. I think it would be best to leave things as they are. I have no wish to either challenge your belief or to be a convert, and I think the discussion would not have great purpose. But thanks anyway, I do appreciate the thought.
But we aren't talking about the formulation of doctrine, but your personal belief. And you have indicated to me that as a good Catholic, your own decisions on belief are constrained by the view that Catholic doctrine cannot change.
I believe that God cannot change and that He cannot lie. If I thought He told me yesterday that it was wrong for me to commit adultery and today He told me it was OK, then I would no longer believe that God cannot change or that He cannot lie. In either case, I would have been wrong in my prior belief as would have all the Christians before me. This is basically what Catholics believe and I think it is both scriptural and logical.
Do you believe that God can tell His Church tomorrow that adultery is OK? Or that there is no such thing as the Trinity?
You don't have to answer if you don't want to.
"Do you believe that God can tell His Church tomorrow that adultery is OK? Or that there is no such thing as the Trinity?"
As often occurs, I disagree with how you have posed the question.
Obviously, by definition, God always knows the truth and never tells a lie. But .....
(1) We may have misunderstood what we thought was the truth, and he has to correct us. We may feel we are giving up our treasured and true belief, but he may know it is a wrong belief nevertheless. Most church reformations include this element. We need humility at this point. The history of the church (whether Orthodix, Catholic, Protestant or other) is littered with mistakes and bad choices, so we must be ready to be corrected. That's why I can't accept the Catholic idea that doctrine can't change. It assumes the church always got it right, and the evidence suggests otherwise.
(2) Like any good parent or teacher, God may not reveal all of the truth at once. Everything we know about God is to some degree provisional because he is beyond our understanding, so there is always more to learn. Even within the scriptures, there is growth, development and change - e.g. old covenant to new, and even within the old. It's sometimes called progressive or unfolding revelation. So again, if we are not open to that development we'll miss what God is doing. That was one of Jesus' main criticisms of the Pharisees.
So no, I don't believe God can change his mind on fundamental truths, but I do believe we can be corrected or learn more.
So no, I don't believe God can change his mind on fundamental truths, but I do believe we can be corrected or learn more.
I agree.
That's why I can't accept the Catholic idea that doctrine can't change. It assumes the church always got it right, and the evidence suggests otherwise.
But this contradicts the statement above.
Even within the scriptures, there is growth, development and change - e.g. old covenant to new, and even within the old.
Without going into all the details, no change in revelation ever called something evil and then later called it good. Sexual immorality was called evil from the beginning.
We keep saying it is time to finish this conversation, so I won't reply, but say thanks and best wishes.
Merry Christmas. In case we don't interact again before then.
I have been trying to figure out why I find Lewis's proposal so disconcerting. I think it's the abandonment of universalism and the stepping towards multiculturalism that worries me. The West is Christianised through and through even if many of us are uncomfortable with the Creed. As an atheist I have to understand the 'Word of God' as in some sense an articulation of the accumulated folk wisdom of millennia from which we have departed somewhat since say the 1960s, with mixed results. It represents an ideal that individually and collectively is worth striving for, for all of us, not merely nominal Christians. I don't understand Lewis's thinking on this. It sounds like a foretaste of Rod Dreher's Benedict Option.
David,
Maybe Lewis had some personal reason for his position that isn't publicly known. That's sometimes the case when we see how the overall arch of a person's argument is interrupted by a singular discontinuity. I don't know if that's the case, but if I had to make a guess it would be that.
Perhaps. Does he say any more on this?
There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. It's hard to imagine the present Church of England enforcing rules on anyone. I guess Lewis was writing in the fifties, only twenty or so years after the Abdication Crisis. What kind of enforcement would he have in mind?
The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not. And why does he insist this be public knowledge? That leaves me rather uncomfortable.
Perhaps. Does he say any more on this?
I'm just guessing, but Joy Davidman was divorced and he married her. She had been married in a civil service originally. That may also explain why he thinks it should be publicly known in which sense a person is/was married so it is clear he was marrying Joy in the Christian sense after her divorce, which was a marriage in the eyes of the state rather than the Church.
As I mentioned, I'm only speculating using what little knowledge and experience I have.
Post a Comment