# Gay Marriage & Civil Partnerships



## Moireach (Jul 3, 2012)

With the gay marriage debate raging on both sides of the atlantic I feel that quite often we are unprepared to argue our case Biblically.

There is one question regarding the issue that I'd like to ask that's has been on my mind.

Should the Christian also resist the idea of Civil Partnerships? The root of this is whether same sex couples should have the legal rights of a married couple.

I ask this because the number 1 argument used by Christians in the UK is that gays don't need marriage because they gain nothing new as they have all the legal rights as it is anyway in Civil Partnerships.

But I learned that a lot (if not most?) American states which outlaw gay marriage also outlaw any kind of civil partnership.

Is this an argument that Christians should not use because it is also unBiblical?


----------



## Tim (Jul 3, 2012)

I think "civil partnership" is an attempt to change the thinking of the public through the use of words, terms, semantics, etc. Notice how many people don't say "my wife", "my husband" anymore, but "my partner". Usually this means that they are actually not married, but it has come to mean a long term committed relationship nonetheless. Imagine a time in the future where "partner" is the only term that is ever used. 

Hopefully this is not too far from what you wanted to discuss. 

See this recent thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f16/noting-attacks-our-standard-dictionaries-74945/


----------



## Moireach (Jul 3, 2012)

Tim said:


> Hopefully this is not too far from what you wanted to discuss.



Well no it is a reason not to use it as an argument.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 3, 2012)

Homosexuality is wrong. Plain and simple. Although, I'm not sure if the government should have the ability to define marriage. I believe that is the duty of the church. Yet, I still am not sure what the Westminster Divines meant in chapter 23:


> III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5] yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.[6] For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.[7]


----------



## Miss Marple (Jul 3, 2012)

I think marriage has a great civil, as well as a spiritual, component.

Unbelievers are still to marry, not fornicate. Yet they may not perhaps be married in a church. If they are not Christians, it would be odd to have them married in a church.

Otherwise, if there is no civil component, than you'd have a world where only Christians marry. Everyone else is fornicating and etc.

I don't think that is God's will.

As THE building block of human society and life - the only acceptable situation in which new people are created - marriage is fundamental to a just and liveable society, and the state has an extreme interest in protecting biblically defined marriage. If it does not, the social costs are astronomic. Everything from crime to illiteracy to poverty to you name it, increases as normative one man/one woman marriage is destroyed. If not for the wayward adults, than at least for the children who do not yet know right or wrong : 

"(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), Romans 9:11)

the estate of real marriage must be protected by the state as a great and overall good.

Civil unions are a mockery and an undermining of marriage and should be opposed.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 3, 2012)

> Should the Christian also resist the idea of Civil Partnerships? The root of this is whether same sex couples should have the legal rights of a married couple.



Civil partnerships in Britain are only for homosexuals. E.g. two spinster sisters living in the same house can't enter a civil partnership with its legal and financial advantages.

Civil partnerships were created for homosexuals and should be abolished, unless they are for people like the two spinster sisters above.

If homosexual marriage is brought in - as it almost certainly will be - homosexuals in Britain will have more rights than heterosexuals, because they will have civil partnerships and marriage. This will be challenged in the courts, leading to heterosexual fornication being recognised in law by civil partnerships for heterosexual fornicators.

Homosexual practice should be made illegal, just as incest and relations with animals and children are illegal.

Fat chance of getting that on the statute books in this generation.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 3, 2012)

*Andrew*


> Although, I'm not sure if the government should have the ability to define marriage.



It is the duty of civil governments before God to reflect Christian standards of morality in the statute book.


----------



## Moireach (Jul 3, 2012)

Good responses.



Peairtach said:


> > Should the Christian also resist the idea of Civil Partnerships? The root of this is whether same sex couples should have the legal rights of a married couple.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I must say this surprises me. Is it right to make sins illegal? Where's the line? (I probably agree btw I'm just not sure).


----------



## Miss Marple (Jul 3, 2012)

Yes, it's right to make sins illegal.

The line would be sins of the heart. Thoughts and motivations can't be proven or punished. Actions can be.


----------



## davenporter (Jul 3, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> Yes, it's right to make sins illegal.
> 
> The line would be sins of the heart. Thoughts and motivations can't be proven or punished. Actions can be.



What about enforcing Sabbath-keeping, for example? (Involves actions and motivations)


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 3, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> As THE building block of human society and life - the only acceptable situation in which new people are created - marriage is fundamental to a just and liveable society


Although I hold to a high view of marriage, I don't think you have biblical warrant to make such a claim. We live in a just and liveable society because God created man in His image. The law being written on our hearts. As well, only the grace of God holds society together. This would also be known as common grace.



Miss Marple said:


> and the state has an extreme interest in protecting biblically defined marriage.


I'll grant that for now. However, I'm interested in what Richard would say regarding why government has a duty to do so. My argument isn't about civil union or marriage, but rather the limitation (or lack thereof) of a governing body.



Miss Marple said:


> If it does not, the social costs are astronomic. Everything from crime to illiteracy to poverty to you name it, increases as normative one man/one woman marriage is destroyed.


These are results of the heart of man. Not marriage being misunderstood. "19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander" (Matt 15).



Miss Marple said:


> If not for the wayward adults, than at least for the children who do not yet know right or wrong :
> 
> "(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), Romans 9:11)


Not only is this a misquotation of scripture, your understanding of man's sinfulness and original sin should be in question here. "For the children who do not yet know right or wrong" is a denial of original sin. "5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps 51:5).





Miss Marple said:


> Civil unions are a mockery and an undermining of marriage and should be opposed.


Agreed.


----------



## davenporter (Jul 3, 2012)

I think one important reason we need to defend marriage that is often overlooked in mainstream egalitarian evangelicalism is marriage as a picture of the relationship of Christ to the Church. This is a visual representation of the gospel. Of course there are many more reasons to oppose homosexuality, but I will only focus on this one.

Ephesians 5:21-27
"...and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ:
Wives, to your own husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He migh tpresent to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless."
...
(verse 32) "This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church." [read it all in context, it's a beautiful passage!]

I think we should vehemently oppose anything that would serve to distort the picture of the Church's relationship to Christ (and the gospel), and therefore we must oppose egalitarianism, divorce, homosexuality, and anything else that damages this image.

Homosexuality is a "relationship" to a mirror image, i.e. two "husbands", two "wives", etc. And while some may coarsely joke, "you know who the husband is in that relationship", homosexuality by definition cannot be a complementary relationship, where the husband represents Christ by giving himself up for his wife, and the wife represents the Church by submitting to her husband. Further, it is in its nature the epitome of selfishness. A homosexual rejects that which God has given to meet our need (a wife) for a mirror image of himself.


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 3, 2012)

> Although, I'm not sure if the government should have the ability to define marriage.



If the civil government cannot at least identify a marriage where one has occured, it will have no way of protecting the legal rights of a married person. For instance, if a man commits adultery and leaves his wife, she should at least be able to sue out a divorce in order to get full custody of the kids. She is the innocent party and his immoral behavior makes him unfit to have any custody of them. Or to simplify matters, adulterer and adulteress could simply be executed. Either way, the government has to be able to know that "There's a marriage there" even if its ability to license marriages is taken away.

I also agree with Richard that sodomy should simply be illegal in the first place. Then the discussion of "civil unions" would be moot.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 3, 2012)

Moireach said:


> Good responses.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Homosexual practice - sodomy - was illegal in Great Britain only 45 years ago. AFAIAA, that was the first time it had been made legal.

It is still illegal, even in our secular society, to commit certain sexual sins and other sins.

Church government has to apply church sanctions more broadly than all sins in general, to presumptious sins only, otherwise everyone in the church would be barred from the Lord's Table at all times.

Civil governments generally, and Christian governments in particular, may be wise to follow a broader path in certain areas, whereas in others there may be correspondence between certain of the presumptious sins that are dealt with by church sanctions and certain crimes. 

We are given general guidance in Scripture, and where Christianity is in a healthy state, the populace will demand recognisably Christian standards, whereas where it is not, these Christian standards enshrined in civil law will go into reverse. 1967 was a year in which sodomy and abortion was legalised in Great Britain. Since the 1960s Christian societal and legal standards have gone in to reverse as healthy and robust Christianity has declined.

Homosexual parody-marriage on the verge of being introduced in Britain, is just the "icing on the cake", to add to the eight million murders of legalised abortion, murderers not punished by death, easy divorce, etc, etc. etc.


----------



## SRoper (Jul 3, 2012)

davenporter said:


> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it's right to make sins illegal.
> ...



Why not? In our country we used to have laws that closed shops on the Lord's Day. The Supreme Court even found them constitutional because they served a secular purpose.


----------



## davenporter (Jul 3, 2012)

SRoper said:


> davenporter said:
> 
> 
> > Miss Marple said:
> ...



Personally I love the idea. What I am asking about is penalizing offenders, though.


----------



## Miss Marple (Jul 3, 2012)

Davenporter, the action of breaking the Sabbath could be (and has in the past) protected by local laws. The motivations of the heart, no, that can't be punished.

Andrew PC, in regards to "don't think you have biblical warrant to make such a claim," I must disagree. Marriage is a creation ordinance and is for all men. Of course it won't save anybody. But it is God's design, even prior to the fall, and acknowledged in every culture. No more could we successfully do away with marriage law than with law against murder. Humanity doesn't work that way. People suffer greatly when these creation ordinances are ignored. 

In regards to "These are results of the heart of man. Not marriage being misunderstood," I don't think it is from marriage being misunderstood, but spurned. And I disagree that the results are from the heart of man alone, although that is the first cause. They are tangible results from sinful actions. Just as the death of a man is from knifing him in the heart. Yes, the evil is from the heart, but the death results from the knife action. So promiscuity, abortion, infanticide, juvenile crime, depression, illiteracy, and on and on increase when the two-parent family is marginalized. A child from a non-Christian yet two parent home will be a far better behaved person that a child from a non-Christian single or triple or whatever perversion home. These facts don't SAVE anybody, but government is there to uphold the general welfare and a mom and dad nuclear family is integral to that. It simply can not be denied, whether from Scripture or from experience. There are outliers, certainly, but social welfare surveys, some taken over decades, continually show that children do best on all the usual measurable scales when raised by their married mom and dad.

In re: "Not only is this a misquotation of scripture, your understanding of man's sinfulness and original sin should be in question here. "For the children who do not yet know right or wrong" is a denial of original sin. "5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps 51:5)," that's a little heavy duty of an accusation, there, I quote the Scripture to emphasize that it is not the children's particular choice to be raised in one way or another, and that the government has an interest in protecting them from the extreme consequences of being raised without the normative two parent family as a standard. For any government to mock and undermine marriage by promoting civil unions or some such is a terrible betrayal of the people they are supposed to be governing well.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 3, 2012)

I don't think we should be fighting them on the laws. Using all our energy to keep it illegal is wasted energy. God gave His ppl the law to keep marriage holy not the unregenerate. Laws don't makes ppl behave well and they certainly don't convert them. They will behave exactly how they want to. If we put as much energy and money into sending out missionaries and witnessing to everyone as we do in making laws we might see some real and permanent change. But it's just easier to make laws and make it "look" like we have a well behaved society.


----------



## Tim (Jul 3, 2012)

Sarah, there is a place for just laws in a society that has many unregenerate people. One of the uses of God's law is to restrain and order society. This is often called the third use of the law, theologically speaking. 



> For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil (Rom 13:3)



It is good for the unregenerate to be discouraged from evil. This also helps to protect Christians from the effects of this evil.

As well, according to the Westminster Confession of Faith (24:3):



> It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord.



The way this point is articulated demonstrates the applicability of a marriage law to the unregenerate, but also maintains a special stipulation for Christians.


----------



## Claudiu (Jul 3, 2012)

The problem is that homosexual's are claiming that it is their 'right' to marry someone of the same sex. As Christians we must ask, "from where does this right come from"? The problem for the homosexual is that he has no standard by which he can claim to have this 'right'. If his reasoning that is used to claim this 'right' were to be used in other areas, it would open up the door to a lot of obscene things that even he would find atrocious. That is, they are inconsistent in the application of their 'standard', but it suits them well for their cause.

As far as the state defining marriage, that is not the issue. The state doesn't define marriage. Rather, it is God who does. The state merely reflects what is already understood by nature and special revelation. However, for the state to not uphold what God has already revealed and commanded, is to go not only against the natural order, but against the Moral Law Giver himself. 

This is not a state v church issue. The state upholds certain laws, or realizes that certain rights exist not because the church says so, but because it is "self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". This is the standard. If we are using this standard, then we must be consistent. If we are consistent, then the state must realize that alleged 'homosexual marriage' is not a 'right'. This is not about the state defining marriage. It is simply the state upholding the rights endowed by our Creator. Conversely, we can't grant everyone who claims he has a 'right' to this or that simply because he or a group of people say so.


----------



## Claudiu (Jul 3, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> I don't think we should be fighting them on the laws. Using all our energy to keep it illegal is wasted energy. God gave His ppl the law to keep marriage holy not the unregenerate. *Laws don't makes ppl behave well and they certainly don't convert them.* They will behave exactly how they want to. If we put as much energy and money into sending out missionaries and witnessing to everyone as we do in making laws we might see some real and permanent change. But it's just easier to make laws and make it "look" like we have a well behaved society.



This is not the standard we are using for your legal system, though. It is besides the point if people will continue to murder, steal, etc. We will not change the law regarding murder just because people will continue to murder. We uphold the law because it is a universal law. If people should choose to break the law, then they will be punished accordingly.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (Jul 4, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> I don't think we should be fighting them on the laws. Using *all *our energy to keep it illegal is wasted energy. God gave His ppl the law to keep marriage holy not the unregenerate. Laws don't makes ppl behave well and they certainly don't convert them. They will behave exactly how they want to. If we put as much energy and money into sending out missionaries and witnessing to everyone as we do in making laws we might see some real and permanent change. But it's just easier to make laws and make it "look" like we have a well behaved society.



Granted not *all*. It is a false dichotomy to say that Christian people should only evangelize and not seek to see the moral law's general equity applied to the civil sphere (if that is in fact what you're suggesting) - we're not necessarily at an either-or point. Not to restate an old ongoing argument, but the point of its application in either the Christian life or the broader civil sphere is not that it can convert - it was never designed to do such. Noone would argue that. But it is good for the regenerate and the unregenerate - for example, as far as the civil sphere goes, punishing thieves for stealing and outlawing the crime does not concern the issue with "converting" anyone. It is a defense against evil, the very function of the state according to Rom 13. You could by extension argue that child-adult "unions" (which is a position of many sexual deviants) or murder is condemned in the Ten Commandments and therefore we shouldn't put energy into making society "look" moral by applying these moral concepts from the Scripture to broader society, but I dare say you wouldn't. That is not the function of the general equity of moral law. Mind you, I would never take issue with the notion that the church is NOT built by the law bench or a legislator's pen, whatever laws they may enact. It comes down to faithfully carrying out the Great Commission as you state. But I gladly affirm WLC Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?

A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, *countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate*: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 5, 2012)

Today I read a helpful distinction in Robert Shaw's exposition of the confession. He said that God alone may punish sin as sin. The church may use censures against scandals and the civil government may punish crimes that affect society. One sinful act might fall under all three categories. Let's suppose a man who is a citizen and a church member teaches a false religion publicly. God alone is his judge with regard to his sin as sin. However, the church can censure him because his sin is a scandal in Christ's church, and the state can proceed against him because his teaching of a false religion is a disturbance of public order. This distinction is helpful in answering the question of whether the government may punish sin: not sin as sin, but sin inasmuch as it may be a public crime. Sodomy certainly falls under this category.


----------



## Moireach (Jul 5, 2012)

Thanks for the responses. So we do not agree with freedom of religion? (as in the U.S constitution I think?)


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 5, 2012)

davenporter said:


> What about enforcing Sabbath-keeping, for example? (Involves actions and motivations)


Good point. Not all Christians agree with the interpretation of Sabbath law commonly held on this board. Same with "blue laws" as some Christians believe in not drinking at all and would push for a return to prohibition. Who would get to determine the illegality? Presbyterians? Baptists? Methodists? Lutherans?


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 5, 2012)

Moireach said:


> Thanks for the responses. So we do not agree with freedom of religion? (as in the U.S constitution I think?)



If you mean that we do not agree all religions are equally valid, obviously not.

If you mean that the first amendment is not a good thing with regard to freedom of religion... well, that depends on who you ask. I can go either way on this argument because history has shown that church and state mixing can be just as bad as church and state separating, simply because we are fallible.


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 5, 2012)

Btw, back on topic: I was discussing this topic with some people on a political forum several years back about the validity of civil partnerships. I asked "Would you allow this to be used by a non-sexually linked couple, such as a brother-sister, or two cousins?" The reply was a mixed one.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 5, 2012)

Just as a reminder the 1646 WCF teaches the Separation of Church and State. 

What most think of when they hear that particular phrase is the "Separation of Religious Doctrine and State Policy", which is a wholly different thing.


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 5, 2012)

To those who are wondering about either the magistrate punishing sins or about freedom of religion, it would be well worth your time to read this in its entirety:

Robert Shaw, "The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith" (from Chapter 20; Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience):

Section II.–God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith on worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
Exposition

In this section the doctrine of liberty of conscience is laid down in most explicit terms. The conscience, in all matters of faith and duty, is subject to the authority of God alone, and entirely free from all subjection to the traditions and commandments of men. To believe any doctrine, or obey any commandment, contrary to, or beside, the Word of God, out of submission to human authority, is to betray true liberty of conscience. And be the power and authority whose it will–be it that of a magistrate or a minister–of a husband, a master, or a parent–that would require an implicit faith and an absolute blind obedience, it would destroy liberty of conscience.

The rights of conscience have been frequently invaded by rulers, both civil and ecclesiastical. By the Church of Rome the statements of our Confession are directly contradicted, both in doctrine and in practice. They teach that the Pope, and the bishops in their own dioceses, may, by their own authority, enact laws which bind the conscience, and which cannot be transgressed without incurring the same penalties which are annexed to every breach of the divine law. And they have actually imposed many articles of faith, and enjoined numberless rites and ceremonies, as necessary in the worship of God, which have no foundation in Scripture; and they require implicit faith in all their decrees, and a blind obedience to all their commands. Against the tyrannical usurpations and encroachments of that Church this section is principally levelled.

No person on earth can have authority to dictate to conscience; for this would be to assume a prerogative which belongs to none but the supreme Lord and Legislator. "There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy."–James iv. 12. Such a power was prohibited by Jesus Christ among his followers: "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, but ye shall not be so."–Luke xxii. 25. It was disclaimed by the inspired apostles: "Not that we have dominion over your faith," said the Apostle of the Gentiles, "but are helpers of your joy."–2 Cor. i. 24.

From the principles laid down in this section, it manifestly follows, that a right of private judgment about matters of religion belongs to every man, and ought to be exercised by every Christian. Christians are expressly required to examine and prove every doctrine by the unerring rule of the Word of God.–Isa viii. 20; 1 John iv. 1. They ought to be ready to render a reason of the hope which is in them (1 Pet. iii. 15); and this none can do who receive the doctrines and commandments of men with implicit faith and blind obedience. Whatsoever is not done in faith, nor accompanied with a personal persuasion of the obligation or lawfulness of it in the sight of God, is pronounced to be sin. - Rom. xiv. 23.

It follows no less clearly, from the principles here laid down, that when lawful superiors command what is contrary to the Word of God, or beside it, in matters of faith and worship, their commands do not bind the conscience. The obedience which Scriptures command us to render to lawful superiors–whether parents, or husbands, or magistrates - is not unlimited; there are cases in which disobedience becomes a duty. No one doubts that the precept, "Children, obey your parents in all things," is a command to obey them only in the exercise of their rightful parental authority, and imposes no obligation to implicit and passive obedience. The case is equally plain with regard to the command, "Wives submit to your own husbands." And it cannot be questioned that the obedience due to magistrates is also limited. The precept, "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers". must be understood as a command to obey magistrates only in the exercise of their rightful authority, and in all things lawful. The same inspired teachers who enjoined in such general terms obedience to rulers, themselves uniformly and openly disobeyed them whenever their commands were inconsistent with other and higher obligations. "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts v. 29), was the principle which they allowed, and on which they acted. When the apostles were charged by the Jewish Council to speak no more in the Name of Jesus, their unhesitating answer was: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard."–Acts iv. 19, 20. No command to do anything morally wrong can be binding on the conscience.

From the principles here laid down, some have inferred that civil authority is wholly inapplicable to matters of religion. Nothing, however, can be farther from the design of the Confession than to countenance this notion. That there is a lawful exercise of civil power about religious matters, the compilers of the Confession clearly teach, in the fourth section of this chapter, and also in chap. xxiii. And as it was not their design, in this section, to condemn this exercise of civil authority, so no such doctrine can justly be inferred from the words; for, "if they condemn all exercise of civil authority," to use the language of Dr M'Crie, "then they condemn also all exercise of every other species of human authority about these things, whether ecclesiastical, parental, &c. Is it not equally true, that God hath left the conscience "free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship,' whether these be the doctrines and commandments of ministers or magistrates, of masters or parents? Is not "an implicit faith,' or "an absolute and blind obedience,' unreasonable and sinful, whether it be yielded to synods or parliaments? The design of the words is, to teach the subordination of all human power to the sovereignty and laws of God, particularly in matters of faith and worship. Nay, they seem in that passage to be more immediately levelled against invasions by Church authority, which have been fully as frequent and pernicious in religion as those of civil rulers; such as the assumed lordship of popes, councils, prelates, and convocations, in devising new articles of faith, decreeing and imposing unscriptural rights and ceremonies, canons, &c., here called "the doctrines and commandments of men,' in contradistinction from divine institutions; as the traditions and superstitions of the Scribes and Pharisees, superadded to the divine law, are called by our Lord. If civil rulers concur in these impositions, or if they shall attempt the like by their own sole authority, and the claim of an ecclesiastical supremacy, this doctrine equally condemns their tyranny, and teaches, that no error, will-worship, or any species of false religion, by whomsoever commanded in Churches or States, can lay any obligation on conscience, which is immediately subject to God alone. But no such thing is taught, as that men's consciences are set free from obedience to any human authority, when acting in entire consistency with the Word of God, and enjoining nothing beside it, or beyond its own proper limits; which authority of any kind may certainly do."

Section III.–They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty; which is, that, being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

Section IV.–And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous opinions or practices as, either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church: they may be lawfully called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church. <<Note from Austin: I'm not sure why the phrase "and by the power of the civil magistrate" is missing here. The rest of Shaw's commentary is on the original Confession and he includes the phrase in the quotation from Dr. M'Crie below. It is clear from the exposition below that he affirms the truth of the phrase, so perhaps its omission is a publisher's error.>>
Exposition

The liberty pleaded for in our Confession is not absolute and uncontrollable. To assert that men have a right to think and act as they please, without respect to the moral law, and without being responsible to God, would be atheistic. And, if men are considered as socially united, and as placed under government, their natural rights, in religious as well as in civil things, must be liable to restraint and regulations, so far as the interests and ends of society require. Accordingly, the Confession, in the above sections, proceeds to guard the doctrine of liberty of conscience against abuse, first, in reference to the authority of God in his law; and, secondly, in reference to the authorities on earth, civil and ecclesiastical. With respect to the former it declares, that "they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practise any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty." God has not liberated the conscience from the obligation of his own law; on the contrary, he requires every one to yield implicit and prompt obedience to all things whatsoever he has commanded. To plead for a liberty to practise any known sin, is to plead for licentiousness; and for persons to indulge themselves in any corrupt affections and practices, under a pretence of Christian liberty, is to "use their liberty for an occasion to the flesh." With respect to the latter, the Confession mentions certain things for which persons of a certain description may be proceeded against, both by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. It is to be observed, however, that the intention of this section is not to lay down the extent of the provinces of these powers, but only to remove the plea of conscience; and it ought to be understood, in consistency with their acting each in its own province, without the one interfering with the causes which come under the cognisance of the other. *Although civil rulers may restrain, and, when occasion requires, may punish the more flagrant violations of the first table of the moral law, such as blasphemy, the publishing of blasphemous opinions, and the open and gross profanation of the Sabbath; yet they are to repress these evils, not formally as sins, which is the prerogative of God, nor as scandals, in which light they come under the cognisance of the Church, but as crimes and injuries done to society.*

*All sound Presbyterians disclaim all intolerant or compulsory measures with regard to matters purely religious. They maintain that no man should be punished or molested on account of his religious opinions or observances, provided there is nothing in these hurtful to the general interests of society, or dangerous to the lawful institutions of the country in which he lives.* The section now under consideration, however, has sometimes been represented as arming the civil magistrate with a power to punish good and peaceable subjects purely on account of their religious opinions and practices, or as favourable to persecution for conscience' sake. In vindicating the Confession from this serious charge, we shall avail ourselves of the judicious remarks of Dr M'Crie. "The design of section fourth," says that eminent author, "is to guard against the abuse of the doctrine" of liberty of conscience "in reference to public authority. "And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.' He who is the Lord of the conscience has also instituted the authorities in Church and State; and it would be in the highest degree absurd to suppose that he has planted in the breast of every individual a power to resist, counteract, and nullify his own ordinances. When public and private claims interfere and clash, the latter must give way to the former; and when any lawful authority is proceeding lawfully within its line of duty, it must be understood as possessing a rightful power to remove out of the way everything which necessarily obstructs its progress. The Confession proceeds, accordingly, to state: "And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature; or to the known principles of Christianity whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation, or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous opinions or practices as, either in their own nature or in the manner of publishing and maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church; they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.' Now, this does not say that all who publish such opinions, and maintain such practices as are mentioned may be proceeded against, or punished (if the substitution of this word shall be insisted for) by the civil magistrate; nor does it say that any good and peaceable subject shall be made liable to this process simply on the ground of religious opinions published, and practices maintained by him. For, in the first place, persons of a particular character are spoken of in this paragraph, and these are very different from good and peaceable subjects. They are described in the former sentence as "they who oppose lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it,' and "resist the ordinance of God.' The same persons are spoken of in the sentence under consideration, as appears from the copulative and the relative. It is not said, "Any one for publishing,' &c., but, "they who oppose any lawful power,' &c., "for their publishing,' &c. In the second place, this sentence specifies some of the ways in which these persons may become chargeable with the opposition mentioned, and consequently "may be called to account;' but it does not assert that even they must or ought to be prosecuted for every avowed opinion or practice of the kind referred to. All that it necessarily implies is, that they may be found opposing lawful powers, or the lawful exercise of them in the things specified; and that they are not entitled to plead a general irresponsibility in matters of that kind. Notwithstanding such a plea, "they may be called to account, and proceeded against.' For, be it observed, it is not the design of this paragraph to state the objects of Church censure or civil prosecution; its proper and professed object is to interpose a check on the abuse of liberty of conscience, as operating to the prejudice of just and lawful authority. *It is not sin as sin, but as scandal, or injurious to the spiritual interests of Christians, that is the proper object of Church censure; and it is not for sins as such, but for crimes, that persons become liable to punishment by magistrates. The compilers of the Confession were quite aware of these distinctions, which were then common.* Some think that if the process of the magistrate had been limited to offences "contrary to the light of nature,' it would have been perfectly justifiable; but the truth is, that it would have been so only on the interpretation now given. *To render an action the proper object of magistratic punishment, it is not enough that it be contra to the law of God, whether natural or revealed; it must, in one way or another, strike against the public good of society. He who "provides not for his own, especially those of his own house,' sins against " the light of nature,' as also does he who is "a lover of pleasures more than of God;' there are few who will plead that magistrates are bound to proceed against, and punish every idler and belly-god.* On the other hand, there are opinions and practices "contrary to the known principles of Christianity; or grafted upon them, which, either in their own nature, or from the circumstances with which they may be clothed, may prove so injurious to the welfare of society in general, or of particular nations, or of their just proceedings, or of lawful institutions established in them, as to subject their publishers and maintainers to warrantable coercion and punishment. As one point to which these may relate, I may mention the external observance and sanctification of the Lord's day, which can be known only from "the principles of Christianity,' and is connected with all the particulars specified by the Confession, "faith, worship, conversation, the power of godliness, and the external order and peace of the Church.' That many other instances of a similar description can be produced, will be denied by no sober thinking person who is well acquainted with Popish tenets and practices, and with those which prevailed among the English sectaries during the sitting of the Westminster Assembly, and he who does not deny this, cannot be entitled, I should think, upon any principles of fair construction, to fix the stigma of persecution on the passage in question."
(end of quotation)


----------



## TexanRose (Jul 5, 2012)

Thanks for that quote, Austin; very helpful.


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 5, 2012)

You're quite welcome, Sharon. I'm finding Shaw's exposition a very helpful read. I ran across that section yesterday and wished I had my computer to post it here, as it touches on numerous questions raised in this thread.

By the way (speaking to anyone now), it is noteworthy that Shaw says, "There is a lawful exercise of civil power *about* religious matters," not *in* religious matters. This reflects another distinction that the Westminster divines made. They affirmed the power of the civil government _circa sacra_ (concerning or about religion), but denied it power _in sacris_ (in religion). This is why WCF 23 denies the magistrate power to appoint church officers, administer sacraments, or hold the keys of the kingdom, but grants him power to protect and support the Church. The Church of Scotland even received Chapter 23 in such a way that they read it as only allowing the magistrate power to call synods in unsettled churches. They did not allow him this power ordinarily, in the case of a settled church.


----------



## Moireach (Jul 5, 2012)

I read the bold parts of your quote Austin. But I'm still confused as to how it can be right to allow freedom of religion but punish other sins, even such as homosexuality. 

I know it's a bit off the topic of the thread but it is related because it affects our attitudes and the arguments we use relating to this subject.

If we maintain homosexual acts should be illegal I would think we surely *must* maintain that false religion ought to be illegal even more so...?


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 5, 2012)

Moireach said:


> If we maintain homosexual acts should be illegal I would think we surely must maintain that false religion ought to be illegal even more so...?



I agree with Shaw that false religion should be illegal inasmuch as it affects society, i.e., the publishing of blasphemous opinions, building a public idol, teaching Islam to one's neighbors, etc. I do not think that individuals should be interrogated as to their private beliefs and then punished according to their answers. I believe in establishmentarianism but not conversion by the sword, as original WCF holders are sometimes falsely charged with believing. Reading the entirety of the quotation from Shaw above should be enough to put that charge to rest.

The practice of false religions is already illegal in the case of some religious practices in Western nations. Aztecs (if they exist) may not sacrifice humans. Muslims may not practice Sharia law in all its gory details. If a civil government were to adopt the Christian religion and acknowledge the Triune God as the source of its authority, it would be reasonable for it to prohibit the public teaching of false religions so that the people are not led astray. I would argue that there is even a natural law basis for this. Romans 1 teaches that the light of nature teaches that there is a God who alone is to be worshiped. Nearly every heathen nation in history has made some laws concerning matters of religion. It is both natural and Biblical (e.g., Psalm 2, Jonah 3).


----------



## Moireach (Jul 5, 2012)

austinww said:


> Moireach said:
> 
> 
> > If we maintain homosexual acts should be illegal I would think we surely must maintain that false religion ought to be illegal even more so...?
> ...



Aha. I assumed the U.S constitution allowed freedom to *practice* religion. I agree with all you've said and understand now.


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 5, 2012)

Moireach said:


> Aha. I assumed the U.S constitution allowed freedom to practice religion. I agree with all you've said and understand now.



It does. I disagree with the U.S. Constitution. I even more disagree with its vesting the institution of government in the hands of the people, effectively saying, "We will not have this man to rule over us." We might wonder, if the U.S. Constitution says Congress may not interfere with the practice of religion, then on what basis does it allow human sacrifice to be made illegal? The attempted answer of past Supreme Court decisions is that religious freedom is not absolute, but can be infringed when it interferes with human rights. But the belief in "human rights" is a religious belief that interferes with the religious beliefs of those who would practice human sacrifice. It should be evident, then, that a government will inevitably have some religion or religious principles as the basis of its rule. My government is a failed experiment in taking religion out of politics.

Since this post comes right after my country's celebration of her existence, it may be necessary for me to note that none of the above should be interpreted as detracting from my love of my countrymen, the land, and all that is right and good in our heritage and our form of government. I simply would press her to repent of her sins and follow the example of Nineveh and its godly king under Jonah's preaching. I also need to repent for my complacency and toleration of our national sins, as well as my failure to pray for my magistrates as much as I ought and to speak out against injustice.

Here is the relevant section of the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The amendment mentions only Congress, but the Supreme Court has extended the principle to the States by funnelling it through the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is judicial activism at its best, by the way.


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 5, 2012)

austinww said:


> Moireach said:
> 
> 
> > If we maintain homosexual acts should be illegal I would think we surely must maintain that false religion ought to be illegal even more so...?
> ...


Okay, but how does this in practical terms keep from becoming a theocracy? We are all familiar with the abuses of church/state mingling that actually had its seed in Constantine. Remember: in one sense, the ecclesiastical and bureaucratic mingling was part of what turned Rome into Rome.


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 5, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > Moireach said:
> ...



You may find my answer a bit simplistic: "By following the Word of God." Yes, that will be messy. Such is the nature of human life in this fallen world. Each "sphere" (or "kingdom" if you prefer) must act within the limits given to it by the Word of God. What if the State overextends itself? Then, _abusus non tollit usum._ Besides, what is the alternative? If the State _doesn't_ recognize any particular religion, does that mean it will not infringe on liberty of conscience? It should be clear from the history and direction of our own country that this is not so.

In fact, I have heard it argued that by recognizing a Church, the State is acknowledging limitations on its own power: "That thing over there has certain functions that are not mine," to put it crudely. If a State does not recognize the Church, it will inevitably assume at least some of the powers of the Church for itself, as our own government is doing now, "waxing worse and worse." There will always be an established religion; the question is, do we want the government to admit it? Are we okay with an invisible establishment and an invisible, unaccountable basis for government rule?


----------



## Moireach (Jul 5, 2012)

Thought provoking stuff. I think I can agree with all you say Austin. It does change the way you look at things and answer to people. I must say I'm ashamed at my lack of knowledge of the WCF. Need to do some studying! I have another question re the relationship between church and state but I'm going to save it for a new thread.


----------



## M21195 (Jul 5, 2012)

davenporter said:


> I think one important reason we need to defend marriage that is often overlooked in mainstream egalitarian evangelicalism is marriage as a picture of the relationship of Christ to the Church. This is a visual representation of the gospel. Of course there are many more reasons to oppose homosexuality, but I will only focus on this one.
> 
> Ephesians 5:21-27
> "...and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ:
> ...


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 5, 2012)

*Austin*


> Here is the relevant section of the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment:
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> The amendment mentions only Congress, but the Supreme Court has extended the principle to the States by funnelling it through the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is judicial activism at its best, by the way.



Even according to the above principles of "not prohibiting the free exercise" of religion a thoroughly Christianised society, and state, could accommodate those within her midst who were worshippers of a false god - e.g. Muslims - and those Christians who worshipped by means of images - e.g. Roman Catholics - by merely controlling their immigration into the country and limiting their access to public office.

There is no need for a Christian state - and where there is a truly Christian state there will be a largely Christianised populace -to resort to bringing the sword of iron directly into the relationship between the individual, converted or unconverted, and his God or "his God" - all men are in a relationship to the true God in one way or another. This is the sovereign sphere of the Word of God which is the Sword of the Spirit.

The sword of iron had a role in conquering the Land of Israel under Joshua and David, which Land was a type of the whole Earth. It is by the Sword of the Spirit that the world is being conquered by Christ our Joshua and David.



> Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Heb 4:11-12, ESV)


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 5, 2012)

Richard,

Thanks. As noted before, it is not my belief that the state should regulate private beliefs or even private closet worship of a false god. I wouldn't object to a Christian state prohibiting the public construction of idols, mosques, etc. Or the public teaching of a false religion.


----------



## Wayne (Jul 6, 2012)

Didn't see where anyone else had linked this, but here is a good case study of a pastor who knows his stuff and isn't ashamed of the Gospel:

Quoting the Westminster Standards on public television... | BaylyBlog

(note the standard stacked deck of advocacy journalism, 3 to 1, against the conservative) Even when you win the argument, the public still comes away with the view that we're in the minority.


----------

