Gay Marriage & Civil Partnerships

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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...?
 
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).
 
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).

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

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?
 
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.
 
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.

:ditto:
 
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)
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top