Martin Snyder has raised a question over on another board about my last post. It's a fair question. I think I can defend my statement, but let's use this instead: "To see a respected Reformed leader say he could affirm civil domestic partnerships is a problem."
I have absolutely no desire to misrepresent Dr. Horton. This is an area where words count and I want to stick as closely to his actual words as possible.
Darrell Todd Maurina
I am growing weary of this between board, Warfield / URC list, and trying to clarify things with Dr. Horton in email. I don't think I have had to work so hard in a long time to understand what other people are saying.
I might be incorrect but I think the following statement would reflect things more truthfully in the spirit and context of Dr. Horton. I think this would be more accurate and actually help us understand the relationship between the Two Kingdom / Natural Law understanding that is coming out of Westminster California also.
"To see a respected Reformed leader say he could affirm that Civil Government has the right to endorse civil domestic partnerships is a problem."
Do you see the difference and why this might be helpful in the discussion? It isn't a problem for some and it is for others. It is also tying the Two Kingdom / Natural Law debate to the equation. I really want to separate a misconception here from the situation. Dr. Horton is not endorsing nor affirming sinful civil domestic partnerships on a personal level. He calls individuals out of sin to believe in the person and work of Christ.
To me this is like any other discussion in the Church. The last major hurdle we are still attempting to overcome is the Federal Vision. We had to learn the nuances of the language and the spirit in which they were writing. Things are still being discovered. For instance, we are learning about the nuances between Klinean Theology and other Historic positions that are Confessional. And I do believe that does play a part in the last situation (Federal Vision) and in this situation (Two Kingdom / Natural Law) when it comes to the discussion of law and gospel. We had to learn a lot about what these guys were meaning when they were discussing Ecclesiology and the Sacraments. There were a lot of nuances to learn. I believe that this situation is harder but we have to learn nuances here also. We need to listen a bit more. I think this is important and that the health of many spheres and realms in life will be directly effected by this stuff. After all, orthodoxy does have a close tie to our orthopraxy as it has been noted through the years. We have to learn the nuances and let others catch up on these nuances also. If we don't this turns into an emotional battle more so than a truth battle. I admit I have been on the emotional side of issues many times. It is hard to separate our emotion from desiring to be correct and have others be correct also. We care that much. And that is commendable. But precision is important here. We don't want to violate the 9th commandment and we do want to perform the positive side of this commandment.
Methinks it is time for me to even review this......