Things I wish I learned in Seminary, pt. 1
I've been making a list of Big Questions which I wish were answered during my two years studying theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. One of them is: What is the Christian view on how the law ought to reflect morality?
This question, of course, is prompted directly by issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage, which seemed to factor so significantly in the 2004 presidential election. And there seem to be no simple answers. First, it seems that most Christians are opposed to legal positivism---they think that the law ought to reflect morality to some extent. But the details on how are murky. I have yet to find any Christian who thinks that all our moral standards ought to be legally enforced.
I would, of course, be interested in any scriptural basis for an answer. For while much of scripture is devoted to how Ancient Israel's law ought to be formulated, I find nothing that directly speaks to the laws of a pagan nation (like the USA). I cannot, in fact, even think of anything which forbids legal positivism.
Perhaps the answer is simply pragmatic. For example, take Thomas Aquinas, who said in articles 2 and 3 of question 96 in his Summa Theologica:
Of course, even if we accept this answer to the question and were able to come to an consensus regarding the content of the law, there are more follow-up questions as well. Should Christians work to reform the laws of their society? And if so, what measures and methodologies are appropriate to use?
This question, of course, is prompted directly by issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage, which seemed to factor so significantly in the 2004 presidential election. And there seem to be no simple answers. First, it seems that most Christians are opposed to legal positivism---they think that the law ought to reflect morality to some extent. But the details on how are murky. I have yet to find any Christian who thinks that all our moral standards ought to be legally enforced.
I would, of course, be interested in any scriptural basis for an answer. For while much of scripture is devoted to how Ancient Israel's law ought to be formulated, I find nothing that directly speaks to the laws of a pagan nation (like the USA). I cannot, in fact, even think of anything which forbids legal positivism.
Perhaps the answer is simply pragmatic. For example, take Thomas Aquinas, who said in articles 2 and 3 of question 96 in his Summa Theologica:
Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like....In other words, we should use our rational judgment to determine which vicious acts should be punished and which virtuous acts should be rewarded.
Human law does not prescribe concerning all the acts of every virtue: but only in regard to those that are ordainable to the common good---either immediately, as when certain things are done directly for the common good---or mediately, as when a lawgiver prescribes certain things pertaining to good order, whereby the citizens are directed in the upholding of the common good of justice and peace....
Of course, even if we accept this answer to the question and were able to come to an consensus regarding the content of the law, there are more follow-up questions as well. Should Christians work to reform the laws of their society? And if so, what measures and methodologies are appropriate to use?
posted by Ang at 7:42 PM
5 Comments:
Interesting questions you are thinking about.
Wrt to the legality of same-sex marriage, one of the more convincing arguments I've heard against it is the decline of marriage in Scandinavian countries where same sex civil unions have been in effect since the early nineties.
I too have heard that legally recognizing same sex unions has caused a reduction in the prevalence of marriage between heterosexuals. But why should this be a reason not to legalize same sex unions? What if we end up with a society where only Christians get married? Would that be so bad a thing? Could our society still "work" in such a situation?
It's not just a reduction in the prevalence of marriage, but in societies that legally recognize same-sex unions, there is an increase in divorce rates, and the institution of marriage is undermined in general. The decline of marriage is harmful to children when parents increasingly have children out of wedlock, or divorce more readily because they are socially acceptable options. This has "worked" in Scandinavian countries insofar as governments guarantees healthcare/education/jobs for all its citizens (and charges correspondingly high taxes), so unwed parents are less culpable.
Some who believe that same-sex marriages are not wrong in themselves (as I do) may argue that these unions are not harmful to the rest of society, but the developments in Scandinavia show otherwise.
As a Christian, I believe that God intended people to live within certain guidelines; it is good when the laws of a society encourage its people to live the way God intended. Of course there are areas in which legislation is intrusive and unenforceable, but I do not believe that marriage is one of those areas. The social fabric exists as a continuous whole, Christian or not, and same-sex marriage hurts everyone by further removing Christians and non-Christians alike from what marriage is intended to be.
It seems to me that the Christian is likely to agree with all your points about harm to society, and even claim (like I do) that same-sex marriages are wrong, insofar as they involve homosexual relations. Even so, that same person may doubt whether legal sanctions are the best way to make things better on this matter.
It is also important to note that the link you draw between legalization of same sex marriage and hurt to society is not direct. Apparently, the problem is that legalizing same sex marriage contributes to the decline of heterosexual marriage, resulting in more divorces and more out-of-wedlock births. It is these heterosexual problems which harm society.
Well, if that's the case, it seems more direct to just direct our legislation at out-of-wedlock births and divorce.
What's more, the Scandinavian anecdote establishes only a correlation, not a causation. Perhaps the decline in marriage and the legalization of same-sex marriage there are both symptoms of some other trend. If that's the case, legislating the symptom of same-sex marriage isn't going to really get to the heart of the matter.
Good points and clear thinking... I was trying to read up on the issue on the internet, and I think I was influenced by some conservative publications. I would agree that the renewal of the heart of marriage in general is a necessary step. All the "one man and one woman" arguments about marriage seems quite empty when marriages (and relationships in general) between men and women are so often broken.
It seems we are on a slippery slope that began a long time ago, and legislation against homosexual unions is holding off a deteriorating situation in a society with no-fault divorce and so on. Even so, what other options besides legislation are available to governments? And even if legislation is not the most effective measure to make the entire situation better, it still seems like a reasonable, corrective step.
Post a Comment
<< Home