Gay marriage, Open Theism and why The Gospel Coalition turns off so many of us
So obviously the subject of gay marriage has been at the forefront of national cultural debate this week.
If you live under a rock (or outside of the U.S. with limited internet access), here are the basics: This week the Supreme Court heard arguments having to do with the legality of same-sex marriage. As a show of support and solidarity, many Facebook users changed their profile pictures to a red equal sign. They were stating their support for “marriage equality” by doing so.
Now, I believe that discussions of gay marriage often get muddied by people refusing to distinguish between the legal/civil and the moral/religious aspect of “marriage” in the first place. They are two different issues and one can support one without supporting the other (just as one can support pre- or extra-marital sex being legal, but yet unashamedly declare it to be sinful). Indeed, in a secular democratic republic such as America, where there is not a foundational and agreed-upon religious ethic, the two aspects should be separated in order to preserve the freedom of churches, synagogues, mosques and temples to openly teach their faiths’ ethical outlook without being subject to charges of legal discrimination. This is a point that many proponents of “traditional marriage” seem to either miss or reject.
Likewise, many proponents of “marriage equality” are disingenuous in their rhetoric. I say this because for many, “equality” doesn’t really mean “equality.” Here’s what I wrote on Facebook the morning I started seeing the pictures making the rounds:
I’m seeing this [red equal sign] posted a lot today. My concern is that people sharing it not be hypocrites. If marriage is only about “who you love”, then please be consistent and support the legality of polygamists, polyamourists, siblings and others who also want the same rights as same-sex couples.
(For the record, I think the government should get out of the marriage issue and ONLY grant civil unions. “Marriage” is then free to be defined by various cultural and faith communities without anyone’s freedoms being denied. This is the only way to make it work in a pluralistic society, IMO.)
I believe if one is going to remove the innate aspect of “gender” from the legal/civil definition of marriage, then there is no non-arbitrary reason to continue to discriminate against other forms of “marriage” between consenting adults. In fact, incestuous adult marriage and multiple-partner marriage both have much longer and wider acceptance in terms of world history, and are not “mere hypotheticals” as THIS example shows.
Therefore, if someone is truly for “equality”, then I believe they need to be willing to follow their rhetoric to its logical conclusion accept such marriages that they themselves find morally/culturally/ethically objectionable as well. If they do, then so be it. I respect that position and can appreciate the consistency in it.
[By the way, my post led to a good discussion and I even made new Facebook friends as a result (despite being labeled as a “bigot” and “bafoon” by an emotional reader–yes, that’s how this person attacking my character spelled “buffoon”), and you can read it here if you’d like to see a civil discussion take place regarding a controversial issue.]
So in the course of reading a number of articles online arguing various sides of the debate, I came across one that my friend posted which was written by Joe Carter over at The Gospel Coalition (a popular coalition of bloggers, writers and preachers from the “Young Restless Reformed” wing within evangelical Christianity). It’s entitled “When Did Idolatry Become Compatible with Christianity?” and was a fairly standard response lamenting the acceptance of the notion of gay marriage, and same-sex sexuality in general, among so many Christians in America.
However, one line in it stood out…
“At its root, the issue has more to do with idolatry than marriage, since same-sex marriage could not have advanced in America if believers had not exchanged the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob for the God of faux-love, cultural acceptance, and open theism.”
Now many readers would gloss right past this without batting an eye. But that’s only because most readers don’t know what “open theism” is–or if they do, they’ve likely only heard it demonized as heresy by various evangelical theological watchdogs.
Space doesn’t allow for a full discussion of the merits of open theism, but basically it is the belief held by a number of evangelical, Bible-believing Christian theologians that God, in His utter sovereignty, created the universe in such a way that he chose to limit his knowledge of certain future contingencies in order to bring into being a universe with genuinely free moral agents with whom to be in relationship with. [For a much fuller and more nuanced treatment of open theism I recommend the excellent debate between John Sanders and Christopher Hall in “Does God Have a Future?“]
In other words, God chose to not know certain things about the future so as to provide genuine choice and free will to humanity.
This issue came to a head back around 2000-2002 among members of the Evangelical Theological Society, with some declaring it heretical and resigning their membership due to open theist proponents not being kicked out. The most vocal opponents of open theism were from the strongly Reformed/Calvinist ranks–many of them even labeled it “hyper-Arminianism” (a scathing indictment in most Reformed circles indeed!).
But the majority of evangelical scholars and theologians seemed to conclude that while open theism is likely incorrect and lacks full exegetical support, one can still hold to it and remain a committed evangelical Christian.
This is where I come down on open theism, incidentally. It is a viable option, but one that I don’t find ultimately convincing in light of the overall text of Scripture. Baptist evangelical theologian Roger Olsen has written extensively on the subject and I very much recommend his approach to the controversy for those who want to know more about it or who have only heard open theism ridiculed. THIS article and THIS article by him are both especially helpful.
So, what does a discussion of open theism have to do with acceptance of gay marriage?
Absolutely nothing.
Nada.
Zero.
It is a total red-herring and needless muddying of an already complex discussion. Carter included it because in the eyes of many (though not all!) folks associated with The Gospel Coalition, open theism is an heretical, godless, liberal, human invention that sullies and impugns the Sovereignty of God. So any acceptance of an unbiblical sexual ethic MUST have something to do with that evil open theism creeping its way into the church!
*sigh*
This is why so many of us who are openly evangelical and who might otherwise agree with many (if not most) of the underlying ethical views of our brothers and sisters within The Gospel Coalition are instead turned off by articles like this one.
The issue of same-sex marriage and marriage “equality” is one that needs to be discussed with as little added rhetorical baggage as possible. It’s complex enough as it is and Christians are divided among a number of various approaches to the subject. There is no need to use it as an opportunity to take a shot certain theological positions one disagrees with which have nothing to do with the issue itself.
I would urge The Gospel Coalition editors and contributors to make more of an effort to recognize rather than demonize those evangelicals who don’t accept their particular form of classical Reformed theology as fellow evangelicals rather than as “idolaters.”
In other words, they should strive to better exhibit a spirit of humility and careful thought which characterizes some of the best Reformed theological minds.
Categories: Biblical Theology, Blog, Political/Social issues, Theological issues
Take out the “Christian Factor” and problems and concerns still loom.
Across religions, culture and continent one thing stands common, male bonds with female.
That is the norm. The state has an interest in that bond and that has been reflected in the laws. Families with dependent children are taxed at a lower rate is one example.
Do children have a vested interest in knowing who their mother and father are?
Are medical histories of family members important to guide treatment of the child’s health?
Are identity issues a factor in the child development?
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_adimpact.cfm
“The family is the corner stone of our society. More than any other force it shapes the attitude, the hopes, the ambitions, and the values of the child. And when the family collapses it is the children that are usually damaged. When it happens on a massive scale the community itself is crippled. So, unless we work to strengthen the family, to create conditions under which most parents will stay together, all the rest — schools, playgrounds, and public assitance, and private concern — will never be enough.”-Lyndon Baines Johnson
by d on Mar 30, 2013 at 12:46 pm
Done.
I support equality for all marriage partners. Including those which are polygamist, polyamorist or whatever.
I would ask that you as a Christian be consistent in your support marriage, since the Bible supports incestuous marriage, polygamy, teen sex, teen marriage (or even marriage of 12 year olds) and polyamory.
I don’t think it’s liberals that are inconsistent in their view of marriage, but you who are inconsistant in your position that you only support one notion of Marriage while the Bible supports many.
We can get into the specific passages that deal with incest, polygamy and polyamory if you want to, but the fact is that the Bible as a document supports those types of marriages, while you ignore them.
by Chris Bowers on Apr 2, 2013 at 8:08 am
Calvinism is to blame for gay marriage, not open theism. Open theism is the solution to the problem, because open theism says our choices do matter. Calvinism says God had predetermined everything. Well, if God predetermined everything, then people are born gay. In fact, Calvinists teach the “born that way, can’t do any better” excuse: they call it “total depravity.” They say we were born sinners and have no freewill, except when they’re pushing into a corner and they pretend to believe in “freewill” but all it amounts to in their double-speak is an ability to choosing to commit one type of sin rather than another while you’re still in essence nothing but a sin-robot. So, Calvinism, with its teaching that sin is our very essence, dumbs down biblical teaching on sin, and makes sin acceptable, and especially since it teaches God wills it and has prescripted every sin we commit anyway, it makes sin an acceptable lifestyle. While open theism can be perfectly biblical and condemn sin. Amen. The end. Checkmate.
by davidbrainerd2 on Mar 8, 2014 at 1:30 am