Analyzing God and nature's concepts for marriage
Recently Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who presides over the worldwide Anglican communion (including the Episcopal Church in the United States), was quoted as saying that he could find nothing in the Bible about same-sex marriage. If we were still living in a theocracy, I guess that would settle the matter. Fortunately, we live in a free country and we can read for ourselves what the Bible says.
Now before commenting more on the archbishop’s pronouncement, let us remember that several months ago the same man of the cloth actually said that the United Kingdom will have to concede the practice of Sharia law, according to which women are mere chattels of men.
How is it that this eminent religious personage should be saying things so shocking and disheartening about marriage and the rights of women? And in such seeming indifference — or worse — to the contradiction set loose in a nation that simultaneously denies the obvious foundation of marriage while allowing men to rule their wives despotically? (Or is it a contradiction?)
The short answer is that there is grain of truth of both of Archbishop Williams’s statements. The Bible indeed does not say anything about same-sex marriages. Why not? It was not necessary, for both in the Old and the New testaments homosexuality is explicitly condemned. One doesn’t have to be a logician to deduce that, from the Biblical point of view, unnatural unions should not be granted the status of marriages.
And, yes, Sharia law may have a future in Europe as Muslims are massively out propagating the non-Muslims (formerly called Christians). Christian writer Josh McDowell (author of “Evidence Which Demands a Verdict” and other works) predicts that Muslims will outnumber Christians to such an extent that Europe, beginning with Great Britain, will become what has been called “Eurabia” by mid century. However seemingly inevitable this prospect may appear, it hardly becomes Williams to declare preemptive surrender.
Californians have a stake in both same-sex and barbaric “marriage” this fall when they vote on Proposition 8, which would affirm by constitutional amendment, in opposition to a California Supreme Court decision in June, that marriage is between one man and one woman. For our state’s highest court has declared a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry and opened to the door to further corruption’s of marriage, including polygamy and incest.
Some may wonder why any of this matters, for religion, they say, is a purely private matter and has no authority over public policy. This only overlooks centuries of experience to the contrary in both the European and Asian worlds. Theocracies gave way to civil governments in Europe but the Muslim portions of Asia cling to the old ways.
In any event, religion has left its footprint on multiple generations, which is why Bishop Williams’ observations have resonance. Those who embrace Christianity not for its moral teaching but to exploit its emphasis on love of one’s neighbor as a rationalization for indulging the appetites which the Bible clearly condemns, have every reason to welcome theological authorities who uphold their opinions. Those who remain faithful have every reason to be alarmed at the prospect of people being deceived.
Undoubtedly because most Americans have, from our nation’s beginnings, been Christians, marriage between men and women has been elevated to lofty status. This is a great gift to the world, for it has domesticated millions of men and protected millions of women. The failures hardly invalidate the institution, although certainly they have done it no good.
But the Biblical view of marriage is grounded equally in what the Declaration of Independence referred to as “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” While it is perfectly true that the Old Testament condemns homosexuality as an abomination in the sight of God, the New Testament goes further and calls it unnatural. In both Romans and Corinthians, Paul uses that language.
The Bible’s understanding of nature strikes me as superior to the hedonistic and materialistic one for this reason: there man’s nature refers to the purposes for which he was designed. That provides a standard for conduct which places wholesome and healthy limits on appetites. The claim that the fundamental urges with which we are all endowed, are all that constitute nature fails to acknowledge the higher aspects of mankind.
Self control may not seem “natural” to some, but wise teaching and informed experience agree that man’s nature encompasses judgment, conscience and virtue and not merely appetite, desire and gratification. Whether or not any scientific evidence is ever discovered for a “gay gene,” it still remains true that we human beings have the power to make choices.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle, in his discussion of human freedom, said that even if a despot had you in his power, you still have choice. He conceded that if a wind came along and picked you up, you could not be held responsible. But otherwise, we are in charge of our fate. It would be a great tragedy for this country if we sacrificed our freedom to our urges.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of “ Taking Journalism Seriously: ‘Objectivity’ as a Partisan Cause” (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net.
