I think so but it is certainly more complicated that the Catholic case against gay marriage. For Roman Catholics, marriage is holy and a sacrament of the Church. The Church, therefore, has authority to define marriage. For Protestant’s marriage is not holy, sacred, or defined by the Church. It is an institution rooted in nature and defined by civil, not ecclesiastical law.
What then is the Protestant case against gay marriage? Can marriage be anything more than a contract defined by the civil law? Is there a downside to allowing a thousand roses to bloom when it comes to the peoples right to freely enter into contracts? Should the State play any role but that of umpire in dealing with freely established contracts?
I have some thoughts I will lay out latter but I am wondering what others have to say? I am particularly interested in Darryl’s opinion. What say you good Doctor?
What Protestants are you referring to? Certainly not Reformed Protestants, who confess that marriage is a holy bond and divine institution. Civil law does not create or define marriage.
***
Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time. (WCF, ch 24, I)
Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are … prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages;…having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion …
(WLC, QA 139)
This is a common form for the solemnization of marriage used in Dutch Reformed churches:
The holy bond of marriage was instituted by God himself at the very dawn of history. Making a man in his own likeness, he endowed him with many blessings and gave him dominion over all things. Moreover, God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:18). So God created woman of man’s own substance and brought her to the man. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).
Our Lord Jesus honored marriage by his blessed presence at the wedding in Cana and confirmed it as a divine ordinance, as an honorable estate, and as a lasting bond when he declared, “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matt. 19:6). The apostle Paul shows its exalted nature when he calls marriage a symbol of the mystic union of the Savior and the church, his redeemed bride, commending it as a state honorable among all.
Marriage was established to extend the human race, to advance the kingdom of God, and to enrich the lives of those entering this state. To fulfill these purposes, a husband and wife must be lovingly devoted to each other, sharing responsibility for the nurture of the children the Lord may give them as his heritage and as parties to his covenant.
The Lord ordained that in marriage the husband should be the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, and that he should protect her and provide for her in love. This love, if exercised in the spirit and example of Christ, will be conducive to mutual happiness. God also ordained that the wife should be subject to the husband in all things that are according to his Word, showing him deference even as the church shows deference to Christ. Thus the liberty of both husband and wife is glorified by mutual loyalty to law, and the home begun in the name of the Lord and regulated by his commandments becomes the very foundation of a Christian society and provides a foretaste of the eternal home.
Marriage, then, is a divine ordinance intended to be a source of happiness to us, an institution of the highest significance to the human race, and a symbol of the union of Christ and his church. We may, therefore, as Christians look with confidence for grace in fulfilling our mutual responsibilities and for guidance and help in solving our common problems.
In the church the case is easy. It’s not biblical. It’s not confessional.
In civil society, the Protestant case would likely sound more Roman Catholic than people might expect since I would say it’s not natural, meaning, marriage is the appropriate context for sexual reproduction and rearing children. That may sound Romish because it suggests the purpose of sex is procreation. I’ve always been a sucker for that argument, and Wendell Berry in parts of The Unsettling of America makes a pretty good natural case for not inserting unnatural mechanisms into the procreative process.
But I think I also get support for a natural law approach from the Westminster Confession which says: “Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with legitimate issue, and of the church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.” 24.2
If that means removing the pleasure principle from sex. so be it.
Hey there
Enjoyed you blog, and I have read a few of the other ones as well. Take a look at my blog: drmyers.wordpress.com; dealing with Gay Marriage.
I’d love to dialog with you about perhaps placing a link there so my readers could take a look at what you’re doing.
Again, keep up the suburb work!
Thanks,
Aaron Myers
Twitter.com/aaronmyers
Ceoexchange07@gmail.com
Drmyers.wordperss.com
To the degree that Calvin’s (and Bucer’s and Luther’s et al) doctrine of natural law is distinct from Thomas’ (and it was; see this essay: wscal.edu/clark/1998rsclexnat.pdf) then there might be said to be a Protestant natural law argument against homosexuality.
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/natural-law-the-two-kingdoms-and-homosexual-marriage/
Link correction:
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/1998rsclexnat.pdf
Thanks for the link Scott. In a few lines- what is the difference between Thomas and Calvin when it comes to natural law?
Well, Covenanters, like yourself, believe Christ is king of nations and all things, right? So, whether you want to call marriage sacred or not is one thing (what “sphere” it falls in), but it still is governed by the rule of Christ, even if you prefer to refer to that rule in this case as His “natural law” (it’s not like “natural law”, if legitimate, can be in anything but in complete harmony with the law of God, after all). But perhaps I miss understand you and you’re simply fishing for a more broadly protestant argument against “homosexual marriage”.
Steven, you are exactly right. I agree whole heartedly but what I am heartened to see is that my brother Darryl and Scott who are the “so called” “secularists” W2K men are also in agreement.
From the perspective of the W2K, Covenanters, and the Neo-Reformed, God is sovereign, and His law is is the necessary foundation of all private and public morality.
Small differences remain- the role of Christ in the matter, the wisdom of using Scripture to convince unbelievers of a particular public policy, ect.
This kind of discussion is very enlightening for me. The supposition that marriage “is an institution rooted in nature and defined by civil… law” whales me in the head like a 2×4.
I think, “Didn’t, like, *GOD* institute marriage? Didn’t I read something about the divine origins of that institution? I don’t think the anti-Yahweh People’s Republic of Eden was assigned the role of ‘defining’ the marriage of Adam and Eve, but then again, a lot of ‘Reformed’ readings of Genesis 1 find a whole lot more there than I ever have… maybe this is just another one of those things.”
When the fruit of a theological / hermeneutical system appears to be rotten, one necessarily has some doubts about the system itself (Mt 7:17-19). Is this the fruit of a Redemptive/Historical theology as a whole or just one strain of it? That’s a serious question, too. I’d like to know.
Tim, I am not sure what you are asking? Do you think marriage is an association rooted in redemptive grace? Say that God ordained and created it does not answer the question. He also ordained and created civil society, the God-given propensity of man to associate, and even civil government. Of course He defines it. But He defines everything.
But does that give the church the right do dominate all things from family, to work, to politics, to marriage?
Why did the Puritans frown up “church” weddings? Why does the minister who officiates at a wedding declare “by the power invested in me by the State of ___”? Is this tipping the hat to secular modernism or Reformation Christianity?
This should not hit you like a 2×4- a mere tap of the fly-swatter.
Negative, ghost rider, marriage is not an issue of redemption, but creation – but it’s rooted in and defined by divine revelation. This notion is quite different from saying that marriage is defined by civil law, no? Definitions are just that, but what’s the *standard*? A sexual pervert can snuggle up to whatever he wants and “define” that as a marriage. He can get a bunch of his friends together and get someone in office that will pander to him, who will, in turn, “define” for the state what marriage means. None of this, however, means anything for the Christian (by way of standard, that is). The Christian says, “Wait, wait, wait… God created the institution and He defines it. The Bible says….”
What I’m advocating is a FAR cry “the church dominating all things.” Rather, it’s God dominating all things and his people obediently following.
The 2×4 is that it seems we’ve allowed the world their autonomy, even in theory. We allow the state to rage and plot a vain thing. In our social theory (so far as I can tell from the W2K side of things), we say not “kiss the Son, O you kings,” for that would be the church dominating the other kingdom. When men turn marriage upside down we speak of the Bible and our doctrinal standards applying “in the church,” but not to them. What?! This, I think, would be a 2×4 to our brethren in the first century who died (in part) because they wouldn’t confess Caesar as Kyrios – why not? Because CHRIST is Kyrios… yes, even over Rome! Is he (not the church) not still Kyrios over America, too? Or is our nation one for which he did not ask from his Father (Ps 2)? Are the royal claims of Christ total or not? Is he King of all the rulers of earth (Rev 1:5) or merely over the Church? If the former, then the the “Christian” assertion that the King’s word does not apply in this or that realm is outrageous… hence the 2×4.
Protestants here took exception to the remark that for them marriage is a civil contract, but I would like to ask which Protestant churches_enforce_the sanctity of marriage like the Catholic Church does (although abuses exist in the American annulment process). From what I’ve seen, there isn’t a Protestant church out there that won’t marry divorced people. Where’s the sacredness in that?
Reformed Protestants certainly have a case against homosexual “marriage,” foremost because of the principle of Sola Scriptura: we believe that Scripture is infallible and authoritative, and it explicitly states the marriage is between one man and one woman. Our confessions such as the Westminster Standards also define it as such, and there actually is ecclesiastical law within the Standards and elsewhere which pertains to marriage and divorce. Of course, our ecclesiastical law is simply a setting forth of Biblical principles which are binding on the Church (such as believers not being unequally yoked).
Reformed Protestant marriage is thus both defined by the Church and ecclesiastical in nature. It is also holy: although we only esteem as Sacraments those signs and seals of the Covenant which were explicitly instituted by God and given to His Church as means of grace, in the Reformed Faith and Roman Catholicism alike something that is not a Sacrament can certainly be considered sacred! Because God Himself set apart marriage as a holy estate, Reformed Protestants hold it to be sacred. That is one reason it is defined and protected by the Holy Scriptures and the Church.
Finally, Reformed Protestants do enforce the sanctity of marriage: in the case of a divorce not in accordance with the Scriptures and the Confession (that is, for any reason other than adultery or willful abandonment), the party(ies) at fault receives church discipline (which can include barring from the Lord’s Table and excommunication; there is a Scriptural progression of church discipline which we follow: see I Tim. 5). In the case of a Biblical divorce, the person at fault receives church discipline. Also, no Reformed Protestant church will marry people who have been divorced unbiblically.
Johann,
Your comment is spot on and shows the tension of our historical position, and the hypocrisy of our present position.
It doesn’t help the Protestant hypocrisy (which clearly and sadly exists) when we cannot, for peculiar theological reasons, even apply the Scripture to the culture broadly. When our theology prevents us from saying to our magistrate, “Thus says King Jesus…,” we lose our greatest weapon – the sword of the spirit. The unbeliever may respond, “But I don’t believe in King Jesus!” Does his unbelief make the sword not a sword? Is the word of the King less than the word of the King? The Bible calls Jesus the King of kings, Lord of lords, and the Ruler of the kings of earth. That means he himself, in his mediatoral capacity, at the right hand of the Father, reigns over ALL spheres of creation, including the state, the church, families (marriage) and individuals (not to mention cosmic and angelic forces).
Protestants have stood on the Scripture and have applied it to all areas of life. W2K’s weakness is indubitably shown in that it does not. It seems to limit not just the actual sovereignty of Christ, but even the theoretical sovereignty of Christ to certain realms, excluding it from others. That’s a big problem.
The “Protestant” case against “gay marriage” is that the King says it’s out of keeping with the original design and therefore a perversion to be opposed. Quite simple.