In some ways, Matthew Schmitz’s cavalier dismissal of objections to the Marriage Pledge seems to invite an old-fashioned fisking. But I resist the invitation. The confusions about marriage in our time are deep and profound, and many of them are present in the underlying assumptions of this Pledge, a Pledge seeking to preserve Christian marriage by detaching it from public and legally enforceable commitments. But what if legally enforceable commitments are an essential part of what marriage is?
I continue to insist that this well-intentioned maneuver is a blunder, of a high order. When Lord Cardigan oversaw the charge of the light brigade, we need not question his motives to question the wisdom of the move. And the fact that he gave his name to a very nice sweater does not help us out much.
So let us walk through Schmitz’s post, pointing out objects of interest as we go.
“A number of people charge the Marriage Pledge authored by Ephraim Radner and Christopher Seitz with ‘clericalism,’ claiming that it seeks to keep the hands of pastors clean from signing dirty marriage docs while urging laymen to make their perilous way to City Hall. This is probably the silliest of many silly charges that have been made.”
Although I didn’t use the word clericalism, I was one of those who advanced this argument, an argument that was, in Schmitz’s eyes, probably the silliest of many silly charges that were leveled. And so it is only fitting that I now rise in an attempt to defend my silliness. Being as silly as I am, this is going to be difficult, so please look on my poor efforts with the judgment of charity.
Let us first see if Schmitz gives an accurate statement of the argument that he is calling silly.
“The pledge finds no problem in Christians — be they clergy or laity — entering into civil marriages . . . It has been particularly amusing to see him accused of having a problem with clergy getting near civil marriage.”
But alas! This is not an accurate statement. Oh, that we had an accurate statement so that we could engage over our actual differences. Our argument was not that the advocates of the pledge had a problem with Christians contracting civil marriages. The argument was, given what they had said about clergymen needing to stay away from participating in the process, and given the reasons they advanced for this position, reasons involving conscience, “why didn’t they have a problem with Christians contracting civil marriages?” We know that they didn’t. The pledge explicitly asked the bride and groom to hie themselves down to the courthouse and do the deed.
The signers of the pledge had forsworn participation in x. They did not forswear participation in y. But why, why, oh, why y?
The argument we advanced was “if you object to this, then why, on the same principles, do you not object to that?” To respond to this with “how dare you suggest that we object to that?” is not to the point, shall we say.
This sentence quoted above could also stand another question, and if it’s myself that says it, I think it is a penetrating question indeed.
“The pledge finds no problem in Christians — be they clergy or laity — entering into civil marriages.”
Okay, but we should turn this box around and read the fine print on the back. Maybe it is rat poison and not Grape Nuts at all. Do the signers of the pledge have any problem with Christians, once married in the church, deciding not to enter into civil marriages? There are two directions to go, which are no and yes.
If they don’t have a problem with it, then they are saying that a sexual relationship in the church that is not binding in any legal sense is fine by them. Would a spouse who walked away from church vows alone be a fit subject of church discipline? And speaking of that, how many of the churches that the signers belong to would ever discipline anyone for walking away from their church vows only? Shoot, most churches today don’t discipline when couples walk away from civic and ecclesiastical vows together. So if we successfully and truly separate the two kinds of weddings, then how are we to prevent folks from putting a little sacramental shine on their shack up?
But the other possibility also remains. If the signers do have a problem with a couple deciding to opt out of civil marriage, then they are saying that civil marriage is ecclesiastically mandatory. They won’t do the church wedding unless there is also going to be a civil wedding. This does prevent the possibility of our first unfortunate outcome. The preacher might not be willing to sign a marriage license, but he might have to demand to look at it. From a safe distance, of course. That would solve the problem of church weddings that were responsibility-free, but it has the misfortune of contradicting the whole point of the pledge.
“Its quarrel is narrowly with the simultaneous enactment of that civil contract with the sacrament of marriage. By separating the two, the pledge seeks as much to clarify and protect the witness of the laity as it does that of the clergy. Perhaps more so, given that the people married are the actual ministers of the sacrament.”
If civil marriage is held to be necessary and required in order to obtain a church wedding, then they are emphatically not “separating the two.” Everything remains intertwined, just like now. The church either requires “simultaneous enactment” or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, the door is opened to the “parishioners with privileges” scenario discussed a moment ago. But if the church requires simultaneous enactment, then it can hardly be rejecting simultaneous enactment. At least not simultaneously.
So which is it? Are the two forms of marriage being utterly detached from each other, or not? If they are, then nothing is more manifest than that this proposal has not been thought through, and lots of legal and ecclesiastical mayhem will ensue. And if they are not being detached, then what was the point of this? Why are we all shouting?
“Separating what is done at the altar from what happens at the courthouse is equally clarifying for the witness of both clergy and laity. Indeed, Ephraim Radner, one of the authors of the pledge, is a clergyman married to a clergywoman. It has been particularly amusing to see him accused of having a problem with clergy getting near civil marriage.”
That last sentence — a non sequitur in a tutu — has already been addressed. But there is a little more here that might make our collective eyebrows go up and down. So we are now discovering that one of our leaders in protecting the church from cultural compromise on what the apostle Paul said HERE is one of the leaders in our cultural rejection of what the apostle Paul said over THERE. Which is to say, that effective cultural engagement by First Things is now officially neither here nor there. Their tag line is “America’s Most Influential Journal of Religion and Public Life,” which might explain a lot actually.
“By my lights, the pledge is an idea well worth debating though by no means a necessary move. Which is fine. Why should there not be multiple responses to the legal redefinition of marriage? Here, as often, we are in the realm of prudence and of legitimate debate (the most compelling arguments against, I think, are ones that say the move should not be made until it is necessary).”
Right, but surprising a bunch of your colleagues with a fait accompli is not the same thing a debating a proposal. We are in the middle of that old Chinese curse; we live in interesting times. Ryan Anderson’s response to the pledge was telling. This pledge was badly thought through, poorly executed, and it is not surprising that there is quite a mess to clean up.
We should therefore get all kinds of suggestions out on the table. Then we should debate them. We should invite everyone with something substantive to say to the debate, and not just the cool kids. After we have debated the proposals, we should ask our respective churches to provide us with parameters and guidelines. After all, ministers are (or ought to be) men under authority, like that centurion in the Bible. But what the pledge in effect says is that whatever interesting points are brought out by our cute little “debates,” they will almost certainly not affect those who are already signatories.
Shouldn’t we have the debate over wine and beer before we sign the temperance pledge?
“By contrast, to claim that the pledge somehow reflects ‘clericalism’ or that it reflects genetic flaws in Catholicism or Protestantism (I have seen both claims made) seems a way of batting away the real question and avoiding hard reckoning with where religious believers are being pushed—and how they might push back. I wonder if those saying that the Marriage Pledge is a ‘retreat’ know much about George Weigel, Charles J. Chaput, and others who have urged this idea’s consideration.”
The Marriage Pledge, as it stands, is most certainly not a good idea. It is, however, conceivable that it might be one tenth of a good idea. But in order to be part of a functionally good idea, there are a host of other issues that have to be addressed and resolved first. As it stands, this is not a retreat, but rather a rout. And if it is in fact a rout, it matters not that George Weigel and Charles J. Chaput are fellow refugees in this giant tent city that we affectionately call our Canvas Christendom.
Richard Neuhaus has been dead for about six years, and First Things is now leading the charge for a rationalized nakedness in the public square. That didn’t take long.
“If they don’t have a problem with it, then they are saying that a sexual relationship in the church that is not binding in any legal sense is fine by them. Would a spouse who walked away from church vows alone be a fit subject of church discipline? And speaking of that, how many of the churches that the signers belong to would ever discipline anyone for walking away from their church vows only?” Hi Doug Thanks for your article, could you address those of us who think the state should have no position on marriage, and who would use… Read more »
“a sexual relationship in the church that is not binding in any legal sense”
Perhaps you & they both confuse ceremony with marriage.
The state recognizes marriage without either church or civil ceremony.
Why don’t you?
I don’t understand why you would hold vows before God performed in a church as less authentic and binding than a civil wedding. To continue the false equivalency between the secular concept of marriage and the Biblical concept of marriage is to continue to allow modern abuse of language to corrupt the concept of marriage for your congregants as well as giving a false blessing to the legal arrangements of unbelievers. You also mention legal chaos as if family courts were doing a good job preserving families and doing justice. Is chaos worse the deliberate destruction?
It seems to me that one issue we are going to run into over and over when discussing the “marriage” question is similar to the situation when a drunk finally wakes up naked, inside a bush, in the middle of the day, at a busy town center, and doesn’t know where he is. There are so many issues he is faced with at the same time it is difficult for him to think clearly and prioritize what he should do. Does he just get up and run naked to the nearest store and phone someone he knows? “But how would… Read more »
Apologies CRRC was supposed to be CREC*
Very well said, Douglas. Especially your last paragraph.
I have a question: How was marriage handled in time of the apostles and church fathers? For, I dunno, three hundred years, the church was heavily persecuted and I highly doubt the state was in the business of recognizing marriages performed by Christian pastors…that is, if they did perform marriage ceremonies…I don’t recall Jesus or the apostles ever presiding over a marriage ceremony. Here’s another question: Can anyone point to some Bible verses that tell us how we’re supposed to go about gettin’ hitched? I mean, Paul tells us that if two believers cannot exercise self-control, they should marry, rather… Read more »
Speaking strictly as a disinterested observer, it seems to me that this is an excellent example of the wisdom of two kingdom theology. The idea that the state can get out of the marriage business and leave it to the church is simply ludicrous. Somebody has got to decide who gets to make emergency medical decisions, who inherits when someone dies without a will, who is privileged to not testify against a spouse in court, and who gets the multitude of other benefits that come from being married. The church may well be able to make those decisions for its… Read more »
By the way, on a related note, a gay couple with whom I am acquainted recently sought church membership in an evangelical church that told them that because they were living in what the church considers an immoral relationship, they can attend services but they can’t be members or take communion. The couple’s response was that the story of Jephthah teaches that once vows have been made, even vows that shouldn ‘t have been made, God expects those vows to be kept, and the church is essentially asking them to break a vow. That strikes me as a decent argument,… Read more »
Just… superb!
If someone makes a vow that contradicts God’s commands then it behoves him to repent. He must ask God for forgiveness for being so foolish. And he is not to sin for the sake of the vow. We do not get out of vows we regret because they are costly, but we are not required to fulfil something intrinsically sinful.
That’s a fair point Eric, and worthy of interaction–not that you need my approval.
I would counter with 1 Sam 14:24-30. Saul was apparently a fool for his vow, and his son Jonathan told the people that his father vexed the land for his lack of wisdom.
There is also precedent in the OT of vows being dissolved by higher authorities, namely in the cases of father/daughter and husband/wive.
Now, there are others more capable of providing a fuller answer than that, but I would start there.
Eric,
If someone vows to commit murder, are they required by God to fulfill the vow? Since when have vows reigned supreme over God’s commands?
Hi Eric, The issue with the story of Jephthah is this – it is a good thing if a man swears an oath, and keeps it to his hurt, in order to keep his promise, but if an oath or a vow is a promise to do what God forbids, then the Scripture, and for that matter the Westminster Confession, would indicate that it is an illegitimate vow and is not binding. If I promise to do something for you, something not immoral or forbidden by God, and then I later come to find out that there was an aspect… Read more »
Doug, I was curious of your comments on this subject… first time through… kinda caught off guard… second time through I had flash back from the Princess Bride when the man in black faces ‘whits’ with the Sicilian. “the other possibility remains… then again…” etc. Pretty disappointing… I love your stuff on marriage (your books anyway) but this crap here is missing the point… kinda like your post a while back that talked about divorce and remarriage and adultery being too complicated leaving all that for God to sort out. So instead of writing a million words about your hefty… Read more »
Our argument was not that the advocates of the pledge had a problem with Christians contracting civil marriages. The argument was, given what they had said about clergymen needing to stay away from participating in the process, and given the reasons they advanced for this position, reasons involving conscience, “why didn’t they have a problem with Christians contracting civil marriages?” We know that they didn’t. The pledge explicitly asked the bride and groom to hie themselves down to the courthouse and do the deed. The signers of the pledge had forsworn participation in x. They did not forswear participation in… Read more »
Marriage Pledge: Church and State running to catch the ball, each shouting “Mine!” But the ball belongs to the game.
Eric the Red, I would submit that the only reason it’s “ludicrous” to think of the church as having the kind of power I was suggesting is because we have grown up in an overreaching state. It has not always been this way. At the same time I think that battle may have been lost a long time ago. The government seems to be in control of everything now so I will attempt to not allow the current controlling authority to redefine what marriage is. If the power had been left in the church’s hand the entire fabric of the… Read more »
J, I think the difference between the state regulating marriage and the state regulating communion is that there is no circumstance (or at least none that’s immediately occurring to me) under which communion serves any kind of a secular purpose. It’s totally and completely a religious rite, with no secular significance at all, and so there is no reason for the state to regulate communion. That’s not true of marriage, where it is indeed a religious rite to those who consider it a religious rite, but it also implicates a whole host of secular issues, like who inherits if someone… Read more »
“And it strikes me as nothing short of raw cruelty to say that Jack and Jill, who have loved each other for 50 years, are recognized by the state as a social unit for these purposes, but Jim and Fred, who have also loved each other for 50 years, are not. ” Eric the Red, Not sure what this nonsense is suppose to mean — what is “social unit for these purposes” all about? If you are avoiding the word marriage, then that makes sense since marriage has a specific meaning, one the orthodox Christians on this website understand and… Read more »
Eric the Red —
What if the you thought that Jim & Fred shared a kind of love, but also (in the nature of things) were hurting each other deeply?
And hurting those about them?
Would you give them your thumbs up?
Eric Stampher, if I thought Jim and Fred were hurting each other and those around them, then that would change the facts, and part of my willingness to support gay marriage is that I don’t see how it hurts anyone. The overwhelming majority of the population is perfectly happy being straight, but for reasons that aren’t well understood a small minority finds happiness in same-sex relationships. Those same sex couplings do not appear to me to hurt the participants, or anyone else, so I don’t see a reason to deprive them of the same right to pursue happiness I seek… Read more »
Eric,
Thanks.
I pray you’ll come to see the mental and emotional destruction it has.
By the way, and related, do you think adult incest does damage?
Eric Stampher, what mental and emotional damage does it do? I hear that from your side a lot, that it causes damage, but I’ve never heard any specifics as to the harm that it supposedly causes. I’m sure that irresponsible homosexuality causes harm, just as does irresponsible heterosexuality, but in both cases it’s the irresponsibility that’s the problem.
I think adult incest can cause harm if it produces deformed offspring, and that’s probably the real basis for the taboo against it. If steps are taken to prevent offspring, then I’m not aware of any harm that it causes.
ETR, I agree with you that communion has no current implications for the secular community. My point wasn’t to draw a total parallel with the example, it was to suggest what could have been. If at some point “love feasts” had gotten out of hand and the government stepped in then it is very reasonable to think that communion would have been regulated, and by the very nature of it’s being regulated by the government (that is over everyone) it would have eventually become something people outside the church wanted to take part in. That is the unintended consequence of… Read more »
Trevin Wax links to some of the Pledge critiques and defenses here: I linked to Doug’s two posts on the Pledge in the comments section and on Leithart’s response as well. I will also restate here what I said on Wax’s blog… Of all the critiques of the Pledge I have seen, I think the most important one is that it was narrowly conceived and consulted on prior to being acted upon. For a move that is meant to be a statement of the church to the increasingly anti-Christian state and to a secularized and secularizing society, it ought not… Read more »
Shoot, did that link mess-up again. I should have consulted and reached consensus over how to put the correct parameters around the link text before posting.
Pederasty does not cause harm and is therefore acceptable, by your logic.
Sex is healthy and nothing to be ashamed of.
Consenting people can have sex as long as nobody is harmed.
Adults that mentor children to discover and explore their growing sexuality are appreciated.
The legal age of consent is, like marriage and sexuality and gender, a social construct that can be easily redefined.
Adults who were “mentored” as children should be embraced when they come out of the closet.
Therefore pederasty should be safe, legal, and regulated by the state.
“no foundational reason for a secular mindset to need marriage”
Hi J!
Because “a secular mindset” is by nature parasitical to a godly mindset, it can never shake off the good need it has for marriage.
Because marriage IS NOT a religious rite, but a rather a religious & social condition enjoyed by Adam before the fall, and by Adam and all y’all after the fall, it is proper for governments to arbitrate in many disputes.
Ken Miller: The Bible doesn’t give a treatise covering all aspects of marriage, but Gen. 2 gives a prototype – the father (God) brings the woman to the man, who declares her to be part of his own body, which implies that he will treat her with the same care that he offers to himself. At this point, the Bible gives only a brief explanation that this is meant as an example for us to follow, and so the words used here are debated as to whether they mean that a vow or intercourse or both are fundamental to the… Read more »
Eric, When I say “foundational reason” I’m speaking about their ability to give an account for their desire. Not that they have no desire. I agree that secularism is parasitic in nature, but I’m referencing marriage from their stated vantage point. To you other point. I see no reason to accept what you said about marriage/government. Basically the way I read it is this, “Adam and Eve got married before the fall, therefore government should arbitrate disputes.” That doesn’t sound like a good reason to me. I think maybe we need to look more in depth at the nature of… Read more »
While Scripture has more to say about marriage, this is certainly a very good starting place from a biblical theology perspective: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2014/11/22/n-t-wright-on-marriage-as-a-signpost/
Hi David! — your take is nicely stated!
“sexual consummation and fruitfulness are an essential goal of marriage” — expected accompaniments, yes, but not essential.
A cleaving social construction is by itself the essential element.
“vows need to be publicly witnessed and recorded for the purpose of enforcement in both church and state” — actually the “witness” is not to the vow but to the practice & reality of behavior. And recording need not be made unless or until a problem and issue arises.
J
If Adam & Eve were the first governmental institution, then you might conclude that “gov’ment” was already there acknowledging, assenting to and enforcing the marriage relationship.
Presumably immediately after the fall the church was not present.
But godly marriage & government was present.
Earl, there’s a whole boatload of social science data on the harm that pedophilia does to children.
Eric the Red —
“Your side” sees no necessary harm for humans’ psychies or emotions to engage in bestiality, do you?
Eric Stampher, I have never been interested enough in bestiality to investigate whether it causes harm or not, so I really don’t know. I imagine if you were to google it, you could probably find out if there’s any hard data, and if so, what it says. My ultimate analysis would be the same, though: If it doesn’t cause harm, then the fact that I find it icky (as I do) is irrelevant. I find eating raw oysters icky too. And if your next question will be do I think people should be allowed to marry their cats (assuming there’s… Read more »
Eric Redness,
You’ve chosen “consent” as your numero uno law, followed by “no harm” — is that right?
That’s your choice, right? — not some dictate from on high?
Eric Redness,
You’ve chosen “consent” as your numero uno law, followed by “no harm” — is that right?
That’s your choice, right? — not some dictate from on high?
Eric Stampher, actually “do no harm” (including by omission) is the foundation for my entire ethical system. And it’s not a personal choice; it’s acting in accordance with human nature Birds fly. Fish swim. Humans do ethics. It’s what we do. It’s neither a personal choice nor a dictate from on high; it’s acting as my nature compels me to act.
How did you discover “do no harm” vs, say, war that billions of others have felt is “the way”?
Eric, “do no harm” is like “love thy neighbor as thyself,” by which I mean that working out the details is tricky, and it’s not always crystal clear what that means or how it applies in a given situation. And war comes down to whether I should be more concerned with my own little tribe as opposed to humanity as a whole. Unfortunately, for most of human history, people not of one’s tribe were dehumanized and their interests were considered unimportant. They were considered “the other” rather than part of a shared humanity. It’s really only within the last century… Read more »
so Eric, this is a position you take to be true to the cosmic way of things, correct? And you know this because, why? It just feels right to you?
Eric, I can’t “know” what’s going to happen in the future; we could be wiped out by an asteroid. I can say that if you compare conditions of a thousand years ago, a hundred years ago, and today, we appear to be on a trajectory toward a less violent world. Ferguson notwithstanding.
Sorry I was unclear — you know this is the best way because?
You prefer it?
Eric the Red wrote: … actually “do no harm” (including by omission) is the foundation for my entire ethical system. And it’s not a personal choice; it’s acting in accordance with human nature Birds fly. Fish swim. Humans do ethics. It’s what we do. It’s neither a personal choice nor a dictate from on high; it’s acting as my nature compels me to act. The foundation of Eric the Red’s ethical system has been restricted to “whatever is, is”. Whatever humans do, humans do. Because it happens in nature, human nature is, well, natural, by definition. It can’t be otherwise.… Read more »
Eric, not because I prefer it, but because the communal living necessary to human survival and happiness would be difficult if not impossible without it. Spend a few minutes seriously thinking through what it would be like to live in a society in which there were no ethics and everyone could do whatever struck their fancy (an exercise, by the way, of which I suspect katecho is incapable). How long do you think such a society, and its denizens, would survive? Not only does practicing ethics make the world a more pleasant place in which to live, it has the… Read more »
Eric — thanks for trying to understand my question again: “a more pleasant place” you say, based on what? Your own view of pleasantness?? Are you basing your view on your own common sense as to what is pleasant and what is good? What of folks, say Nazis or skinheads, who find it obvious as anything that white is right and the rest defectives who should be rubbed out? Is their opinion discounted by you — because, why? Are you not saying? — “Eric The Red’s view is based on my sense of what I feel is right and good.… Read more »
No, Eric, it’s objective. Think about what it would be like to live in a world in which Hitler had won the last world war. In fact, that’s really a useful thought experiment for any philosophy or ethical system: Spend a few minutes actually thinking through what it would be like to live in a world in which everyone believed and acted that way. First of all, even though I don’t happen to be a member of any group singled out by the nazis or skinheads for special disfavor, brutality tends to spill over. Once the violence and brutality genie… Read more »
I apologize if I’m wearying you
Can we agree that your side stands on the presumption that you “can just tell” what is preferable? – and if anyone thinks differently, let’s see how that works?