Visionaries,
I actually think this discussion is getting somewhere. But I still have questions, and I hope will get this us even further. Susanna says that the difference between us is that she thinks it is a matter of law, not morality. And goes on to say that polygamy would be fine with her if we could “guarantee it was practiced willingly, fairly, and with the consent of all involved.”
Okay. But obviously she believe that the law should be informed by morality. Otherwise, why would she care about consent? The need for consent is (obviously) a moral issue. But whose formulation? Whose morality? And if a fifteen year old girl is not competent to decide whether to join the harem of an old coot on the mountain named Elijah One Tooth, then how is she competent to decide whether to sleep with some fifteen-year-old in her class at school? Or to get an abortion if she desires one? Why do we help her get condoms for the latter bad choice, but draw the line hard and firm with the first bad choice?
And by the way, I think she may have guessed wrong when it comes to my understanding of divorce and remarriage. Jesus said that divorce was permitted because of hardness of heart. And pastorally, I have seen enough of such hardness of heart in marriages to be able to thank God for the grace He exhibits in lawful divorce for the wronged party. In this screwed up world, divorce is frequently permitted, and sometimes mandatory.
Cordially,
Douglas Wilson
Apologetics in the Void” are repostings from an on-going electronic discussion and debate I had some time ago with members of our local community, whose names I have changed. The list serve is called Vision 20/20, and hence the name “visionaries.” Reading just these posts probably feels like listening to one half of a phone conversation, but I don’t feel at liberty to publish what others have written. But I have been editing these posts (lightly) with intelligibility in mind.