Norman over at LibertarianChristains.com fielded a question today about gay rights. His answer is worth the read. In sum:
…not forbidding certain behavior should not be conflated with not approving of certain behavior. Being permissive of lifestyle choices does not entail me agreeing that the lifestyle choice is morally right before God. Such non-agreement is my religious perspective, and thus cannot be used as a rationale to coerce others. To me, this is the essence of being socially tolerant: though I disagree with a behavior I shall not raise an aggressive hand against it. I would use a similar argument to defend any non-aggressive behavior even if I believed it to be wrong.
This indeed is the linchpin on this issue between more statist Christians and Christian libertarians. Both views see homosexuality as a sin, an abomination before God of which we do not approve, condone and indeed as Christians we hate that sin (as we hate all sin). But only the former believes that we must (in order to be consistent) go a step further and engineer society by force, using the police and threatening to MAKE people conform to our religious views.
You may also be interested in:
Colin, your link is broken. You have an extra http:// in the URL.
Norman does a great job of explaining the libertarian Christian view on the subject of gay marriage. I concur with his explanation.
It’s a pretty difficult issue, because libertarian Christians are such a small minority. Supporters of traditional marriage don’t care about my reasons for disagreeing with them about the law, even if we agree about the moral and theological aspects of marriage. And gay marriage advocates aren’t interested in my support unless I condone and celebrate gay marriage as a good thing. Despite some of the rhetoric to the contrary, the movement isn’t just about legal rights; it’s about gaining public acceptance for their lifestyle.
I think it’s a bit of both. I know some who are wanting both legal rights and public acceptance, but others who only want legal rights. As a liberal theologian, there are some well-reasoned theological arguments for gay marriage (and there are prominent theologians who agree). I’m not sure how to approach the theological issue around gay marriage without being read as advocating a single interpretation. In other words, I accept gay marriage on the basis that I reject the possibility one can have the one true theology.
I’m in the minority not only on this site, but among Christians in general these days, because I think Christendom is still a good idea. One thing the strikes me right away in what Colin wrote is the last sentence”…using the police and threatening to MAKE people conform to our religious views.”
One of the issues I have with liberalism in general, is this idea that separates “religious views” from the way the world actually is. If a person (or society) simply held to the view that homosexuality is wrong (since that is the current discussion) then their would be no reason for the state to inforce prohibitions against it except for pragmatic reasons. If however homosexuality is actually wrong and effects the society in negative ways then there is a justification for the state to intervene (Leaving aside the question of should the state ever go against private rights, I’m simply arguing at this point that there would be an argument).
Likewise, in the actual quote where it says “…is my religious perspective, and thus cannot be used as a rationale to coerce others” the same issue applies; if it is just someone’s religious perspective then sure what rational is there to force someone to agree with your opinions. If however it is the way the world actually is, then there is a reason to force it on others.
The counter argument at this point usually is a discussion of individual soul liberty and the belief that forcing a behavior on a person doesn’t change their heart (To use a typical evangelic wishy-washy phrase). That is of course true, but there is something to be said about a society that the majority of people outwardly conform to a biblical lifestyle. If I could, I would want everyone to embrace Christ as Lord and Saviour, but that won’t happen (Yet…being the post-millenniumist I am). So I could either live in a society where those who engage in all kinds of pagan behavior are held to no account, or I could live in one where the government puts restraints on the citizens to better conform them to the character of the coming kingdom.
Bryan, a couple of thoughts.
Of course I agree with you that if society simply held Christian values, then this would be a non-issue. For me – THAT is the ideal. The blurb doesn’t go into what I think Christians should support, but I think (in short) they should stop wasting their time trying to get laws passed and go out and evangelise.
I think the main disagreement I have is with your final sentence “…I could live in one where the government puts restraints on the citizens to better conform them to the character of the coming kingdom.” Have you considered the implications that right behaviour is not going to help anyone at the coming of God’s kingdom? Surely the best that we can do for these people is not set up a society where they believe they are behaving morally only to find out upon judgement that this was merely contributing to their sense of self-sufficiency and self-righteousness? Would it not be better to inform them that the coming kingdom is not about living rightly as a matter of social/legal importance but about wholesale new life and birth as a child of God in Christ?
Also none of this even begins to consider the practical problems of can this legislative approach even set out to do what it intends…
That’s a very good reply Norman made.
Also, most people can not stand being forced. If you force them, they’re more likely to stand up for what is being forced from them (teens especially so).
Thus, forcing someone is counter-productive. I’m not certain if I’m using the saying right, but change must come from within, not from without.
There are no doubt practical issues, but libertarianism has it’s own practical issues.
I disagree with your argument because I think the same issue applies to the Libertarian. Sure someone living in a society that enforces Christian values could say they have not broken the law and are therefore righteous, but a libertarian could say “I’ve never harmed anyone else and therefore am righteous”.
No society has, nor likely will, enforce every sin as part of the law (and if they did, everyone would know they broke the law and that they are not righteous) so I don’t see the fear in people believing that because they didn’t break the law they are moral in a “Christian society” over any other type.