Christian Cosmology & Unpopular Truth

on July 1, 2013

20130701-020031.jpg

By Mark Tooley @markdtooley

We Protestants and Evangelicals often could learn a lot from Catholic prelates addressing public policy issues relating to marriage and life. Certainly it is true for Cardinal Donald Wuerl’s Washington Post column yesterday reacting to the Supreme Court marriage rulings. His arguments are tightly succinct. Here is one quote.

Marriage is the word used in many translations across human history to signify the permanent, faithful and fruitful union of one man and one woman. It is the only institution that brings a man and a woman together in a partnership for life directed toward their mutual support and the generation and education of children. This is a human community that predates government. Its meaning is something to be recognized and protected, not reconstructed. Its simplicity is compelling. Its significance, both personal and public, is immeasurable. What promise between two people holds the same weight and consequence as that of a man and a woman who give themselves to each other for life with a view toward creating new life so that humanity might continue?

And another:

Marriage goes to the nature of the human person. Even if individual men and women are unable to have children for some reason, still it is the nature of man and woman to complement each other in such a way that is fruitful and capable of children. Two persons of the same sex, on the other hand, can never have children by the very nature of such a union.

And another:

No matter what a court, legislator, president or voter may claim to the contrary, the essence of marriage cannot be redefined. Its meaning is intrinsic, grounded in human nature and discoverable by human reason with or without the aid of faith. A culture based on the truth of marriage affirms that men and women are equally important, that they have equal dignity but are not the same. The recognition of the difference between a man and a woman is neither discrimination nor bigotry. It is a statement of reality, of fact.

Cardinal Wuerl concluded:

Far from settling the debate over the meaning of marriage, the Supreme Court decisions have simply reminded all of us that there is a great difference between what a law can decree and what God has created.

The Archbishop of Washington, DC didn’t quote the Bible but essentially relied on natural law. Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, in his response to the court ruling on behalf of the Catholic bishops, did cite scripture, including Jesus’ defense of “an unpopular truth that everyone could understand,” which in secular modernity now includes the definition of marriage. Read it here.

Recently writer Rod Dreher, who’s Eastern Orthodox, warned that same sex marriage “signifies the final triumph of the Sexual Revolution and the dethroning of Christianity because it denies the core concept of Christian anthropology,” premised on the “divinely sanctioned union of male and female [as] an icon of the relationship of Christ to His church and ultimately of God to His creation.” He wondered if “our modern concept of human rights and other fundamental goods of modernity” based on a “Christian cosmology” can survive. He also wrote:

Too many…think that same-sex marriage is merely a question of sexual ethics. They fail to see that gay marriage, and the concomitant collapse of marriage among poor and working-class heterosexuals, makes perfect sense given the autonomous individualism sacralized by modernity and embraced by contemporary culture—indeed, by many who call themselves Christians.

Defending a Christian cosmology, and deploying natural law, sometimes seem beyond the comfortable range of even many of the best orthodox Protestant and Evangelical thinkers. Of course, liberal Protestants fully embrace “autonomous individualism” and whatever it brings. And squishy neo-orthodox Protestants, typically devotees of Karl Barth, often reject or minimize natural law, full scriptural authority, and the robust witness of the universal church, leaving them few tools to withstand the prevailing zeitgeist.

The battles ahead, political, cultural and spiritual, hopefully will refine the voices of the best minds, Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical, on behalf of Christian cosmology and reasoned order.

  1. Comment by Valerie Hurst on July 1, 2013 at 8:23 am

    “Equal dignity but not the same.” Exactly! Why do liberals not grasp something so painfully obvious? Like most married couples, my husband and I find our differences to be frustrating – but also immensely rewarding. I’m not a guy, he’s not a gal – and there’s no doubt God intended that distinction to exist not just for the purpose of reproduction, but so that two humans with intrinsically different natures could complement and complete each other. As the cardinal says, it is simply “reality” that there is no true marriage without a man and a woman. What causes such confused thinking in this area is that a huge segment of the population has reduced marriage to a matter of sexual gratification, and obviously there is much more to marriage than that. My husband I both read Harvey Mansfield’s excellent book Manliness, and I highly recommend it. He’s a Harvard professor, and in discussing the nature of male and female he does not appeal to the Bible at all but only to common sense.

    Thanks for posting this article.

  2. Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on July 1, 2013 at 9:35 am

    Another excellent post.

    Pointing out complementarity, regardless of child-bearing, is important because so many marriage re-definition devotees forward the simplistic notion of fairness to individuals, regardless of those individuals’ characteristics. Their misguided notion of equality, taken a little further, would argue, for example, that it is unjust that men cannot bear children (ergo, their argument is often more against nature and nature’s God than historic Christianity).

    It remains astonishing that a group of people who previously proclaimed that marriage is outdated are now finding renewed importance for it. It’s also interesting that quite a few prominent liberals (e.g., Andrew Cuomo of New York) arguing for gay “marriage” object to the institution of marriage on a personal basis (preferring a “shack-up” arrangement).

  3. Comment by Nicole on July 1, 2013 at 11:02 am

    Very interesting. I sent a this link to friends.

  4. Comment by gregpaley on July 1, 2013 at 9:06 pm

    By all means, read the cardinal’s full statement, because it answers every objection from the left, although I doubt it would have much effect on them. Our politics has been reduced to being browbeaten by some pushy, well-organized group of grievance-mongers screaming “We feel excluded!” Don’t our politicians possess spines any more?

  5. Pingback by Christian Cosmology & Unpopular Truth | Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans on July 8, 2013 at 5:05 am

    […] Read here […]

  6. Comment by Steve Finnell on October 27, 2013 at 8:16 pm

    WAS PETER THE FIRST POPE?

    Was the apostle Peter the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church? A few reasons why Peter was not the first Pope.

    Peter was not Pope because there is no office of Pope mentioned in the Scriptures. Peter was not the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church because there is no Roman Catholic Church mentioned in the Bible.

    Peter was not a Pope because the apostles were not in subjection to him.

    2 Corinthians 11:5 For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles. 2 Corinthians 12:11 I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody.

    Not only was the apostle Paul not in subjection to Peter, he reprimanded Peter in Antioch.

    Galatians 2:11-21 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned….14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?….

    Peter was not Paul’s superior. (Cephas was Peter, John 1:42)

    Peter was not a Pope, because he did not believe that the Virgin Mary was a mediator between men and God nor did he offer up prayers to her.

    1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

    Peter was not a Pope, because he did not pray to any saints dead or alive. Prayer is worship.

    Matthew 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, “Go Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only !”

    Peter was not the first Pope, because he refuse to let men bow down and kiss his ring in an act of worship.

    Acts 10:25-26 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him. fell at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter raised him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am just a man.”

    Peter was not the first Pope because he did not referred to himself as the Chief Shepherd or head of the church of Christ. The Chief Shepherd and head of the church is Jesus Christ and Jesus alone.(Colossians 1:13-19, 1 Peter 5:1-4, Hebrews 13″20, Ephesians 1:20-23, Matthew 28:18-20, Ephesians 5:22-24.)

    Peter was not the first Pope nor was he ever a Pope.

    (All Scripture from: NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE)

    YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.