Author: jetbrane

Rob Harrison — PCUSA Pastor in Warsaw Indiana

Umm…Proposition 8 isn’t a theological document, it’s a legislative one. You might as well complain that Colossians 1:15-20 doesn’t contain provisions for enforcement, or that the Nicene Creed doesn’t specify which agency is to oversee it. Your entire argument is a non sequitur.

Bret

It is precisely because Prop 8 is a legislative document that it is also a theological document. The whole thing breathes theology. My argument isn’t a non-sequitur but rather yours is. All documents, including judicial legislative documents, are theological documents as all documents are informed by and are derivative of a theology.

RH

Bret,

Nice unsupported assertions.

Your first one is nonsensical; your second one assumes facts not in evidence, and even assuming those facts does not prove what you’re trying to assert. Even if one grants that “all documents are informed by and are derivative of a theology,” that does not mean that “all documents are theological documents.” Otherwise, one might make free to criticize your grocery receipts for the lousy quality of their theology.

The fact of it is, Proposition 8 is merely a codification in the state constitution of a principle which had always existed in the laws of California, in response to judicial aggression against those laws in the service of ideology. Is there an underlying theology to the desire to prevent the laws from being rewritten by the courts? You assume so; but one might just as well support it for reasons which have zero to do with a theological understanding of homosexuality. At the same time, calls to repentance and gospel faithfulness would be out of place and inappropriate in it, because *it is an assertion of legal principle, not theological principle.*

As such, I repeat, the original argument here is a *non sequitur* based on a misunderstanding of what’s actually going on.”

Bret responds,

Rob,

Are you being purposely thick or is this just your natural disposition?

All documents, just as all of reality, is theological in nature. You can not compartmentalize that which creates all reality from the reality it creates. Theology informs literature so that literature is just theology under another guise. Theology informs legislation so that legislation is just theology under another guise. Theology informs economic theories so that economic theories are just theology under another guise. Theology informs history textbooks so that history textbooks are merely theology under another guise. etc. etc. etc.

And yes I would include your grocery list. Why do you have on your list what you have on your list? And one might be welcome to criticize my grocery list if on that grocery list I have a product that is known to be destructive.

You’re reasoning is specious and without quality and your showing that the theology that informs your reasoning is of a nature where you have compartmentalized reality so that some areas are informed by the God of the Bible while other areas just exist. This is foolishness on stilts.

All documents are theological documents. What is in those documents is shaped and informed and derivative of some theology.

Next you go on to blather about Prop 8 being merely a codification of the state constitution … a state constitution that is reflective of some theology.

Even if someone supports the State constitution they are supporting it for theological reasons even if they cloak those theological reasons in the guise of some other type of speech.

Now, one doesn’t have to have calls for repentance in a legal document in order for it to be a document that is informed by Christian theology. Furthermore, all legal principle is an expression of theological principle. Any denial of that on your part merely communicates to me your theology — a theology that compartmentalizes reality and sees the only unity in reality to be disunity.

Since all this is true, I repeat that your argumentation is a huge non-sequitur. Indeed, what you are advancing, as a result of your theology, might be the largest non-sequitur that has ever existed.

RH

“You have a serious confusion of terms going on here, and a serious confusion of categories as well. Yes, obviously, all of reality is theological in nature. Equally, all of reality is scientific in nature, because God created everything a…ccording to a particular physical order, and all of reality is aesthetic in nature, because that particular physical order has aesthetic qualities due to the character and nature of God. One can go on and on with this, and yes, on a philosophical, theological and scientific level, one must always be aware of the interpenetration of categories.

*However.* This does not mean that we cannot categorize. The fact that there is theology in narrative or poetic sections of the Bible does not mean that we can treat them exactly the same as, say, the letters of Paul; genre matters. The fact that there is aesthetic quality to an office building does not mean we can judge it as if it were intended to be a Gothic cathedral; yes, a skyscraper is less beautiful than Notre Dame, but again, genre matters, and the two buildings have different functions which should produce different forms. And a legal document is designed to serve legal functions, not theological ones, and the fact that one can evaluate and critique its underlying theology does not mean that one should expect it to make statements which do not serve that legal function, or judge it negatively because it does not, because *that is not its purpose.* Genre matters, and the only system in which the legal and the theological are simply fused, undifferentiated, is the theocracy–and we do not have a theocracy. As such, even granting that the legal document ought to be an expression of the same reality as the theological document, there is and ought to be a meaningful distinction between the two–and ignoring that distinction creates a non sequitur.

To the man who only has a hammer, everything is a nail . . .”

Bret responds,

Hey Nail-man ….

Science is only as good as the theology that it is dependent upon. For example, if my evolutionist friend and I happen upon a fossil, my evolutionist friend because of the theology informing his science concludes that the fossil proves evolution. However, I, because of my Biblical theology informing my science conclude that it proves that God created the world in 6 days … all good. You see … once again, science is only as good as the theology that it is derivative of.

We could continue to press this point w/ aesthetics. Why do people make anti-art and call it “art” while other people make “art” and call it art. The answer is the theology that is informing their aesthetics.

Are you getting it yet Rob? All of life is theological. This is not to say that Theology doesn’t express itself in different avenues and streams. It certainly does. Literature is distinct from science is distinct from history is distinct from economics, is distinct from the juridical but it all is derivative of some theology.

What do they teach people in Seminary these days?

I quite agree that genre matters. Because God is so vast, and infinite we can expect different genres to incarnate theology in different ways. You don’t build a office building to be a Cathedral because the purpose in the theology that is driving both of those is distinct — distinct but still theological. One might say that an office building is theology at work, while a church is theology at worship, while a sports arena is theology at play.

Getting back to legal documents — when legal documents do what Prop 8 has done it must be adjudicated not only on the legislative (judicial) legal level but also the theological level since it is forcing a theology on the public square. That’s pretty simple right?

Finally, we do have a theocracy. All forms of governments are theocracies. It is never a question of “if theocracy,” but always a question of “which theocracy.” Our theocracy is one where the God is Demos. The voice of the people is the voice of God. This is why we call it democracy.

To the man who say’s no hammer exists there are no such things as nails.

Now, if you want to continue this conversational pursuit I’ll be waiting.

“This case is about marriage and equality. The fundamental constitutional right to marry has been taken away from the plaintiffs and tens of thousands of similarly situated Californians.”

Solicitor Ted Olson
Opening Statement On Proposition 8 Trial

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Judge Vaughn Walker
Decision Striking Down Proposition 8

First, can we start here by observing that the California Court decision on Prop 8 teaches us, at the very least, that Natural Law theories will not get it done when living in a culture that does not presuppose Christianity? Natural law is a myth, and all the books and all the lectures given by David VanDrunen on the need to return to Natural Law will never convince courts, like the one in California that rejected Proposition 8, that Natural law teaches that marriage, is by definition, between one woman and one man.

Second, we would note the failure of Judge Walker’s statement in his first sentence in the block quote above is that he misses that the rational basis for singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license is the simple fact that it is literally not possible for two people of the same sex to get married. It is the same type of rational that is used in not giving a masseuse a license to be an electrician. We don’t give a masseuse a license to be a electrician because a masseuse does not qualify as a electrician. His problem in his second sentence is found in the reality that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples in terms of marriage because marriage is defined as being composed of two people of the opposite sex. One wonders if the judge would also object to the truth that opposite sex couples are superior to making babies then same sex couples? The problem with the third sentence will be picked up below.

As it pertains to Olson, Ted Olson, is, of course, quite wrong in his opening statement quoted above. The fundamental constitutional right to marry was never taken away from lesbians and homosexuals in California. What was taken away form the lesbians and homosexuals was the right to arbitrarily redefine the meaning of marriage.

Homosexuals and lesbians still retain the same legal right to marry just as straight people do. However, what has always been stripped from homosexuals and lesbians is the ability to redefine marriage as being something other than that which happens between two people of the opposite sex. Homosexuals and lesbians might find comfort in knowing that this ability to redefine marriage, that they desire, has also been stripped from those who wanted the right to marry their Sister or Mother or those who wanted to marry multiple people at the same time or those who wanted to marry 6 year old little boys or little girls, or those who wanted to marry their farm animals, or those who wanted to marry someone who didn’t want to marry them back. You see, anybody has the right to marry as long as it is marrying that they are doing. When Sam and Pete want to join, whatever it is that they are doing it is not and can not be marriage.

What we see here as all of this pertains to the “equal protection clause,” which is at the heart of this court decision in California, is that homosexuals and lesbians have always had equal protection under the law to marry as long as they were willing to conform to the objective definition of what marriage means; a definition that, at the very least, requires one person of each sex. The rules that give definitional meaning of what marriage is are rules that apply to everyone and so as everyone conforms to those rule everyone experiences equal protection before the law.

As a result of this court decision I do find myself a bit confused. Now that Sam and Pete can marry, I am wondering if Sam, as an Uncle, can marry Pete, his nephew. Do laws of consanguinity still apply in lesbian and homosexual marriages?

Look, folks, if a culture can not define the boundaries of marriage then marriage has no objective meaning. If marriage can mean anything then marriage means nothing. This observation brings us to a broader reality that is illuminated here and that is the common theme in our culture of the pursuit of erasing boundaries and/or distinctions, thus foisting a socialist sameness on everything.

In our country right now there is a move to erase the boundaries of our nation with the result that there will be no distinct American nation. Similarly, there has been for quite sometime the pursuit to erase the boundaries between men and women with the result that there will be no distinct maleness or femaleness. Again, there has been for quite some time the pursuit to erase the natural God given boundaries between people belonging to different people groups with the result that there will be no distinct ethnicities. And now there is this ruling where there is a erasure of the boundaries of marriage thus assuring that eventually there will be no distinction between marriage and non-marriage.