Problems w Conservative Argument Against SSM….

A fellow from my aviation universe posted a seemingly very well thought out conservative argument against SSM. It was not meant to convince, but more so to help others understand his opposition to it. I have to give the author types a lot of credit, there was a lot of thought put into it, and unlike the hating types, these Christian aviation folks really seem to be trying to walk a Christlike path. It did receive a lot of praise, from the conservative crowd… but crickets from most everyone else.

The problem is the vastly different frames of reference… the appeals to the scriptures, the focus on love and the hope of the Gospels are shared by both camps. Likewise, the same scriptures used by those against SSM marriage, are also commonly used by those for same sex marriage…. and thus we have vastly different outcomes from mostly the same reference material.

Being Pastor Steve and I have spent way too much time arguing back and forth over the years on this very issue, I thought it would be worth shedding some light on things I discovered over the years.

The following factors are at play:

The weighting factors leading to approval or dismissal of higher criticism as concerns the 7 clobber texts (6 here, plus this one) plays a huge role. If all we had were today’s English translations, things would be pretty easy to sort out. Alas, even something as simple as reading the texts in the original languages sends a drastically different message, and that alone should raise the red flags. In addition, since we have a ton of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and literature of that time period, even more of this shifts into a land of intense gray with higher criticism. There is no easy way to resolve this…

The perception of antinomianism (anti-law) is at the hands of both parties.  In the case against SSM, if one merely dismisses the 7 clobber texts without the use of higher criticism, such a charge seems quite reasonable… the proverbial, these scriptures are too hard to hear, so we won’t consider them is very much anti-law..

On the other hand, if one looks to Matthew 25 and the greatest commandments, follow by Jesus explicit statement that the law and the prophets hang from them… the argument against SSM ends up coming from the bottom up, rather than top down… and thus, we end up anti-law mode in reference to the greatest commandments. Consider how often Jesus worked on the Sabbath… which really was more important  big picture wise than adhering explicitly to the third commandment.

Both of the above antinomianism scenarios are very hard to understand by the opposing parties on the opposing side… I’m not quite sure how to get past this one either. Belinda suggested that looking at the scriptures as a whole vs proof texting might be a helpful route.

Another factor that plays off of this is the difference between complementarianism and egalitarianism in marriage as concerns consent. Within the construct of egalitarianism, consent plays a huge role, where as its downplayed a fair amount in complementarianism. While this difference plays out mostly in the haterz realm with straw man arguments (ie what next, marry your dog or pet fish), I’ve often seen a semblance of decreased focus on consent circling through specific sectors of the conservative domain… which often leads to errant assumptions that one is talking about the same thing, when in reality they are not. I think this is one of the easier things to process through such that both parties can understand.

Lastly, a somewhat over shadowing aspect is sanctity/disgust as defined in Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory. I remember when a couple young gal friends of mine told me some years they were moving in with each other and starting a relationship. In my mind, the relationship was a most beautiful thing, but I also had some concerns about cohabitation aspect / the lack of church community support and preparation that would be available to them if they were not same gender. Even today, all these years later, I find the churches inaction in this domain bordering on negligence. No doubt it will change with time… but still, isn’t every relationship worth supporting? And there in lies a huge difference in the sanctity/disgust domain… many would not find such a relationship a beautiful thing, some might even find it borderline disgusting.

Despite all of the above seemingly impossible paths going forward, I came across the following from Brandon’s blog where he publishes an anonymous story of a young Catholic girl trying to process SCOTUS decision… there is much wisdom in the young. I think the next generation will do us proud in a variety of ways.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *