Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 65
January 23, 2015
Understand the Same-Sex Marriage Issue
The Supreme Court will soon be ruling on whether or not the Constitution allows for defining marriage as one man and one woman. If you’re the kind of person who cares about treating people fairly and having just, principled laws, this is not the time to depend on feelings or vague ideas you’ve picked up in the culture about marriage. This is the time to think carefully. We can do better than “love is love.” Much is at stake, and you can’t know what is fair and just unless you first understand what marriage is and how society is affected by it.
To that end, I’ve collected posts (mainly from this blog), divided them into broad categories, and provided brief summary quotes for each. Even if you just read the quotes, you’ll get a basic understanding of the ideas involved. If you read the posts themselves, you’ll find even more links to pursue.
What this argument is really about ("only one question")
The term “marriage equality,” if it means “the right to marry whomever you want,” is simply not an accurate term for what same-sex marriage supporters are advocating—not if they favor any restrictions whatsoever (age, number of people, incest, etc.). The truth is that nearly everyone does favor a definition of marriage that has boundaries and thereby denies “marriage equality” to some category of couple (or group). [In other words, the question we need to answer is, what is marriage?]
If marriage is a particular thing, then everyone has a right to take part in that institution as it stands, regardless of their personal characteristics. But to be part of the institution, they must be part of the institution. They don’t have a right to change that institution into something different simply because they don’t want to be part of it the way it is.
Imagine a public park builds a tennis court so that people can come to play tennis. Nobody should be denied the right to play tennis games there. Period. It’s a public park, open to all. One day, a group of basketball players comes to the park, wanting to play a game, but they find they can’t play basketball on a tennis court. They immediately go to City Hall to complain: “Everyone has the right to competitive exercise with a ball on that court! We’re being denied our rights based on our status as basketball players!” Can you see the problem? The fact that they don’t want to play tennis doesn’t give them the right to demand that the government build a different court at the park. Their right isn’t to “competitive exercise with a ball” (tennis shares that in common with basketball, but it can’t be reduced to that), their right is to play tennis on that court, just like everybody else.
Please don’t take that illustration farther than it’s intended to go. I’m merely trying to show that rights aren’t being denied simply because a person (or group of people) doesn’t want to take part in something. The park promises the same thing to all. It doesn’t promise “competitive exercise with a ball,” it promises tennis. And tennis excludes basketball—not out of prejudice, but by nature. One could certainly argue over whether the park ought to change that court into something different, but as things stand, no rights are being violated. Neither justice nor equality demands that the park change its court to accommodate the desires of the basketball players to play a different game in that space. The same is true for marriage.
It's about the Difference Between Men and Women
Our objection to same-sex marriage is not about a difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. If we were saying that homosexuals were lesser people unworthy of rights, then one might have an argument for this being an example of bigotry. But the case we’re making isn’t about a difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals (it’s not even about whether or not homosexuality is morally wrong); it’s about the difference between men and women.
Ryan Anderson: What Is Marriage?
[O]nly if marriage is defined as a conjugal union between sexually complementary spouses is there a reason for the monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence that marriage entails. When we remove the key component of sexual complementarity from the definition, none of these other aspects will logically hold. And weakening marriage in this way will cause much harm to our society.
Inconsistent Same-Sex Marriage Advocates
The concept of marriage that “has always been” is one where the boundaries are principled because they’re conformed to the nature of reality—the complementary differences between men and women.
The reproductive system is the only bodily system that requires another person to complete it. The bringing together of two physically complementary persons completes this system, and that is the type of union that society has an interest in protecting because that act is the act that produces children (whether or not it does so in any particular case). If the union of a man and a woman didn't have the social consequences of creating a family by nature, marriage (the stabilization of that union by society) would never have existed.
Why define marriage as two people? Because two people complete the union that society has an interest in protecting.
Why define marriage as a man and a woman? Because those are the complementary persons whose union creates new life.
The traditional marriage advocate is arguing not from bigotry or even from tradition, but from principles of reality that remain unchanged despite anyone’s personal preferences.
Only One Question: What Is Marriage?
Every state law will draw lines between what is a marriage and what isn’t a marriage. If those lines are to be drawn on principle, if those lines are to reflect the truth, we have to know what sort of relationship is marital, as contrasted with other forms of consenting adult relationships…. I’ll answer three questions: what is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what are the consequences of redefining marriage?
Consequences to do with children—both having them and caring for them (also applies to adoption). This is the area where studies are helpful. There are plenty of studies about what happens when a child doesn't have a mother or doesn't have a father. I tend to trust these more than studies that are specifically about children of same-sex parents because they aren't so politically charged. The biggest problem for children of same-sex parents is that they're denied what they need—a mother and a father, and we have plenty of evidence this causes problems.
Same-Sex Marriage Won't Be Enough
Marriage can’t be separated from biological realities. And that’s why this upheaval won’t end when same-sex marriage is accepted—why Gessen’s ultimate goal is the end of marriage. I’m glad to hear her honesty about this.
Inherent Legal Difficulties in Same-Sex Marriage
Despite the current push to reject sexual complementarity as the basis of a family, our concept of family still involves children, and yet there’s no getting around the fact that in order for a child to exist (leaving aside cloning), a man and a woman must be involved. So what happens when a definitional change is forced onto naturally occurring institutions (both marriage and family)? That’s what the UK is finding out as it tries to create new laws to hold up a new definition. It’s turning out to be not as simple as they thought.
In the past when I’ve claimed that mothers and fathers are both necessary because they make unique, complementary contributions to the lives of their children (e.g., see “We Don’t Need ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ Anymore?”), some have expressed skepticism, asking for more evidence and a better description of the differences. In an article in The Atlantic, W. Bradford Wilcox explains what research is revealing on this subject.
What Every Child Needs: The Unique Contributions of Mothers and Fathers (pamphlet distilling info from many studies)
Consequences for marriage
Kolodny: I Will Dance on Traditional Marriage's Grave
In the end, the results of divorcing marriage and children from complementary biology will include unprecedented government intrusion, increasingly dubious technological practices, the viewing of children as commodities, serious legal complications, and the unethical use of women’s bodies. Indeed, these results are already underway.
Michaelson: Gay Culture Will Affect Marriage, Not the Other Way Around
Other unions do not complete the human reproductive system and create children, therefore monogamy and permanence are not central. Rather, what’s central is the sexual and emotional fulfillment of the participants, and who’s to say there’s one best way to accomplish that? Therefore, the radical activists seek “liberation”—the freedom to seek their own fulfillment however they see fit. No boundaries, no rules, no societal expectations. Each person acting as his own god, defining for himself what it means to be human.
Objections
Marriage in Polygamy Is Still One Man, One Woman (i.e., "Marriage is always changing—we used to have polygamy.")
Sometimes people cite polygamy as evidence that the definition of marriage has changed over time, proving it to be malleable according to the culture. But even in the case of polygamy, has there really been a change in the definition of marriage? While I could see someone today wanting to define marriage as one man and multiple women, I don't think that's how people viewed it in the past. That is, they didn't see their situation as one big marriage where everybody was married to everybody else. Rather, marriage was still simply one man and one woman. It's just that the man was allowed to have more than one marriage. We haven't changed the definition of marriage, we've only limited the number of concurrent marriages a person can have.
Race, Sex, and Marriage (i.e., "People used to be against interracial marriage, too.")
We don't have separate bathrooms for white people and black people. We do have separate bathrooms for men and women. This is because men and women are different in ways that are significant enough for society to acknowledge and take into account when those differences are relevant. And while differences in race are not relevant to marriage, differences in sex are relevant to creating and raising children. The important thing to note here is that the government is merely acknowledging an already-existing institution (one based on biological realities) when it recognizes male–female marriage. The public effect of the male–female union is unique, and therefore, the government is uniquely interested in it.
Two helpful non-STR articles
Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It
Two Steps from Reasonable About Marriage
Information from the Bible / theology
Worshipping Images of Ourselves
Sexual Expression Is a Worldview Issue
Discerning the Will of God Concerning Homosexuality and Marriage (John Piper)
The Other Dark Exchange: Homosexuality Part 1, Part 2 (John Piper)
James White's Response to Matthew Vines
More resources
Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses
Same-Sex Marriage Quick-Reference Guide
What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense
January 22, 2015
42 Years Later, Here’s Where Americans Stand on Abortion
Today is the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade and a good time to report on a recent poll that tried to get beyond the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” labels people claim for themselves to determine their specific views about abortion. From Kate Scanlon at The Daily Signal:
According to the poll, 47 percent of Americans identify themselves as pro-life, and 49 percent as pro-choice.
But it’s not that simple – Americans’ views on abortion are “complex.”
When respondents were offered “additional options,” a “good deal of common ground is revealed” between the two sides.
Eighty-four percent of respondents support some form of “significant restrictions” on abortion; such as limiting legal abortions to the first trimester of pregnancy, only allowing abortion in cases involving rape, incest or risk of maternal death – or not at all.
Sixty-nine percent of respondents who identified as “pro-choice” supported the same restrictions.
Only nine percent support legal abortion “at any time” during all nine months of pregnancy, and only 17 percent of those who identified as “pro-choice” support legal abortion throughout an entire pregnancy.
Please don’t miss this: Only 9% of Americans support unrestricted abortion. 84% support “significant restrictions.” Eighty-four percent. Never assume you know what a person thinks about abortion just because she says she’s “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” Always ask specific questions and work from there.
Our laws aren’t just out of step with our people, they’re out of step with the world. Only seven countries in the world have laws as extreme as ours, allowing elective abortions after 20 weeks. We share that “honor” with China and North Korea.
Here are a few more posts to read and pass around today:
Pro-Life Crash Course
You Can Change Our Culture’s Mind on Abortion
The S.L.E.D. Test
Restoring Meaning to “Selective Reduction”
January 21, 2015
Abortion Tweetathon This Thursday
This Thursday is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized the killing of unborn children in the United States. Since we've had 42 years of abortion, I'm going to post 42 abortion-related tweets in one day. I'll post one tweet every 15 minues from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM (PST).
If you're not already, follow me on Twitter @AlanShlemon and watch my feed on Thursday.
Kindle Book Deals
I didn’t know until recently that Greg West of The Poached Egg keeps an updated list of Kindle book deals on his site. He explains:
Our Kindle Deals page is one of the best resources for deep discounts on Christian apologetics and other related books. Books on topics such as evangelism, discipleship, Christian worldview, theology, philosophy, church history, Bible study and more. The page currently lists over 200 titles and is updated daily. All titles are $5.99 or less although the majority of them are $2.99 or less.
If you like reading Kindle books, you should bookmark his deal page and check back from time to time, or follow his @Kindle4Christ Twitter account. (You don’t need a Kindle! Get a free reading app for your computer, tablet, or smart phone.)
Tim Challies has also collected 80 Kindle deals on a Word document. He has some great finds in there, as well (it isn’t focused on apologetics, although there are a few in there). I don’t know if he plans to keep adding to it, but for now they seem to be up to date.
January 20, 2015
Links Mentioned on the 1/20/15 Show
The following are links that were either mentioned on this week's show or inspired by it, as posted live on the @STRtweets Twitter feed:
Jesus Didn't Say Anything about Homosexuality by Alan Shlemon
The Firing of Atlanta Fire Chief Is an Intolerable Precedent by Denny Burk
The Future of Faith: A Debate (Greg Koukl and Deepak Chopra)
Deepak Chopra quote cited by Greg
Redwall series
The Chronicles of Narnia dramatized version
Harry Potter Is a Danger to Modern Society (In a Good Way) by Amy Hall
Doug TenNapel
Is Recreational Marijuana Use a Sin? by Joe Carter
Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)
To follow the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00–7:00 p.m. PT), use the hashtag #STRtalk.
What Can We Learn from a Catholic Thinker? Aquinas and Natural Law
I want to sketch out Thomas Aquinas’ theory of natural law by distinguishing between the four kinds of law he outlines in the Summa Theologiae and then discussing his conception of the Good. Afterward, we’ll ask if Aquinas’ view is compatible with a biblical view.
Thomas Aquinas synthesizes philosophy and theology to arrive at his theory of natural law. In the Summa, he begins his treatise on the essence of law by stating the definition of law in general as “a dictate of practical reason in the prince who governs some perfect community.” Thus, law has an essential relation to reason. By distinguishing between four kinds of law, Aquinas demonstrates that ultimately, all law is subject to Divine Reason, or eternal law.
#1 – Eternal Law: This first law represents the timeless principles found in the physical and moral world by which “the whole community of the universe is governed.” Since “all laws proceed from the eternal law,” ontologically, the eternal law is the measure of all other laws, and thus they find their derivation from the eternal law.
#2 – Natural Law: Aquinas begins his discussion of the second kind of law, natural law, by making a distinction. Not only is a law in the reason of a ruler, but it “can be in something…as in the ruled and measured.” More precisely, natural law is that law which is imprinted upon our human nature and directs us toward our natural good or end. In reference to Aquinas’ view of natural law, J. Budziszewski terms this kind of law “as moral principles that we cannot not know” (from Written on the Heart, p. 61). As such, natural law is a reflection of the eternal law found within the structure of human reason.
#3 – Divine Law: The third law, divine law, is defined as that law which is revealed in the Christian Scriptures. In contrast to the teleology of natural law, divine law pertains to our “supernatural ultimate end”: our reconciliation with God Himself. According to Aquinas, there are two kinds of divine law. There is the old law, found in the Old Testament, and the new law, found in the New Testament. Divine law is necessary because unaided human reason cannot apprehend the whole of eternal law. Thus, divine law is also a reflection of the eternal law in the form of special revelation.
#4 – Human Law: Lastly, Aquinas sets out a fourth law, human law. Human law is simply the derivation of civil law (or the laws of a nation) from the principles of natural law. In this kind of law we observe that “human reason must proceed to dispose of more particular matters. Thus, human law in the United States would include traffic laws, tax laws, specific criminal laws, etc.
With a description of Aquinas’ four kinds of law, the necessary framework is in place to understand his conception of the Good and its relation to his natural law theory. Following Aristotle, Aquinas held that to understand the essential nature, or essence, of a thing (and thus, the Good of that thing), one must know its telos (from the Greek meaning purpose or end). For Aquinas, the end of man is human flourishing. However, in contrast to Aristotle, Aquinas’ theological underpinnings provide a more robust view of human flourishing, one that is in accordance with the Design Plan or eternal law of God. Therefore, the Good of man is the perfecting of a human nature that reflects the eternal law, which is accomplished through the perfecting of human flourishing in accordance with the eternal law.
Aquinas clarifies his view of human nature by outlining the four basic human goods we discover by observing our natural inclinations. Those goods are life, procreation, knowledge and sociability. The realization of these basic ends constitutes the perfection of human nature (the Good). With this Good in mind, it follows that the rules for right conduct would be conducive to human flourishing if they are derivative from laws that are natural to us. Therefore, Aquinas’ theory of natural law enables us to share in God’s eternal law by providing basic moral principles grounded in human nature and “that we cannot not know,” from which we derive human laws (or rules of right conduct) that are completed by the revelation of divine law found in the Christian Scriptures.
So is Aquinas' account compatible with biblical Christianity? Well clearly God’s eternal law and His divine law and human law, as Aquinas defines them, are seen and referenced in the biblical record. But what about natural law? I think so and here's why.
Romans 1:19-20 indicates that God provides general revelation to all, such that man can see and understand His “eternal power and divine nature” in the created order. How is this so? According to Genesis 1:26-27, man is made in the image of God, and thus we are created with the rational and moral capacities that enable us to see the truth of God in general revelation. Furthermore, Romans 2:14-15 states that men “instinctively know what the law requires” because “what the law requires is written on their hearts.” Thus, as creatures with rational faculties we are able to discern God’s natural law through His creation and our own human nature.
At this point, one might object: If the preceding account is true, doesn’t it follow that all men should know right and wrong? However, all men do not know right and wrong, and even when they are able to differentiate, they do not always choose what is right.
A further examination of the biblical record not only states this reality (Romans 7), but it gives us an adequate explanation for the state we find man in. According to Romans 1:18, men “by their wickedness suppress the truth.” In other words, man is sinful and this condition leads to his denial of the truth of natural law. As Budziszewski argues, “we pretend to ourselves that we do not know what we really do know” (from Written on the Heart, p. 182). In addition, as Romans 6:23 states, the penalty of our sin and suppression of the truth is death.
Fortunately, in His unspeakable grace and mercy, God has not only revealed Himself in the created order but He has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, so that He might remedy our hopeless condition and provide a way in which man might fulfill his ultimate end: reconciliation to God Himself. As Romans 5:11 promises, “through our Lord Jesus Christ…we have now received reconciliation.” Amen.
*Aquinas quotes taken from the Summa Theologiae, ed. and trans. by Ralph McInerny (London: Penguin Books, 1998).
January 19, 2015
If Capital Punishment Is Biblical, Why Didn't God Punish Moses or David in That Way?
Greg discusses how, as the rule maker, God can determine when his grace comes into play.
January 17, 2015
Documentary on Evidence for the Exodus
This coming Monday night (January 19), in select theaters across the country, there will be a one-time showing of a documentary exploring the evidence for the Exodus. Joe Carter reviewed Patterns of Evidence for the Gospel Coalition, saying:
The film won’t convince any Biblical minimalists, and even many Bible believers will remain skeptical. But the documentary itself is quite an achievement and worthy of consideration.
Mahoney’s “pattern of evidence” suggests the events of Exodus likely did not occur in the Egypt’s New Kingdom under Pharaoh Ramesses II. Instead, Mahoney makes the case that the modern view of the chronology of Egyptian history is off by about 200 years. Once that gap is corrected, the evidence (scarce though it may be) lines up more closely with the Biblical account….
[D]espite being made for a niche audience, Patterns is one of the most well-crafted documentaries released in years. Audiences have become so accustomed to seeing low production values in “Christian” films that it’s rather shocking to see a work of such high quality. Mahoney is a filmmaker of such considerable skill that it’s almost worth watching his film simply to admire the craftsmanship.
Mahoney also shows how to present a particular point of view—even a contrarian one—in a way that is fair-minded and compelling. He allows skeptics almost equal time to explain why they disagree, and though he is convinced of his findings, he never oversells the evidence. He trusts the audience enough to let us judge for ourselves what to make of the “patterns.”
Read the rest of his review here. It sounds like the documentary argues for the earlier 1446 BC date for the Exodus (the position I hold). I heard some of the evidence for that date while I was in the apologetics program at Biola, and it was definitely intriguing.
You can search for theaters and order tickets here. The pre-show starts at 6:30, the documentary at 7:00, then they’ll show a half hour panel discussion (with Eric Metaxas, Dennis Prager, and others) afterward.
January 16, 2015
AMP Conference in February
If you’re in Southern California, you should know about the AMP Conference coming up on February 20-21 in Anaheim. From their website:
AMP aims to amplify the voices of Christians sharing their faith with the world. Too often those voices remain silent out of uncertainty and doubt. By bringing together leaders in Christian apologetics, AMP hopes to cultivate in all believers an awareness of issues key to today’s outreach efforts. This year’s theme, Equip to Evangelize, is designed to prepare Christians to use apologetics tools in their evangelism and to become confident witnesses to a skeptical world. AMP 2015 is a two-day apologetics conference, hosted by Eastside Christian Church. The conference will feature 10 speakers, all leaders in their respective fields as well as committed evangelical Christians, ready to share their wisdom and experiences in spreading the Good News.
It looks like they'll have an interesting range of topics, including “The Resurrection Meets Skepticism” (Gary Habermas), “Why I Believe God Exists: Evidences from a Biochemist” (Fuz Rana), “Beauty, Love, and Human Longing” (Kenneth Samples), “How to Engage in Science-Faith Conversation” (Jeff Zweerink), and “A Son from a Stone: A Muslim’s Journey to Christ” (Abdu Murray). You can see the full list of speakers here and the schedule with their topics here.
Register here, and if you come, be sure to find me and say hi!
January 15, 2015
Introductory Apologetics Class for 5th-9th Graders in Southern California
For those in Southern California, particularly in the Orange County area, I will be teaching a six-week introductory apologetics class for students in 5th through 9th grade. Class begins on January 27th and will be held on Tuesday afternoons (3-4:30 pm), so it's accessible to homeschoolers AND public and private school students. We will meet at Grace Fellowship Church in Costa Mesa. For more information and registration instructions, see the attached course syllabus.
Download "5th-9th Apologetics Class with Brett Kunkle" Course Description and Registration
