Clarifying the Ideological Leanings of our Supreme Court Justices

I've been following the Supreme Court's discussion on same-sex marriage today, even reading the brief. The justices are slowing down the snowball, and rightly so. They are legal scholars. This issue is, for them, about the Law. That's good. They know (it looks like to me) that it is not their role to redefine "marriage." Commonsense legal logic is now happening instead of wild boar-rushing into legal nonsense and its societal ramifications.

Where do the individual justices stand, ideologically? This chart in today's Washington Post should make all things clear.



Or, depending on your ideological viewpoint, this:

Trust & Worry Cannot Co-Occupy the Human Heart

Some of our Home Group friends

Of all the things I have ever worried about in my life, I estimate is that less than 5% of them have come to pass. Which means: I have spent a good deal of time worrying about things that come to nothing. Worry, anxiety, fear…  I have experienced them all, as I’m guessing you have too.

What sort of person would not worry? One answer: someone who has had their brain removed. But then, of course, they wouldn’t be able to enjoy their worry-free life. How is it possible to have the brains we have and move into greater freedom from worry?

The answer Jesus gives is: a person who experientially trusts in God would not worry. “Trust” and “worry” do not go together. Jesus speaks about this in Matthew 6:25-34. Here are some of Jesus’ bullet points from these verses.

1. We do not need to worry about life’s basic things. Why? Because if we live our lives trusting in God, God considers us more important than, e.g., birds who are also provided for. Act in obedience to God; then release the situation to him.

2. Worrying adds nothing to our lives. Conversely, some studies that claim worrying subtracts from the days of one’s life. Surely worrying is non-productive. Worry, anxiety, and fear immobilize and lead to non-action. Worrying is counter-productive, making worrisome situations worse. If today you are worried about something, rest assured that “worry” will not make the situation better and, in some cases, will make it worse because of the resultant non-activity.

3. Jesus is saying that trusting in God will lead to basic needs being provided. Here we must distinguish between basic needs and personal wants and desires. In this regard I have found myself, at times, worrying about something that I don’t even really need. That now strikes me as a true waste of emotional time and energy. And note the need for community. Real Jesus-community cars for all the body parts.

4. Jesus tells us that “pagans” (=non-God-followers) run after material things. Richard Foster, in A Celebration of Discipline, argues that the more material things a person has, the more things they have to worry about. Here I am reminded of research I’ve read re. materialistic cultures and levels of anxiety. I have a friend, Dr. David Augsburger, who wrote a brilliant study showing how there exist cultures who have little materially, but do not even have a word for “anxiety” because the condition of angst seems nonexistent. Personally I have found that when I am thankful for what I have rather than needing to have more things to be thankful for I am more at peace in myself.

"Worry” or “care” is like the tip of an iceberg. Melt off the top of the iceberg, and more surfaces. The only way to get rid of the tip is to get rid of the entire iceberg. I am asking God to heal my heart that still is too filled with the cares of this world so He can use me to help others with their cares and concerns. The more self-obsessive I am, the less good I am to others.

Here are some things I suggest to get help and healing from worry.

• Keep a spiritual journal. In that journal write your fears and worries, and give them to God. 1 Peter 5:7 says, “Cast all your anxiety on him for he cares for you.”
• Re-read your journal periodically. Remembering how God has been there with you in the past gives real hope for the present. Remembering brings hope.
• Saturate your heart, soul, and mind with God-things. Let them fill your heart. Do not let the media’s disasters take up occupancy in you. Note that a fair portion of media fears never materialize. (Remember, e.g., the great non-event of Y2K?) I have found that when I make it my first priority to fill heart and mind with God-things I gain an eternal perspective on world-things.
• Separate real needs from mere wants. Begin to see how American materialistic culture works to create false needs that lead to false anxiety. 
• Follow Jesus more intently and more intensely. Read Matthew 25 about what Jesus says in regard to helping the poor and needy. Take this seriously and move towards others. As you begin doing this, you will find that your own cares and worries will dissipate. Jesus-led other-centeredness is a cure for worry.
• Trust God. Trust is not some emotion, but an action. Actually trust God with your life. Trust in God and worry cannot co-occupy the human heart.

Unitarian Universalists Argue for Polyamorous Marriage

My other office, in Monroe

The same-sex marriage debate is, at heart, about the definition of "marriage." There are two competing views: 1) conjugal; and 2) revisionist. Revisionists want to revise the meaning of "marriage."

The conjugal view is this: Marriage is a comprehensive union of persons. Marriage unites two persons in three ways: "First, it unites two people in their most basic dimensions, in their minds and bodies; second, it unites them with respect to procreation, family life, and its broad domestic sharing; and third, it unites them permanently and exclusively." (Girgis, Sherif; Anderson, Ryan T; George, Robert P, What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense, Kindle Locations 378-379)

Further:


"Joining spouses in body as well as in mind, it is begun by consent and sealed by sexual intercourse. So completed in the acts of bodily union by which new life is made, it is especially apt for and deepened by procreation, and calls for that broad sharing of domestic life uniquely fit for family life. Uniting spouses in these all-encompassing ways, it also objectively calls for all-encompassing commitment: permanent and exclusive. Comprehensive union is valuable in itself, but its link to children’s welfare makes marriage a public good that the state should recognize and support. (Ib., Kindle Locations 103-107)


The revisionist view is this: "It is a vision of marriage as, in essence, a loving emotional bond, one distinguished by its intensity—a bond that needn’t point beyond the partners, in which fidelity is ultimately subject to one’s own desires. In marriage, so understood, partners seek emotional fulfillment, and remain as long as they find it." (Ib., Kindle Locations 78-80)

Girgis et. al. point out that there is nothing specifically homosexual about the revisionist view of marriage. "It informs many male-female relationships. But it brooks no real difference between these and same-sex relationships: both involve intense emotional union, so both can make a marriage. Comprehensive union, by contrast, is something only a man and woman can form." (Ib., (Kindle Locations 114-116). So to enact same-sex civil marriage would not expand the institution of marriage, but redefine it.

The revisionist view misconstrues the meaning of marriage. In its misconstrual it allows, for example, for the legality of polyandry. What if, for example, three men are in a romantic triangle? If two men can have their romantic relationship acknowledged as a marriage, why can't three men do the same? Girgis et. al. write:


"Why is it not invidious discrimination to deny the state’s recognition to their relationship of mutual care and affection? For revisionists, marriage must be distinguished simply by emotional union and the activities that foster it. But why should these be limited to two people?" (Ib., Kindle Locations 319-321) Why can't polyamorous relationships qualify as marriage? On the revisionist view of marriage, surely they can, as seen by some in the Unitarian Universalist Church today.

See the Washington Post, "Many Unitarians would prefer that their polyamory activists keep quiet." A small but activist group within Unitarian Universalism supports polyamory. "That is to say “the practice of loving and relating intimately to more than one other person at a time,” according to a mission statement by Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA). The UUPA “encourages spiritual wholeness regarding polyamory,” including the right of polyamorous people to have their unions blessed by a minister."

Many committed Unitarians are telling the polyamorists to sit down and be quiet, because they are undermining the fight for same-sex marriage. But they are not. Indeed, on the revisionist view of marriage, why should they? For example, "In 2007, a Unitarian congregation in Chestertown, Md., heard a sermon by a poly activist named Kenneth Haslam, arguing that polyamory is the next frontier in the fight for sexual and marriage freedom. “Poly folks are strong believers that each of us should choose our own path in forming our families, forming relationships, and being authentic in our sexuality.”"

Why not, on revisionist thinking? In 2011 Boston University sociologist Peter Berger wrote that once you legitimize same-sex marriage “you open the door to any number of other alternatives to marriage as a union of one man and one woman: polygamous (an interesting question for Muslims in Germany and dissident Mormons in Arizona), polyandrous, polygenerational – perhaps polyspecies?”

Of course, on the legal logic of revisionism. (Note: this is not a slippery slope fallacy, but simply the logical implications of the revisionist position. See Girgis et. al. for a more complete presentation of the two views of marriage.)

This Week at Redeemer

Tuesday, March 25 - Worship III: Creativity in Worship, Holly Benner and Gary Wilson

• Worship from 9-9:30 AM
• Class from 9:30 - 1

Tuesday, March 25 - Full Life in Christ - Joe Atkinson and Sarah Richardville

• 7 PM

Wednesday, March 26 - Servant Leadership, Jim and Denise Hunter

• Worship from 9-9:30 AM
• Class from 9:30-1

Thursday, March 27 - Redeemer Ministry School student preaching - Dee Carveth and Debbie Church

• 9:30 AM

Thursday, March 27 - Communion service with acoustic worship

• 8 PM
• Acoustic guitar players, acoustic bass players, percussion - if you want to accompany me be at the church building at 7:50

Thursday, March 27 - 2-night Youth Event - Trevor Robinson and Youth Leaders, and Redeemer Youth!

Sunday, March 31 - Easter Sunday at Redeemer!

• 10:30 AM

Nagel On the Failure of Materialism

Monroe County

As a theistic philosopher and philosophy of religion professor I am interested in atheism-as-philosophical materialism (PM). PM claims that physical facts explain all facts.

Most philosophical atheists are PM-ers. A rare exception is NYU philosopher Thomas Nagel. Nagel rejects PM, thoroughly, in his new book Mind and Cosmos. Nagel writes: "Materialism requires reductionism; therefore the failure of reductionism requires an alternative to materialism." (p. 15) Which means:

• Since, on PM, physical facts explain all facts, then all facts are, in principle, reducible to physical facts. Always, on materialism. Therefore materialism requires reductionism.
• But "it seems unacceptable to deny the reality of all those familiar things that are not at first glance physical." (Ib.) What kind of familiar things? Things like "qualia, meanings, intentions, values, reasons, beliefs, and desires." (Ib.) ("Qualia", i.e., qualitative realities such as first-person consciousness.)

Nagel writes: "If no plausible reduction is available, and if denying reality to the mental continues to be unacceptable, that suggests that the original premise, materialist naturalism, is false, and not just around the edges. Perhaps the natural order is not exclusively physical." (pp. 15-16)

This kind of talk excites theists like me for two reasons: 1) atheism-as-PM (today's default atheism, at least for academics as opposed to internet atheists who don't have epistemic access to this discussion) lacks full explanatory power; and 2) non-physical realities exist, seemingly.

One of Humanity's Greatest Accomplishments

Tomorrow Morning at Redeemer

Tomorrow morning at Redeemer:

• I'll be preaching out of Ephesians 5:1-14
• Baptisms - if you are ready to be baptized let me know
• Soup & Salad luncheon for those going on the mission trip to the Amazon - after the morning service

Nagel: The Worldview of Neo-Darwinism is Ripe for Displacement

Woman selling socks in Istanbul, Turkey

I'm reading more of Thomas Nagel's Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conceptionof Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Nagel the NYU philosopher is an atheist, and seemingly the epitome of independent thinking. Nagel seems unfazed as he swims against the prevailing religious-atheistic currents. Hence this book, which even dares to applaud aspects of the Intelligent Design movement. But hey, if all you are interested in is truth, you will gladly take it from any source. Nagel, thus, is resolutely politically incorrect when it comes to the bandwagoning politics of atheism.

Nagel writes:


"The appearance of life from dead matter and its evolution through accidental mutation and natural selection to its present forms has involved nothing but the operation of physical law— cannot be regarded as unassailable. It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis." (Kindle Locations 150-152)

In Mind and Cosmos, Nagel assails Mount Unassailable. Why not? Why not acquiesce and simply drink the atheistic kool-aid? Because, to be true to his own self and his own idea of truth, Nagel doubts the scope of the explanatory power of natural selection. Why not let him do it and write about it? And then, just consider his arguments?

He writes:


"I disagree with the defenders of intelligent design in their assumption, one which they share with their opponents, that the only naturalistic alternative is a reductionist theory based on physical laws of the type with which we are familiar. Nevertheless, I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion." (K 157-160)

 The world view of Neo-Darwinism, says Nagel,  "is ripe for displacement."

Address the Meaning of "Marriage" First

Detroit

For Christian theists concerned about the way the same-sex marriage discussion is going in America, I suggest there are now two debates going on: one legal, the other religious.

The Legal Issue

Regarding the legal matter, the real issue is about the definition of "marriage." Might we in America have a civil discourse about this? The truth or falsity of the statement We should allow for same-sex marriage rests heavily on the meaning of the term "marriage." Some of us, myself included, feel like our President is rushing forward to change the meaning of marriage, without discussion.

Please read the editorial in today's CNN by Robert George (prof. of jurisprudence at Harvard and Princeton), Sherif Gergis (Princeton and Yale), and Ryan T. Anderson - "Gay Marriage, then Group Marriage?"

They write:

"Of course, if marriage were simply about recognizing bonds of affection or romance, then two men or two women could form a marriage just as a man and woman can. But so could three or more in the increasingly common phenomenon of group ("polyamorous") partnerships. In that case, to recognize opposite-sex unions but not same-sex or polyamorous ones would be unfair -- a denial of equality."

Please read this entire editorial. For a more complete version see their recent book What is Marriage? Man and Woman - a Defense. 

The Religious Issue

There is a second debate going on, this one within religions, and within Christianity. (Irreligous people [are there really any such?], of course, will be uninterested in this. It is over the statement: Does the biblical text condemn homosexual unions? I am certain that it does.

If someone says they are a "Christian," then I reason as follows.

1. We are obligated to follow God's will.
2. God's will is given to us in the Bible.
3. The Bible forbids homosexual behavior.
4. Therefore, homosexual behavior is against God's will, or is wrong.

On P1 (Premise 1): I find that virtually all Jesus-followers believe this is true.

On P2 - again, Jesus-followers have little problem with this. There may be discussion on the nature of biblical authority. That is another, and important, discussion.

Re. P3 - this is where the intra-Christian discussion lies.

If you want to go straight to the heart of this discussion I can suggest nothing better than Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views, by Dan O. Via and Robert Gagnon. See, e.g., these reviews:

"Christians challenged by questions surrounding Scripture on same-sex relations will find an invaluable chart for navigating these confusing waters." -- Joel B. Green, Dean of the School of Theology and Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Asbury Theological Seminary (endorsement inside book)

"Gagnon's brilliant condensation of his arguments should be a significant asset for clergy and laity, while Via opens new challenges." -- Catherine Clark Kroeger, Associate Professor of Classical and Ministry Studies, Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary (endorsement inside book)

"I know of no finer presentation of all the main issues." -- Graham Stanton, Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity, University of Cambridge (endorsement inside book)

"I know of no other work that so clearly illumines the biblical issues at the heart of the controversy." -- Stanley Hauerwas, Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics, Duke Divinity School (endorsement inside book)

"Presents a vigorous, illuminating debate about the implications of scripture for contemporary attitudes toward homosexuality. I strongly recommend this book." --James F. Childress, Hollingsworth Professor of Ethics, University of Virginia

Via is pro-gay marriage, Gagnon is against gay marriage. Both are New Testament scholars. But note this. Via agrees that one cannot interpret the biblical text as supportive of same-sex marriage. In spite of this he presents a loving principle that seems of God to him as a justification for allowing same-sex marriages today.For Gagon's even more complete biblical argument against textual support of same-sex marriage see his The Bible and Homosexuality: Texts and Interpretation. Of this book reviews include:

"...In its learnedness, [Gagnon's] book will...be in the vanguard of its position and cannot be ignored...." -- Martti Nissinen, University of Helsinki, and author of Homoeroticism in the Biblical World (From the Jacket Flap)

"...the fullest and best presentation of the conservative position....expressing the case same-sex intercourse sympathetically and convincingly." -- I. Howard Marshall, Professor of New Testament, Emeritus, University of Aberdeen, Scotland (Blurb Inside Book)

"...the most thorough examination of the scriptural and theological...perspectives on same-sex relations....a tour de force." -- Marion L. Soards, Professor of New Testament, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary (From Jacket Flap)

"Gagnon has offered a learned, judicious, and comprehensive examination of the biblical testimony....fair and compassionate...a major resource...." -- Brevard S. Childs, Sterling Professor of Divinity (Hebrew Bible), Emeritus, Yale Divinity School (From Inside Book)

"Gagnon's book is an extremely valuable contribution to the current debate....I recommend this book wholeheartedly." -- C. E. B. Cranfield, Professor of Theology (New Testament), Emeritus, University of Durham (From Inside Book)

"Gagnon's incisive logic, prudent judgment, and exhaustive research should make this book a dominant voice in the contemporary debate." -- Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P., Professor of New Testament, Ecole Biblique, Jerusalem (From the Back Cover)

"I believe that this volume will become a classic in the ongoing discussion of the church's...response to homosexuality." -- Duane F. Watson, Professor of New Testament, Malone College (From Inside Book)

"I know of no comparable study of the texts and interpretive debates that surround homosexual behavior." -- Max L. Stackhouse, Stephen Colwell Professor of Christian Ethics, Princeton Theological Seminary (From the Jacket Flap)

"No Christian concerned with homosexuality can afford to ignore this book." -- John Barton, Oriel and Laing Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford (From the Back Cover)

"This is a brilliant, original, and highly important work,...indispensable even for those who disagree with the author." -- James Barr, Distinguished Professor of Hebrew Bible, Emeritus, Vanderbilt University

I include these reviews for those to whom scholarship is important.

For those of us concerned that we are rushing over the cliff without discussion, I think the area we should be most concerned to address is the legal issue, and not the religious issue. This is because, overwhelmingly, we don't legislate biblical morality. For example, biblically, gossip and gluttony are sins. Engaged in, they mitigate against human flourishing.  Ironically, the secular media seems to feed off gossip while being anti-overfeeding in the campaign to wipe out obesity in America. But I don't think we should make a law against gossip, or a law against gluttony (in spite of New York Mayor Bloomberg's attempts to do so).

Address the meaning of "marriage." Focus on this now. Don't let the bandwagon effect divert you.

***
See also:

Responding to the Matter of Same-Sex Marriage: Part 1 - Intro and Bibilography

"Arsenokoitais" (ἀρσενοκοίταις) in 1 Timothy 1:10 (et. al.)

Freaked-Out Neo-Darwinists

Figurines, in a store in Columbus, Ohio

Many years ago I read NYU philosopher Thomas Nagel's famous essay "What Is it Like to Be a Bat?" This is one of the great philosophical essays every student interested in the brain-mind relationship has to read. Nagel's reasoning is that there is something that is it is like to be a bat, and that something cannot be explicated physically. We have here the "hard problem of consciousness," viz., the matter of first person subjective experience. Here Nagel suggests that the subjective aspect of the mind may never be sufficiently accounted for by the methods of objective science.

Nagel earned great fame from that essay, and has been applauded as one of our most brilliant philosophical thinkers.

So it was that the philosophical and scientific world (part of it, at least) became recently scandalized by Nagel's newest book: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. I just picked it up and have begun to read it. In it Nagel, who is an atheist, finds philosophical materialism severely wanting when it comes to explanatory power. Now this is interesting because, on atheism, philosophical materialism seems to be the logical implication. Nagel writes: "A true appreciation of the difficulty of the [mind-body] problem must eventually change our conception of the place of the physical sciences in describing the natural order." (Kindle Locations 51 - 52). 

Now note this: "Scientists are well aware of how much they don’t know, but this is a different kind of problem— not just of acknowledging the limits of what is actually understood but of trying to recognize what can and cannot in principle be understood by certain existing methods." (Kindle Locations 58-60). In other words, the Neo-Darwinian framework cannot, in principle, solve the mind-body problem. This suggestion is currently freaking out Neo-Darwinians (note: Neo-Darwinians, not Darwinians, since Darwin himself has been long-surpassed and is mostly interesting as an historical figure). 

I just pulled up and read a nice essay explaining Neo-Darwinian freaked-outness: "The Heretic," by Andrew Ferguson. Check it out to meet Nagel the intellectual renegade.