The Marital Spectator
Church Orthodoxy Versus New Oprah-doxy
Senator Rob Portman’s gay marriage flip-flop shows the dangers of feeling instead of thinking.
One day, I was explaining the tension between modernity and fidelity to orthodox Christianity and the implications of that discord to an intern. Nodding along, she interrupted my eloquent lecture: “Yeah, it’s like, we go to church, but we also watch The Daily Show.”
Exactly.
The troublesome relationship between Christianity and its cultural surroundings is nothing new. A chunk of the New Testament is devoted to instructions for churches in Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi and Rome struggling to figure out what it means, exactly, to be “Christian.” Two-thousand years later, the Church continues to struggle with similar questions, albeit with a twist. The sect went viral. Some folks even got on a boat and established a new nation based on the idea that human beings were endowed by God with some fundamental rights. Soon, the script was flipped. It was no longer about carving out a unique witness in the midst of pagan culture, but about preserving the Christian story in a somewhat theistic one.
Or, as my intern explained, it’s a showdown: Orthodoxy versus Oprah-doxy.
There was a time when ideas were taken seriously, considered carefully, and implemented cautiously. When Abraham Lincoln ran against Stephen Douglas, they engaged in debate seven times in three months. Each time, one candidate would speak for 60-minutes, the other would give a 90-minute response, followed by a 30-minute rejoinder. The nation was captivated.
More recently, William F. Buckley’s Firing Line gave the stalwart grandfather of the modern conservative movement opportunity to engage in lengthy dialogue and debate with leading intellectuals in a variety of fields ranging from politics to literature. In 1988, the show was reduced from 60-minutes to thirty; in 2000, Buckley stepped down.
Intellectual curiosity still exists in pockets in the United States, but more common is a pseudo-intellectual curiosity of the sort evidenced by Sunday morning talk shows, Sudoku and Starbucks. One need not explore the history and heritage of furniture to give the appearance of taste; just go to Pottery Barn.
More common still is intellectual abandonment. Americans don’t think, they feel. They stumble through life gut first. Such e-motion stems from a culture that preaches “Baby, you were born that way,” and is subsidized by mediating social institutions — families, schools, the media — built on shifting sand. The result is an ever-expanding nanny state that refuses to allow its chicks to experience — and learn from — negative consequences.
One victim of this is marriage. Senator Rob Portman is the latest to allow his heart to supersede his brain on this issue, but he won’t be the last. Those who understand what marriage is and why it matters have a two-fold task: first, to teach their lessons far and wide; second, to recognize the superiority of emotional arguments and make some.
What is marriage? It’s a permanent, exclusive bond between one man and one woman for the creation and nurturing of children. Why does marriage matter? Because experience and data tell us that family breakdown — especially the absence of fathers — results in calamity. Expensive calamity.
No amount of love from two moms can replace the contribution of a dad; and no amount of love from two dads can replace the role of mom. Someone should ask Rob Portman which of his parents was extraneous.
Preserving the traditional meaning of marriage has nothing to do with the morality of certain forms of sexual expression. In a free society, the state should preserve the right of consenting adults to do what they want within the broad confines of the law. Where certain inequities exist in the law, legislative fixes can be made without undermining the unique role of marriage as a social good. For example, the Windsor case coming before the Supreme Court results from a taxation disparity. Rather than redefining marriage for the nation, wouldn’t it make sense to simply repeal the Death Tax? Everyone wins.
CPAC 2013 was a depressing showcase for those of us who understand what marriage is and why it matters. Conservatives passionately cheered for the next round of presidential hopefuls, waved “Stand with Rand” signs, and had their picture taken with Michele Bachmann. But few remember that the party to whom they are so devoted was founded in opposition to the “twin relics of Barbarism” slavery and polygamy. In contrast, freedom and marriage stood as the twin pillars of society, sufficient cause for a new political movement.
As marriage is lost, whether to emotion or the sycophantic pursuit of political victory, can freedom be far behind?
About the Author
Eric Teetsel is executive director of the Manhattan Declaration, a “call of Christian conscience” on life, marriage, and religious liberty founded by Charles W. Colson in 2009 and signed by hundreds of prominent Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical leaders and over 500,000 others. Eric is responsible for ensuring that the movement continues to inform the public debate over life, marriage, and religious freedom and serve the broader coalition of organizations working on these fundamental issues. You can learn more at The Manhattan Declaration.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (41) | Leave a comment
More Articles From The Marital Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/19/between-orthodoxy-and-oprahdox
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- There’s Something About Cambridge
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pseudo-Macarius| 3.19.13 @ 6:13AM
Senator Portman should resign for the good of the party....
alice921| 3.19.13 @ 2:48PM
Its definitely the most-financially rewarding Ive ever done. Make money with Google. last monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 9-months ago and practically straight away started making more than $83... per hour. I work through this link, http://tw.gs/YbVcey
Joellen| 3.19.13 @ 7:01AM
Anybody remember Democrat Bart Stupak, who is Catholic and at first said he would not vote for Obamacare.
He caved.
Portman is our Stupak.
Both sold their souls for what?
Stupak said he didnt want to fund contraceptions or abortion - did he really think he could pull one over Obama
(by the way did everyone see the picture on Drudge with Diablo (from the movie the Bible) looking eeeriely close to obama?
The fact that both have placed government over their faith, knowing that their decisions will affect so many, will haunt them for the rest of their lives.
But the onus isnt just on them. The people who pushed them, and those who continue to twist and distort their messege will one day face the consequences.
As will those who know what is right but remain silent and allow moral laws to be swept away in this sea of secularism.
PJ| 3.19.13 @ 9:31AM
Stupak only voted for Obamacare because he was assured by Obama that there would be a conscience clause strong enough to protect the Catholic Church's & others' beliefs. That was Stupak's mistake: believing Obama. (Even the bishops liked Obamacare because they thought the inserted conscience clause was sufficient protection.)
Parker R.| 3.19.13 @ 10:49AM
Rob Portman's stand on gay marriage is noble.
Marriage has never been a static institution, and therefore there is no reason that it should be now.
From its early origin as a property exchange, to a method of ensuring peace between nations, to being recognized as a church function only in the thirteenth century, to the recent questioning of the “God-given” roles for men and women, the institution of marriage has always been in a state of flux. Things once illegal, such as miscegenation, are now permitted. To arbitrarily decide that now marriage has evolved as far as it should is patently ridiculous.
It's high time readers of American Spectator evolve intellectually and morally. Same-sex marriage ensures that all citizens are treated exactly equally with respect to all of the societal approbations that are associated with marriage: inheritance, taxation, hospital visitation rights, etc.
PJ| 3.19.13 @ 12:43PM
Bragging of your shallow historical knowledge of the marriage institution shows some of us that you have along way to go before acquiring a decent amount of rational learning.
Nate W.| 3.19.13 @ 1:13PM
Marriage is fundamentally built on the way we were designed; procreation between a man and a woman. Is there some other way you've discovered?
To build up a claim that marriage can "evolve" is interesting, since you're clearly only interested in social evolution (a notoriously "squishy" area of theory), and ignoring the biological or physiological arena.
If you want marriage to "evolve", should there be any boundaries? Would the eventual acceptance of siblings marrying one another, pets marrying their owners, nine grandchildren marrying their grandmother, etc, etc, be out of bounds? Would the idea of taboo be taboo? Since you already believe there is no Higher Standard (i.e. God), your preachy-ness is simply the product of an artificially constructed set of "morals", and is therefore worthless.
(PS - R U 4 real? or just Trollin?)
JP| 3.19.13 @ 3:30PM
Never been a static institution? That's a new one. It's been a Sacrament in the Catholic Church for 2000 years. And the Catholic Church today has 1.65 billion members.
Chazael| 3.19.13 @ 4:08PM
The only evolution has been from a creator to the self.
Which means you will automatically have no morality. So if there is an objective moral good, that evolution is immoral.
John Navratil| 3.19.13 @ 6:01PM
Parker R.,
What the hell are you talking about - not a static institution? Henry VIII had to split the church because the institution was to "static" for him.
Occam's Tool| 3.21.13 @ 7:34PM
Miscegnation was once very common, just not in the USA.
But please tell me a major civilization in the last 2000 years that has thrived with homosexual MARRIAGE. Marriage is designed for the raising of children.
Portman is an ass.
I am fine with Civil Unions, as I believe that people should be free to contract for such things as insurance, survivor benfits, etc. But MARRIAGE is about CHILDREN.
Parker| 3.19.13 @ 7:05AM
Portman is nothing but a squishy moderate who is merely one of the first of the DC insider class to come out in favor of 'gay-marriage.' He is merely following the advice of the party. The GOP must compromise; remember?
His son has always been, 'gay,' and anyone close to him knew it. This is merely his squishy way of hoping many will understand his 'reason' for changing his position. It's also why he wasn't picked as the Romney, VP slot over Ryan.
This business of gay marriage has nothing to do with equality of rights. Marriage is a licensed act, which makes it a state approved, commercially-regulated privilege, not unlike driving. The state has always controlled who can and cannot obtain a license.
The church itself must be licensed to conduct the ceremony, and that, is why this issue is so dangerous to society. Once 'gays' obtain, 'the right,' to inclusion, the church will come under assault. Discrimination and civil rights lawsuits will be the norm and the church will be forced to submit or lose its, 'license,' to conduct marriages. Government is only looking for another crack in the wall of separation to control religious freedom. Government has already succeeded in controlling political speech in pulpits by threatening the non-profit status of church corporations; as if the state ever had the power to define the church and to tax her.
Parker R.| 3.19.13 @ 10:56AM
"His son has always been 'gay,' and anyone close to him knew it."
You seem to know a lot about Portman's son, Parker. (There are too many capital Ps on this thread today) How old was the son when he announced he was gay? Did he tell his parents, brothers, friends, schoolmates, say . . . when he was six? Nine? Eleven? When, Mr. Parker?
Parker| 3.19.13 @ 1:55PM
I am active in the GOP in OH. Ne'er forget, politicians tend to feel it important to bring their families to fund raisers. They believe it helps to make them look legitimate. You know, normal, wife, kids, stable family.
When 'he announced' I don't precisely know, but this was no secret. I suppose if you asked him he would tell you, "he was born that way." As for how he announced it, may I suggest, gays love to flaunt their sexuality in public places. It's one thing they do best. Shocking people is the desired effect.
Parker R.| 3.19.13 @ 2:48PM
Marriage is in trouble. Fewer people are doing it, and more people are disrespecting it. You know in your heart that same-gender people marrying in Boston or Spain have not had any effect on your personal marriage. The problem with marriage is easy divorces, and the problem with the family is teenage mothers having children they have no intention of raising properly.
Parker R.| 3.19.13 @ 2:53PM
The Bible has been wielded like a weapon, mislabeled as "law," and simplistically anointed as the word of God, making it a target for intense scrutiny. But the Bible will be degraded under examination. Why? Because everything its detractors say about it is true. It was constructed from countless sources, and there were many versions, just one of which happened to be translated and retranslated, likely with the translators' prejudices creeping in, again and again. Many people who were the "wisdom" behind all this translation and interpretation were the same ones who tortured "heretics," launched crusades, disparaged science, and fed their own greed. The Bible has spiritual, historical, and inspirational merit, but by continuing to hold it up as the sole justification for their anti-gay-marriage agenda, conservative Christians will tarnish the Bible's reputation forever.
Parker R.| 3.19.13 @ 2:58PM
Jesus gave us the single touchstone by which a person's integrity may be judged: "By their fruits shall ye know them." By opposing gay marriage, conservative Christians have borne rotten fruit.
If conservative Christians were to "win," there would be no winners. Gay families would still exist, but they would be forced to struggle. Gay teens would continue to feel demonized and commit suicide. So conservative Christians have a choice: they can demonstrate a character of charity and generosity or a character like that of Parker above, spewing condemnation and hate ("gays love to flaunt their sexuality in public places"). Which of these types of people do you want to be?
Fighting for gay marriage would reaffirm the image of Christians as people of warmth and compassion who help make marriages work and maintain romance. Christians would be the advocates of loving families, not their adversaries.
Gays will no longer be treated as second-class citizens.
JP| 3.19.13 @ 3:34PM
Yes, and anyone who gets in thier way will be crushed, right? Well, almost. Try your bullshit out on Muslims and then get back to us.
Chazael| 3.19.13 @ 4:33PM
"It was constructed from countless sources, and there were many versions, just one of which happened to be translated and retranslated, likely with the translators' prejudices creeping in, again and again."
This is impossible to have happened, especially in the case of NT. There was no way to control a copy as there is today. Nor was there a straight line from which copies went out to other areas.
Copies would spread from an autograph and go many different directions. And then copies made from those copies, etc... all by hand.
But being chaotic is not a weakness rather a strength because we can examine copies from all over and see one how they differ by region. If an error, intentional or not, creeps in one strand... we can see it and even come up with a time frame for when it happened.
There is no one translation. And all the translations combine to give a very accurate rendering of what was first penned.
Chazael| 3.19.13 @ 4:49PM
You are right the standard is by their fruits you shall know them (Matt 7:15-20).
And throughout the NT letters examples exist of what constitutes a fruit. I like to give these two examples as they are easy to reference. 2 John: teachings and beliefs 3 John: actions.
It is literally impossible to be a Christian and be a democrat.
-Giving to Caesar what is God's (Matt 22:21). Good example is what you did above you have combined the personal charge to do not judge (Rom 12:19) and incorporated it into the role of government. The moral role of government is to be "An avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil" (Rom 13:1-4).
-Placing and upholding immorality in a society, because a person desires to trip over it. Woe to those through whom the stumbling blocks comes (Matt 18:7) not just woe to those who trip over them.
Chazael| 3.19.13 @ 4:50PM
-2 Cor 6:14 Joining together with unbelievers in a partnership. Light being smothered by darkness rather than light exposing darkness (Eph 5:11).
If someone wishes to vote for your principles, fine. But if you have to change or put aside your principles in order to get their vote your light has gone out. Gay marriage, abortion, self as the standard all examples.
-"...and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." Gal 2:20
If you can separate your faith from any aspect of your life, let me be the first to break the news to you... you don't have a faith in Jesus as that covers every aspect of your life. Pointing to a law saying, but it was freedom for all, just means God will ask you why you followed/upheld an immoral law.
Occam's Tool| 3.21.13 @ 7:37PM
I don't remember reading in my New Testament classes at Texas Christian anything about Jesus preaching about the sanctity of Nancy and Natalie or Shmuel and Rueben coming together in holy matrimony.
I admit, as a Jewish kid, I may have overlooked something. Did I get this one wrong, Dr Right? :-)
JP| 3.19.13 @ 3:33PM
You miss the point. Once the State codifies "marriage" the next step are the lawsuits against private churches.
darcy| 3.20.13 @ 12:21AM
And along with that step would be the normalizing of homosexuality in our public schools and teaching very young children that two mommies and two daddies is a fine way to build a family. In other words, the state would interfere with the church by teaching a "doctrine" contrary to what the church teaches. The state would be overstepping its authority; it would be interfering in matters of conscience, the norm of traditional marriage, a deeply held conviction among MOST Americans. The state would argue, as Laura Bush recently did, the concept of "equality before the law" to defends its assault on conscience, meanwhile pretending its attack against tradition and culture is a noble thing.
Christians would rightly resist. And the state would declare there is no separation of church and state as it moved to subsume the church into itself.
Our First Amendment Rights would be dissolved. And the Marxist atheists and secular humanists will face an angry Judge - which they're going to be doing anyway.
Parker| 3.20.13 @ 9:14AM
You say, "Marriage is in trouble. People everywhere are disrespecting it." And yet, you argue for a 'right' to access what you yourself imply is some sort of useless waste of time and effort? I have news for you; I have no fear or concern as to same sex marriage anywhere affecting my own marriage.
My marriage is my responsibility. It is also not my concern if two people wish to engage in sin. That is their responsibility. My concern ends with speaking truth to lies. I have my own sins and my own family to give an account for. I would advise you to consider that as you throw around your disparaging comments which are akin to, "The legs of a lame man hang limp; as a proverb in the mouth of a fool." Fool!
cicero| 3.19.13 @ 12:11PM
On a radio interview several years ago, historian Will Durant was asked if there was a common thread that ran through all cultures and civilizations in their decline. Without hesitation, he answered to the effect that when a society accepted homosexuality as just another normal, acceptable lifestyle. The interviewer went silent for an uncomforable period, and then changed the subject. That is where we are today. Our society and culture is in serious decline. We have abandoned our Western philosophy, and replaced with nothing of value.
That is not to say that homosexuals should not have the same civil rights as everyone else. Any man can still marry any woman. Other unions can be codified by contract. To open the definition of marriage to a any union based on emotion will lead to preposterous outcomes. Just use your imagination. That is the only limit to the combinations.
crankitup| 3.19.13 @ 12:39PM
hillary clinton is now doing the flip flopie thing. maybe she will dump the slickmeister, uma el weiner will dump the little weiner and do the hook up deal. It takes a village you know,what difference does it make at this point in time, barney fwank was way a-"head" on this "hole" thing. Look it up, it's in the new textbooks in your public schools.
RAM| 3.19.13 @ 12:47PM
Evidently, our society is not yet twisted enough, so it needs a final kick from Republicans without conscience.
Derek Leaberry| 3.19.13 @ 5:17PM
I know we live in a dishonorable age, but another problem with homosexual marriage is that the state rewards dishonorable conduct. Only a morally corrupt government would encourage dishonor.
John Navratil| 3.19.13 @ 6:10PM
Why does this topic ignore the relation between the married couple and the society? This isn't a declaration of undying romantic love, it's a contract between the couple, who are biologically the only way to have children, and the society which needs the next generation and someone to raise it.
Laws of bastardry, inheritance, and child support are all to insure that unwanted children are not given to society to support. The final words of the ceremony - "those whom God has joined together, let no man put asunder" - are society's obligation to respect and support the marriage. Why? It is because a society without a family unit fails - as we can clearly see today.
darcy| 3.20.13 @ 12:39AM
Great comments by John Navratil, Derek Leaberry, RAM, and cicero, and also Chazael.
I warned a learned and virtuous man 10 years ago that this assault on decency was coming soon, and he replied, "Not in our lifetime." How quickly has society turned upside down. Every man does what is right in his own eyes without thought to transcendent values. Man has clearly enthroned himself in the place of God. If all choices are equally to be desired then everything is meaningless. That's where we are today, a confused, lost, and decaying society. And the markers placed to give meaning where none exists are false and built on sand, and just as shifting: tolerance, diversity, equality.
Fiscal| 3.20.13 @ 12:46AM
Truth be told, most of you are "informed/bigoted" by your religious beliefs and not fact. A large number of same sex couples want to raise children, either through adoption or artificial insemination. In this case, marriage makes the ultimate sense to guarantee inheritance and financial support of that child. If you really believed that marriage is only for procreation, you would want to outlaw marriage for couples that could not have a child -- or are too old to do so.
Until the 15th century, marriage was primarily done for financial and inheritance reasons. There is virtually no scientific proof that same sex marriage hurts OUR society.
More important to our society is the concept of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government should stay out of our personal lives and if two consenting adults want to form a civil contract between them, then it is simply a matter of law.
No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex -- and the vast majority of marriages will remain heterosexual. Of greater concern to me is your willingness to limit the liberty of others. This is what is hurting our country.
darcy| 3.20.13 @ 2:44AM
A Free People's Suicide, by Os Guinness, will help you understand what's at stake; I recommend it to you since you mentioned liberty.
John Navratil| 3.20.13 @ 7:28AM
Fiscal,
And no one is forcing gay men to marry women, either. The compulsion exists only by one group seeking to legitimate the genetically impossible.
Your argument is tired and trite and I have to say, I love being called a bigot by someone who is equally intolerant on the subject. You glibly assert "there is virtually no scientific proof that same sex marriage hurts OUR society." Studies abound arguing both sides of this question. I guess your highness has simply declared the debate over.
Occam's Tool| 3.21.13 @ 7:39PM
There haven't been enough same sex marriages involving kids to know. But we do know that homosexual men have a tremendous rate of drug abuse and HIV/Hep C.
deedle| 3.20.13 @ 4:18PM
It just amazes me how America became such a great Country without gay marriage and all of a sudden we are doomed if it doesn't become law. Hey folks this is God's world and you had better respect His laws!
darcy| 3.20.13 @ 2:39AM
My liberty and my happiness depend on my expectation that my children will not be assaulted by the "agents of change" who wish to require them to "bow to the secular orthodoxy of the state" on the issue of marriage. (Thank you to Eric Metaxas for the latter quote."
Greenpoint Guy| 3.20.13 @ 7:55AM
As a Democrat, I couldn't be more thrilled that a faction within the Republican Party is actually arguing that Portman should abandon his son and choose dogma over his love.
Keep pushing the youth of this country into our arms! And thanks!
darcy| 3.20.13 @ 2:50PM
Abandon his son? Is that what you got out of this discussion? No. What Mr. Portman is engaged in is an attempt to justify and rationalize away his son's deviant lifestyle at the expense of his conscience and in the process corrupt America's moral underpinnings; his method will permit him to rest his head on his pillow at night imagining what a noble guy he is. He is deluded and blind.
If he loved his son, as in tough love, he would speak to him about his immorality while continuing to love him as his son; he would not be in the act of condoning it and easing his own conscience by making of our culture one big sewer to which America must bow. No, what Portman is doing is the opposite of love: it is calling evil good, and good evil. But hey, he'll be a darling of the media and the statist crowd.
I suggest he read the Bible parable of the Lost Son.
darcy| 3.20.13 @ 4:24PM
The people of France are not taking kindly to the statist and moral-relativist attack on marriage:
http://www.thinkinghousewife.c.....he-french/
Occam's Tool| 3.21.13 @ 7:44PM
I really don't see anything positive about legalizing gay marriage. If respect for the children's needs in marriage (The AAP position is as political as the APA's decision to not label ego-syntonic homosexuality as a mental disorder, and with a LOT less justification) is no longer part of the justification for marriage, then what is to stop polygamy being legalized?
This will not end well. There is a reason for tradition, and destroying moral structures carries a NASTY kick.