If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the past few days, it’s this: Most people—religious or otherwise—have no idea what marriage is, why it exists, and what we need it for. And what’s worse, they have no idea they have no idea.
Some sound advice from G.K. Chesterton:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.
Again I point you to this collection of resources for finding out why the fence has been there for millennia. I also point you to these:
Amy,
That is very good to remember, I also like what Chesterton wrote in Heretics:
"Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good–” At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark."
Posted by: Ben | June 29, 2015 at 06:59 AM
Gotta love Chesterton.
Posted by: Emma | June 29, 2015 at 07:10 AM
Unfortunately, he would now be classed with that medieval monk...
Posted by: Carol | June 29, 2015 at 09:43 AM
If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the past few days, it’s this: Most people—religious or otherwise—have no idea what marriage is, why it exists, and what we need it for. And what’s worse, they have no idea they have no idea.
The arrogance of this statement is shocking.
Posted by: brgulker | June 29, 2015 at 10:40 AM
brgulker:
>> The arrogance of this statement is shocking.
Either elucidate or stand down. Until then, your statement is meaningless.
After all, if my doctor tells me that I've cancer, it may be shocking, but it is not arrogant. He'll have data to back up the diagnosis.
Carol:
>> Unfortunately, he would now be classed with that medieval monk...
Again, we knock down an idea with a calendar. Chronological snobbery, as C.S. Lewis put it.
It may well turn out that 2015 was the progenitor of many horribly erroneous ideas.
By the by, which medieval monk did you have in mind? This Lutheran would like to know.
Posted by: DGFischer | June 29, 2015 at 11:09 AM
No, it's not arrogance, it's observation. I'm basing this on comments I've seen from Christians and non-Christians on both sides, particularly on Twitter and Facebook. The average person out there (i.e., "most people") simply has not thought about this very much. This isn't a put-down. I hadn't either until the last several years when it became an issue. It just hasn't been something our culture has thought about and talked about for a long time.
Posted by: Amy | June 29, 2015 at 11:36 AM
Brgulker,
What’s your ideal definition of marriage?
Please. Tell. Set the record straight.
Posted by: KWM | June 29, 2015 at 11:58 AM
Brgulker,
….when you’re ready.
Posted by: KWM | June 29, 2015 at 02:26 PM
Any time you're ready, brgulker.
Posted by: OhioCoastie | June 29, 2015 at 04:01 PM
Brgulker,
If you need some more time just say so. You could always Google some ideas?
We eagerly await your response.
Posted by: KWM | June 29, 2015 at 05:37 PM
We need to realize and it is always something that is overlooked by the Christian when it comes to "culture wars". Man is bent toward rebellion. The deck is alreadty stacked. We love rebellion. That's why Christians are now told to be countercultural instead of obeidient. Nobody likes obiedience we would rather put a theological spin on rebellion instead. Right now with the marriage issue as with many other issues man is doing what man typically does. Trying to build a paradise without God and destroying and enslaving himself in the process. Been doing it since before the Old Testament and will continue to do it until the Lord returns. Personally I would put my efforts into guarding the flock. Aside from Romans 1 where Paul sets up the context of his time. Paul is more worried about guarding his church than railing on the culture. Oh that we would do the same.
Posted by: Damian | June 30, 2015 at 03:08 AM
Damian,
Why is it either or? Why not both?
Shall we vote? Shall we speak out?
Of course.
Posted by: KWM | June 30, 2015 at 10:38 AM
Brgulker,
Surely after a good night’s rest you have something for us?
Posted by: KWM | June 30, 2015 at 10:39 AM
That comment is incredibly insightful.
Posted by: Amy | June 30, 2015 at 11:02 AM
It's fine as far as it goes, but what does this really mean? Does it mean withdraw? If not, then what?
Surely we don't need to be reminded of all the rebellious Christians. What matters is what type of rebellion right?
Posted by: KWM | June 30, 2015 at 11:21 AM
I only meant the part about calling people to be countercultural being a theological spin on rebellion.
Posted by: Amy | June 30, 2015 at 03:28 PM
@ Damian
"Paul is more worried about guarding his church than railing on the culture. Oh that we would do the same."
Speaking out the truth is "railing on the culture"? How do we guard the flock if we do not speak the truth about what is happening in the culture? We still have to live here. And things like public policy affect ALL of us - Christians and non-Christians alike - whether we like it or not.
Closing our eyes and ears to it doesn't make it all go away.
Posted by: Mo | June 30, 2015 at 04:07 PM
Brgulker,
This should be good. We’re still waiting….
Posted by: KWM | June 30, 2015 at 08:59 PM
@ brgulker
"The arrogance of this statement is shocking."
Why is this arrogant? Where's your definition of marriage?
(I see you've been asked a few times. Please respond. It's rude to leave people hanging. If I had a dollar for every time that's happened to me when I've asked someone on the internet to elaborate on some claim or back up their claim with evidence or something of that nature, I'd be rich by now.)
Posted by: Mo | July 01, 2015 at 05:04 AM
The marriage debate, a counter-perspective:
I look at coercion with regard to marriage as an imposition by the secular left to not make me abandon my moral position but my rational position. It is akin to forcing me to believe that 2 + 2 is 7. It is not, not even for large values of 2!
Why do I think so? Because my belief in the traditional marriage definition arises from the fact of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Very simply, when I combine the evidence for the resurrection with metaphysical (why is there something rather than nothing?), scientific (Kalam cosmological argument, fine-tuning, observed design in the universe, Turing nature of DNA, etc) and axiological (existence of moral imperatives) concerns, I am compelled to believe the veracity of Scripture and all that it entails.
Our culture has turned to "belief in light of evidence", the Biblical definition of faith to "belief in spite of contrary evidence" and thus taken a condescending position of "tolerating religious viewpoints." The innuendo is that religious viewpoints being by definition irrational need to be tolerated just enough to where mainstream rational society is not affected.
Posted by: kpolo | July 01, 2015 at 05:17 AM
Where is Brgulker?
He was going to give us his ideal definition of marriage.
Posted by: KWM | July 01, 2015 at 03:09 PM
KWM,
Sorry about the disappearance of brgulker.
I'm still waiting for Carol to tell me which medieval monk she was referring to.
Don't you hate being stood up?
Posted by: DGFischer | July 01, 2015 at 09:55 PM
@ DGFischer
I can't stand when people do that.
That's especially true when I've spent time and effort and thought and even research on something, and then the person totally ignores me.
Posted by: Mo | July 02, 2015 at 06:39 AM
Maybe Brgulker will return with his ideal definition, but I doubt it.
Perhaps when he returns on a future thread and calls something “arrogant” and “shocking,” we can be reminded of this.
Should one lose credibility? I think so.
Getting back to the issue:
We should always ask those wishing to redefine marriage what the ideal definition is. They should know, right?
Just be prepared for them to spew bigotry.
Posted by: KWM | July 02, 2015 at 08:23 AM