The Westminster Declaration of Christian Conscience
There’s a thing called the Manhattan Declaration. In England some people got jealous and so they released the 2010 Westminster Declaration. Charles Foster has a passionate and critical response.
Characteristically, the “Declaration” has a preoccupation with contemporary hot topics that rotate around sexual reproduction – marriage, homosexuality, abortion, and “embryo-destructive research,” all of which inspire disparate but genuinely “Christian” viewpoints. How far we’ve fallen from real declarations.
Foster addresses various conceptual problems in the post linked above. One sentence I find problematic is this one: “We believe [marriage] is divinely ordained, the only context for sexual intercourse, and the most important unit for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all.” First, if the relationship some people describe with the term “marriage” is divinely ordained, is state-sponsorship of that relationship divinely ordained? Are legal definitions divinely ordained? I’d strongly doubt both propositions. Second, the idea that a marriage is “the most important unit” for sustaining “welfare for all” is a little ridiculous. As far as I know, marriage has been present and culturally pervasive in virtually ever modern society, from the most oppressive to the most virtuous. I’m much happier with other sources of welfare, such as just laws, democratic institutions, etc. Moreover, in contemporary societies of apparently high levels of wellbeing, particularly in Western Europe, marriage rates are declining, and allegedly evil scourges like cohabitation are on the rise.
In any case, I can’t better Foster’s post; here’s the link again.
Marriage is a cultural expression of a divinely ordained institution. Law and legal definitions can and do only pay homage to that, so legal definitions and state sponsorship may be divinely ordained when they are consistent and support marriage as such.
As far as HEW for all, it has been demonstrated time and time again that children raised in an intact family unit generally turn out much better in most respects than those from broken families, so the notion that marriage being the the most important unit for sustaining the welfare of all is not as far fetched as you might think. In a broad sense that explains much of the difference between inner city Detroit and Novi.
Just laws, democracy, etc. are all good things, but are only as good as the people who institute and enforce them. Statistically speaking, the best and most well adjusted people come from intact families.
Hi Marty, thanks for the engaging reply.
But it is not the function of the legal system (at least in this country) to “pay homage” to divinely ordained institutions, much less sectarian viewpoints on divinely ordained institutions. There are some theocratic legal systems thus structured around the world, although I’d rather not live in those countries.
I suspect that something more like committed, unbroken relationship are really the common feature, when confounding variables are sorted out. I read somewhere that some cohabitants with children are less likely to separate than married couples in America. But I can neither remember crucial details nor the source. In any case, I don’t think your point here really follows. Marriage doesn’t preclude brokenness, so more specifics are needed. I doubt very much that there are statistical data connecting well-adjustedness caused by intact families correlated with political rights, general wellbeing, etc.
In any case, my primary objection is that traditional Christian family structures have basically been a universal in the West, from the most oppressive society to the least. I think it requires some intellectual gymnastics to try and trace it all back to family as a primary cause.
In fact I don’t think families are unimportant, which my de-emphasizing may have suggested. I do suspect that family structure is less important than would be convenient for Christian scruples, and that the relevance of family really reduces to simpler features such as loving commitment, long-term care, etc., but I don’t have any sort of case to make here.