Calvin Chimes Op-Ed Fails to Convince That Christians Should Support Same-Sex Marriage

Several months ago the Chimes, Calvin College’s student run newspaper, ran a pair of opinion pieces debating whether Christians should support legislation that would legalize same-sex unions. Two students co-wrote the article arguing the affirmative position, “Christians should support the legalization of gay marriage.” 

I intend to show that the arguments in the Chimes piece encouraging Christian support for same-sex union legislation to be unconvincing for the following reasons:

1. They commit the fallacy of division. 
2. They wrongly assume the existence of a neutral position. 
3. Their conclusion (Christians should support same-sex marriage legislation) does not follow from their argument (I should not expect all of my beliefs to be encompassed by the law). 
4. They set up a false dilemma by assuming that either Christians can spend time opposing legalized same-sex unions or they can address other issues that the authors deem more pressing. 
5. They do not understand the hermeneutical process of their opponents or they have chosen to represent it uncharitably. Either instance undermines the credibility of their arguments.

I will address each of these points.

1] The authors commit the fallacy of division. 

In the second paragraph the authors make the following argument: 

P1:   In a pluralistic society one ought not expect everyone to have the same views on issue x as you do.

For the purposes of exposing the logic of the article’s argument I have constructed it in general terms. In the Chimes article issue x is whether homosexuals should legally be allowed to marry. 

P2:   We do live in a pluralistic society.

This premise is obvious. We live in a country that has citizens of many different races, religions, and political affiliations.    

C1:   The conclusion that logically follows from this argument is that one ought not expect everyone to have the same views on issue x as you do.

When applied to the case at hand, the conclusion is that one ought not expect everyone to have the same view that same-sex unions should not be legalized. Even those who object to the legalization of same-sex unions will recognize the truth of this premise. The authors then write, “Nor should we expect the legal law to encompass all of the Christian moral law.” This slightly modifies the first point:  

P3:   If you live in a pluralistic society where not everyone has the same views on an issue as you do, then you should not expect the legal law to encompass all your beliefs.

We’ve already conceded the antecedent in P2, that we do live in a pluralistic society. P2 coupled with P3 produces C2. 

C2:   That you should not expect the legal system to encompass all your beliefs.

At least that is what would follow from the stated premises but here is where things get murky.

The fact that I should not expect the legal system to encompass all my beliefs in no way precludes me from believing that it should hold to some of my beliefs. And, if I can rightly expect it should hold to some of my beliefs then that does not disqualify me from expecting or arguing that it should share my belief on the particular issue of legalized same-sex unions.

Now arguments can be made about whether this particular belief about same-sex unions is the right belief to have (these arguments would likely consider social and economic arguments, but I would hope it would also consider the moral arguments that are far too often omitted by those on the left), but the point is that the fact we live in a pluralistic society in no way entails that Christians should not lobby against same-sex unions. The authors say that there are instances when Christians should expect their voice to be heard and heeded in the face of popular opinion but that the matter of legalized same-sex unions is not one of those occasions. What are their grounds for saying that a Christian shouldn’t expect legislation that matches their beliefs on same-sex unions but should expect and lobby for it on any other issue? No basis for discriminating between issues is given. So far as the written evidence suggests it’s purely the whim and fancy of the writers.

2] The authors wrongfully assume the existence of a neutral position.

If Christians who oppose same-sex unions on biblical grounds are banished from the sphere of public debate on this issue (or at least condescendingly told to sit this one out until they surrender any conviction they have and bend their knee to the ridiculous god of popular opinion) who is permitted to debate matters of public policy? And why? There is no morally neutral legislation. Someone will be making a moral judgment when they sign off on legislation. The major question if Christians are not allowed to participate in the public discourse then is who will be? It seems that a healthy and free society will encourage all parties to the table—regardless of the popularity of their position—recognizing that no one speaks from the position of neutrality. Each position can then be decided based on its merits. My concern is that Christians who rightfully oppose same-sex unions on biblical grounds are being barred from the debate on the basis of criteria that are inconsistently applied and unhealthy to strong and free public discourse.

3] The authors’ conclusion does not follow from their actual argument.

C2 (I should not expect the legal system to reflect all my beliefs) does not lead to the authors’ conclusion, “It is our opinion that Christians should support the legalization of gay marriage within our country.” There is a massive difference between not expecting my position against same-sex unions to be shared by the legal system (this being the logical conclusion of the previous arguments) and endorsing same-sex unions (what the article’s title suggests Christians should do). In the end, the authors say that Christians should support same-sex union legislation but none of their argumentation support this conclusion. Their arguments only support that I should not expect all of my beliefs to be codified in the law of the land.

4] The authors set up a false dilemma: either Christians oppose same-sex unions or they devote their time to other causes deemed more worthy (i.e. drone strikes, violence against women).

In the article’s third paragraph, the authors state that they believe it is “a waste of time” for Christians advocating for the law to reflect in some fashion their belief that same-sex unions are morally wrong. Instead, they should spend their time trying to stop drone strikes and violence against women. As someone who opposes the legalization of same-sex marriage, I also believe that drone strikes and violence against are moral issues that clearly need to be addressed. Yet the way the authors set up their argument implies I can either spend my time opposing legalized same-sex unions or I can protest drone strikes. There is no demonstrable reason that I cannot oppose both in a meaningful and public manner. I have great confidence in the ability of myself—and other Christians who oppose same-sex unions—to hold and be able to act upon more than one belief at a time. It’s quite a useful skill actually.

5] The authors do not understand the hermeneutical process of their opponents or they have chosen to represent it uncharitably. Either instance undermines the credibility of their arguments.

Space and time considerations preclude me from expanding more upon this point. In the fourth paragraph the authors write, “…biblical literalism — a fixation on what one particular verse says or does not say — is insufficient to provide an account of marriage and sexuality. What we need is a theological imagination that draws from the entire biblical narrative and the tradition in creative ways that overcome our current impasses on gender and sexuality."

A digression: what is “theological imagination” (for some reason this slapstick term to be used in a sudden school class gone wrong, “Okay kids. Everyone close eyes and use your theological imagination to picture penal substitution”)? And who says that impasses are a bad thing? Some impasses are necessary for the preservation of the biblical faith. Biblical Christianity is at an impasse with Islam and the other religions of the world. I certainly don’t think we should use our “theological imaginations” to overcome that impasse! 

The point is that opponents of legalized same-sex marriage—and, more broadly, who believe homosexual behavior to be sinful—do not merely fixate on what one verse says. Careful interpreters of Scripture, regardless of the issue being considered, will listen openly to what a verse or passage has to say. Opponents of legalized same-sex marriage have listened to a plethora of biblical passages across the biblical narrative and have come to their conclusions. Christians who oppose legalized same-sex unions are informed by passages in the Old Testament and New Testament, grounding marriage both in God’s giving Eve to Adam and following the biblical narrative through to Christ and his Church. Opponents of same-sex marriage don’t simply flip to Leviticus 18:22, paint their placards, and march on the White House. If the article was meant to be a helpful contribution it should have addressed their disputants in their strength not by attacking straw men.

There are more problems with the article but by this point I hope to have sufficiently demonstrated some of the more glaring errors that undermine the conclusion arrived at by its writers. I have not attempted to argue against the wisdom of legalizing same-sex marriage (though I do believe there are strong reasons for doing so). This response was intended to demonstrate that the Chimes article does not successfully demonstrate that Christians should support same-sex marriage nor does the article provide convincing reasons why Christians should not oppose legalized same-sex unions.