Tim Davis highlights how the marriage debate recently played out in Ireland reveals underlying assumptions about the nature of truth, the sharp distinction between what Christians think and the prevailing attitudes of the day and the implications of all this for future generations.
62% of the nearly two million people who voted in Ireland’s recent referendum on same-sex marriage voted to extend the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples. Whereas for hundreds of years in Ireland marriage was thought of as a lifelong union between one man and one woman, now a man will be able to marry another man and a women another woman. 20 countries around the world have already legalised same-sex marriage and if the overwhelmingly supportive attitude of Irish people to the redefinition of marriage is anything to go by, more countries will soon be added to the list. That such a fundamental building block of society can change so dramatically literally overnight suggests that the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, was right to label the result of the referendum a ‘social revolution’.
Something else the Archbishop said in the run-up to the referendum, however, deserves our attention since it cuts to the very core of what the debate about marriage actually involves and reveals something of the broader issues surrounding the debate. Just prior to the vote, he said:
"I ask you to reflect on why humans exist as male and female? It is not an accident or a social construct… I believe that this complementarity belongs to the fundamental definition of marriage."
Archbishop Martin’s point was that the traditional definition of marriage involving one man and one woman is rooted in the ultimate reality of our existence as human beings. Marriage, traditionally understood, is not an arbitrary decision imposed on people by narrow-minded conservatives or simply a by-product of our Judeo-Christian spiritual heritage in western Europe. If it were just a social arrangement reflecting particular beliefs and practices unique to a particular point in history then of course we should expect it to change shape and meaning as time moves on in just the same way that political and economic theories and ideologies gain and lose ground throughout the course of history. What is right for one era may well be considered inappropriate for a new one. That is what supporters of marriage quality believe and is no doubt what motivates them to change the law to allow gay couples to marry. A new era requires new laws that reflect new perspectives and attitudes.
What the Archbishop was arguing, however, was that the definition of marriage was not a social construct open to change and redefinition but a true reflection of the realities of our existence as human beings. That marriage involves one man and one woman is, for want of a better word, a given since it is rooted, quite simply, in the way things are. To redefine marriage, at least according to the Archbishop’s logic, is to make marriage something that it is not and therefore to undermine the very concept of marriage itself thereby destroying it not just for heterosexual couples but for homosexual couples as well.The majority of Irish people who voted in the referendum of course disagree with the Archbishop’s assessment but his perspective, at least for Christians, is worth exploring at greater depth since it reveals something absolutely fundamental about the nature of truth and its implications for ethical decisions and law making.
We all want to know what is true and want our individual ethical lives and corporate legal life to reflect that truth. For supporters of same-sex marriage the truth is that we decide what is true and make laws that reflect that truth. As time goes by our perspective on truth changes, which means our behaviour changes and ultimately the law changes to reflect these new realities. For Christians, however, truth has a more fixed nature since it is rooted in the unchanging character of an eternal God. The Christian view of truth, ultimately understood, is that it is something that we discover or is revealed to us and is not something we create. For Christians, the truth about marriage, as revealed in the Bible, is that it involves one man and one woman, which means to redefine marriage is to give up on truth and perpetrate a lie.
In his Wilberforce Publications book, Belief and the Nation, John Scriven makes the point that truth is "an objective phenomenon that exists outside ourselves rather than being constructed by human beings either individually or collectively."
What is true, therefore, corresponds to the way things actually are and it does not change over the course of time. What is true today will be true tomorrow in just the same way as it was true yesterday. And since human beings are finite creatures and, therefore, limited in what they can know, it is necessary for an infinite being to reveal truth to us for truth to maintain any sense of ultimacy or legitimacy. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his book Ethics, put it this way:
"Only insofar as the ultimate reality is revelation, that is, the self-witness of the living God, is its claim to ultimacy fulfilled."
If what is true about the world is simply a matter of what we as human beings decide is true then truth has no ultimate source since all our understanding is limited by our unique perspectives shaped by countless variables. If it is true that the truth about marriage is whatever we decide at this particular point in history then there is no logical reason why sometime in the future marriage cannot involve family members, multiple partners or even animals. For marriage to mean anything it must be rooted in an understanding of truth that is itself rooted in something more ultimate than what people think. It must be rooted in God since only God can, in the words of D A Carson, "escape the limitations of perspectivalism - from looking at things from a limited perspective."
What the debate about marriage reveals is that the Christian conception of truth has been defeated, at least in the West, by the secular view since Secularism asserts, in the words of Harry Blamires, "the opinionated self as the only judge of truth."
Whereas once the definition of marriage reflected what was thought of as objectively true, now the truth about marriage is shaped by what is true in a relative sense. The effects of this shift are plain to see in that we are witnessing before our eyes the surrender of standards to the whims of the biggest crowd making the loudest noise. The implications of this for society, for both Christians and non-Christians, gay and straight people, are frightening. Only a rediscovery of the Christian conception of truth can save us from the very real dangers of mob rule and much more is at stake that just marriage.
In his book The Christian Mind Harry Blamires describes what are the key components of truth according to the Christian view. He says:
"The marks of truth as christianly conceived, then, are: that it is supernaturally grounded, not developed within nature; that it is objective and not subjective; that it is a revelation and not a construction; that it is discovered by inquiry and not elected by a majority vote; that it is authoritative and not a matter of personal choice."
This is what the Archbishop of Dublin hand in mind when he spoke about marriage and is what must shape how we think and speak as we endeavour to witness to the truthfulness of both the traditional definition of marriage and other issues from a Christian perspective. Only by maintaining a Christian view of truth can we hope to make sure our witness is coherent, persuasive and ultimately genuinely Christian.
Related Media:
Belief and the Nation (Wilberforce Publications)
High levels of intimidation precede Marriage Referendum in Irish Republic
Church of Scotland congregations may 'opt out' of biblical definition of marriage