marriage

In an interview with Peter Hitchens (brother of Christopher), Hugh Hewitt brings up the subject of marriage. Peter Hitchens’ comment is very interesting.

HH: As we speak, marriage is up, it’s a knockout punch that is being aimed at marriage in California.

PH: Yes.

HH: The consequences of that, do you have any opinion?

PH: Well, I think it’s immensely serious, and it’s also rative of a fight, because those who fight it on the grounds on which the left have chosen to make it a battle, can very easily be portrayed as bigots and intolerant and cruel, because it’s always an issue of allegedly giving something to somebody, and why are you against giving something to somebody? Are you a cruel person? Are you a nasty person? Are you a vindictive person? And it’s turned into that development. And this is partly, of course, because the battle over divorce, which both in your country and in mine, was made so ridiculously easy in the 1960s. The battle over divorce has already been conceded, and therefore marriage among heterosexuals is so weakened, that this assault on it is not seen for what it is, namely a further blow at what I regard is the constitution of private life, that the marriage contract is the basis on which private life can be lived. And the moment the state becomes more important, and the moment big corporations become more powerful than the marriage bond, then private life is over, and we’re all slaves. And this is the difficulty. You need to find, and the conservative movement on both sides, I think, need to find a language in which to fight this war without it being easy for the other side to portray them as bigots.

(Quote comes about 2/3 of the way through the interview)

Most of my readers are probably aware that this is a present battle for the essential building blocks of human society.

Recently, I conducted the ceremony for my sister and her husband. Two comments highlight how much on the front lines of the battle real Christian marriage is.

[Read more...]

fundamental issues, 21st century version

Mark Snoeberger is working on a series of articles called “A Fundamentalist raison d’etre” (except he knows how to put the fancy accent mark over the first ‘e’ in etre). In part 4 of his series, he highlights two issues that he believes are significant areas of concern in the conservative evangelical camp:

I am convinced that at least two doctrines deemed non-essential by the conservative evangelical majority are more essential than at first meets the eye, viz., cessationism and young earth creationism, which will be the topics of my next two posts. Ambivalence to these blind spots, in my mind, does not serve Christian unity, but rather functions to erode biblical authority. And that is something fundamentalism most definitely stands for.

I agree with him on these points.

[Read more...]

CINO?

My on-line friend Tim Bayly alerts us to a conference called the Princeton Regional Conference on Reformed Theology. This will be held at Princeton Seminary, on All Saints Day, no less. [That would be Nov 1, for those who don't know...]

Here’s Tim’s introductory paragraphs:

In a month and a half, Dr. Diane Langberg will be preaching at the Princeton Regional Conference on Reformed Theology co-sponsored by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and she’ll be sharing the conference pulpit with Don [Carson] and Al [Mohler]. This ought not to be, right? Who governs this national parachurch organization?

Among others, Bob, Lig, Al, John, C. J., Alistair, Mark, Phil, R. C., and Gene– you know, men we all know as stalwarts in the battle for orthodoxy. So why are they approving and publicizing on their web site a conference where a woman will preach to men? A conference on “reformed theology,” mind you.

Why, indeed. Could it be that these men are CINOs?

[Read more...]