Cake and Cosmology: Why Orthodox Christians Take the Stand They Do on Sex

Rod Dreher:  (if you want a deeper argument, read this)

My friend Chris Roberts, a Catholic theologian in Philadelphia, and someone who
is fairly liberal in his politics  describes himself in an e-mail to me thus: “I wouldn’t call myself a conservative, but neither would I own to liberal. I’ll take just plain old “Catholic,” thanks” – writes with the following thought experiment:

Imagine a gay male couple who have been together for 20 years. They live nearby. You know them well, having a friendly non-political neighborly relationship. You borrow the odd egg, watch each other’s pets when somebody is on vacation, maybe chat at the annual 4th of July party. You are an orthodox Christian who runs a bakery business. Now apply the following scenarios:

A) One of the gay guys has a birthday. His partner asks you to bake the cake. Would you?

B) One of the gay guys dies. His partner asks you to bake the cake for the reception after the funeral. Would you?

C) Marriage is suddenly legalized in your state. They marry and ask you to bake the cake. Would you?

Seems to me that if the answer is no, no, and no, then you ought to examine yourself for homophobia.

But if the answer is yes, yes and no – that’s my answer – then you are arguably simply being principled. I can say “yes” to A and B because I can honor their friendship and loyalty to each other, their faithful service to each other over years. However, I say “no” to C because marriage is not an institution that can be defined entirely in terms of affection, loyalty and service. Or even eros or heartfelt private romantic feelings. Marriage includes all those things, but it exists as a social institution because the fertility of male and female potentially creates uniquely public consequences (children).

The left disputes my premise for saying no to C. Fine, let’s have that debate. People of goodwill can disagree.

But we are not even allowed to have that debate. My side’s case is dismissed by the liberal elite because they think people like me are haters.

Given that I want to say yes to situations A and B, I think it’s demonstrable that I’m not a hater or homophobe. I am not frightened of gay people and I do not hate them. I just do not think that what they are doing is marriage, and I think calling what they’re doing “marriage” will obscure what marriage is. If we say that marriage exists to give public blessing to the romantic feelings of consenting adults, then, over the long term, I and my Church believe that there will be more divorce (feelings are fickle) and children will be harmed (as their primary role in marriage is pushed aside). My Church and I may be mistaken about that, but, given the damage heterosexuals have already caused marriage through our divorce rate and ubiquitous contraception, I think we are at least within the realm of the arguable and plausible.

But today’s mob will not listen to my argument, will not listen to my attempt to make my case plausible, because they are convinced I’m a homophobe. My openness to situations A and B are not allowed to count. That is part of the problem with all the hate directed towards Indiana this last week. The inability to see the “yes” to A and B does not necessarily entail “yes” to C. The inability to imagine that my “yes” to A and B is real and heartfelt, but my “no” to C is principled and not prejudice.

I appreciate Chris’s e-mail. His “yes-yes-no” describes my position too. Ross Douthat, in his Sunday column, also discusses nuances in this debate. The format he chooses is a self-interview. Excerpt:

John Walton's, "The Lost World of Genesis One"

Here is a very critical review of Walton's book on the first chapter of Genesis.  Though I think McGrew overplays her hand on a few points, having read the book myself several years ago (well, good portions of it), I find the review fairly compelling at points.  I had similar thoughts as this when reading the book:

Putting all of this together, it is difficult to figure out what Walton means by God's establishing functions and installing functionaries in a sense that has nothing to do with material origins! Perhaps the most charitable thing to do would be to throw up one's hands and conclude that the book is radically unclear. What could it mean for all the plants already to be growing, providing food for animals, the sun to be shining, etc., but for these entities nonetheless to lack functions prior to a set of specific 24-hour days in a specific week? Throwing up his hands in despair at interpreting Walton is what one scholarly critic, Vern Poythress, essentially does after an exchange with Walton.

Like McGrew, it was not clear to me that there is a coherent sense in which things are (or could be) "receiving functions" from God during the (literal) seven days.  That is, given that--on Walton's account--the material things (creatures and the like) already seem to be kinds of things prior to the seven day period (and thus have structures, capacities, abilities, etc.), it's not clear what giving functions could amount to during the seven day period.  One might hold, sensibly I think, that to be is to be a kind of thing; to be a kind of thing is to have a nature; and to have a nature is to have (a) characteristic function(s).

Walton makes an appearance in the comments section followed by an awkward exchange.  (MarcAnthony's over-the-top remark is a good example of what is problematic with open comment boxes).  Though I've had a couple run-ins with McGrew, I didn't take her review to be outside the bounds of the ethical norms of book reviewing.  I look forward to reading and listening to the other reviews to which she has linked.