While preparing for a law exam, Joshua Claybourn stumbled across an intriguing quotation from the federal case, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888):
Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature. That body prescribes the age at which parties may contract to marry, the procedure or form essential to constitute marriage, the duties and obligations it creates, its effects upon the poverty rights of both, present and prospective, and the acts which may constitute grounds for its dissolution.
Josh notes that even though the ruling is over a century old, most people would find “significant agreement with the sentiments behind it.” He, however, expresses hesitiation about the idea:
[A]s a self-described 'Christian libertarian,' the quotation makes me squirm. I certainly agree with the Court's view that marriage is "the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution." But it is precisely for that reason that I feel the state should stay away from marriage. For an institution so important (and so rooted in religious faiths) it should not be left to the whims of a secular democracy.
There are a number of people I respect immensely who, like Josh, adhere to a form of “Christian libertarianism.” Although I’ve been a vocal opponent of that ideology, the fact that so many thoughtful and intelligent political thinkers have embraced it tempers my criticism. If people smarter than me find it tenable, then I hesitate to dismiss it completely.
Although I have castigated that view on many occasions, I haven’t offered a suitable substitute. Recently, though, I hinted that neocalvinism could provide an alternative so it might be interesting to see how this would work out on this issue.
I’ll save the detailed arguments for another day and simply offer a brief explanation and application of the neocalvinist concepts of “societal pluriformity” and “sphere sovereignty.”
In its most basic sense, societal pluriformity is the idea that the interaction between people in community leads inevitably to the formation of various distinct social structures. Families interact with other families, for example, to create distinct communities such as the tribe, the city, and the state. What is created is a unique institution or structure that is not reducible to other institutions. Each of these structures (or spheres of influence) has its own autonomy and responsibility; it is “sovereign within its own sphere.”
A teacher, for example, has both the authority over her classroom and the responsibility to ensure that her pupils receive an education. Both authority and responsibility as a teacher, however, are limited to the school and cannot legitimately be extended outside that particular sphere (other spheres, however, such as the role of a parent or church member, could overlap with this role as teacher).
The tasks and requirements for living will also lead to the formation of such institutions as churches, schools, businesses, and civic organizations, each possessing and retaining its own autonomy and area of responsibility. Each also has its locus of sovereignty which is derived not from another structure by from God alone. Schools, for example, may be overseen by state or federal agencies but their true authority is not derived from the government. Societal pluriformity maintains that such institutions are non-hierarchical structures whose authority is ultimately derived from our Creator.
Being a non-hierarchical system, we cannot apply directional metaphors such as “higher” and “lower” (implying a vertical relationship) to these social structures. Instead, we should use language that is relationally horizontal, implying that the individual is closer to or further away from a particular institution. Certain structures such as the family, for example, are necessarily close to each individual. Others, such as the executive branch of the Federal government, are further away and have little direct contact with most people.
As a Christian I believe that each individual has a role to fulfill in carrying out the cultural mandate – expressed in their particular “calling” -- and is aided (or hindered) by others within their community. Generally, the individual is in the best position to know what is needed to carry out their calling. That is why it is essential that contact between the person and other social structures be as immediate as possible.
My need for spiritual fellowship, for instance, cannot be met by the congregation at the National Cathedral or by the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention. Spiritual fellowship requires proximity to fellow believers which often can only be fulfilled by interaction with a local church. Likewise, my need to be protected from foreign invaders can best be handled at the national level rather than by my city. This principle applies not only to individuals but also to social structures. The needs of a local school, for instance, can often be more efficiently handled by an area school board than by the Department of Education.
From this we can derive a few basic assumptions and principles about governmental and societal interaction, particularly as it applies to the institution of marriage:
(1) The institution of marriage is created by God; its authority and parameters are therefore derived from God.
(2) No other institutions are relationally vertical in the sense of having ultimate priority or authority over the institution of marriage. (This is not to say, however, that marriage (or any other institution) is completely autonomous.)
(3) In determining the best way to fulfill the cultural mandate, individuals choose to enter or refrain from entering into marriage. Once entered into, though, they are bound by both the internal authority of the institution (the sphere sovereignty of marriage) and the authority of other institutions as they relate to marriage (i.e., tax laws).
Gregory Baus offers a partial summary of this view: “Marriage has civil and ecclesial dimensions. States can recognize it, and churches can sanction it, but a marriage is not founded upon either. The Creator instituted marriage in Eden, and a marriage is properly enacted in the mutual commitment between a man and a woman.”
With this framework in place, we can compare it to the Christian libertarian view which, as expressed by Josh, claims that marriage is too important to leave to the whim of secular democracy.
Obviously, in one sense this is true: marriage is too important to leave to the whims of secular democracies. But this position appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the government’s role in marriage. Too often we hear similar claims that since marriage is a religious institution, government should never be involved.
On this view, though, marriage would be reserved for believers and non-religious people could never be married. This seems unnecessarily restrictive. It also does nothing more than shift the balance of power from the government to ecclesiastical bodies.
But neither the church nor the state creates the institution of marriage. All that either can do is recognize and legitimize particular instances of marriage. The church bears witness to the cleaving together of a man and a woman while the state conveys upon it the protections afforded by the legal system.
The government’s authoritative role in marriage is the same as in many other institutions. The state, for example, is tasked with mediating between marriage and other institutions (i.e., a married couple and their creditors) and ensuring that justice is carried out both within the bounds of marriage (e.g., protecting against domestic violence) and after its dissolution (e.g., equitably distributing property). To say that” the state should stay away from marriage” implies that government has no legitimate authority that overlaps and affects the marital covenant. This is clearly false.
Although neocalvinism is primarily a cultural movement, there are many areas where it can be used to inform political issues. Indeed, I believe it offers a more robust foundation for political theory than does Christian libertarianism which is typically founded on the by the principle that God does not mediate through institutions but provides a maximal amount of autonomy and “freedom” directly to individual humans.
In place of this radical individualism, the concept of sphere sovereignty offers a paradigm that is more in keeping with the Biblical notion of Creation. To those Christians who came to their political views through Ayn Rand, I commend to you Abraham Kuyper. A healthy dose of neocalvinist thought might help them see that what God has joined together--the institutions of marriage and government--no man should tear asunder.
1
An interesting post Joe. Here I thought we were going on yet another gay marriage bender but you produced an insightful post that shows how a society is made up of different but overlapping institutions. Just a few thoughts:
Each also has its locus of sovereignty which is derived not from another structure by from God alone. Schools, for example, may be overseen by state or federal agencies but their true authority is not derived from the government. Societal pluriformity maintains that such institutions are non-hierarchical structures whose authority is ultimately derived from our Creator.
But before you write:
In its most basic sense, societal pluriformity is the idea that the interaction between people in community leads inevitably to the formation of various distinct social structures. Families interact with other families, for example, to create distinct communities such as the tribe, the city, and the state. What is created is a unique institution or structure that is not reducible to other institutions. Each of these structures (or spheres of influence) has its own autonomy and responsibility; it is “sovereign within its own sphere.”
If these social structures are created by the interactions between individuals then how do you figure that "(1) The institution of marriage is created by God; its authority and parameters are therefore derived from God. "? Unless you mean in the broadest sense that since God created human beigns he knew they would form a social institution that we call marriage...just like they formed a social institution called MTV Inc. and another one called the NYSE. so in that broad sense he is responsible for the rise of various social institutions just as a parent is responsible for the broken windows his kid may cause playing ball on the street. You seem to just tack God on at the end to keep this an evangelicalish post while the argument seems perfectly designed for a very humanist post.
An interesting application of this might be the HBO series 'Big Love' about a polygamist family in Utah. If such a family lived near me I would not be inclined to report them to the police and have them locked up even though Utah seems to have such a law on the books. While I'm ot inclined to modify the law to accomodate polygamy I would treat such a group of people living by me as a family. That means I would respect their common property, respect them as a social unit. I would not, for example, hit on one of the man's wives even though she is a single woman in the legal sense. Is this what you mean by sovereignity and authority?
If large number of people started following this institution then it makes sense for the state to get involved to cover 'overlapping issues' such as equitable property distribution and justice... For example, in the series there is a position called 'first wife' who holds the legal marriage to the man. Naturally this is a coveted position between the wives and one can easily imagine a scenero where the husband dies as an old man and the 'first wife' denies all the other wives a share of his estate. If polygamist marriages became very common the above reasoning implies that the state should start to step in to regulate such things in order to prevent such injustices. This means, though, that religious people would have to accept the state 'legitimizing' marriages that they feel are wrong.
BUT as you pointed out the state isn't giving such marriages legitimacy but instead is giving respect to individual sovereignity to "engage in interaction" that leads to social structures. In fact its conceivable that for the state to deny recognition in some instances would actually be an act of usurping authority the state does not have. If an institution is created by the free interaction of individuals then the state does not have the authority to control that. If you're uncomfortable with this idea imagine a state trying to pass a law banning marriage the way polygamy is banned in Utah. The fact that everyone would view such a law as a joke hints that the underlying reason is that they recognize the state is doing something it has no authority to do.
This doesn't mean that anything goes. Unlike libertarianism the schema you proposed requires an institution to be established before it can start to overlap the sovereignity of other institutions. One person is pretty far away from the Federal Gov't, so is two people but ten thousand people together in a very large corporation is quite closer to the Fed. Gov't and is more likely to find its authority overlapping in some cases. Likewise a handful of people trying out a radical new arrangement have the status of garage tinkers, but if they hit upon something that 'works' they begin to create an institution that asserts itself.
posted on 05.08.2006 8:24 AM2
You might be interested in a very fine Weekly Standard article summarizing the brewing tension between religious freedom and same sex marriage: http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp.
posted on 05.08.2006 5:18 PM3
(1) The institution of marriage is created by God; its authority and parameters are therefore derived from God.
But which God are we talking about? The God of Islam says different things about marriage than the God of Christianity. Is it then in the States purview to decide which God will determine how to define marriage? Does religious freedom have no part to play in this? If Marriage is this ultimate expression of Divine Will as you describe, then surely you cannot invalidated a form of marriage without invalidating the God behind it. So today, the god of Isalm and the god of the Mormans are both invalid in the United States going by Joe's logic. And Joe's ideas can also be used to validate Islam's vision of Sharia. Where there is no clear border between State and Religion.
posted on 05.08.2006 6:11 PM4
And even if everyone agrees that the God of the Bible sets the rules, one must choose between the rules he sets down in the Old Testament (which allowed for polygamy and divorce) and those in the New Testament. And if the New Testament, shall we follow the teaching of Jesus in Mark that divorce is never permitted or the teaching Matthew that allows for divorce in case of adultery? And who shall decide what divorces and/or remarriages are scriptural?
posted on 05.08.2006 6:23 PM5
Ahhh but Joe said that institutions are created through individual interactions with other individuals. The 'rules' therefore are coming from what people do, not directly from God. God, if anything, is simply ratifying what humans are doing or did. This could make some sense of why some Christians here are aghast at the idea of polygamy yet God doesn't seem to have much to say about it in the Old Testament.
Joe seems to be contradicting himself on this. On the one hand its pretty sensible to argue that social institutions derive from human interaction. This is nice idea that is conservative too...giving tradition and custom a respected place (but not absolute). I don't know where Joe came from with his statement that God not only established marriage but also its parameters. Where? When? How do we know wht those prameters are? Everything he said in the rest of the post argued for the total opposite. Where did Joe get that? Force of old habit perhaps?
posted on 05.08.2006 8:27 PM6
Libertarianism with regard to marriage can only lead to a chaotic society, since that society may practice any and all religious rites, or no rites at all.
The liberty about marriage is circumscribed in the New Testament by the comparison with Christ and the Church, His Bride. Christianized societies have reflected this in various idealistic ways, including the high view of women in chivalric medieval literature.
Of course The Way of Christ is not coercive or legalistic, but it must remain the touchstone for marriage rites in a Christan society -because it is true to human nature and everyone's destiny!
Non-Christians must expect Christians to express freely their ideology politically in this area, as in others. Marriage may be creational and so not specifically Christian, but to deny the Christian view is like denying the 10 commandments apply to maintaining a good society.
7
How did people ever manage to get married before Christians came along? Is it me? Am I the only one who understood what Joe wrote or am I missing something??? Or both?
posted on 05.08.2006 10:26 PM8
Joe et al.,
I created a page for Cultural mandate over at wikipedia - it's a good start, but lacks the level of information, not to mention documentation, that you and your neocal readers might have. I implore others to beef it up. Thx!
posted on 05.09.2006 2:24 AM9
Marriage may be creational and so not specifically Christian, but to deny the Christian view is like denying the 10 commandments apply to maintaining a good society.
I think Muslims would say exactly the same thing about the Koran and Sharia. Yet their marriage norms are polygamous, the supposed destination of our slippery Slope that will lead to "Liberatarian Chaos".
Bah.
posted on 05.09.2006 3:00 PM10
Joe Carter writes: "Although I have castigated that view on many occasions, I haven’t offered a suitable substitute. Recently, though, I hinted that neocalvinism could provide an alternative so it might be interesting to see how this would work out on this issue."
Never mind the ongoing the wankery about marriage and the supposed threat to its religious institution by the Evil Gay Vanguard, I'd like to know whether Neocalvinism offers any improvement over regular, vanilla Calvinism on the subject of tolerance for the practice of witchcraft.
posted on 05.09.2006 3:49 PM11
Really. I didn't think it would be that hard to answer my question.
posted on 05.10.2006 8:37 PM12
Patrick, you have not understood what I am saying. Please read all my comment. I am arguing that Christians must try to have their ideals reflected in the forms of marriage their society allows because they are good for any society.
Sure there was marriage before Christ, and in Islam. But today the claim is that there is no true definition or ideal to act as the standard for a society. This is false.
The 10 commandments are ancient, but still important for all of us too.
13
Barrie,
Are you saying that Christians must apply their ideal marriage model to the real life marriages they have or are you saying that they must push society to recognize only what Christian's consider ideal marriages?
posted on 05.11.2006 8:54 AM