A 17th Century Baptist Speaks To Us About Marriage Equality

A

Opposition leader Bill Shorten has announced he will introduce a private members bill legislating for marriage equality.  As we consider this I think we have something to learn from the 17th century Baptist leader Thomas Helwys, who issued the first call for religious freedom written in the English language.

“For we do freely profess that our lord the king has no more power over their consciences than over ours, and that is none at all. For our lord the king is but an earthly king, and he has no authority as a king but in earthly causes. And if the king’s people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all human laws made by the king, our lord the king can require no more. For men’s religion to God is betwixt God and themselves; the king shall not answer for it; neither may the king judge between God and man. Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews, or whatsoever, it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least.”*

Helwys was one of the founding fathers of the Baptist movement. He had strong opinions on what was right and wrong – the booklet from which the call for religious freedom came was titled “A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity” and rather crassly identified the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church as respectively the first and second beasts of the book of Revelation!  Helwys was convinced that “heretics, Turks [i.e. Moslems], Jews” dishonoured God and were practising false religion. Yet he argued passionately for their right to do so.

John Coffey summarises the implications many have drawn from Helwys:

[The State’s] purpose is not to promote a particular faith but to govern and order a multi-faith society, in which Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, pagans and even atheists enjoy the full rights of citizenship and dwell together in peace**

In the centuries since Helwys wrote the concept of human freedom has been widening.  We have recognised the full humanity of women and all races. We affirm that all people have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of conscience, etc. The State is responsible to safeguard these freedoms. We tolerate some restrictions on our freedom in order to secure the common good, but we do not tolerate restrictions on fundamental freedoms. We tolerate the State requiring us to wear seat belts, for example, but do not tolerate the State telling us where we can live.

Which brings us to marriage equality. As far as I can see, the issue has nothing to do with what anyone may think about the ethics of same-sex relationships. It’s about the role of the State. We live in a society in which adults are free to make their own decisions about entering and exiting sexually intimate partnerships as surely as they are free to choose their religion. The role of the State is  not to adjudicate on the ethics of freely chosen partnerships, but to recognise and protect the right of people to choose them, while doing all it can to further the common good by helping couples sustain their relationships and protecting their rights if they decide to end the relationship. Given marriage in our society is a legally recognised instrument by which two people commit themselves to a lifelong partnership  it would seem reasonable to conclude that the State should be blind to the gender of those entering this partnership as much as it is blind to the race or social status of the parties to the relationship.

Against this, some argue that marriage is more than an instrument by which two people commit themselves to a lifelong partnership, that it is also the context for having and raising children. On the assumption that it is detrimental for children not to have access to a mother and a father they argue that legislating for marriage equality represents a threat to the common good so substantial that on balance it justifies constraining the freedom of LGBT couples to marry. Yet as intuitive as it may seem that a child is better off having a mother and a father over two fathers or two mothers, the evidence to date suggests otherwise. The Columbia Law School Public Policy Research Portal, for example, says

We identified 75 scholarly studies that met our criteria [All studies must be peer-reviewed, published in a scholarly journal, and directly relevant to the policy question at hand] for addressing the wellbeing of children with gay or lesbian parents. Of those studies, 71 concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children. While many of the sample sizes were small, and some studies lacked a control group, researchers regard such studies as providing the best available knowledge about child adjustment, and do not view large, representative samples as essential. We identified four studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents face added disadvantages. Since all four took their samples from children who endured family break-ups, a cohort known to face added risks, these studies have been criticized by many scholars as unreliable assessments of the wellbeing of LGB-headed households. Taken together, this research forms an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on over three decades of peer-reviewed research, that having a gay or lesbian parent does not harm children.

A 2013 review by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found that

Most studies to date indicate that children raised in same-sex parented families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as their peers in comparable kinds of heterosexual families, although there are some differences between children raised in same-sex and other kinds of families beginning to be noted and more openly discussed…Although numerous scholars now agree it is not possible to sustain a claim frequently made in the earlier literature that there are no differences between children raised in same-sex and heterosexual parented families (Amato, 2012; Biblarz & Savci, 2010; Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Eggebeen, 2012; Goldberg, 2010; Marks, 2012; Regnerus, 2012; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001), there is now strong evidence that same-sex parented families constitute supportive environments in which to raise children.

Rather than militating against marriage equality, this is an argument in its favour, for if giving oneself to another in marriage reinforces and strengthens longevity and commitment in relationships, legislating for marriage equality should increase the well-being of children.

From a principled point of view then, it seems to me quite consistent for conservative Christians who believe that in God’s eyes marriage is between a man and a woman,  to nonetheless ask that the State recognise the marriages of  LGBT people.

 

 

* A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity

** J Coffey , From Helwys to Leland: Baptist and Religious Tolerance in England and America, 1612‐1791’ in Bebbington (ed) Studies in Baptist History and Thought: The Gospel in the World’ Paternoster 2002

Leave a Reply

33 Comments on "A 17th Century Baptist Speaks To Us About Marriage Equality"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Cathie Howard
Guest

My major concern Scott has been the likely next push. We want equal rights to be married in a church. How long then will ministers, priests and imams have the right to deny that if they in all consciousness believe it to be wrong?

Ruth Hamilton
Guest

Ruth Hamilton liked this on Facebook.

Brad Coath
Guest

Brad Coath liked this on Facebook.

Hayley Wolf
Guest

Hayley Wolf liked this on Facebook.

Benton Wecker
Guest

Benton Wecker liked this on Facebook.

Jason Hoet
Guest

Genuine question Scott. On this basis is there any basis for the state to limit marriage to the only between 2 consenting adults? Ie why not polygamy. Or is that denied for other reasons.

Josh Marshall
Guest

Cathie, the church really has no business being involved with the legal aspects of the marriage contract anyway. We can just do what a number of countries do and have separate religious and civil ceremonies.

Cathie Howard
Guest

Ideally John, but the push will come…

Marti Barber
Guest

Marti Barber liked this on Facebook.

Grace Lanham
Guest

Grace Lanham liked this on Facebook.

Scott Higgins
Guest
Hi Cathie Howard, at the moment no-one is proposing churches be forced to perform marriages against their conscience, but you may well be right that this could change in the future. The dilemma is that in performing marriages the church is acting as a functionary of the state, so there is an argument that when it performs as a functionary of the state the church should reflect the values of the state. The alternative argument is that in a pluralistic society there is space for organisations with differing value systems to be employed as state functionaries. I think the issue… Read more »
Stephen McAlpine
Guest
Hi Scott – that was an interesting read and puts well roughly where I sit with this, as someone who does not view SSM as neither legitimate in God’s eyes, nor the “end the debate forever” nirvana it promises it will be. As a non-conformist I am happy enough to go along with state recognised unions for all, then a particular religious ceremony should one choose. However, while it’s not the case as you state in your response to Cathie, that no one is proposing churches be forced to perform marriages against their consciences, the Greens’ bill on this issue… Read more »
Kelli Hughes
Guest

Helpful and thoughtful piece Scott. Tx so much. Helped me clarify my thinking on this issue.

Scott Higgins
Guest

Hi Jason Hoet, in theory, yes multi partnered marriages could be something the state chooses to recognise. It certainly wouldn’t be new – the Bible made provision for the recognition of multi-partner marriages and there are states in the world that currently legislate for it as well. Historically polygamy has been closely associated with patriarchalism, and I would wonder whether that is intrinsic to polygamy, in which case there would be a strong case for the state to withhold recognition.

MJ
Guest

But this is not the current discussion. It has not been raised as an amendment in any other country that has had marriage equality. Five countries have had marriage equality for a decade or more and no one has been actively legislating for polygamy.

Justpeace Cambodia
Guest

Justpeace Cambodia liked this on Facebook.

Jason Hoet
Guest

Maybe it could be an equity issue. You can only have as many partners as you can afford? Possible tax option? More partners, more tax? Hmmm got me thinking Scott Higgins

Stephen Sutton
Guest

Stephen Sutton liked this on Facebook.

Meralyn Zimmer
Guest

Meralyn Zimmer liked this on Facebook.

Tony Dawson
Guest

So, I think i agree with you. But what would be a one-sentence summary of this: Seperation of Church and State?

Brendon Birch
Guest

Brendon Birch liked this on Facebook.

Tony Dawson
Guest

Tony Dawson liked this on Facebook.

Mauricio Jimenez
Guest
I think is sad to support this idea, since they live in a free country so they don’t have any oppression as in another countries. I have never seen in Australia that they have never been allow to be as they are. I think Australia is beautiful for its freedom, but freedom means as well that you can do whatever you want as long it doesn’t affect other groups, and here the more affected are children and family. So why support something that is going to have a strong impact over the future of a country. Is sad, to see… Read more »
Andrew Miller
Guest

Andrew Miller liked this on Facebook.

Doug Hynd (@DouginCanberra)
Guest
Doug Hynd (@DouginCanberra)

Scott – the logic of your argument could equally be that the state should do nothing more than enable civil partnerships for everyone and leave the declaration of marriage to partners and their supportive communities. I realise that this is pushing against popular assumptions but I have an in principle concern about unnecessarily expanding the role of the state at the expense of non-state institutions

Christian
Guest

Hi Scott
do you as a proclaimed follower of Jesus, agree with same sex marriage and do you think we therefore need having a Children bank for homosexual men to rear children?

Stephen Tuck
Guest

Scott, is it right that we who claim to be Christ-followers support a definition of marriage that is contrary to God’s intention for Marriage as set out in Matthew 19:4-6, even if we think the State has no business involving itself in the administration of Marriage.
I agree it would be better if the State just limited itself to recognising relationships and then Religious and secular organisations can conduct their on marriage ceremonies.
Although this is unlikely it would be better than the alternative.

Christian
Guest

Well said,! Whole heartily agree we you !

Asikame
Guest

Jill, that is so true about a healthy marrgaie being such a gift to our children. I am so glad you were blessed with people who could be there to help you and Mark and that God was able to come and provide restoration and healing. Thank you for being so transparent and sharing with other couples that may be hurting.

wpDiscuz
By Scott

Subscribe

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Meta

Never miss a post

Join our mailing list to receive a weekly email with my latest blog posts

You have Successfully Subscribed!