Skip to main content

Marriage & radical individualistic voluntarism

Over at Big Think, Peter Lawler has an interesting secular article on the recent trend to re-define marriage in terms of radically individual voluntarism - that is, defining marriage as a "contract" by an individual, to whom "society" must grant the freedom to marry whoever they want (= voluntarism), and if they don't get that freedom, they're being "oppressed".



Labels:

Comments

Andrew said…
Yes, very interesting. Thanks for the link.
19 February 2012 at 21:34
Anonymous said…
I hate to be devil's advocate, but I actually don't like this article because he doesn't clearly state what he thinks. I think that part of the problem with the divorce rate (and formation and breaking of de facto relationships) is specifically that we don't as a church say what our position in relation to marriage and divorce is. We leave people to figure that out on a case by case basis lest we offend anyone.

Janis DC
24 February 2012 at 13:04
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Barfights in the public square

Everything in the public square seems to be increasingly conflicted. We seem to be operating with less and less shared values. It feels like we're less and less sure of what holds us together as a 'society.' A retreat into 'tribes' both drives this social fragmentation and is a result of it.  Post-modern scepticism towards metanarratives, which has now become culturally normal, significantly contributes to this fragmentation. If we no longer believe that objective truth, independent of our individual or tribal perspectives, exists, we will no longer believe we can appeal to that objective reality as common ground for debate. All we will do is exert power to magnify ourselves and punish those who disagree with us.  Because we believe that our cause is right, we will always think of ourselves as the victim of other people's aggression. Therefore, as Stephen McAlpine says, we will always think we're punching "up." We'll valorise ourselves as the ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...
Post a Comment
Read more

Backlog of blogs

This is ridiculous. I have a backlog of some 30 half-baked blogs that I haven't published 'coz I feel I haven't thought them out well enough yet. I'd forgotten that blogs are supposed to be timely & personal, not necessarily scholalrly and precise. I thought I'd poll my readers (helloooo - is anyone out there...?). What would you prefer: occasional serious thought-through stuff, or regular ignorant ravings? Personally, I'd prefer regular thought-through comments... but my lack of posts in October demonstrates this is unrealistic.
5 comments
Read more