Re The Question Is Coming, November
It seems simply wrong to say that “Calvin privileged one aspect of marriage”—namely, the dimension of economic support. Yes, in particular circumstances, that of abandonment, he looked for a way to support the vulnerable and saw divorce as a legitimate response, practically and theologically speaking. But does this legitimize the blanket statement that in his understanding of marriage he privileged one good (economic dimension) over the goods of mutual support/companionship and children? Rather, I assume that in general terms (in his preaching and pastoral care) he affirmed and pronounced the importance of all three dimensions. As the saying goes: “hard cases make bad law.” Focusing on the reintroduction of divorce, for specific cases, does not give us a full picture of how Calvin understood marriage and its goods, and we shouldn’t suggest otherwise.
While Living Faith “is silent on” and does not “acknowledge” the economic dimension of marriage, this does not permit us to slip into the statement that Living Faith “does not recognize” it as one of the goods.
Given the fundamental continuity on the goods of marriage, I simply cannot trace out any kind of trajectory in this argument that leads to the subject of same – sex marriage. Vague notions about discontinuity do not lead to questions about the fundamental nature of the institution. Indeed, it remains to be asked whether the definition of marriage is exhausted by outlining the goods of marriage, as seems to be suggested in this article.
Blair Bertrand replies:
For me, the crux of De Vries’ critique lies with the line “given the fundamental continuity on the goods of marriage.” Where I lift up revision/reform based within a tradition, De Vries minimizes any substantive revisions/reforms to the tradition. For instance, in terms of Calvin’s understanding of marriage, De Vries is quite correct in his assumption that Calvin’s relationship to marriage is more complicated than I made it out to be. Calvin does hold many of the traditions of marriage, including the three goods.
Living Faith is both a product of its context and in continuity with its tradition. It includes some of the items found in the Westminster Confession of Faith but introduces others not considered by the divines as important to include. I was highlighting something that was different and the way that I read De Vries, he is highlighting the continuity. I don’t see either of us denying the three goods of marriage but I focus on the changes in the ways that they relate and De Vries emphasises the continuity.
In the end, I am fine with that because it places us into a more faithful place in my opinion. The church is always in a conversation, a dialogue, with the ways that God has acted in our midst in the past and the ways that God demands fresh obedience in the present. The intent of my piece was not to come down on either side of the question but to challenge both sides. For those who argue for the “traditional” form of marriage that is enshrined in Living Faith, I hoped that they could see that the institution of marriage has changed over time. This does not mean that they need to change but it does mean that they need to acknowledge that change is a reality, even in the ways that we understand marriage.
For those who argue for same – sex marriage, I hoped that they would place those arguments within a traditional theological understanding of marriage rather than on settling for “the spirit of the times.” This does not mean that they can’t do so but it does mean that they should engage with the hard questions posed by it.
