New web address for this blog!

There are no more updates to this site - please continue to follow us at our new address: http://www.prayct.org

Saturday, May 19, 2007

I know what Thomas Hooker would do!



Thomas Hooker and Company give thanks upon reaching the Connecticut River. As far as we can tell, there was no discussion of the virtues of homosexual marriage that day.

For those who don't remember their philosophy and logic classes, Princeton's WordNet dictionary defines sophistry as "a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone."

There's no better example of this sort of thing than Hartford Courant writer Susan Campbell, who wonders what Connecticut Puritan Thomas Hooker would think about homosexual marriage.

Hmmm, that's really a tough one! Could be fodder for a graduate thesis.

Ms. Campbell has advice for the pro-family citizens of Connecticut:


Going to the Christian scriptures on this, as opponents seem so wont to do, doesn't work. If you're quoting Jesus on homosexuality, you're making it up. Jesus was silent on the topic.

Attention, Hartford Courant: the New Testament is not a collection of the "Sayings of Jesus."

The New Testament is a collection of 27 books, none of which was authored by Jesus. The New Testament books, mostly authored by Jesus' apostles, condemn homosexuality in strong terms and, by the way, we learn in 1 Corinthians, chapter 6 that some Christians used to be homosexuals before coming to faith in Christ. It seems that Jesus Christ has the power to free people from homosexual desires, or so the New Testament writers seem to have thought!

Jesus Himself, being Jewish, was raised in an environment where the Law of Moses (the Torah) forbid homosexuality on pain of death.

There was therefore no reason for Jesus to give sweeping discourses on the desirability of homosexual "marriage." All Jews and Christians who have the least shred of interest in following the sacred texts of their religions of course accept as a given that God is opposed to the practice of homosexuality.

As for Thomas Hooker, people should read what he had to say instead of suggesting that he might have lacked guidance on the matter. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, which Susan Campbell calls "a progressive piece of writing" and which Hooker helped to author, suggests that society should be ordered according to Christian teaching and morality.

For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as followeth:

How very interesting! It seems that early Connecticut residents believed their government was formed in order to maintain the liberty and purity of the Gospel.

But, one may ask, on what basis did these Colonial Progressives make decisions and laws? It seems that in Hooker's world the Governor and Magistrates had

"the power to administer justice according to the Laws here established, and for want thereof, according to the Rule of the Word of God..."

In other words, if there was no law applicable to a given situation, the Word of God would tell them what to do. (Attention Courant - that would be the Bible!)

And so, finally, we know what Thomas Hooker would think about two men getting married. He would think the same thing about it that everyone in the Judeo-Christian tradition has always thought about it: it's wrong.

Please stop saying that we can't tell what Christianity teaches about this, or worse, that it teaches that "gay marriage" is OK.

No comments: