No right to same-sex marriage under the European Convention on Human Rights . . . yet

On 24 June 2010, a unanimous Chamber (7 judges) of the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 12 (right to marry) of the European Convention on Human Rights does not oblige Austria (and therefore the other 46 States Parties to the Convention) to grant same-sex couples access to marriage. Here is the judgment. The primary reason for the Chamber's holding is "[T]here is no European consensus regarding same-sex marriage. At present no more than six out of forty-seven Convention States allow same-sex marriage." (para. 58) Those six countries are Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

I don't think this judgment is legally surprising, and I would be surprised if a Grand Chamber (upon referral under Article 43) holds that Article 12 does require same-sex access to marriage. However, I will not be surprised if within my lifetime the Court departs from this Chamber's judgment because a European consensus has emerged to grant same-sex couples the right to marry. Only time will tell.

Perhaps the more legally interesting part of the judgment is the question of whether the lack of any means of legal recognition of same-sex couples (e.g., registered partnerships) violates Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. The majority dodged the question (para. 103), while a Joint Dissenting Opinion of three judges answered it this way: "Any absence of a legal framework offering them, at least to a certain extent, the same rights or benefits attached to marriage . . . would need robust justification, especially taking into account the growing trend in Europe to offer some means of qualifying for such rights or benefits." (para. 9) These three judges found a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 because Austria did not advance a justification, let alone a robust one, for the absence of legal recognition until 1 January 2010. (para. 8) It would be worth reading how a Grand Chamber upon referral decides this particular question. Again, only time will tell.

The battle continues for freedom of religion in Canada

A private Catholic high school in Quebec, Canada (that "receives provincial government subsidies") has been exempted by the Quebec Superior Court from teaching a compulsory course on ethics from a secular perspective, as required by Quebec regulations. Instead, the school may teach the compulsory ethics course from its religious perspective. Read the Globe and Mail story here. For those who read French, the decision of the Quebec Superior Court can be found here.

Compassionate curses?

One could say that the Psalms are filled with what may seem like imprecatory prayers and petitions. But the same Psalmist who offered so many of such prayers and petitions, also said this:

"But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth; I humbled my soul with fasting, And my prayer kept returning to my bosom. I went about as though it were my friend or brother; I bowed down mourning, as one who sorrows for a mother." (Psalm 35:13-14 (NASB))

Who are "they"? King David is referring to "malicious witnesses", "smiters", "godless jesters", "the lions", and "enemies".

What do these verses from Psalm 35 reveal to us about David's character? About God's character? About the relationship between justice and compassion?

Food for thought on use of midwives

What do readers think of this NYTimes article?

Happy (early) Father's Day, Pops

While I sit here in Phnom Penh trying to think of a way to honour my Dad for this coming Father's Day, here are some things about my Dad that can't help but make me smile:

1. Dad's friendly way with people. Dad loves to chat, to joke, to smile, and to laugh with others;

2. Dad's impressive career: he retired from the RCMP in Jan. 2010 after 35 years of service.

3. I am impressed at Dad's fluency in French. Some day I want to follow in his footsteps and learn French too.

4. Dad's horrible jokes that he has been laying on Sean, Colin, me, and our friends since we were adolescents: "Did I give you permission to speak?" "I resemble those remarks."

5. Dad's horrible fashion sense: short bright blue running shorts with a beige golf shirt anyone? Thank God he has met Dorothy, his soon to be wife in September 2010. I worry that I might be inheriting Dad's poor fashion sense. Jen, please restrain me should I err down that path.

6. His hilarious golf swing, or should I say golf swing minus the back swing and more like a slap shot. Who can blame him. He grew up in a family who worshipped hockey; his mother, Rita, 91 years old, still faithfully watches the NHL. She must have been proud of the Habs this year.

7. More seriously: his generosity, kindness, and grace to Jen, Joshua, and me.

8. For all the times when I was young that he calmed me down or just showed me some love by scratching/rubbing my back. I have passed this soothing tradition on to Joshua, my 3 year old son.

9. Dad's an example of humble service by all the ways he volunteers with his Catholic parish and other community projects.

10. Finally . . . ok I gotta make this one a little funny . . . how Dad is a low maintenance cat. He just installed the internet at his home a few months back. Welcome to the 21st century, Dad. Man, I couldn't even convince you to use Skype! Maybe cause you have no idea what it is.

What are you reading these days?

I am reading "Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom" by Samuel Fisk, published in 1973. The book was recommended to me by Pastor Wayne A. Snyder who is a missionary here in Phnom Penh, Cambodia with Baptist World Mission. At the age of 64, Pastor Wayne and his wife, Dee, left the U.S. to be missionaries in Cambodia.

The right not to reveal your (non) religion

On 3 June 2010, a unanimous Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that "requiring the applicants to reveal their religious convictions in order to be allowed to make a solemn declaration had interfered with their freedom of religion, and that the interference was neither justified nor proportionate to the aim pursued." See this press release on Dimitras et autres c. Grèce for details.

2nd of 3 reasons of Sailhamer

For context and links, please see previous post re: Perman's book review of Sailhamer's "Genesis Unbound."

"Third and finally, Genesis 1:1 cannot be a title for the rest of the chapter because there is a summary title at the conclusion of the thought unit begun in chapter one (Genesis 2:1). This would make a title at the beginning redundant. It is highly unlikely that there would be two titles to the same account." Note that I have not yet responded to Sailhamer's first of three reasons; coming soon.

I have no clue whether it is "highly unlikely" in Hebrew for there to be "two titles to the same account." But it seems to me that it's possible to agree with Sailhamer on this, but also to disagree with his point that the "summary title" in Gen. 2:1 makes a title in 1:1 "redundant." I am thinking that one way to defeat Sailhamer's argument is to show that 2:1 has a different meaning and function than the title in 1:1.

Gen. 2:1 (NASB) reads, "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts." Many other translations begin 2:1 with "Thus" (e.g., NKJV) or "So" (e.g., NLT). I read Gen. 2:1 as a summary conclusion to the introduction in 1:1, rather than as Sailhamer does as "a summary title at the conclusion of the thought unit begun in chapter one." But one might say that the word "Thus" or "So" is not in the Hebrew text. This objection might be true, as I don't see either word in the Masoretic Text (http://www.blueletterbible.org/), and some translations do not begin 2:1 with "Thus" or "So". (e.g., ASV, YNG, DBY, HNV). Maybe this objection has some merit. But one response to this objection is that there is another feature of 2:1 which suggests that it is a summary conclusion to an introduction rather than a "summary title."

Nearly all of the Bible translations of 2:1 available at http://www.blueletterbible.org/ contain a different verb and verb structure than 1:1. For comparison, 1:1 says "created." But 2:1 says:

"were finished" (KJV, NKJV, ESV, RSV, ASV, DBY, WEB, HNV)

"was completed" (NLT)

"were completed" (NIV, NASB)

"are completed" (YNG)

Call me biased and/or simple, but I can't help but read these translations of 2:1 in what I consider to be the ordinary English way: something was completed/finished. The emphasis of 2:1 is not that this something was created, but that it was completed/finished.

In summary, I read 1:1 as an introduction to which 2:1 is the conclusion. Thus, I would say that 1:1 and 2:1 are at least different in that respect, and are therefore not "redundant" as Sailhamer claims.

Do readers have any thoughts on the above?

Kulikovsky on "Genesis Unbound"

In 2000 Andrew Kulikovsky published a short book review that is critical of Sailhamer's "Genesis Unbound". You can find his review located at Answers in Genesis here.

The case of the missing "and"

This post is a response to Matt Perman's excellent book review of John Sailhamer's "Genesis Unbound". Disclaimer: I have not read Sailhamer's book.

When I printed Permans'review it came out in 41 pages, so I'll be referring to these numbers as I go along.

First things first, re: pages 1-9 of the review, I am not sure as a Young Earth Creationist whether I have a problem with "beginning" in Gen. 1:1 meaning "an extended, yet indeterminate duration of time-not a specific moment." (p. 6) The reason I don't think I have a problem with this is that I understand "the beginning" to include the 6 days of creation in Gen. 1:2-31, not to precede them as a separate, distinct act of creation.

But Perman rightly notes that "The question that this raises is whether "the beginning" includes the seven days of the following verses (1:2-2:4) or whether "the beginning" refers to a period of time that elapsed before the days of creation recorded in Genesis 1:2-2:4. In other words, is Genesis 1:1 ("in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth") a title to the entire chapter which summarizes the content of the following verses, or is Genesis 1:1 a distinct act which sequentially comes before the events of the following verses?" (p. 10)

Perman writes, "Sailhamer successfully argues for the second alternative-that "the beginning" is not a title to the chapter but a distinct act of God that occurred in a period of time that elapsed before the six days enumerated in 1:2ff." Perman enumerates three reasons that Sailhamer gives for his conclusion. I will respond to one of these three reasons in this post and the other two reasons in subsequent posts.

Reason # 2 given by Sailhamer (as summarized by Perman): "Second, Genesis 1:1 cannot be a title for the rest of the chapter because the next verse begins with the conjunction "and." But if 1:1 were a title in Hebrew, "the section immediately following it would surely not begin with the conjunction 'and.'"(103). The fact that Sailhamer is considered an expert in biblical Hebrew makes one confident that he knows what he is talking about here."

My response to this reason is that I cannot find the "and" in Gen. 1:2. According to the Masoretic Text (as published online by http://www.blueletterbible.org/), I cannot see an "and" at the beginning of Gen. 1:2. This may be why the NASB begins verse 2 with "The earth was formless and void . . ." I also observe that a number of Bible translations do not include an "and" at the beginning of Gen. 1:2 (e.g., NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, RSV, HNV). But this raises the following question: Why do some Bible translations include the word "and" at the beginning of Gen. 1:2 if the Masoretic Text does not contain it (e.g., KJV, ASV, DBY, WEB)? Do readers have any thoughts on this?

Threaten torture to save your child's life?

First question: Your 11 year old child has been kidnapped. The kidnapper(s) threatens your child's life if a ransom is not paid. You have a suspect in your custody who you have good grounds to believe knows the whereabouts of your child. Would you threaten to torture the suspect in order to cause him to disclose the location of your child? Would you carry out your threat?

Second question: You later discover that your child is dead. The suspect has been convicted of your child's murder. Evidence (e.g., location of body, corpse, etc.) that was obtained as a result of your threat of torture was admitted into the criminal trial and was available for the court to rely on to find the accused guilty of murder. Did the admission of this "tainted" evidence render the trial unfair? If so, is the suspect/accused/murderer entitled to a remedy? If so, what remedy?

Facts and questions similar to these were considered by a Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (sitting in Strasbourg, France) on 1 June 2010. See this press release on Gäfgen v. Germany for a summary of the Court's judgment.

Creationism

Sparked by a blog discussion over at desiringgod.org, I just finished reading a 1998 book review by Matt Perman of John Sailhamer's 1996 book "Genesis Unbound." The book review can be found at: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByTopic/99/4645_Science_the_Bible_and_the_Promised_Land/

I have not read Sailhamer's book. Has anyone read the book or Perman's book review?

Over the next few days I'll try to spend some time conducting my own investigation into some of the interesting questions the book review raises about the interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. I hope to share some results of my investigation with you on this blog.

Wrestling with Calvinism: Part 2

Who is “everyone” in Hebrews 2:9 (NASB)?

1. What does the text say?
2. What does the text mean?

Here’s my preliminary shot at these two questions with respect to the “everyone” in Hebrews 2:9.

What does the text say? This is an interesting question when you survey the various translations out there. Here’s a sample: “everyone” (NASB, NKJV, NIV, ESV, RSV, HNV); “every man” (KJV, ASV, WEB); “every thing” (DBY); and “everyone in all the world” (NLT). I note that the NASB, which apparently is based on the Alexandrian text type, and the NKJV, which I think is based on the Textus Receptus (like the KJV), both say “everyone.” So, my answer to the first question is “everyone.”

What does “everyone” mean? A preliminary point to make here is that to ask this question is not to be facetious or obstinate. Someone might say, “Only a radical Calvinist would ask that question for which there is an obvious answer; ‘everyone’ obviously means every member of the human race.” Someone might also say, “The rebuttable presumption is that ‘everyone’ means every member of the human race, unless it can be proven otherwise.” But I think that such an approach unfortunately bypasses the legitimate question of “Why does ‘everyone’ presumably mean that?”

So what does “everyone” mean? I see at least two possible answers. First, “everyone” means every member of the human race. Second, “everyone” means every member of a sub-group within the human race. Why is the first possibility a real possibility? Because of Luke 18:14 (look it up:). Why is the second possibility a real possibility? Because of Genesis 45:1.

I’ve just realized I have only a few minutes before my son wakes up and we embark on an adventure to the playground together. So, suffice my reflections to end with the following question that I would love to hear your thoughts on. What is the relationship, if any, between “everyone” in verse 9 and the following words in verses 9-18:

-“we” (v. 9)

-“many sons”; “their” (v. 10)

-“those who are sanctified”; “them brethren” (v. 11)

-“brethren”; “the congregation” (v. 12)

-“the children whom God has given me” (v. 13)

-“the children” (v. 14)

-“those”; “their lives” (v. 15)

-“descendant of Abraham” (v. 16)

-“brethren”; “the people” (v. 17)

-“those who are tempted” (v. 18)

What’s your answer? Thanks for your time and help.

Wrestling with Calvinism: Part 1

1 John 2:2 – “and not [the propitiation] for ours [sins] only, but also for those of the whole world.” What does it mean “for those of the whole world”?

The verse does not appear to say anything about the predestination of the elect. It says that Jesus is the “propitiation … for those of the whole world.” What is “propitiation”?

Easton’s Bible Dictionary says:

This Greek word (hilasterion) came to denote not only the mercy-seat or lid of the ark, but also propitation [sic] or reconciliation by blood. On the great day of atonement the high priest carried the blood of the sacrifice he offered for all the people within the veil and sprinkled with it the ‘mercy-seat,’ and so made propitiation.

In 1Jo 2:2; 4:10, Christ is called the ‘propitiation for our sins.’ Here a different Greek word is used (hilasmos). Christ is ‘the propitiation,’ because by his becoming our substitute and assuming our obligations he expiated our guilt, covered it, by the vicarious punishment which he endured.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:

It is especially to be noted that all provisions for this friendly relation as between God and offending man find their initiation and provision in God and are under His direction, but involve the active response of man.

Vine’s says:

The expiatory work of the Cross is therefore the means whereby the barrier which sin interposes between God and man is broken down. By the giving up of His sinless life sacrificially, Christ annuls the power of sin to separate between God and the believer.

Man has forfeited his life on account of sin and God has provided the one and only way whereby eternal life could be bestowed, namely, by the voluntary laying down of His life by His Son, under Divine retribution. Of this the former sacrifices appointed by God were foreshadowings.[Emphasis added]

Strong’s says (in G2435):

Christ, through His expiatory death, is the Personal means by whom God shows the mercy of His justifying grace to the sinner who believes. His ‘blood’ stands for the voluntary giving up of His life, by the shedding of His blood in expiatory sacrifice, under Divine judgment righteously due to us as sinners, faith being the sole condition on man’s part.[Emphasis added]

Strong’s also says (in G2434):

akin to hileos (‘merciful, propitious’), signifies ‘an expiation, a means whereby sin is covered and remitted.’ It is used in the NT of Christ Himself as ‘the propitiation,’ in 1Jo 2:2; 4:10, signifying that He Himself, through the expiatory sacrifice of His Death, is the Personal means by whom God shows mercy to the sinner who believes on Christ as the One thus provided.[Emphasis added]

However, it does not seem to me that 1 John 2:2 challenges the belief in the predestination of the elect. Its meaning may be that, in Christ, God has provided “the means” for any human in the world to be propitiated, that is, for the debt created by his/her sins to be satisfied in full, and therefore to become right with God. Given that the author of the Gospel of John is writing, 1 John 2:2 seems to be close in meaning to John 3:16. If this interpretation is correct, 1 John 2:2 does not help me in answering the following questions:

What is the ultimate reason for why some persons will not, in the end, actually be propitiated?

Does the Bible teach the predestination to heaven of the elect?

Does the Bible teach the predestination to hell of the non-elect (i.e., double election)?

1 John 2:2 may teach the universal saving will of God, but it does not appear to be a weapon against the belief in the concurrent or simultaneous will of God to only save the elect. Strong’s says:

What is indicated [in 1 John 2:2] is that provision is made for the whole world, so that no one is, by Divine predetermination, excluded from the scope of God’s mercy; the efficacy of the ‘propitiation,’ however, is made actual for those who believe. (Strong’s G2434)

Please share your comments on the above with me. I am aware that Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 2:17 are relevant here, but I don’t have time now to examine them in any detail.