Silk 1 Jesse Silk Dr.

Wilfong LIT-4450 11 December 2012 Why Civil Contract Should Exist, But Not for the Christian: Growing from a Miltonic Basis to an Understanding of Gay Marriage Few writers in history have contributed as greatly to Christian poetics or the classical canon of literature as significantly as John Milton. While the authors writing and life reflect an indisputable and unwavering devotion to delineating biblical truth as interpreting by his individual calling from the Spirit, some of Miltons views were extremely controversial for his time. One particular dissenting belief expressed in Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce is Miltons assertion of the acceptability of divorce. For a variety of reasons, the writer offers pragmatic, theological and legal arguments why the breaking of a marriage should be permissible. Miltons discussion is of the utmost importance today, as not only do statistics show that millions of people choose to end a matrimony found to be incurably unfit, but most conform to the practice of religious and civil marriages being intertwined (118). Societys obedience of Miltonic thought is clearly evident, but the gay marriage movement has caused a need for the definitions of marriage to be reexamined. The movement has largely been met by opposition from the Church, whose actions ironically show an adherence to Miltonic marriage sentiments despite a history of them being rejected by the Church. Based on Scriptural teachings, a diligent analysis of Miltons texts and societal pragmatism, we can conclude that the Church must demonstrate a better understanding of marriage and divorce by practicing a distinction between civil and religious marriage while discontinuing efforts to abolish or prevent gay marriage in the political realm.

Silk 2

The foremost necessary components when analyzing this cultural issue through the lens of Miltonic thought are readings of Miltons texts which most vividly discuss marriage. In Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, he provides numerous interpretations of biblical passages and reasons their meaning and intent, concluding in many scenarios why divorces should be allowed. Therefore, to best understand the views he expresses, it is best to first establish biblical teachings on marriage and divorce. And just as it would be appropriate to follow Scripture specifically, the Geneva Bible, Miltons most-likely resource chronologically in order to comprehend the change or consistency in the teachings, the Miltonic text set in the earliest time period, Paradise Lost, should be the text first analyzed. The first model for marriage in both biblical and Miltonic texts is the union between Adam and Eve. Scripture claims that the woman was created from the ribbe which the Lorde God had taken from the man and that because woman was taken out of man, they become one flesh when united in marriage (2:22-24). Miltons Paradise Lost alludes to this biblical truth when Adam, speaking to Eve, refers to his faithful side / That gave thee being (IX.265). Multiple significant observations come from the Book of Genesis and Paradise Lost in regard to this concept. First, both texts acknowledge the literal, physical union between man and woman, at least the first man and woman. While the biblical account projects this same concept upon all of subsequent humanity, Miltons text solely focuses on the relationship between Adam and Eve. Therefore, there is room to believe that, especially with the praise given to Adam and Eve in his text, Milton saw their union as so unique that it does not project onto humanity. It is of great importance to recognize how Milton depicts the sexual union between Adam and Eve after the Fall. While Adam still acknowledges to Eve that we are one / One Flesh, their relationship becomes a lustful one, as the man implies let us play and asserts that never

Silk 3

before did Eve so inflame my sense / With ardor to enjoy thee (IX.958,1031). Though still in matrimony, their physical and emotional relationship has degraded, signaling two potential outcomes: sex within marriage in a post-Fall world can still be conducted lustfully, or the postFall union between man and woman has been made less holy. If the latter is true, then the argument can be made that along with his once-idyllic descriptions of humanity, Miltons view of humanitys sexual union has accounted for the Fall and depicts that relationship as more breakable. Additionally, the biblical text offers a figurative sense of the oneness of flesh. The first literal sense is Eve being taken from Adams body, and the second literal sense is that when a husband and wife join in sexual union, they become one flesh. But the metaphysical concept that endures is that a husband and wife become inseparable after their marital union. While some debate whether or not a marriage not yet consummated is breakable by such criteria, a consummated marriage is most definitely not. After Gods articulation of marriage principles in the Garden of Eden, another key Scriptural teaching arises in the book of Deuteronomy, when Moses discusses a circumstance of divorce amongst the Israelites. The Scripture instructs, When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, if so be shee finde no favour in his eyes, because hee hath espyed some filthinesse in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement (24:1). While the fithinesse mentioned in the passage may cause one to believe that the woman in this scenario committed adulterous acts, an adulteress was to be put to death in the time of Moses, as numerous passages such as Deuteronomy 22:22 and Leviticus 20:10 command. Therefore, the scenario of divorce discussed in the aforementioned passage is granting divorce for a reason other than adultery. However, the reason is due to some form of impropriety, or filthinesse, as Miltons translation would have

Silk 4 read. As Scripture progresses, God continues to make it clear the lastingness of a marriage covenant through words given to His prophets. The prophet Jeremiah speaks to the moral tension of a divorce, asking, If a man put away his wife, and she goe from him, and become another mans, shall hee returne againe unto her? Shall not this land be polluted? (3:1). This passage operates from the premise that a marriage between a man and woman is unbreakable. Therefore, in the situation in Jeremiah 3:1, which has occurred myriad times in the course of human history, the reader can clearly see something is greatly amiss if a woman has entered such a covenant with two different men. God deems it polluted, for there is undoubtedly a permanence in both relationships that cannot be undone. For this reason and several others, God proclaims through his prophet Malachi that he hates divorce, or hateth putting away, as the Geneva translation articulates (2:16). While putting away would have been understood as divorce by the people of Miltons time, other translations perhaps better communicate the idea of the passage. Translations of the New International Version read I hate divorce, says the LORD God of Israel. Later in the updated translation of the verse, God says that a man who divorces his wife does violence to the one he should protect (2:16). While the translation available to Milton certainly provides insight into Gods earnest desire for a married woman and man to remain together as He intended, one could definitely say that Milton could have benefited more from having another translation, especially in the case of such a critical scripture. Nonetheless, the most abundantly clear teachings on divorce come from Christ, as the gospels are filled with Jesus teaching on the inseparable union between a male and female. First, Christ refers Genesis, reestablishing Gods enduring intention for humankind over a situational teaching in the days of Moses. When the Pharisees assert that Moses offered permission for

Silk 5

divorce, Jesus answers, For the hardnesse of your heart he wrote this precept unto you (Mk 10:5). Then, after He refers to the aforementioned assertion from both Genesis and Miltons own Paradise Lost that the two shall be one flesh, Christ commands, what God hath coupled together, let not man separate (10:9). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus begins numerous teachings with a progression from It hath been said to But I say unto you (Mt. 5). This distinction is especially important because it is one of several places in the New Testament in which Jesus unabashedly declares that He is instituting new commands which are superior to the previous commands. Therefore, when Christ addresses the divorce issue yet again in this context, he proclaims It hath been said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorcement. But I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife (except it be for fornication) causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery (Mt. 5: 31-32). With a firm knowledge of the Scriptures, one can understand both the veracity of Gods teachings as well as the extremely strong consensus that Milton would have to work against in his Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce. As one traces through the chronology of the Bible, the teaching against divorce remains clear and consistent, with the only allowance being during a brief period of history and one brought about by hardened hearts and human behavior, not the intentions of God. Thankfully, Milton acknowledges many of these texts in his works and incorporates his and the Churchs interpretations of them into his arguments. In the seventeenth chapter of his revised Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, Milton includes the very passage in which Christ

Silk 6 forbids divorce except for marital unfaithfulness. One primary Miltonic argument against the general consensus of Christs teaching is the challenging of which law has greater superiority, Christs or the one given to Moses. Milton claims that Christs law is not the law of nature, because if that were the case, the Jews or some other wise and civil nation would have pressed it (173). Milton then follows with an unequivocally clear proclamation of his personal belief, asserting that the teaching of Moses permitting divorce is a law more ancient and deeper engraven in blameless nature than the other [Christs law] (173). The author prefaces this thought with a reinterpretation of Christs words inspired by the early Christian thinker Origen. Milton recognizes that Origens interpretation of the passage was that adultery is destructive to marriage, so therefore marriage was not ordained only for copulation, but for mutual help and comfort of life (172). In this passage lies a key Miltonic principle: marriage should promote peace, unity and stability within the home. Milton continues with an even more unique interpretation, alleging that the nature of our Saviors commands is charity: whose will that we should so be good to others as that we be not cruel to ourselves (172). Therefore, according to Milton, the reason Christ nor the Gospel writers nor Paul offered any exceptions to the prohibition of divorce was because the exceptions ... are included silently under general terms (172). Essentially, this portion of the argument begins with a commandment from Christ prohibiting divorce and ends with Milton claiming there is an understood, unsaid allowance for divorce. Miltons leap from one thought to a seemingly distant, contradictory one has drawn criticism, including that of scholar Annabel Patterson, who writes, Milton cannot quite bring himself to talk straight about the issue (286). Patterson notes that Milton stands naked before us in the very phrases he thought he had so carefully chosen to hide behind (283). Her criticism carries significant truth, as the Miltons effort to redirect Christs command away from the issue

Silk 7

and toward another loosely-related command shows an attempt that is not following sound reasoning. Additionally, though Christ offered several new commands in place of Old Testament teachings, Miltons taking exception with the one related to divorce and not the others shows further suspicion. Considering one allowance from the inspired lawgiver Moses to outweigh Gods original intentions for marriage in Genesis, His words spoken through the prophets and the superior commands of Christ seems biblically indefensible (Milton 173). While it may be preferred to merely engage the content of the texts in scholarly debate, to deny the biographical ramifications influencing Doctrine of Discipline and Divorce and other Miltonic texts would greatly cloud an appropriate criticism of the text. Miltons relationship with his first wife had numerous problems, one of which being his displeasure with her mind to all other due conversation inaccessible (112). In addition to a lack of intellectual substance, Patterson asserts that Milton thought his wife deserved to be divorced due to her desertion and disobedience (286). Considering numerous appeals made to Christian Scripture and history and Miltons difficult marriage to Mary Powell, it makes it nearly indisputable that his motives for writing this tract were to gain allowance for his own divorce in the eyes of the Church. Moreover, Patterson observes that Miltons puritanical fear of the sexual also distorts an appropriate view of marriage. The critic claims that Milton sought to demote the sexual, or what he calls the carnal and that his vocabulary connotes embarrassment with phrases such as the vessell of voluptuous enjoyment or animal or beastish meeting (Milton, Patterson 286). Just as the aforementioned idea that Adam and Eves carnal lust in Paradise Lost shows Miltons opinion of post-Fall sex, Patterson realizes that the metaphors and euphemisms Milton uses in his essays only make things seem worse than they really are (286). More importantly, by demoting the sexual, one can more easily justify divorce. Thus, if Miltons values the

Silk 8

consummation marriage is anything less than ideal and permanent, one can understand why his negligence of the significance of sexual union could influence a verdict that divorce is acceptable. In regard to biography on a more personal level, Milton illustrates in numerous works his belief that the Lord is a God of second chances. The redemption revealed to Adam and promised to humanity at the end of Paradise Lost and God giving Sampson strength to be able to perform a heroic act in Samson Agonistes show strong trust in Gods redeeming of man despite unfortunate circumstances. Patterson observes that Doctrine of Discipline and Divorce is a plea for second chances, and its language is unintentionally revelatory of its authors own appeal for such respite (282). The desire to be redeemed out of an unharmonious marriage seems rather sensible on Miltons part, especially in an age when the pre-marriage process was often contrived and disabled the ability to know ones future spouse well enough to foresee relational issues that could arise during marriage. However, while the biographical circumstances make Miltons desire to divorce his wife seem understandable, they also reveal mistakenness in his divorce tracts and a misunderstanding Gods design for marriage. First, Miltons understanding of the Scriptures can be considered to be more similar to a Jewish perspective than a consensus Christian view due to his belief in strong continuity between the testaments of the Bible. Essentially, Milton is one of myriad Christians in history who adhere to a continuity, which oftentimes promotes a lastingness of Old Testament principles despite Christs ushering in of a New Covenant. For instance, Miltons understanding of marriage hearkens back to the early days of Judaism in multiple ways. As previously discussed, he gives superiority to a situational teaching of Moses over the nullifying

Silk 9 words of Christ. Moreover, he discusses in Of Christian Doctrine an allowance for polygamy, a practice primarily restricted to the age before Christ. If one examines the aforementioned Gospel teachings, he or she will realize that Christs words are in contrast with the concept of being united with more than one person. Most importantly, however, a view of strong continuity between the testaments merges together the political and religious spheres. In the Old Testament, maintaining the political state was a matter intertwined with obedience to God because Israel was the chosen people to represent God. Although this case was unique and God has never directly taken ownership of another nation at any time in human history, some denominations of Christianity project teachings and concepts specific to the ancient state of Israel onto their modern-day nations and attempt to involve themselves with their respective governments. Therefore, Miltons words have the utmost applicability to modern times in this area, considering the fact that he was very involved as a civil servant and even at one time had hopes for a theocracy to exist on earth (Forsyth 144). When penning Doctrine of Discipline and Divorce, Miltons desire was to persuade his fellow countrymen to institute new rules on divorce. As Patterson notes, Should Parliament have been persuaded, the effect, of course, would have been to transfer the control over marriage from the church to the state and reconstitute it as civil contract (281). Of all Miltons contributions given in his writings about marriage and divorce, this is undoubtedly the most important and projects seamlessly onto the present age. The irony in Miltons quest is that despite his beliefs at the time of writing that the political and religious realms function together, instituting marriage as a civil contract separates it as a governmental practice. Perhaps without fully realizing it, Milton did indeed think progressively in a society insistent on a blend between

Silk 10

the political and religious. While Milton may have viewed these issues from a perspective that failed to realize the significance of Christ ushering in a new covenant, the teachings of Anabaptist philosophy and doctrine can provide an appropriate framework from which to analyze the Miltonic impact on culture. Despite significant cultural differences between the 17th-century English world that Milton lived in and 21st-century culture, the ever-relevant tenets of Anabaptism show the lasting principles and commonalities between each age. So no matter the political state in which one resides, the Christian is essentially a citizen of the kingdom of Christ and not of this world (Krieder 189). While Christians would like to believe they could maintain a dual citizenship with Gods kingdom and their earthly nation, the purposes of each kingdom differ to greatly to be reconciled. Moreover, understanding the two kingdoms is also a question of time. There is the possibility that these two realms are coexistent, although on different levels, and the kingdom of God is already present or the kingdom of God is to come (Friedman 110). Scripture seems to give evidence for both perspectives, as Christ discusses on numerous occasions future promises of the kingdom of God as well as present, already-initiated principles of the kingdom. However, perhaps the most telling words of the Savior are: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall men say, Lo her, or lo there; for behold, the kingdom of God is within you (Lk. 17:20-21). Thus, if the kingdom of God is to be understood by these words, Christians should be able to conclude that it has been initiated by Christ on earth and is already present in or among those who have been born again (Friedman 110). It is clear that Jesus ushering in of the kingdom of God ensued in bountiful changes. Christ proclaims that The Law and the Prophets endured until John; and since that time the

Silk 11 kingdom of God is preached (Lk. 16:16). From the mere perspective of time, then, a belief of strong continuity between the testaments seems to become less sensible; Christ Himself is telling believers that there is indeed a change being made. And as previously mentioned, the teachings of Jesus make it abundantly clear that a new order is being instituted one which blesses peacemakers and the persecuted and commands resist not evil and love your enemies (Mt. 5). Teachings such as these illustrate the aforementioned concept that the purposes of Gods kingdom and earthly kingdom are at odds with one another. Because the Anabaptists have traditionally not believed in strong continuity between the testaments and have adhered to the notion that Christs commands are superior and mark a decisive change, the model for the relationship between a Christian and the State is much different than those like Milton who intertwined the governmental and the religious. Anabaptists have historically offered myriad reasons why a Christian becoming involving themselves in government is nonsensical, the most important of which are the ideas that a Christian could not be a judge in civil and criminal cases without violating Scriptural precepts and the belief that the Christian had another vocation in the world (Krieder 191). While these concepts have been and are primarily applicable to direct governmental involvement as a civil servant, they can even apply to someone not employed by the state who finds themselves as a Christian citizen caught in between the teachings of Christ on the Sermon on the Mount and the ever-Machiavellian aims of government. Miltons work as a civil servant and his choice to align himself with Cromwell certainly evidence that he did not adhere to Anabaptist teachings (Forsyth 128). Especially considering Miltons strong stance against tyranny, he would have found himself at odds with the sect who consistently taught that a Christian should suffer nonresistantly the rule of all princes even tyrants (Krieder 190). Both, however, recognized the Scriptural concept that God did indeed

Silk 12

have a specific purpose for government, and though Milton did not abandon government ties like the Anabaptists, he frequently voiced his displeasure with regimes and fell away from his hope for a theocracy, evidencing the flaws of the earthly kingdom and the preservation of ones inner kingdom. While the Anabaptist allowance for a Christian compelled by dictates of his conscience to disobey the magistrate in particulars agrees with Miltonic thought, the caveat of not aligning oneself with any form of revolution does not (190). The Anabaptist perspective recognizes that the sovereignty of God extends to secular governments and even those that frequently act against Christian principles. Therefore, as it applies to marriage, the Christian ought to practice Christs teachings against divorce in their inward kingdom, but the earthly kingdoms may have a different definition of civil marriage, one that believers should not interfere with. In regard to the present-day cultural issue of homosexual unions being recognized by the government, while it clearly cannot be said that a statesman such as Milton would have found gay marriage permissible, his distinction in Doctrine of Discipline and Divorce to establish marriage as a civil contract creates such an allowance when built upon the Anabaptist foundation. The sentiments of separatism in both ideologies help reveal a greater good for both the Church and nonbelievers. First, if the Church were to truly adopt the ideology of marriage distinction, the witness of the Gospel could be exponentially improved. One area of intellectual inconsistency that hurts the witness of Christianity to the unbelieving world comes from what many refer to as the Christian right, an already troubling term due to its reveling in contradictory kingdoms. For those viewing Christians in regard to their sensibility and political opinions, when evangelical conservatives flip from libertarian to nonlibertarian arguments they risk looking confused and superficial (Sider 20). Christian scholar Ron Sider claims that

Silk 13

promoting government involvement to prevent citizens from redefining marriage yet desiring an absence of government involvement for economic issues and claiming they are a task for individuals and churches is convoluted (20). Inconsistencies on the political front show why a better witness would be to abandon tarnishing the reputation of Christianity through a realm that continually disagrees with Scripture. However, in recent times the Church has not taken heed to this advice, and its crusades against gay marriage have been an extreme detriment to spreading the Gospel. The misled notion that gay citizens marrying under the authority a secular government is somehow an attack on Christian morals has created a defensive culture amongst believers. Instead of following the embarrassing, openly-public behaviors of Christians to create division between Christianity and homosexual persons, Christian philosopher Michael A. King proposes a vastly different approach. Christians accept the Bible as objective, undisputed truth, so extrapolating the work Hans-Georg Gadamer, a philosopher who rejected objective truth, seems like a radical approach that is disharmonious with Christianity. However, King does exactly that, relying on Gadamers notion of intersubjective communication to reveal a great truth about Christianity. In actuality, Gadamers claim that Each speakers ability to grasp why the other speaker finds her or his own position persuasive is what enables the true understanding that defines conversational success, is not so foreign of a thought, but rather a Miltonic one, as discussed in various works, most notably, Aeropagitica (30). As King continues his discussion of Gadamer, he affirms the key principles in discussion, which are also crucial in the most optimal communication of the Gospel. The first step is coming to the realization that we being through the lenses of our own biases and prejudices (30). If one is to appropriately present the Gospel to a homosexual unbeliever, for instance, he or she must

Silk 14 first come to an understanding of his or her own biases which are clouding truth. Next, one must seek to understand the others perspective, which in this instance would entail the Christian truly making efforts to comprehend the psyche of the homosexual they are in discussion with. This understanding cannot merely deal with the mere idea of homosexuality, but it depends on deep commonality yet also requires application to the particular (56). Thus, Christians who truly desire to witness must take the often-uncomfortable step of understanding a homosexuals perspective through the concrete (56). This will result in a fusion of horizons in which differences are not dissolved but mutually contribute to a new understanding (56). In such a case, believers honest and complete attempts to try to understand a homosexuals perspective is a necessary component to a Gospel-driven conversation. The relational aspect of the gay marriage issue requires much effort and sympathy on behalf of the Christian, and the debate over semantics requires a similar radical but extremely sensible alteration. If one can adhere to the established Anabaptist notion of separation from government and the Miltonic plea for the existence of civil contract, then by doctrinal definition the Christian will not take issue if a state redefines that civil contract, for marriage within the Church is still preserved. If Christians will truly be a cultural catalyst and promote the sanctity of marriage, they must start by evidencing they understand what marriage is. While Milton has provided numerous valuable insights to the Christian faith, it would be best to join his conversation through primarily recognizing his teachings on marriage as obstacles to overcome rather than guiding points. Therefore, the first way to demonstrate the sanctity of marriage to society actually apply the teachings of Scripture on divorce. In an age in which the divorce rate amongst Christians is essentially the same as that of nonbelievers, the Church has no moral platform from which to speak. If Christians ever hope to promote their marriage beliefs, they cannot expect culture to

Silk 15

embrace their teaching if they come nowhere close to practicing it themselves. Gods intentions for marriage to be a lasting covenant are not moral constraints, but rather principles which preserve the well-being of all involved. A study conducted by University of Virginia psychologist E. Mavis Hetherington of 180 families over a six-year period found increased levels of alcoholism, substance abuse, depression, psychosomatic problems in men and women who divorced (Stanton 130). And although Miltons texts primarily analyze the relationship between the husband and wife, few if any would ever argue that divorce creates a beneficial situation for children, who are typically the most negatively effected people in the severing of a marriage. Not only are children of divorced parents more subject to self-destructive behavior and emotional trauma, but Hetherington found divorced parents as significantly less effective parents due to role strains and argumentative, selfish behavior when dealing with the children (131). Preserving the unbreakable bond of marriage is not only an ideological concept from the Bible but one that prevents pain and suffering. Therefore, while recognizing the Miltonic concept of civil marriage but by rejecting its place in the Christian life, believers can embark on a cultural revolution for the sanctity of marriage by marrying solely through the Church. These commitments would emulate Scripture and not be able to be broken merely due to supposed incompatibility, or circumstances which a man could not force himself to live with, as Miltonic thought or governmental allowances would suggest (Milton 173). Not only would bypassing the government certificate of marriage prove beneficial to secular culture, but it would also enhance the marriage ethic within the Church. In the current cultural situation, even people who hold personally to the ideal of marriage permanence might be afraid to commit strongly to their marriage if they perceive a general weakening to the ideal (Stanton 125). If believers decided to marry only through

Silk 16 religious covenant, the environment would create a godly standard which would solve such a problem and create greater levels of commitment. Therefore, if the Church were to collectively unite, abandon civil marriage and practice marriage from within, it would provide the appropriate example a group who rejects hypocrisy and lives the standard they profess to the unbelieving culture while also doing good to brothers and sisters within the body of Christ by strengthening Christian marriages. Finally, while it is not necessary for a Christian to endorse homosexual civil marriage, it is rather nonsensical to wish upon gay persons a culture which keeps them trapped in a lifestyle incapable of the benefits and stabilities of marriage, which both Milton and critics attest to. Milton found marriage discardable in the cases that it did not maintain harmony within the home or solace and the preservation of life (130). Though we know Milton did not intend his comments to include gay marriage, it would not make sense to deny his correct claims that marriage ought to provide mental and emotional equanimity. Moreover, marriage serves as a stable institution which can reduce some of the aforementioned harmful behaviors that are common in gay culture. To hope that gay marriage is prevented in the government is essentially hoping that homosexuals are resigned to such risky behaviors instead of the stability of a marriage. Though God does not recognize a homosexual civil marriage, the pragmatic effects of such a civil contract are undoubtedly beneficial from a humanitarian perspective. Moreover, if a homosexual civil contract is broken, the tragedy is not near that of a heterosexual divorce, because God affirms the latter and not the former. Thus, the negatives of a government allowing such a contract are minimalized; there is not harm done to the Christian members of a society or the homosexual partners involved. Christ calls His followers to love absolutely everyone, and if love rejoiceth not in iniquity, then desiring for nonbelievers to have a better and stable life

Silk 17 should be the hope of not only humanitarians, but Christians as well (1 Cor. 13:6). If the aim is to accurately and effectively preach the Gospel to nonbelievers, then a change in heart on behalf of the non-Christian is much more likely to come from a place a stability and understanding than if the Church continues to crusade against gay marriage as civil contract and does not fix its own marriage issues.

Silk 18

Annotated Bibliography Forsyth, Neil. John Milton: A Biography. Oxford: Lion, 2008. Print. Forsyths work documents the literary, religious and political interactions in the life of John Milton, all of which will prove valuable for assessing his personal life, link between God and county and how these emerged in his writing. Particularly, the chapter Adam, Eve - and Satan provides keen insight on the puritanical influences in Paradise Lost in regard to a manmade, unbiblical barrier created against human sexuality. This source will work in conjunction with Annabel Pattersons writing to delineate the taboos that prevent one from comprehending marriage as it should be. Friedmann, Robert. The Doctrine of the Two Worlds. The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision: A Sixtieth Anniversary Tribute to Harold S. Bender. Ed. Guy F. Hershberger. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1957. Print. The Theology of Anabaptism discusses the various tenants of Anabaptist belief, the most important of which for this conversation is the tension of split loyalty between Gods kingdom and earthly kingdoms. The Anabaptist perspective contrasts with the link of God-and-country not only common in Miltons day, but also in present-day America. Thus, this source links the two periods and provides timeless relevance to the issue of Christians being separate from the political entities in which they live. Civil marriage becomes a realm delegated to the government, while marriage through the Church is an entirely separate realm defined by different standards. This argument is the essential point of resolution in the conversation, that these realm should remain apart, leaving room for gay marriage to exist through the State. King, Michael A. Fractured Dance: Gadamer and a Mennonite Conflict Over Homosexuality. Telford, PA: Pandora U.S., 2001. Print. Kings work incorporates the thoughts of German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer, who essentially claimed that meaning and truth in life is best communicated through an understand of the consciousnesses of the conversing parties. As it applies to Kings situation as summarized in the title of the work, the appropriate way to handle a conflict of homosexuality from a Christian perspective is through gaining an understanding of the different perspective. The stress on community in the Mennonite and Anabaptist culture is a crux of Kings discussion. While it seems postmodern to embrace a philosopher who rejected objectivity, the combination of Gadamer and the conflict ensues in the conclusion that one in an ostracized position (such as a homosexual) cannot understand the Gospel unless it is shown to them through human behavior. Though a more

Silk 19 specific situation, Kings work is simultaneously universal and provides another critical frame of reference for understanding how the Church ought to interact with homosexuals. Kreider, Robert. The Anabaptist and the State. The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision: A Sixtieth Anniversary Tribute to Harold S. Bender. Ed. Guy F. Hershberger. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1957. Print. Krieders text discusses the history of the Anabaptist movement, first articulating the States view of them (evidenced by persecution) to their views of the State. Krieder does an excellent job highlighting the central points to an Anabaptist view of government. My conversation will incorporate such a view of government to establish the view that the State is a necessary existence for non-Christians but not a realm in which Christians need to dwell. Marriage, thus, follows a similar classification. Instead of merely, automatically referring to Anabaptism as authoritative in the discussion, the conversation will need to show why this view is an appropriate stance from a biblical perspective. Lillback, Peter, ed. 1599 Geneva Bible: The Holy Scriptures Contained in the Old and New Testaments. White Hall, W. Va.: Tolle Lege, 2006. Print. Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Complete Poems and Major Prose. Ed. Merritt Y. Hughes. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 2003. Print. Paradise Lost reveals many Miltonic views on marriage. The two ideas that pertain most to the conversation are the authors handling of the sexual bond in marriage as well as his inclusion and treatment of what seems like discord between the husband and wife before the Fall. I as well as other sources will interact with Paradise Lost, analyzing which parts dealing with these issues lend themselves to Miltons conclusions Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce. While relating an epic poem of historical fiction to an essay is not an exact science, one work helps reveal the author, and Miltons biography also assists in understanding the authors treatment of marriage issues.

Milton, John and W. Scott. Howard. The Divorce Tracts of John Milton: Texts and Contexts. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne UP, 2010. Print.

Silk 20 In Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, John Milton discusses his interpretations and applications of biblical mandates of marriage and divorce. One of the foremost points of the text is trying to establish continuity between the divorce teaching of the Old and New Testaments. Milton offers conditions for which Christs teachings do not erase the Mosaic allowance for divorce. Additionally, Milton refers to marriage as a human society and thus a relational union that is breakable for the sake of accord. The writer offers several more reasons and conditions for which divorce is permissible, far exceeding the typical Christian interpretation of divorce for only abusive, adulterous situations and the like. Miltons text will be an invaluable work to the formation of my discussion, as his promotion of divorce, civil marriage and intertwining of political and religious structures is what begins this conversation. While the direction of the argument with be in refutal on Miltons points, he and his work will undoubtedly be credited for their relevance as they pertain to civil marriage and therefore divorce and gay marriage. Patterson, Annabel. Milton, Marriage and Divorce. A Companion to Milton. Ed. Thomas N. Corns. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2001. Print. Pattersons text offers both the context for Miltons marriage issues as well as modern-day application of his reasoning. Her text is multifaceted, comparing a perception of Milton as a misogynist with a Miltonic open divorce policy that aligns itself with feminist progress in the late 20th century. The essayist also senses a misunderstanding and fear of the sexual in Miltons work. This point will be especially pertinent to my discussion, for if one does not fully comprehend magnitude of the physical union of marriage, breaking that union will seem easier. Overall, Pattersons work serves as a well-constructed contrast to Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, so completely contextualizing Miltons work to being individually-influenced that she exposes empty philosophy in his tracts. Sider, Ronald J. The Scandal of Evangelical Politics: Why Are Christians Missing the Chance to Really Change the World? Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008. Print. As its title suggests, Siders work analyses the failures of Christian involvement in politics. Siders writing can speak with other sources in the conversation to classify movements by the Church against gay marriage as political. Moreover, Siders chapters The State: Its Nature, Purpose, and Limits and Marriage and Family significantly interact with Miltonic views of state and marriage. While on one hand the conversation promotes Christian behavior separate from the political realm, it also reasons that, like government, civil marriages, or just non-Christian marriages for that matter, are universal human institutions essential for the well-being of all people everywhere. This sentiment will help establish civil marriage on a pragmatic, humanitarian basis and by Christian criteria. Stanton, Glenn T. Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Postmodern

Silk 21 Society. Colorado Springs, CO: Pinon, 1997. Print. Stantons text provides several essential components to the conversation: recent statistics on family dynamics and sexual behavior and articulations of the benefits of marriage and the brokenness resulting from divorce, which are also backed by statistical studies. While Stantons work opens with Gods first outline of marriage Genesis 2:24, much of the book focuses on reasoning through pros and cons, therefore appealing to both the Christian and secular realms, which is one of the goals of my discussion. Though Stantons work is not intended to promote gay marriage, his analyses can also be used to demonstrate the fact that marriage can be used as an institution for stability and maintaining of physical, mental and emotional health. This point will be especially necessary when the discussion successfully establishes the separation between civil and Church marriage and follows with pragmatic and humanitarian evidences for gay marriage. Zondervan NIV Study Bible. Fully rev. ed. Kenneth L. Barker, gen. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. Print. The Bible will serve as the authoritative source in the conversation, as both Milton and the modern day Church adhere to Gods Word as the ultimate source of truth. Passages of specific relevance are the Gospel teachings on marriage and divorce, such as those found in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 19 and Old Testament teachings on marriage, ranging from Gods decrees during the creation of humankind from his words to the prophet Malachi. The conversation will frequently refer to Scripture to establish the crucial lasting nature of marriage and the magnitude of heterosexual divorce.