Before starting, I want to say a few words. First off, I am a conservative, evangelical Christian. When I say, ‘conservative,’ I don’t necessarily mean politically conservative. Many within the group I am a part of would label me liberal. When I say conservative, I mean that I believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man, that he walked out of the grave three days after being crucified, and that the Bible is the word of God, and therefore without error.
Because I believe the bible is without error, I believe that Christian marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. I believe the bible teaches this (Romans 1) and that early church history (Polycarp) agrees with this teaching. I believe that Christian tradition has been united on the issue, and I have no desire to go against the traditional understanding of Christian marriage.
That being said, I also believe that, sometimes, well-meaning evangelicals rally around causes that aren’t helpful. In my opinion, proposition eight represents one of those efforts. Before you role your eyes and dismiss me as a liberal, read the first two paragraphs of my post again. Read those paragraphs at least ten times. Then go on.
Even as a believer in a traditional view of marriage, I oppose this initiative for the following reasons:
1) I uphold the separation of church and state: I will almost always come out emphatically on the side of a separation of church and state. The founders advocated it to protect the state. I advocate it to protect the church. I think the bride of Christ is polluted when it is too closely united with the state.
This amendment is asking the state to do something that is not its job. The state is not called on to define marriage in a Christian way. The problem has arisen when we have Christian ministers saying things like, “By the power invested in me by the state of California…” at the end of wedding ceremonies. When I work as a Christian leader and minister, I am not a government employee. I am not working as a state worker. My obligation has nothing to do with California. This has been an unhelpful marriage of church and state. This marriage destabilizes the state and perverts and corrupts the Church.
Therefore, I believe the state should only be concerned with affording the constitutional rights to homosexual and heterosexual couples (which prop 8 allows). The state should not be concerned with defining marriage. Couples that desire to unite should unite. It should be up to religious denominations to define that union.
2) I think the initiative is being cast by fear-mongering:
The proponents of the initiative argue that if we do not pass an amendment like this, ministers may be forced to perform gay marriages to keep tax-exempt status. This seems to me to be completely absurd. I have never heard of anything like this. I, as a minister, have no obligation to perform any wedding. There are ministers today who still refuse to perform weddings for divorced people. No one is forcing them to do so. The fact that a definition of marriage allows divorced people to get remarried does not force the minister to perform it.
Secondly, proponents seem to argue that teachers are going to be forced to teach homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle in public schools. The evidence for this claim is some Massachusetts teacher who chose to do so. The fact that some teacher in Massachusetts chose to read a story about a homosexual couple is far from evidence that all teachers are going to be forced to.
To my knowledge, there are not gay people running around trying to force ministers to perform weddings for them against the ministers’ will. If this is happening, and the state is supporting it, I will be the first to sign an initiative against it. I, however, will not sign an initiative that is fighting against a non-existent reality. The truth of the matter is that we, not the gays, are the ones who are trying to define marriage for everyone with initiatives like this.
3) I think the initiative misunderstands the relationship between the church and the world:
There are two, important misunderstandings the church displays with this initiative:
First, the church is not the moral police officer for the world. We often cast ourselves this way. We are wrong to do so. Paul seems to agree with me when he tells the Corinthians: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." (1 Cor 5.12-13) Christians are called to hold each other to incredible moral standards, but not the world. This is always how the church has related to the world.
Second, the initiative seems to create an us and them mentality. The problem isn’t the homosexuals. The problem isn’t the gay agenda infiltrating the schools and corrupting our otherwise innocent children. The problem is us. We are the problem in the world. A healthy doctrine of original sin would really help evangelicals to refrain from believing that they can protect themselves from perversion.
That is all. I welcome discussion. I know that this issue is not simple. I know that many Christians are supporting this amendment in California. I wanted to register my dissent, both to communicate to the world that there is a difference of opinion within the Church, and also to help my brothers and sisters to wrestle freshly with what it means to be a Christian in the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
You make a good argument but I believe you haven't answered two biblical issues: the first is the societal implications of the church being 'salt and light'. As light are we not to shine truth into dark places, and seek to maintain some levels of biblical moralit
The second issue is how the church fulfills a prophetic role (and moral voice) in society. Proverbs says that righteousness exalts a nation; and we know governments (especially USA) does make moral laws (don't murder or steal), so why wouldn't we try to persuade our countrymen that Prop 8 is a moral issue?
Pastor Rob, glad you brought these questions up. I appreciate you taking the time to wrestle with this for me. I appreciate your concerns and I think they are extremely important.
First, in regard to your question about the church’s role as salt and light: I believe, as you do, that the church is called to be an agent of change in society. If you see this marriage amendment as an example of the church fulfilling this role as change agent, I think we may see this principle playing out a bit differently.
Salt exercises its power of preservation or of flavoring (probably preservation in the ancient context) by being salt. It does not ask meat to be salt. It does not ask meat to look like salt, taste like salt, or act like salt. It simply does what salt does, and preserves and flavors the meat by existing with the meat.
This picture, while admittedly a bit silly, is the way I see the church living out its role as salt and light. The church is called to be a beacon of morality. God’s people are called to be a holy priesthood of people set apart for the work of Christ. They are to live among people that have an entirely different set of moral principles, and they are to be an attractive and beneficial presence among them.
This is why the purity of the church is so important. The church is to be a beacon of light, set apart as an example of God’s redemption. She is to do this in the presence of the people. This is how she is to be salt and light. I think this is exactly the argument Paul is making in the Corinthians passage I cited. He demands that the church expels the immoral brother so that she will not lose her testimony of redemption to the world. At the same time, he explicitly denies that the church should concern herself with the moral behavior of outsiders.
In regards to your question about the church being a prophetic voice, I have been thinking about this a lot. My thoughts have evolved a little. I used to lump the ideas of gay marriage and abortion together. I think I did this because these were, in my view, the two issues that the republicans have used to hijack the Christian vote. Although I still think there is truth to this idea, as the Republican Party doesn’t seem to have a great interest in the kingdom of God, I have changed my mind.
Abortion shouldn’t be too closely tied with gay marriage. Abortion is a social justice issue. Although there may be disagreement about strategy in fighting the injustice of abortion (Some may vote Republican looking to overturn Roe v. Wade, others may vote Democrat looking to decrease inequality of wealth that leads to increased abortion) all Christians should agree that, since life begins at conception, it is worth fighting for.
The prophetic voice of the church should be used to fight against injustice. What I mean by this is that it should be used to be the voice of the poor, the oppressed, and the many that cannot fight for themselves. The church should use its power to help the powerless.
The prophetic voice of the church is not called to try to get unregenerate people to behave themselves. First of all, it is impossible (and you, the Calvinist, are supposed to be telling me this). Second of all, it has never been the way the church has used her prophetic voice. I cannot find one Scriptural example of the church being exhorted to use her power to get the unregenerate world to behave itself. I don’t see it in the early church either. Instead, I see the opposite. The church is called to live set apart lives in the midst of the sinful society it found itself in, thus participating with God in its redemption.
Post a Comment