This article is originally published here.
Recently there has been a vitriolic national discussion on an issue that in many ways has been confusing. Never before have I seen such hate surround the desire to love. Never have I seen such a clash between passion for God, and compassion for God's people. They used to be one and the same.
The debate surrounding the exact legal definition of marriage has exploded with the passage of Proposition 8 and the subsequent rejection of the bill's legitimacy by a federal court. It seems everybody has a horse in this race: the LGBTQI community has equality at stake, the suburban happily-weds feel the exclusivity of their unions threatened, and David's Bridal waits with bated breath to try out its new line of wedding dresses with in-seams and zipper-flies. But I am deeply uncomfortable when I see one particular dog in this fight, one that I didn't at first expect: the multi-gendered, often unfaithful, Bride of Christ.
I am ill at ease with the Church playing such a dominant role in this national discussion. As a defender of the separation of Church and State, and an evangelical pastor situated very near California, I am stunned to see other Christians so eagerly throwing themselves into the milieu. Followers of Christ are marching into the culture war without a moments pause or any reflection about what exactly it is we are doing, and whether or not we should be involved in this in the first place.
Allow me to offer a few insights for this debate about the institution of marriage.
First, I find it perplexing that marriage is something defined by the government, permitted by the government, and upheld by the government, yet inaugurated by clergy. It is the only institution in America that uses pastors, priests, imams, rabbis, and other faith leaders as agents of the state. Religious clerics become operatives of the government, stamping approval and pronouncing the state's recognition of two people's transformation into one blessed union. I don't think this is what the U.S. Mint had in mind when it featured “In God We Trust” and “E pluribus unum” on our currency.
As a pastor I consider it part of my religious duty to be a prophetic voice that puts government in check, and I'm not the first ordinary ordained to feel this way. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. cried out against racial discrimination, and Rev. Jerry Falwell (who's university I am a graduate from) demanded recognition of abortion's tragedy. Would we have taken King seriously had he been the government official who pronounced which schools were white or black? Would we have taken Falwell seriously had he been a state determiner of which unborn babies could be aborted and which were entitled to life? How can any Pastor take seriously his calling to stick it to the man if he or she is a handmaiden to power? How can any person take seriously a pastor's opinion on how the state defines marriage when Pastors are agents of the state as pronouncers of marriage? “A little leaven works through the whole dough”, and a pastor who holds hands with the Government one moment will find it difficult to hold them accountable the next.
Furthermore, it has always baffled me that society is eager to invite clergy into the forming of marital unions, but never comes courting when those marriages dissolve. Judges and pastors have equal power to pronounce you “man and wife”, but Rev. Rick Warren never co-hosts Divorce Court. The plain uncomfortable truth is this: government is fine with clergy determining marriage on their behalf as long as it is in blind compliance with how the state defines it, but they won't be bothered by our pitiful desires for reconciliation and charity come the custody battle.
Second, speaking of divorce, why aren't we making that illegal? Christians bemoan the destruction of marriage and celebrate the authority of The Bible all while blithely ignoring the only thing that both destroys marriage and was condemned by Jesus. While we are at a loss to find Jesus asking Caesar to redefine institutions to his liking, we find him railing against divorce as chauvinistic, egomaniacal, and devaluing to human dignity. We can say unequivocally that Jesus doesn't like divorce, yet we never take this edict to the polls. Is it because homosexuality is something we can point at, whereas a love-less marriage is too close to home? Or is it that we plainly reject the interference of our nuanced and faith-based opinions in our constitutional and liberty-based democracy?
But in for a penny in for a pound, so why not pass the more prominent marriage restrictions in The Bible? We can pass amendments that prohibit interfaith marriage (2 Cor 6:14), inter-racial marriage (Deut 7:3-4), and require a prenuptial virginity test for women (Lev 21:14). Also, since “sanctity” of marriage is what we are truly concerned about, perhaps we can do away with those Las Vegas drive-thru weddings performed by Elvis (not very sanctimonious) or even weddings done by other faith traditions that don't pass muster with American Evangelicals. We can end the “eternal” marriages of Mormons or the prearranged unions of Hindus. Why not impose our religion wholesale?
Once upon a time, we Evangelicals were consistent in our opposition to imposition. C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, “I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question, how far Christians if they are voters or members of government ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community through laws. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of people are not Christian and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives.” Perhaps we should reflect on how far we have drifted away from this once calm and popular evangelical opinion.
Finally, as a person who sees The Bible as God's infallible, inspired word, and Jesus Christ as the incarnate and enigmatic Son of God, I cannot abide any effort to dismiss, devalue, or defeat the weak, lonely, and overlooked. Homosexual men and women may find honor in Hollywood and New York, but in the rest of the country they are social lepers- abused, unloved, and often targets of bigotry and unprovoked hatred. A Christian needn't endorse a person's lifestyle to feel sorrow for their plight, nor do they honor God by wielding the sword of the State in the name of Jesus.
Interestingly enough Jesus once rejected partnership with the government. The gospels say that when Satan encouraged Christ to institute His Kingdom through a theocracy, He dismissed the scam as heresy. Instead, Jesus left the mountain and took His good news to the lowly people oppressed by an empire, warmly announcing that “The Kingdom of Heaven is near”.Today I wonder exactly what sort of kingdom we think Heaven is. Is it a place where the disenfranchised and the downtrodden are made illegitimate in their own homes, treated unequally in the name of a loving God? Or is it a place where regardless of our fancies we embrace one another as children of the Almighty, slaves freed by sacrifice, carriers of the imago Dei?
Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.
The debate surrounding the exact legal definition of marriage has exploded with the passage of Proposition 8 and the subsequent rejection of the bill's legitimacy by a federal court. It seems everybody has a horse in this race: the LGBTQI community has equality at stake, the suburban happily-weds feel the exclusivity of their unions threatened, and David's Bridal waits with bated breath to try out its new line of wedding dresses with in-seams and zipper-flies. But I am deeply uncomfortable when I see one particular dog in this fight, one that I didn't at first expect: the multi-gendered, often unfaithful, Bride of Christ.
I am ill at ease with the Church playing such a dominant role in this national discussion. As a defender of the separation of Church and State, and an evangelical pastor situated very near California, I am stunned to see other Christians so eagerly throwing themselves into the milieu. Followers of Christ are marching into the culture war without a moments pause or any reflection about what exactly it is we are doing, and whether or not we should be involved in this in the first place.
Allow me to offer a few insights for this debate about the institution of marriage.
First, I find it perplexing that marriage is something defined by the government, permitted by the government, and upheld by the government, yet inaugurated by clergy. It is the only institution in America that uses pastors, priests, imams, rabbis, and other faith leaders as agents of the state. Religious clerics become operatives of the government, stamping approval and pronouncing the state's recognition of two people's transformation into one blessed union. I don't think this is what the U.S. Mint had in mind when it featured “In God We Trust” and “E pluribus unum” on our currency.
As a pastor I consider it part of my religious duty to be a prophetic voice that puts government in check, and I'm not the first ordinary ordained to feel this way. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. cried out against racial discrimination, and Rev. Jerry Falwell (who's university I am a graduate from) demanded recognition of abortion's tragedy. Would we have taken King seriously had he been the government official who pronounced which schools were white or black? Would we have taken Falwell seriously had he been a state determiner of which unborn babies could be aborted and which were entitled to life? How can any Pastor take seriously his calling to stick it to the man if he or she is a handmaiden to power? How can any person take seriously a pastor's opinion on how the state defines marriage when Pastors are agents of the state as pronouncers of marriage? “A little leaven works through the whole dough”, and a pastor who holds hands with the Government one moment will find it difficult to hold them accountable the next.
Furthermore, it has always baffled me that society is eager to invite clergy into the forming of marital unions, but never comes courting when those marriages dissolve. Judges and pastors have equal power to pronounce you “man and wife”, but Rev. Rick Warren never co-hosts Divorce Court. The plain uncomfortable truth is this: government is fine with clergy determining marriage on their behalf as long as it is in blind compliance with how the state defines it, but they won't be bothered by our pitiful desires for reconciliation and charity come the custody battle.
Second, speaking of divorce, why aren't we making that illegal? Christians bemoan the destruction of marriage and celebrate the authority of The Bible all while blithely ignoring the only thing that both destroys marriage and was condemned by Jesus. While we are at a loss to find Jesus asking Caesar to redefine institutions to his liking, we find him railing against divorce as chauvinistic, egomaniacal, and devaluing to human dignity. We can say unequivocally that Jesus doesn't like divorce, yet we never take this edict to the polls. Is it because homosexuality is something we can point at, whereas a love-less marriage is too close to home? Or is it that we plainly reject the interference of our nuanced and faith-based opinions in our constitutional and liberty-based democracy?
But in for a penny in for a pound, so why not pass the more prominent marriage restrictions in The Bible? We can pass amendments that prohibit interfaith marriage (2 Cor 6:14), inter-racial marriage (Deut 7:3-4), and require a prenuptial virginity test for women (Lev 21:14). Also, since “sanctity” of marriage is what we are truly concerned about, perhaps we can do away with those Las Vegas drive-thru weddings performed by Elvis (not very sanctimonious) or even weddings done by other faith traditions that don't pass muster with American Evangelicals. We can end the “eternal” marriages of Mormons or the prearranged unions of Hindus. Why not impose our religion wholesale?
Once upon a time, we Evangelicals were consistent in our opposition to imposition. C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, “I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question, how far Christians if they are voters or members of government ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community through laws. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of people are not Christian and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives.” Perhaps we should reflect on how far we have drifted away from this once calm and popular evangelical opinion.
Finally, as a person who sees The Bible as God's infallible, inspired word, and Jesus Christ as the incarnate and enigmatic Son of God, I cannot abide any effort to dismiss, devalue, or defeat the weak, lonely, and overlooked. Homosexual men and women may find honor in Hollywood and New York, but in the rest of the country they are social lepers- abused, unloved, and often targets of bigotry and unprovoked hatred. A Christian needn't endorse a person's lifestyle to feel sorrow for their plight, nor do they honor God by wielding the sword of the State in the name of Jesus.
Interestingly enough Jesus once rejected partnership with the government. The gospels say that when Satan encouraged Christ to institute His Kingdom through a theocracy, He dismissed the scam as heresy. Instead, Jesus left the mountain and took His good news to the lowly people oppressed by an empire, warmly announcing that “The Kingdom of Heaven is near”.Today I wonder exactly what sort of kingdom we think Heaven is. Is it a place where the disenfranchised and the downtrodden are made illegitimate in their own homes, treated unequally in the name of a loving God? Or is it a place where regardless of our fancies we embrace one another as children of the Almighty, slaves freed by sacrifice, carriers of the imago Dei?
Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.
Posts
1 comments:
I'm wondering if this emergent cohort is still active. How things going? I've just moved into Pahrump.
Post a Comment