The Conservative Christian Case for Gay Marriage

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 Conservative Christian Case for Separation of Church and State

This is an article originally published here:

What follows is a response to the actions of Rev. H. Wayne Williams who, in defiance of the IRS Law denying churches the ability to publicly support political candidates, has chosen to endorse Gordon Howie for Governor of South Dakota from the pulpit. Howie has asked for pastoral support and in return has promised to assist those pastors in taking their inevitable IRS trials to the Supreme Court in an effort to end separation of church and state in America.
Pastor, I recognize your frustration, and I see how things have come to this. For years America has only shrugged at religion, and recently Christianity has been caught in a violent tug of war between Republicans and Democrats. We feel, as leaders, entitled to make political endorsements. Why shouldn’t we—particularly in a democracy where endorsements translate directly to power—take up our biblically-informed opinion, get behind a pulpit, and urge our people to support a candidate? Why shouldn’t we support the rulers we stand to benefit the most from, and give them a divine leg up?
For the historically minded among us, the reasons for not bringing our spiritual authority into political campaigns are blood red. For nearly 2,000 years our faith forefathers were persecuted and oppressed; not always by the irreligious, but more often by competing tribes within Christianity. Clerics would jockey for favor in the kingdoms of men, then use any clout gained to suppress the views of their theological enemies.
Over and again we stamped out those who did not fit into our au courant idea of orthodoxy and we entrenched ourselves into division, using the steel of our ruler’s swords to proclaim our theological certainty. Christians have killed and tortured more of their own than any other group in history, and this was possible solely because of the unholy union of church and state. Pastors gave rulers their blessing, and rulers returned the favor by silencing the pastor’s critics, a fantastic deal for the pastor who courts the powers, but a dangerous and painful reality for those who do not.
There isn’t a Christian denomination in existence that has not been slaughtered by its theological opponents. The Pope used his political power in Spain to launch the Inquisition. Bloody Mary earned her moniker by burning 300 dissenters of Roman Catholicism at the stake. The Calvinists and Lutherans used their influence over the German princes to commit near genocide of Catholics all over Europe during the 30 Years War. Catholics in the third Crusade almost exterminated the Orthodox church in Constantinople. Anabaptists have been drowned, burned, and exiled under each of the other major sects.
For almost 1500 years, Christians wielded political power to slay one another; until the founding of America. America was the first country without a designated faith, here was the only place in the world where Catholics and Protestants, Radical Reformationists and Orthodox (not to mention Jews, Muslims, non-believers and others) could live as neighbors. An accomplishment not won by better theology nor a love of peace, but because each lacked the ability to oppress one another by controlling the government.
We have created a land where church and state are separated to protect them from one another, not to diminish the role of either. The integrity of the church is jeopardized when politicians can appeal to spiritual leaders and gain their endorsement because the opportunities for abuse and ambition are too rampant. The same quid pro quo corruption that taints those tempted by lobbyists will await pastors when their support can yield inexhaustible American power. This is why America has passed laws to preserve the dignity and purity of the pastoral office, exchanging tax exemption (a unique phenomenon in the world) with the trust that the nation’s charitable goodwill can't be used as a political force.
Christianity has flourished in America, due in large to the inability of any one religious sect to silence the others by electing one of their own. Consider how different things would be if all along pastors had the ability to endorse candidates, if the elected then changed the social landscape to keep the favor of the pastors—like Mr. Howie is promising to do today. What if JFK had been endorsed by the Pope, what might he have done to protestants? What if Billy Graham had used his crusades to call for the reelection of his close friend, Richard Nixon?
Pastors needn’t remain neutral when it comes to social change. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. championed civil rights, Rev. Charles Finney fought to abolish slavery, and many more contributed to all the progressive reforms of the 19th century, from Women’s Suffrage to Child Labor Laws. But we stir change by stinging the national conscience, by being a prophetic witness for biblical values and obedience to Christ from the pulpit, not by taking the dangerous short cut of merely electing somebody to make a sweeping change in our favor.
Pastors are here to bring the optimism of a better world, a Kingdom of God where it can be on Earth as it is in Heaven. We aren’t here to arbitrate the national discussion, or to be some sort of referee who awards polling points to one side while punishing the other using our immense spiritual clout. Are we willing to compromise our ability to provide hope for the chance to pronounce judgment? Will we use the cross as Caesar did, to dominate political foes, or as Jesus did, to liberate the unseen?
It desecrates our pulpit to yield it to politics. We are called to something higher than to meddle in the affairs of ambitious men. We are not so Holy that we can merely baptize a candidate, and never drink the poison of his words. We do not stump for senators, we do not campaign for congressman, we do not preach for presidents, because the name of Christ is too precious to risk on a common election, no matter how important the issues at stake may seem. We cannot allow Jesus to become a political puppet, a sock on the arm of the statesman. Our role is to translate the values of scripture into the hearts and minds of every American, not to rule those Americans or force our values on them by manipulating the vote. The humble witness of Jesus is weakened when it is communicated through the edicts of rulers rather than the powerful persuasion of changed lives, hearts, and minds. The Kingdom of God cannot be voted into existence.
Pastor H. Wayne Williams, I beg you to take your opinion to the poll and not the pulpit. Encourage your church to lobby their convictions, but don’t let a lobbyist lead your church. Your vote belongs to a candidate, but your pulpit belongs to Christ, so “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give unto God what is God’s.”