There are lots of people, in both camps of the argument. I'm not really interested. The truth is, there are very few Bible verses that talk about this. There are lots of things in the Bible that we aren't supposed to do and yet we do them anyway...so I really don't know where I end up on this argument. I do, however, believe that there is some definite scientific evidence that this is not a choice, but literally how and who someone is. Disagree if you like, that's fine.
The problem that I really have with this is how the church and the state have become so completely intertwined. In a country where we are supposed to be separate many people worship the government, not our Trinitarian God. We use the word 'our' to talk about the country, not the church. We talk about how we have to keep 'in God we trust' on our coins and as our national motto when it did not become the motto until the 50s, I'm told, with Eisenhower. I think 'E Pluribus Unum' (sp?) is much better for a country, but whatever. We talk about leaving 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance when it was added not too long ago historically. We want to leave God in something where we are pledging allegiance to something OTHER than God. Figure that out.
As Christians, I'm not sure we should be pledging allegiance to anything other than God, ever. I don't worship this country. I'm glad I live here, but I think the good old USA has some major issues.
On this whole marriage debate I think we have it wrong. I think there is something wrong at the beginning of the country. Somewhere, we decided that the government got to define marriage. Bad call for us. The church should not be making anything 'legal' in marriage. I'm of the opinion that anybody (of age) should be able to go to the courthouse and get a civil union. Yep, you read that right - anybody. Including church people. That way everybody can have the same tax benefits, end of life benefits, etc. as everybody else. That's how this country was designed - so that everyone could be equal. That's government - that is not church. Everyone should be given the same rights in this country. Period.
However, marriage should remain in the church. If you want to be married according to the state and country, then get a civil union. If you want to be married in the eyes of God, then get married in the church. Therefore, do both. The terminology would be different and everything sort of stays separate - the way it is supposed to be anyway. Then it would be up to churches whether they theologically decided to marry specific couples. Churches already turn couples away based on theological beliefs at times, so how is this different?
This is just my spewing, but after seeing the hateful backlash yesterday and today about the ruling about gay marriage in California I am appalled. Country does not equal God. Christ followers are always going to be different - that is the point.
Feel free to comment - I would actually love to have the discussion. I don't claim to know it all or be right about this, it is just where I end up in the grand scheme of things right now. I'm open to other opinions. What I'm not open to is worshipping the country or expecting the country to tell me what my life should look like as a Christ follower. That isn't going to change.
7 comments:
Hmmmm...
I've been thinking about this, too. I do think that God and country are different and (should) require different allegiances. Maybe it's my grandma's anabaptist roots.
I've been thinking a lot about the persecuted church as well. I can't count the number of times an American Christian has said to me that Christianity thrives under persecution, and perhaps persecution is 'good' for the Church. (I, of course, being a wussy Christian enjoy being comfortable, so I'd rather not be persecuted.) At the same time many of these people seek to control governmental power in this country so that it favors a 'Christian' world view. My question is, why do we speak out of both sides of our mouths? Why do we say that it would be better if we weren't in power because we'd know where our allegiances were and be more committed to what's truly important, then seek power?
Sorry for that non-exactly-on-topic bit. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like the issue of gay marriage is caught up in this, like you were saying. I don't think that a legal commitment and a religious (for lack of a better word) commitment are the same. I find it sort of strange (though it was also convenient for me) that pastors become agents of God and the State during marriage ceremonies in Church. I didn't think about it when I got married, which sort of pains me now, but promising to love Jimmy until "death do us part" before God and my loved ones also provided me a convenient tax break. What does the latter have to do with the former? I don't think much.
I know that some people don't see the difference between a civil union and a marriage, but the distinction is real to me. I do think marriage belongs in the church, and that churches should be allowed to make decisions that reject the civil order when it comes to who they ordain, marry, baptize, etc. I do not think that governments should be able to legislate 'marriage.' I do think they should be allowed to legislate economic organization. I realize that living arrangements for marriage and civil unions are generally one and the same, but are those who take a holy vow and those who opt strictly for a legal agreement always promising the same thing to each other? No. Not always. Plenty of people go to a judge because they don't want to get married in a church/aren't Christians. Should we consider their civil unions marriages? Of course, at this point linguistic customs get in the way of this discussion. Whether people get married in religious ceremonies or not we say they're married. We don't have another word for it that I know of. You get to be a husband or a wife whether you promise God you're going to stick together and honor God together or not. Still...I don't think I should expect people who aren't Christians are going to live as Christians. (Yes, I know this gets fuzzy for those who identify as Christian and homosexual.) I have very little interest in stopping civil unions for gay and lesbian people because I think the Church should wrestle and make decisions about marriage outside of the legal system. I think they should worry less about civil organization. I really think we need to separate the definitions (for gay and straight people), even if it means Christians lose some social power in the US.
Alaina and Clarissa, I totally agree. I could write more, but it would just be a lot of repetition of what you've already said. So, rock on.
Clarissa - I will respond when I have more time - thanks guys!
I both agree and disagree about different points you made. Simply put, I DO think there needs to be at least SOME separation between Church and state. As for few verses about gay marriage and homosexuality I do disagree with. At the very least take Sodom and Gomorroh. Just because "the Church" chooses some issues to "attack" like gay marriage and pre. marital sex and ignores issues like gluttony and sloth (which I go into in a post I've written but have yet to publish) doesn't mean that the issues they ARE going after are wrong. Take Christ out of this country...then try worshiping Him. I lived in Islamic Turkey and attended a church that was bombed...um freaky. And if you are gay in Turkey, they kill you. So much of this is relative.
Alaina- I just want to say I'm really glad you wrote about this because its not only a sore subject for most (on either side) these days, but also courageous to open an informal discussion for someone of your spiritual caliber. And in my opinion, I think it all boils down to basic, generic racism. A friend recently told me a comment made to her by someone after watching TV, who said, "Wow the gays are just taking over America, arent they?" Not that I'm quoting word for word, but it was pretty close to that. My response? Without sounding too abrubt and offended (as i was) I told my friend that's probably what was being uttered by our grandparents' generation about "blacks" 2 decades ago. And in 50 years it'll be something else. People can't live amongst each other without implementing some sort of Caste sytem, politically correct or not. And it sucks for those of us who choose to think outside the box; who don't decorate their bathrooms with American Flag apparel. And on another note, "we" as a country have "our" faults, but a couple hundred ago we decided to "bring me your tired, your poor," to be "the land of the free, the home of the brave." So excuse the homosexuals, immigrants, etc., for taking that literally, right? Thats just some of my thoughts.
La - I definitely think you have a great point (and I agree) that just because the church attacks some things and not others doesn't mean the church is wrong. I definitely do not want freedom of religion taken away in this country for sure. I just think that civil union could be different from marriage. I'm not sure how it would work, though.
Mostly, I am just appalled by how Christians attack. I certainly believe that it is good and right to stand up for your beliefs. I believe it is healthy and good to be firm and have convictions. But when that means attacking others, calling other people names, and taking the plank out of other people's eyes instead of your own first is an issue.
I guess my main deal is that I really believe that Jesus calls us to love first, and then guide and disciple. I don't see a lot of love for homosexual people in this country coming from Christian people. And that saddens me greatly.
Sarah - which Sarah are you? I know lots of Sarahs! :) But I agree, civil religion just drives me nuts. I love the freedom I have in this country, I am super glad I live here. Would I move somewhere else? Yes. But not because I hate it here. Plus, I live in Alaska, so it is like the 1950s most of the time which makes lots of things much more frustrating.
However, there is a firm line for me between being thankful for a country where I am free and worshipping the country as though the country is the Triune God.
I love the discussion - keep it coming!
I am definitely realizing over time that my faith-based views are exactly that... faith. It makes no sense to legislate them. In a country where all are created equal and nothing should get in the way of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, my faith is important, just as important as the faith of others according to this constitution.
I am comfortable with the grayness of separating church and state, but it took a lot of years to get here. Having lots of friends of different faiths and orientations has also helped me see that there's no reason for them to not have heath benefits or retirement benefits that are government-based.
I find the distinction of civil union vs marriage very interesting, and it would be a logical solution. Too bad it is going to take years for widespread legislation to catch up with this simple solution!
Post a Comment