Why It Doesn't Matter to Christians if the Government Sanctions Homosexual Marriages

OK, the title is over the top, I know. But I want it to catch your attention. Let me begin by saying that I am a committed Christian and that my view of homosexuality itself is in line with that of most conservative evangelicals. The Bible is pretty clear that homosexual acts are sinful. Though I think most Christians really misunderstand homosexuality and underestimate its roots, I can't say I approve of it as a legitimate alternative lifestyle.

That being said, I have to admit that the whole legal battle to keep marriage between a man and a woman does not interest me in the slightest. Here are two reasons why:

1. Those concerned have a tendency to say that allowing homosexuals to marry one another will "destroy the sanctity of marriage." Because marriage has traditionally been seen as heterosexual only, giving legal sanction to same-sex marriage will set America on a slippery slope. If the government sanctions gay marriage, before long polygamy and bestial marriages will follow. And Christians all over are worried sick that America will take one step further from God (as if it is currently close to God). But does it follow that allowing homosexuals to have a legal union similar to marriage (even called marriage) removes the God-ordained sanctity of marriage? I don't think so.

When I was a child, we often played a game called "house." Most of us have done it. You get together with your friends, someone acts like a mommy, someone else like a daddy, you line up some teddy bears as "the kids," and have tea. "Mommy" and "daddy" call each other "dear" and "honey." If they are particularly adventurous, mommy and daddy may pretend to kiss each other when daddy or mommy leaves for work. "House" is a game played by children in which they mimic the actions of their parents, playing a game about marriage. It's pretty innocent and normal. In the game, however, the children refer to themselves as "married." They pretend to be "married." They even refer to themselves as "husband" and '"wife." Yet, the sanctity of marriage is generally considered intact throughout the charade.

Of course, there is a difference. The government does not sanction "playing house." Children who pretend to be married to not have legal partnership as spouses. They do not actually act as beneficiaries of life-insurance policies. They are not given legal, married status. But here is why I think they are no different:

If marriage has sanctity, it has inherent sanctity. The ground given by Christians is that God created and ordained marriage, therefore it has a special place and role. I think they are right about that. I even think they are right that marriage is designed by God to be between a man and a woman. In fact, I believe it so firmly that I don't think someone who does it wrong can remove that sanctity. If two children pretend to be married as a game, they don't impugn the sanctity of marriage. They're just playing a game. In the same way, if two men decide they love each other and want to get "married," does what they are doing (which isn't marriage as defined by scripture anyhow) really remove the sanctity of marriage? If someone else comes along and says, "I recognize this as a legal union," does it remove it then? No. It doesn't. God planted its sanctity. It cannot be removed just because people do it wrongly. If it could, those of us who have done heterosexual marriage so poorly would already have ruined it.

Let me use another metaphor. Say all of America recognizes the game we've come to know as golf. There is usually a course involved, people use little white balls and expensive clubs, and you try to hit the ball into the cup in as few strokes as possible. But, say a small group of people have decided that they want to play golf by using small wooden mallets to hit larger wooden balls across the lawn through metal wickets (croquet). They begin to petition the government to get croquet recognized as a legal form of the game "golf." They want recognition that those already playing croquet, have, in fact, all along been playing "golf." Say, then, that the government sees no problem with this and begins to consider sanctioning croquet as golf.

Now, of course, avid golfers all over the country are furious. The golfer's rulebook clearly defines what golf is, and it is not croquet! Some even say that no respectable golfer in his right mind would even consider touching a croquet mallet, much less calling that silly game "golf." They argue that, changing the name of croquet to "golf" will impugn the inherent dignity and beauty of golf.

Let's say that the duffers lose, and those with the mallets are now golfers. Now what? What happens? Well, you have a lot of people playing golf as it was. You also have a lot of people playing the game formerly known as croquet. Have the games changed? No. Just the names. Are croquet players actually playing golf? Only in name. They still aren't doing the real thing. They've just changed the vocabulary. Golf itself hasn't changed at all. It's just that some people are now more easily able to live in their fantasy. But they'll never win the Masters! And, most likely, real golfers will just start calling golf something else (like American golf--remember the same thing happened with football when Americans started calling their game the same thing the rest of the world calls "soccer!").

If the government gives homosexual couples the legal right to refer to themselves as "married" it doesn't actually change marriage. Marriage as ordained by God is intact. It always will be. Marriage doesn't need our protection to survive. We, as individuals, need to use it correctly to survive. And this requires individual commitments. So what if the government decides to redefine marriage? God hasn't. But the interesting thing is, he doesn't ever stop people from sinning. He only warns them not to. So, two men now think they are married and receive legal benefits? Is their relationship any less sinful than before? No. Is marriage, in God's eyes, any different? No. Does it matter that they can collect life insurance on one another now? I don't see why. Why should I care who is the beneficiary on their life insurance policies? I'm concerned, primarily, with the condition of their souls, not their work benefits.

That's reason one.

2. I used to think differently about this. But when did Jesus tell us to legislate Christianity? It just seems odd to me that we expect a nation that is so far from God (and all nations as nations are far from him) to want to live by his rules. Sinners sin. Why should I expect them not to? Why do we expect people who aren't Christians to behave as if they were? Is that the way Jesus approached sin?

Look at it this way. God ordained the sexual relationship between a man and a woman, within marriage. Yet, since time began people have been getting it wrong. Throughout history there has been adultery and prostitution (isn't it called the oldest profession?). Yet, when Jesus (God in flesh) walked on this earth, he didn't lobby the Roman government to make adultery illegal! He didn't even try to illegalize prostitution (which we have done). In fact, when Jesus did find someone about to be stoned for adultery (within Jewish law), what did he do? He rescued her from that fate and told her to stop sinning.

Jesus met sin differently than contemporary American Christians want to. We want the government to enforce Christian values on people who aren't Christians. But Jesus met sin by living among sinners and offering them love, hope, and a way out of the problems caused by their sins. Aren't we actually doing the opposite of early Christianity in demanding that the world bend to make us more comfortable?

Greg Boyd's book The Myth of a Christian Nation has been helpful to me in these thoughts. I've been thinking this way for some time, but he's given me some fuel. His idea is that we aren't called to legislate Christianity from the top down, but to evangelize from the bottom up. His point is that, even if we win the battles for prayer in school, heterosexual marriage, and abortion (which we won't), we aren't doing the work of the kingdom.(pp.114-115) Let me add to his point. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world, or else my servants would fight." Perhaps today he'd say, "or else my servants would lobby." Really, when we concentrate on keeping Christian values as the legal norm, we aren't thinking of others. We're thinking of ourselves. We're trying to keep America comfortable for us. But that's not the proper mindset for Christians. First century Christians weren't about governmental reform. They were about a counter-cultural phenomenon known as Jesus Christ. They preached love, acceptance, and repentance. Why aren't we?

So, let them get "married." It doesn't affect my marriage. And, more importantly, it doesn't change my mission at all.

Post-post: Having read a little further in Boyd's book, I stumbled across some pages in which he deals specifically with this (really!). I thought it prudent to include a few quotes:

"Do evangelicals fear gay marriage in particular because the Bible is much more clear about the wrongfulness of gay marriage than it is about the wrongfulness of divorce and remarriage? No, for the Bible actually says a good deal more against divorce and remarriage than it does against monogomous gay relationships. Do they go after this particular sin because the research shows that gay marriage is more damaging to society than divorce and remarriage? It seems not, for while one might grant that neither is ideal, there's no clear evidence that the former is socially more harmful than the latter--especially given the fact that divorce and remarriage is far more widespread than gay marriage. But in any case, this point is completely irrelevant since the present issue isn't over gay unions. The issue is only over whether these unions should be called 'marriages.' To the best of my knowledge, no one has shown that the social welfare of our nation is significantly harmed by what monogamous gay unions are called." (Myth of a Christian Nation, 137)

"We evangelicals may be divorced and remarried several times; we may be as greedy and as unconcerned about the poor and as gluttonous as others in our culture; we may be as prone to gossip and slander and as blindly prejudiced as others in our culture; we may be more self-righteous and as rude as others in our culture--we may even lack love more than others in the culture. These sins are among the most frequently mentioned sins in the Bible. But at least we're not gay!" (Boyd, 137-8)

"To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the church should publicly take a stand for gay marriage, nor am I trying to influence how evangelicals vote. Some may feel it best for society to outlaw gay marriages--others to allow it. In a democracy you're asked to give your opinion on such matters, so give it according to your conscience. I'm simply maintaining that, in our role as public representatives of the Kingdom of God, Christians should stick to replicating Calvary toward gay people (as toward all people), and trust that their loving service will do more to transform people than laws ever could. [paragraph break] If your particular burden is to free people from their homosexuality, then go aobut it in a Calvary-like fashion. Commit to suspending judgment, start befriending gays, and then serve them in love--for years. Perhaps your loving kindness will lead some of them to faith and open doors for dialogue as God gently works in their lives--just as he works in yours. You may eventually develop a trusting, committed relationship in which you are invited to address issues in a gay person's life as you invite them to address issues in your life, for God uses relationships like this to lead us all into greater conformity to Jesus Christ." (Boyd, 138-9)

Talking Points: Mercy and Pacifism

No one single topic for this post. I want to throw a couple of ideas out there for the minds on my list to comment on.

First, I'm still finishing up Pinnock's A Wideness in God's Mercy, but I'm moving it into Theo's Picks because I think it is simply a must-read. His concept of an optimistic soteriology is refreshing. This is a thoughtful available light theology with a contemporary pragmatic value. It's not always comfortable, but it is a real shift in thinking. It is a hopeful theism.

Second, I want to throw out a couple of ideas I've had in recent discussions about pacifism. I've just started Myth of a Christian Nation so I haven't run across any of Boyd's ideas about pacifism, but I've heard a few of them. Also, several of my closest friends hold to some form of Christian pacifism, and I want to throw out a few questions for discussion.

Generally, the argument is something like this: The thrust of the teaching of Christ on violence is decidedly non-violent. Therefore, though governments do bear the sword for a defensive and punitive purpose, the position of the Christian should be a non-violent one.

For now, I want to avoid the topic of war. I think it is far too broad to cover in a forum like this. There are too many different types of wars and different motives to treat it fairly. Also, since our country is at war, and there are so many different feelings and thoughts on this war, I fear it is difficult for us to be objective.

However, on the topic of personal protection, I think there is some room for discussion. Our friends Scott and Anna stopped by tonight and we touched on the subject (before a hungry baby interrupted our discussion). The question I think we were approaching was, "Is it ever justified to attack an intruder (or even to kill) in defense of my family?" Or are we to "turn the other cheek?"

A few discussion points:

1. It is interesting to me that Jesus, while telling us to love our enemies in Mt 5:43-48 and to not resist an evildoer and to turn the other cheek in verses 39 and 40 is the same Lord who told his disciples to buy a sword just before he died (Lk 22:35-38). Presumably, he knew about Peter's sword well before Peter struck the soldier's ear in Gethsemane! Why does he allow swords to be carried by his disciples? Perhaps the injunctions to pacifism in Matthew 5 should be understood in the context of revenge for wrongdoing, not protection from it. That is certainly the thrust of verses 37 ff. I can only turn the other cheek after the first one has been struck. Perhaps this is another exaggeration to make a point--just as the command to hate our mother and father is really a command to love Jesus more, perhaps "turning the other cheek" is merely an injunction to avoid exacting revenge.
2. It seems to me that Jesus tells me to turn my cheek when someone wants to hurt me--but does he command me to turn my daughter's cheek when someone wants to hurt her? If an intruder hurts me and takes my belongings, that is one thing. But should I stand buy and allow my wife, daughter, or son to undergo rape because of this command? Whose cheek do I have the right to turn anyhow? Does the injunction apply to someone who desires to harm my family because of some sick, perverted fetish? Does Jesus command to give someone who takes my cloak my tunic also mean that if someone takes my wife I should also give him my daughter? I cannot imagine it.
3. In the case of rape, if the injunction to turn the other cheek applies, what of the command to sexual purity? Isn't a person facing rape justified in fighting back from the perspective of attempting to obey the command to sexual purity?

These are just a few thoughts. Ecclesiastes 3:3 states that there is a time to kill and a time to heal. Perhaps Jesus' teachings on pacifism need to be understood in the context of the rest of scripture. Perhaps there is a time when it is appropriate to "turn the other cheek" and a time when it is appropriate to stand up to an attacker. Does my love for my family--and for my community--not warrant my desire to protect the innocent from the criminal?