 |
| Source: blogs.desmoinesregister.com |
The
following post is for Lana. Lana who is brilliant and always makes me
think before I answer. Always.
After a
recent facebook share that I posted, "What Does Jesus Think About Homosexuality" (one of the best articles I've read on the
subject) , she asked what I thought about gay marriage.
She asked
me right on my facebook page in front of God and everybody. My answer
is long. Really long. But I felt compelled to write it, and I
just couldn't get it any shorter.
I have to admit that I am more than a bit hesitant to express my opinion
in such a public way on such a divisive issue, particularly when there are
people I love who will be disappointed regardless of where I stand. I also
question the wisdom of using such a public forum to voice an opinion because I
do not wish to start an on-line debate with anyone. Let me say that
again:
I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE AN ON-LINE DEBATE WITH
ANYONE.
[MUZ
NOTE: Actually, I don’t want to have a debate of any kind with
anyone. Sitting curled up on the sofa with someone, having a meaningful
conversation over coffee might be a whole ‘nother story, but usually “debating”
means that one person tries really hard to crush his or her opponent in defeat,
and, in my humble opinion, there are no real winners there. As always,
though, I do appreciate your comments.]
However,
since this is my facebook page [the format I originally started writing
this blog post for], and I can always delete the whole post if things get out
of hand, I will also trust that I can voice my opinion, knowing that while some
might disagree (actually, I know some will disagree), those very same
folks also know that I don’t voice opinion on such a controversial concern
without careful thought and consideration. (In other words, I can count on the
folks whose opinions matter to me to disagree but love and respect me
anyway.) With that said, here goes . . .
I am not
opposed to legalized civil unions that protect the rights of those individuals
who choose to form a legal partnership.
I’ll be
honest (geez, if I ever start writing in any other way, hit the delete key,
de-friend me, whatever you need to do, but stop reading whatever it is I put on
the screen)—I admit that I’m uncomfortable calling those unions between
same-gendered partners marriage. But I also feel fairly sure that
that discomfort stems more from my age bracket and church background, and how I,
personally, define marriage. However, I don’t think my
personal definition or idea of marriage is really the issue before the Supreme
Court right now.
To be
certain, as a friend of mine once said, “We may be speaking the same words, but
we’re using different dictionaries.” With that truth in mind, let’s get
some definitions out on the white space so that we can all try to be clear on
what we’re talking about here.
When I
say marriage, I’m initially, in my heart of hearts, thinking of what I
would consider the ideal marriage relationship (and, remember, my ideal,
not necessarily yours or anyone else’s): A man and a woman who are each,
first and above all or anyone else, madly in love with Papa-God, Jesus Christ,
and the Holy Spirit. (I love that thing I’ve seen on fb that says,
“A woman’s heart should be so hidden in God that a man has to seek Him just to
find her" [Max Lucado, I believe]). Committed to Him first, they are
then completely committed to living the rest of their lives together as He
leads, each using his/her unique spiritual gifts to serve and minister to one
another and to the people God loves and brings across the path He has prepared
ahead of time for them to walk in. (I started to cite Scripture, but, heck,
just read the whole book of Philippians for more on that kind of thinking.) There.
That’s my ideal definition.
But,
then, of course, reality begs that I think about some of the marriages I know
intimately—those of close friends and family—and I recognize that even within
the Jesus-following community, not all marriages look like my
ideal. There’s the husband who chooses pornographic images on his
computer or television screen over the intimacy of a deeper relationship with
his wife.
There’s
the wife who cares much more about possessing the designer labels she craves
and living at the “right” address than what the hours her husband is forced to
work to pay for those things will do to him and their family life in
general.
There’s
the husband who continually reassures himself of his manhood with a series of
on-the-side relationships with women he tells himself mean nothing to him but a
good time and, therefore, have nothing to do with how he feels about his
wife.
There’s
the wife whose top priority is her career and she advances it at any cost:
hours from her family that tell them they will always come in a distance second
to work, relationships on the job that are not always above board, unscrupulous
deals to get ahead.
There’s
the couple who, though they may be crazy about each other, never, together
stops to think about how they spend their money, time, or other resources in relation
to the Kingdom of God, but are consumed, instead, with living a self-focused
lifestyle that shouts to all, Look at us--we’ve made it!
I could
go on and on listing other situations equally as image-shattering--and,
remember, I’m talking about folks in the church, people. (Again,
just keeping it honest here. Dang, my own marriage has had its
moments—why do you think my husband is known as St. Michael? I
like to say he got his title the old-fashioned way: He earned it!)
Bottom line, even those folks who call themselves “Christian” don’t always do marriage
the way I think it should be done.
Now, what
about our heretofore societal definition of marriage? The
dictionary connected to my Word program defines it as “the legal union between
a man and a woman for sexual and domestic partnership.” Sounds about
right. Of course, since there’s no mention of God, Jesus, or Spirit,
it’s, once again, not my definition. But this would certainly work
for all of the Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, and Pagan heterosexual couples I know.
(As well as any other religious or non-religious heterosexual pair you can
think of.)
Next
definition: (from Merriam-Webster’s smart-phone app)
“(1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband
or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a
relationship like that of a traditional marriage” (emphasis, mine).
Now that
covers everybody, doesn’t it? (Who knew Merriam-Webster would
be the politician of dictionaries?)
When it
comes to government-involvement—the making and enforcing law regarding this
area—the phrase contractual relationship must be acknowledged. We cannot
avoid the fact that in our society—as, actually, in most societies throughout
the world and throughout history—marriage is a contractual obligation
that ties both parties involved to certain responsibilities as well protection
and privileges. (Our own US government already requires certain
government forms to be completed and hoops to be jumped through prior to
recognizing a marriage—religious or not. It was so with Mary and Joseph’s
betrothal, even. Joseph would have had to formally, through Jewish
“court” if you will, break the betrothal because in his Jewish culture, it was
a formal, contractual obligation. He would not have been able to just
say, “Sorry, babe, this havin’ a baby with someone else just ain’t gonna work
for me; I’m outta here—see ya.”)
Again,
does the idea of a legally-binding contract enter into my mind when I think
about God’s ideal plan for marriage (or my own definition of it, for that
matter)? No, it doesn’t. In an ideal marriage, God, Himself, is the
binding element—no need for legal action to enforce responsibility or to render
protection and privilege.
For the
record, though, God knew that even among those who belong to Him, sin
remains. Yes, even for those whom He has provided an escape from sin and
its penalty, the flesh is weak—there remains much more selfishness than selflessness
and, thus, that’s why, sadly, the divorce rate among those who profess to be
Christian and those who do not is roughly about the same. As a result,
Moses gave law that addressed marriage and divorce and family from a legal,
contractual sense. (See the following article from the blog Christian
Apologetics if you’re interested in a more
in-depth look at how this functioned in ancient society and how we might look
at Mosaic law and marriage and family today.)
Am I
digressing or rambling at this point? Have I veered off-topic?
(Hey, I wondered that myself as I reread the last couple of paragraphs, but
stay with me for another minute or two . . . ) No. Not
really. What I’m trying to point out, however poorly, is that I think
that we, as Jesus lovers, may be comparing the proverbial apples and oranges
when we start getting all riled up about what our government is doing in regard
to what we all (us, the government, everyone else out there) term marriage.
If I can
be so bold as to assume that my definition of marriage is one
that most believers share, then, by definition alone, no one can legislate
that kind of relationship. That kind of marriage begins with a man
and woman’s commitment before God (and usually family and friends), to
God, and to each other, and continues each and every day until that husband or
wife rests in the arms of Jesus. That marriage only becomes
of interest to the government when the remaining spouse goes to probate court
and when it’s time to file taxes the next year. (Crass but true.)
The
government-sanctioned-and-recognized, legally-binding, contractual agreement of
relationship between two people—that marriage—is our concern as
believers only when we, ourselves, seek to enter into the protection our US
government law provides us as it would any two parties entering into a
government-sanctioned-and-recognized, legally-binding, contractual
agreement. And we only do that because it makes common sense to do so if
we want the person we love, as well as ourselves and any dependents who might
result from such a union, to be afforded the protection of rights and
assets.
Sound
like a lot of legalese? Well, of course it does—because that’s exactly what it
is!
Does God
even require us as believers to then enter into that kind of marriage if
all that legal mumbo-jumbo is not, after all, part of the Christian’s true
definition of marriage? I believe He does if for simply no other reason
than it’s how the culture in which we live out our lives and our mission
recognizes marriage. (In other cultures in which meeting the requirements
for a legally-recognized marriage was impossible—such as in the case of slaves
in pre-Civil War America—I believe God recognized a marriage commitment when a
couple came before Him and their friends and family even though their
government refused to even recognize their personhood. It other parts of
the world even today, particularly where there is heavy persecution of Jesus
followers, the marriage of two believers is recognized without the benefit of
the legal protection our own Western culture provides.) Jesus said that
we are to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s (Matt 22:21). Paul implied
that so far as it does not go against our faith, we are to adapt to our culture
if we are to win those around us to Christ (1 Cor 9:22). Other Scripture tells
us that we are to meet the needs of our families in practical care (1 Tim.
5:8). Certainly all of those actions mean fulfilling government-required
steps to enter into a marriage that is not only recognized by God but by our
government, as well.
Now,
having said that (and whew! I think I’m almost done here), someone else’s
entering into a government-sanctioned marriage, when defined by our government
as a contractually-binding agreement between two people—a contract that is not
dependent on and that says nothing about the spiritual condition of either
person involved (nor should it, as that is not the US Government’s
business) should not have us as Kingdom citizens in the outraged uproar in
which we find ourselves.
We do not
change the hearts of those whose lifestyles we disagree with through government
legislation. (We have a legal version of Thou shalt not kill on
the books, but people murder every day because murder is in their
hearts.) Nor do we change hearts and lives by denying those people their
legal rights. (Even murderers receive trials, appeals, food and shelter,
and medical care under our system of government.)
If the
Christian community insists that the government use only our definition of
marriage (and, again, I’m referring to the definition that I originally gave as
mine), then tens of thousands (maybe millions?) of heterosexual folks out there
are flat-out not going to qualify for the right to enter into a legally-binding
marriage. We’ll have to insist that the government refuse to recognize
the unions of all of those Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish (forgive me for
overlooking the Jews in my earlier list), et. al, and Pagan couples previously
mentioned because they do not meet our Christian definition’s
requirements. (Oh, and this also begs the question, do couples who screw
up—or where one person in the couple screws up—automatically have their
marriages dissolved because at that given moment, they’re not living out the
definition? Just food for thought.)
I may be
wrong, and I pray (truly, I do) that the Holy Spirit will reveal it to me if I
am, but I just don’t think that fighting against the government’s recognition
of one group’s rights to enter into a legally-binding, contractual, relational
agreement is where He would have me spend my time and resources. In fact,
I seem to remember something about His asking me to love my neighbors as I love
myself. And if that weren’t instruction enough, he left me a story that
forces me to define neighbor as someone I have nothing in common with and
whom my culture actually hates and despises and believes to be the scum of the
earth. (Dang, there’s that pesky definition thing again.) Now,
learning to love like that . . . well, that’s something I do believe I’m being
called to invest . . . my entire life in.
And I
think I’ll stop right here.
As
always, grins and blessings,
Pamm
