I'm not willing to say...it
doesn't matter. No, traditional marriage is good for society. I believe that’s
indisputable. But society in the end (in terms of our expectations) is about
stability and order....not for those who will ultimately end up in hell, but for
those who are yet to be called and those who cherish the Blessed Hope.
Order exists for us to promote
the gospel of Grace. Society is for the lost who will hear the Gospel and
repent and believe. But it’s not an end…it’s a means and a very fluid and
imperfect one.
While homosexual relationships
are by nature perhaps 'more' sinful than that of an ordinary unbeliever....in
the end they need the same thing that the perfectly happy middle class yet
pagan family with four kids needs...redemption found not in civil law but in the
gospel.
Secondly I said:
If the unbelievers are
engaged in immoral behaviour, then what should our response be? If our society
legalizes immoral economics, supports war and violence, perverts justice,
steals from other peoples, promotes idolatry and sin on every front.... basically this
is the scenario for every Christian, every believer who has lived in the
post-Israelite New Covenant era. This isn’t a new issue, but again… What is our
response to be?
The state is about using
violence to prevent violence. The motive is not altruistic, it is to help the
state itself. The state wants first and foremost order and stability. Usually
it is a self-serving institution, but something that we can benefit from.
This takes many forms of course
and often the state does a poor job. Social issues, especially in a country
that has a large population are as vast and as complicated as the geography of
the United States itself. Politicians have little desire or incentive to
wrestle with the deep fundamental or foundational issues. In the end, the state
will always tend toward pragmatism which fosters stability.
Men like easy paths to power
and are more likely to seek power by focusing on issues that are easy then in
wrestling with tough problems that put their power (which in part rests in how
they're perceived) in jeopardy.
Complicated arguments don’t
market well. If they did, my writings would be much more popular.
While pragmatism is not morally
upright, in an imperfect world it is often to be preferred. The rare leader who
rises up and lets ideology guide him is usually something to be feared. Even
those who rise to power on ideology are often in the end pragmatists.[ii]
Our times are not that
different than what we find in the New Testament. Increasingly we are in an era
of post-Christendom. In some ways that's similar to the pre-Christendom era,
and in other ways it's more difficult because of all the baggage we have to
deal with.
We live in a day that's much
like Noah's and of course we're told to expect this. What was the response of
the early Church to Roman society? How did Noah respond in his day?
We bear prophetic witness, we
proclaim the Word of God to a lost and dying world. We live as the exiles in
Babylon. We build our houses, tend our gardens, raise our families and worship
God. Our very presence is a finger of Judgment pointed at the world. Our
worship, our altar-presence is a prophetic warning. We bring warning and the
fear of Judgment, but we also hold forth the Word of Life.
In none of these scenarios did
the people of God look to the state to enforce Kingdom-laws. The people of God
did not look to Caesar, Nebuchadnezzar or some ante-diluvian ruler to enforce
the Covenant.
Our response to the world is
the gospel and its commands...Repent and Believe.
And our lives had better
reflect something of the fruit of the gospel or else we are indeed just wasting
our time.
If we substitute this testimony,
our Altar/Temple presence, and our status as exiles with enfranchised[iii]
power...then we become essentially Babylonians. We become full citizens to a
worldly kingdom and its ideals and abandon our heavenly citizenship.
We enter the world of dog eat
dog and since we're building the Kingdom in a way other than what God has
prescribed...we end up with a cheap copy, an imitation. And we also run the
risk of compromising the vision altogether, getting lost in the world and its
ways....losing sight of the prize.[iv]
If we think we're immune, then
we're fooling ourselves. And not if, but when we do fall and fail...the world
is watching, God's name is taken in vain (in several senses) and the gospel
testimony is harmed.
Thirdly I asked:
How can we socially
respond in a way that's morally right, faithful to the gospel message and most
conducive to the promotion of the gospel? If we have to be persecuted, so be
it... and on one level we always will be....but what can we do, what should we
do to help the cause of the gospel?
Once again I would say we
should hope for social freedom. We can't live without government. If our
society truly was Christian we would need less government...not more.[v]
I would rather have sinners
sinning in their homes and yet retain freedom for Christians to operate...than
a society where unbelievers were forced by violence (the threat of law) to
comply with some kind of quasi-Christian understanding/construction of society.
That doesn't help anyone....neither the Church nor the unbeliever.
Freedom doesn't help the
unbeliever, he just goes on sinning. But it does help us. If the unbeliever
starts to wax bold with some kind of new social vision that seeks to bring
about a pagan sacralism? Well, we should oppose that too! That's the beauty of
democracy. Again it's not Christian, but it's a wonderful mechanism that
prevents even the Pagan Sacralists from gaining absolute control.[vi]
Of course our ‘Christian’
democratic republic has been hopelessly corrupted by greed and lust for power,
as we should expect. In the end I don’t have a great deal of hope in democracy
but I do have hope in the fact that man builds and then sets about to destroy
what he built. Nothing is very static, radical regimes least of all.
Some Christians would say...let
the gays marry. Social stability and monogamy are good for society even if it's
in a sinful context.
I don't think marriage really
means anything more than sentimentality to the unbeliever and literally for
them it is often nothing more than a piece of paper. So in that sense does it
matter if the lesbian couple I know has a piece of paper or doesn't?
What are we prepared to do?
Again, should I want a Christian state that will kick their door down and
imprison them? Does that help the gospel?
I can't go so far as to
say...let them marry. It's better than cohabitation someone might argue. Why?
It doesn’t matter what they do, they’re sinning regardless. Whether they’ve
pledged themselves or not…is not my concern.
Because I cannot in any way
endorse what they do...even on a social level. It's always wrong. So I can't go
that far. I cannot ‘support’ homosexual marriage.
But what if the state allows
it? Okay, well the state murders people all around the world, steals, lies,
cheats, tries to make itself into a god. So...why should this be any different?
So if the state legalizes it…
it’s yet another example of fallen man failing to repent and believe.
Essentially it doesn’t change anything. We go on just as before. America was
wicked, is wicked, will grow more wicked and someday will fall. And then, men
will replace it with something else.
I don’t support Gay Marriage,
but I’m not entirely or absolutely opposed to it either. Either way, the lost
need to repent.
Maybe the state should get out
of marriage certification altogether? People could just register for tax
purposes? Isn’t that really what started all this, a desire to make legal
decisions, to share benefits? I wouldn't be opposed to that.[vii]
My wife and I wrestled with
this when we were getting married. I had already come to many of the positions
I now hold with regard to this topic.
We wanted nothing to do with a
‘church’ wedding and I was perfectly prepared to visit the county courthouse,
be married and then perhaps craft more explicitly Christian vows to say in
front of others….or perhaps not. My wife and I were and are in agreement on
this. We’ve never regretted (in the least) not having a ‘big’ wedding.[viii]
At the time I was a seminarian
and I remember being shocked at the reaction I received from some of my peers.
Sinful! Church Discipline! These were phrases thrown at me because I considered
just ‘registering’ my marriage rather than engaging in a big ceremony ‘wedding’
(no pun intended) both the state and sacramental notions. They couldn’t fathom
that I was rejecting the cultural-sacramental notions, not to mention the
narcissism, the waste, and all the marketing ploys.
My wedding obviously has
nothing to do with ‘gay’ marriage but in bringing it up I’m trying to suggest many
of us have not really thought about some of our assumptions with regard to
marriage. While gay marriage is certainly incorrect, many Christians I would
argue are not thinking about this issue properly. Sacral assumptions tied to
the culture have clouded their thinking. And hence my comrades at seminary were
left in astonishment at what I suggested and some became quite upset.
If anything it led me to dig in
my heels all the more. When I engaged them on this issue, no one could make
much of a case from the Bible. It was all cultural… what I was doing offended
them because I was rejecting the Christian Cultural Status Quo.
Absolutely.
[i] Consider the beauty and richness of a fifty or sixty year marriage. And
yet if those people are not Christians they stand guilty. They have tasted good
things and not given glory to God or called on His Redemption.
And how sad. I must
confess it brings tears to my eyes when I see marriages like that and someone
dies…. If they’re not believers, then really and truly…it’s over. That was it.
While my relationship
with my wife will not be the same in Eternity, we will still be together. Our
relationship will live on as brother and sister in Christ. At least I believe
this to be the case. Some offer different opinions.
But for those outside of
Christ, the beauty is tarnished, the grass withers and dies. It’s very sad.
[ii] Stalin
and Mao rose to power shrouded in Communist ideals but in the end abandoned
those ideals and became pragmatic totalitarian rulers. Hitler, Pol Pot, and
only a handful of others were really and truly guided by deadly and frightening
ideology from which they did not stray. This is of course a generalization but I
think an argument can be made in this direction. Even most tyrants are in the
end pragmatists and shape their power around what is possible, not what they
believe. Or perhaps to put it another way, their power and its potentiality is
all they really believe in anyway.
[iii] I’m
not speaking specifically of the vote, but in more general terms, someone who
is invested in the society, someone who has a political voice.
[iv] Dominionists
like to caricature this view by suggesting you can’t make an omelette without
breaking some eggs. Or they might say that I’m echoing the well known
maxim…that you don’t polish brass on a sinking ship.
Likewise I might say to
them….you can’t swim in a septic tank and come out with white clothes and
smelling like a rose.
[v] I often use the following two examples….
If Maple Street was
solely inhabited by Christians, would we need speed limits? No. Because as
Christians we should be putting our neighbour and especially our brethren ahead
of ourselves and we wouldn’t go speeding down the street, irritating people and
putting their children into danger. We wouldn’t need a Theonomic government
seeking to regulate our lives, let alone a pagan one.
Or, if the local
convenience store owner was selling inappropriate magazines and the Christians
came to dominate the community, would we need to pass laws banning his selling
of the magazines? No. If the neighbourhood is Christian, he won’t be selling
any of the magazines and according to Capitalist dictates (which the Right
employs) he should quit selling them. Why would he stock something he can’t
sell?
These are deliberate
simplifications. I realize Christians don’t do what they’re supposed to do.
Some would still speed. Some would buy the magazines on the sly. And this
doesn’t take into account, pagans driving down the street, or driving from
another neighbourhood to get the magazines. I realize that.
But, if we really and
truly had a Christian society…whatever that is… then Law (Violence) would not
be the tool we would wish to employ.
Remember when the cop
pulls up behind you and turns on the siren, there’s a threat of violence. If
you don’t stop, you might ultimately die.
If we ban the sale of
magazines, we (in this case the Christian community) are essentially
threatening him….you sell these magazines, we will fine you. A fine is a
punishment with a threat of violence. Don’t pay…then face the consequences.
Violate our dictates again, your business may be shut down…destroyed. Refuse to
comply, in the end, uniformed men with guns can come and seize your goods, your
property, or padlock your doors. That’s what law is.
[vi] We should never sign on to a party or a ‘political’ ideology. We need
to be wise and discern the problems of the day. I don’t believe single issue
voting is responsible.
I’ll amend that. For me,
my one issue is anti-Sacralism. As I said elsewhere, I’d deliberately vote for
a Hindu Lesbian if that helps defeat a Christian Sacralist. If ‘Ellen’ ran
against Todd Aiken, she’d have my vote. In today’s climate because a Communist
would have no real ability to implement his agenda, I would vote for Gorbachev
before I would vote for Jim DeMint. I think all these people are evil, but
Aiken and DeMint more so. I realize that’s pretty extreme to a lot of folks,
even those who might somewhat sympathize with my views. Others will know
exactly what I mean and why I feel so strongly about it.
Continued antagonism has driven the movement beyond a desire for
acceptance. They’ve realized the Christian Right will never ‘accept’ them and
so now ironically they’ve turned the tables. Sacralists are learning that
others parties can also call on the state to enforce ideas. They’ve realized
that ‘acceptance’ won’t suffice. They need a social revolution and over the
past twenty years they’ve made some amazing progress.
Right, the Sacralists argue, someone is going to use the
power, and it might as well be us. They use ‘no-neutrality’ arguments to
buttress this and act like they’ve been given a blank check.
But does this way of arguing accord with Scripture? I’ve
often asked…can someone present me even one verse to support this? There aren’t
any. It rests on philosophical argument rooted in Sacralist and Dominionistic
assumptions which do not stand.
[viii] Her dress was about $30. I wore a suit that had been given to me. Our
rings which neither of us wear anymore and wouldn't bother with today, were under $500. And that was it. We
didn’t pay for flowers, a cake, decorations or anything. Her sisters were so
distraught they tried to come up with some stuff, but that was for their sakes,
not ours. If they had respected our wishes, we wouldn’t have had even that. We
were married in a living room (in the presence of her immediate family) and our
honeymoon consisted of moving belongings from the Mid-Atlantic to the South.
In no way am I
suggesting that this is the way it has to be done. I’m just sharing. We’ve just
never been terribly interested in conforming, at least on certain levels. And
in no way has this detracted from our marriage. We’ve been married over
fourteen years, and thus far it has been most excellent. We have been extremely
blessed. When life seems to be against me I have to remind myself that I have
something many men do not…a good wife. Truly she is worth more than her weight
in gold and rubies.