Since the recent vote in North Carolina to approve a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and President Obama’s subsequent “coming out” in support of allowing gay marriage, there have been countless blog posts, Twitter fights, and Facebook arguments about the topic as it’s been brought to the forefront of our national conversation again.
I started a bit of a Facebook ruckus myself last week with an admittedly flippant comment about the wasted time and energy of North Carolina’s Christian voters in passing such an amendment. While my comment may have been worded in haste, my belief behind it is something I have been very thoughtful in coming to. I do believe that the church does more harm than good when we spend time, energy, and resources fighting a cultural battle about the legal definition of marriage. As a result, that time, energy, and those resources are redirected away from our primary mission of making disciples and doing the things that Jesus did.
I have been hesitant to engage this conversation here on Simply Disciple, not being sure if it really fit into the type of content I create here. I decided to offer some thoughts here with the hope that my small voice can add to the growing number of voices who are calling us back to a laser focus on healing the world through making disciples, not through legislation.
I’m going to state my conclusion up front, and then offer some insight into how I’ve come to this belief:
Here in the States, the legal and religious components of marriage have been so closely intertwined over the last 100 years, that we have a very difficult time thinking of them as separate. I think the church would see great benefits from separating itself from the legal component of marriage. In doing so, the state would be free to grant equal rights where it deems necessary, and the church would be free to define marriage as it sees fit.
Now, to understand what I’m saying here, we have to take a quick look at the development of marriage as a legal contract in our country. When Sara and I got married, as anybody who has been married here knows, we had to apply to the state for a marriage license. For a fee, the state agreed to recognize the partnership that Sara and I were entering into as a legal contract, with the obligations and benefits that come with that particular legal agreement. Oddly enough, for a church culture that appeals to the separation of church and state at every turn when the church feels as though it is being infringed upon, the person whose signature turned that license from a piece of paper to a legal agreement was our pastors’, acting on behalf of and with the authority of the state.
Read that paragraph again and see if it seems as odd to you as it does to me.
It hasn’t always been that way.
In America, up until the mid 19th century, common law marriages were the norm. If a couple co-habitated and indicated that they were married, well, that was sufficient to be considered a married couple. Any couple who desired a church wedding or ceremony of some kind could approach their faith community and participate in a wedding ceremony and celebration, but doing so was certainly not required. Many marriages were recorded simply in the family Bible.
Around the end of that century, the state stopped recognizing common law marriage and began to require a marriage license or certificate to be recognized as a valid marriage.
Imagine that for a moment; if during that time, Sara and I had been married by our faith community, which recognized us as a married couple, and then suddenly the state told us that we were no longer married, and needed to get official recognition by the government in order to be married. You would think there would be outrage at the idea of the state telling married couples that their religious community sanctifying their marriage wasn’t valid. I would need to dig a bit deeper into that history to know for sure, but I’m not aware of any such outrage at state intrusion into a religious covenant.
By the earlier 1900′s, a majority of states used the marriage license as a mechanism to prohibit inter-racial marriages. Several states used marriage licenses as a way to prohibit anybody that the state deemed as unfit from marrying. Several others made it difficult to obtain a marriage license if a person had previously been divorced. The government’s entrance into the marriage business then, was conceived of as a way to discriminate, and to tell individuals, as well as churches, who could and could not be married.
As racial attitudes shifted in the States, so did the purpose of a marriage license. The purpose of the legal requirement moved towards being an efficient way to identify familial relationships for the purpose of making medical decisions, determining dependents for health insurance purposes, and for distributing benefits such a Social Security survivor benefits.
Today, the marriage license fulfills essentially the same purpose, though it’s usefulness for the above purposes is questionable as most adult Americans have either never been married, are divorced, or are remarried, often rendering a simple marriage license insufficient in determining how families are related to each other.
You see, the purpose of the marriage license has never been to define the religious parameters of marriage. Rather, it has served various purposes ranging from outright discrimination, to a useful way to identify families, to today a not so efficient means of distributing benefits as well as a revenue source for the states that issue them.
A marriage license does not indicate a religious marriage at all. Rather, it is a mechanism for a government to exert control over who can enter into a particular civil contract, and to then keep track of those contracts. Marriage in the States went off the rails when we allowed the state to use the word “marriage” to define that contract. As a result, we don’t seem to have the ability to see the distinction between what the state calls marriage and what Scripture calls marriage. For us today, they are one and the same. That is a problem for both the church and the state.
The church feels as though they can’t remain silent while the state makes changes to the terms of a marriage license lest they allow the state to “redefine” marriage. The state feels as though it can’t open up the legal component of marriage to two consenting same gender adults lest they incur the wrath of the church.
What a horribly unimaginative situation we have created for ourselves.
What we need is the ability to view the legal contract of marriage as distinct from the religious covenant of marriage. One problem in being able to do that is the fact that the state uses the word marriage to identify this particular civil legal contract. Marriage is not being redefined today, marriage was redefined when the church remained silent while the state borrowed the word “marriage” to define a legal contract originally designed to discriminate against minorities.
So, what do we do now?
This may be overly simplistic, I’ll admit that, but here’s what I would personally love to see happen:
- The state gets out of the marriage business and acknowledges that government has no place using the term “marriage” to define a legal contract.
- It seems clear that we’re too far down the road of needing to legally prove our partnerships to insurance companies, educational institutions, employers, and many other agencies that some civil contract is still necessary. Let’s get rid of “marriage licenses” for everybody, and allow the state to issue civil unions to everybody who wants to enter into a partnership with legal standing and the benefits that come with that.
- Then, allow churches and religions to each determine, based on their views and interpretations of their scriptures, what marriage is for their faith community. No church could be forced by the state to go against their conscience when it comes to marriage, because marriage will be strictly a religious covenant, not a legal contract. With the great diversity of viewpoints on marriage within the religious community, couples of any orientation who desire a religious marriage will certainly be able to find a church who will bless their partnership and perform a marriage ceremony
In the meantime, how might churches and ministers help to demonstrate the distinction between the religious covenant of marriage and the legal contract currently called marriage?
- As a minister, consider not signing marriage licenses. Ask any couple who wants you to perform their wedding to obtain their marriage license and have it signed and validated by a justice of the peace a few days prior to their wedding ceremony.
- If you are signing a marriage license, consider making it a point to differentiate between the religious and legal components of the wedding ceremony. When the couple is ready to sign the license, take a moment to explain to the congregation what is happening; that the couple is taking care of the legal component of their union, which the church sees as distinct from the religious covenant they are all there to bless. Consider even walking to the back of the room for this portion of the ceremony to draw a clear distinction.
What do you think about what I’ve just written? Am I way off base, or do you see validity in what I’m saying?
What additional ideas do you have that would help all of us to differentiate between the state role in partnerships and the religious covenant of marriage?
How did the church let the state take on the role of determining what marriage is and who can get married? Does that seem like a major failure to anybody but me?
Jump into the comments below with your thoughts!
Lastly, some of my above information can be found here, here, here, and here
Very interesting read. You make some excellent points.
Thanks for stopping by Daniel.
Very good thoughts, Joe. I especially like the comment about ministers who are performing ceremonies to make a clear distinction between the christian and legal components. I may get in trouble for this but I have always thought we should allow gays to have civil unions although I’m against calling it marriage of course. I believe they should be allowed, because even though they’re living in sin, they’re still people with rights. We don’t deny liars, coveters, and murderers the right to marry…see what I’m saying? However, in all of this, we as christians MUST keep voting against same sex “marriage” because we can’t morally support that. Unions = fine gay marriage = unacceptable.
Oh, I also forgot to mention I LOVE how you say we need to direct our focus on our calling….making disciples…not legislation. If the devil can distract us, he’s already won. If we make more disciples, the whole gay thing as well as other sins, will take care of itself. There are too many Christians way too over concerned with politics and legislation. Go witness instead, people!
Thanks Jennifer. It’s easy for the church to get distracted from our primary mission isn’t it? I often wonder why that is.
This exactly represents my views on this topic. People in a democratic society all need to have the same legal rights regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation, etc. This solution, in my opinion, equally balances the rights of the LGBT community as well as America’s various religious communities. Legal civil unions become solely the State’s responsibility while blessing marriages as faith-based covenants becomes the responsibility of the various faith-based communities doing the blessing. Win-Win in my book. Would be interested to know what members of the LGBT community think of a solution like this?
Thanks Jeremy. I agree, I’d love to hear from some in the LGBT community regarding how this proposal feels to them.
Joe, thanks for this piece. I recall how my wife and I had to get blood tests in 1970 when we were married, in order meet the requirements for our marriage license. I’m pretty sure that’s not done anymore, at least not in Missouri.
In these days where nobody seems willing to even talk about compromise, or seeing another’s differing viewpoint, I think we injure ourselves in a number of hidden ways when we get all worked up about stuff like this. As I said, the State is a coercive entity – it’s defined as such in Holy Scripture, and it evidences that every day in our lives. That does not make it inherently evil, but it is unlike G-d, who by nature is gracious and quick to forgive, wishing that all might repent and be saved. I’m waiting for this bit of truth to become more widely acknowledged in our lives. I think it would be a much more productive society if we could do this.
Dennis, those are such great thoughts. The church has come along way since the Edict of Milan in 313 when Constantine declared religious freedom in the Roman empire and that state began actively promoting Christianity. What seemed to so many Christians to be a victory at the time as proven to be dangerous combination of state and religion that has been used in various countries for much more harm than good. The church would do well to decline acceptance and legitimacy offered from any government.
Well, I feel like I just got “schooled”! This article is great. I feel so many Christians just believe things they are told without studying the history or facts of a subject, This article explains things that many people haven’t thought of or learned before. Thanks! I’m with you on how strange it is that the church is trying to rule the state on “marriage” laws. It reminds me of when Sara and I studied history of the Catholic church ruling the state in Europe and oppressing the people hundreds of years ago. Haven’t we progressed at all?!
Thanks Jessica. You’re right, most often, the cooperation of the church and state throughout history has been for less than noble reasons. I’m concerned we still haven’t learned that lesson, and continue to seek legitimacy from governments.
Hello, Joe. I agree with much of this, but I think that fundamentally the argument is flawed. Here are my problems with it.
First, your references to the banning of interracial marriage is a red herring. It is only relevant if banning gay marriage is a similar injustice. But you nowhere argue that it is. The issue cannot be “legal definitions of marriage create injustices,” if there is no present identifiable injustice. The idea that legal defining marriage is unjust presupposes that either there is present injustice or expected future injustice. But you argue neither.
Second, I agree that Christians have trouble distinguishing between the legal purpose and the biblical purpose of marriage. But why does this mean that Christians must exit the realm of politics on this matter? You’re saying there ought be a distinction in understanding marriage, but you make no allowance for a Christian to act as a citizen. A Christian is both a Christian and a citizen. He or she is a member of civil society. Why must the citizen stay home from acting in that society? Why can’t a Christian as citizen think that defining marriage properly has a legitimate secular end? You’re not only saying that Christians must avoid applying divine law to civil laws, but you’re saying that Christians can’t act as citizens for what they see as a social good. I think you’re also failing to make distinctions.
Third, the history of the marriage in the United States is largely irrelevant. The question is the following: Does establishing a proper definition of marriage today serve a legitimate secular end? Past methods of establishing marriage between two people do not matter. What matters is that, given the current state of marriage in this country, would it benefit society to collectively define it? We should apply or emphasize traditional norms either legally or through social pressure based on the state of society. If marriage is slipping, we should attempt to conserve it prudently through any means available. Perhaps we shouldn’t define it legally, but you seem to preclude this by listing past purposes and means of getting married. The issue concerns today, not the past.
Fourth, the idea that support for traditional marriage is hurting the church is specious. People reject Christianity because they hate the Gospel. What would you think of a guy who sees his sins, recognizes that sin requires punishment, learns that Christ bore that actual punishment of sinners, and accepts that by faith in Christ that work on the cross is credited to him, but in the end he rejects Christianity because Christians disagree with gay marriage? Does that make any sense? Why couldn’t he just go to your gathering? You could all lament Republican Christianity together, while still loving the Gospel together.
Fifth, let’s say that the state leaves the marriage business. Still, why can’t Christians act as citizens to reject civil unions because it legal recognizes an anti-social (as in “against society”) lifestyle? You’re just shifting the battleground elsewhere. Only 16 states recognize the relationship (with varying labeling from “partnership” to “union”). Many states banned civil unions with their gay marriage ban. The point of defining marriage is not to establish the eschaton on earth, but for the conservation of society. It de-legitimizes the lifestyle. That’s, at least, the argument. So you’re only going to shift the battle.
Those are my thoughts. It was an interesting article and I learned a few things. -Stephen
Hi Stephen. Thanks for engaging here. You make very valid points, and I acknowledge that two people who love Jesus and work hard to correctly interpret and apply His word can end up disagreeing. I’ll just say a word or two to each of your points.
1. No, I did not argue that this is a similar injustice, as those waters are easily muddied by misunderstanding when a comparison is made between race and sexual identity. My purpose was not to compare the injustices, but rather to demonstrate that the state’s definition of marriage has changed, and it has not always been a proper or Jesus honoring definition.
2. I don’t think that Christians should stay home on civil matters. I think the difficult question for Christians to answer is which civil matters we should spend time and energy on. The church has done well in the past to get involved in civil matters in order to protect the innocent or right injustice. You and I just have a difference of opinion on whether legal unions are an important civil matter for the church to work hard on.
3. I agree that society may deem it necessary to establish an agreed upon definition of marriage or legal unions to serve a legitimate secular end. I personally just find it difficult to argue for exclusion of same sex unions when viewed through a strictly secular and civil lens, so I don’t have a problem with society including same sex couples in the legal union.
4. I’m not entirely sure what you mean to say in this point. It comes across like a pot shot at a community of believers that you don’t know. I’ll assume that was not your intention and leave this point alone.
5. I concur that my proposal may result in a simple shifting of the battleground so to speak. I’m aware there are many holes in my ideas here. We do have a difference of opinion on whether homosexuality presents a legitimate threat to society.
I’m glad you stopped by, and I’m so happy to hear the news of the addition to your family, you and Megan are truly blessed, and I pray for peace and health throughout the rest of Megan’s pregnancy!
1. I still do not understand why the fact that it has changed matters. Also, I can’t understand why it hasn’t been proper. The reason for marital benefits is to support the institution of marriage. The state saw a legitimate secular end for creating a legal aspect to marriage.
If we should separate church and state as much as you suggest, then secular definitions are irrelevant to Jesus and the church. So I can’t see how you’re being consistent here. According to your understanding, is there a “proper” legal definition of marriage? It seems like a categorical mistake, according to your view.
2. What makes you think that Christians in general are spending so much time on this? When they vote, as they ought, it’s on the ballot. So they vote for traditional marriage because that’s their view. Very few are actually involved with the politics of it. When the news says that evangelicals were overwhelming for traditional marriage this doesn’t mean that they ran to the polls with signs and shouts. But, by far, most didn’t protest; they just voted. So how can you say that Christians are spending time and energy on this? The political system allows a few people to start campaigns and initiatives that ultimately are approved by the majority without majority involvement.
3. I don’t really want to argue this either because it really goes to the heart of one’s worldview. To change either of our opinions we’d have to deal with fundamental aspects of worldview. That’s why we have states with at least some autonomy to reflect the values of particular collective cultures, such as NC.
4. We both dislike Republican Christianity for similar reasons, as least that’s what I gather from Nick and Anna Dunne. My point is that to say this or that non-Gospel issue hurts the church is to assume that there are no churches available that market or attract those who disagree with the majority of Christians on the issue. Your gathering seems like one where a more Left-leaning person would feel comfortable.
If anything, the gay marriage debate will probably send more people to church. Do you think that 61% of NC residents go to church? Probably not. But now they have solidarity with evangelicals. So it might send them to church. I don’t think this is the essential reason for going to church (though I think that seeking like-minded solidarity is a good thing), but it may actually increase the church attendance. Perhaps I’m not understanding what you mean by it hurting the church. It might hurt your gathering, but not my church.
5. I don’t think that homosexuality is major threat to society; it is a symptom of a dying society. Preventing gay marriage is just a small part of conserving society. The family is the basic unit of society and the binding element of the family is marriage. Marriage must be viewed as more than a companionship, but a covenant with society for its preservation. It is a union intended for procreation to replace and preserve society. I think we would both agree that Christians should focus more on their own family than gay marriage, but this doesn’t preclude them voting to, in a small way, try to preserve the institution.
Hi, my name is John and I am a gay man. However, I don’t dare believe that my views could possibly represent an entire group of people. But for what it is worth here’s my two cents. I like this post and pretty much agree. If the government is going to offer benefits to some people then they can’t discriminate others by withholding those same benefits. Especially if the reason for withholding those benefits is based on religious grounds. Christians seem to have a funny love-hate relationship with “The Seperation of Chruch and State”. They often want to be protected from The State but seem fine with The State making everyone live according to their particular religous beliefs. I think the solution you present in this post truly is the best for everyone. The United States made a committment to it’s people; that all would be viewed and treated as equals under the law. There is indeed an injustice in this country when it comes to “marriage”. The goverment currently views and treats heterosexual couples differently under the law than homosexual couples.
Legally speaking, the State should offer the same recognition and benefits to all consenting adults or do away with that recognition and those benefits all together. If the church wants to define marriage and decide who gets special benefits, then the church can provide those benefits to folks they consider “married” based on whatever standards they want.
I also agree that if your congregation decides not to bless my “marriage” that it’s no skin off my back. Me, my spouse, and our children will find a community where we will be welcomed and honored. I am a gay man, I am married, and I have two beautiful daughters. I love Jesus and call Him my Savior. I believe that His suffering on the cross is the final proof that my sin no longer separates me from God. I desire to live my life loving Him more and more each day and learning how to better serve those around me. Thankfully, I have found a community of believers who welcome me and my family and encourage us in our faith.
Hi John. Thank you so much for stopping by and sharing your experience, that means so much to me.
I completely agree with you that the church has a very two sided relationship with the idea of separation of church and state. I think both the church and the state would do well to stay at arms length from each other.
I am so glad to hear that you and your family have found a community that welcomes you as a fellow follower of Jesus! You and I both love Jesus and call Him our Savior, and neither of our sin separates us from the love of God anymore. For that I am so thankful.
Thanks again John. Grace and peace to you.