I'm Celebrating, not Dissenting

Just minutes following the Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, 100 evangelical leaders issued a statement entitled, “Here We Stand: An Evangelical Declaration on Marriage.” Not surprisingly, it is a stinging rebuke of the high court’s decision and a call for Christians to refuse to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages. With respect, I dissent from this dissent. I dissent from the angry tone because I am celebrating with couples in my church who have waited a long time for the nation to recognize them and their marriages as legitimate. In addition, my faith, my understanding of scripture, and my experience as a pastor lead me to disagree with most of the substance of the document. Here are a few examples.

The declaration states: The outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling to redefine marriage represents what seems like the result of a half-century of witnessing marriage’s decline through divorce, cohabitation, and a worldview of almost limitless sexual freedom.  Huh? So more people getting married somehow contributes to the decline of marriage? Divorce, cohabitation and “limitless sexual freedom” have nothing to do with the desire of gay and lesbian couples to be married. In fact, the movement toward gay marriage is in the opposite direction from the “sexual revolution.” Gay couples are explicitly saying to the culture that they do not condone elicit sexual behavior but desire to be in committed, monogamous relationships in which they hold each other accountable to high standards of trust and mutual support. This is especially true of Christian gays and lesbians, who seek to enter into an explicitly Christian covenant under God. If anything, gay marriage is strengthening the institution, not weakening it.

The declaration states: The Supreme Court’s actions pose incalculable risks to an already volatile social fabric by alienating those whose beliefs about marriage are motivated by deep biblical convictions and concern for the common good.  First, there are plenty of “incalculable risks” to the “volatile social fabric” – like spousal and child abuse, drug abuse, absentee fathers, loss of community, etc.

– that have nothing to do with who is allowed to get married, and it simply doesn’t make sense to claim that granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples increases social volatility. If heterosexual marriage provides social stability, why wouldn’t homosexual marriage as well? The issue is not who gets married, but how seriously people take their martial vows. Second, if people who do not support gay marriage are concerned about being “alienated,” well then, welcome to my world. Christians who have supported gay marriage know all about alienation from other Christians. I didn’t think the possibility of alienation was supposed to be a threat one’s personal beliefs. Third, evangelicals do not have the corner on “deep biblical convictions and concern for the common good.” Many Christians outside the evangelical world have been led to support gays and lesbians because of their commitment to both.

The declaration states: The redefinition of marriage should not entail the erosion of religious liberty. I agree. But I don’t see how anybody’s religious liberty is threatened by this ruling. As a pastor, I am free to refuse to marry anybody for any reason, and I don’t have to justify my reasons to the government. That’s always been true in this country and nothing has changed. Marriage is both civil and religious. The court has guaranteed the right of homosexual couples to enter into civil marriage. That really should have no bearing on the decisions religious leaders make about whom they will marry. There are lots of good reasons – spiritual, emotional, economic, and psychological – to refuse to perform weddings. But my Christian faith leads me to say that sexual orientation, by itself, is not one of those reasons. What evangelicals do not want to admit is that they expect the government to regulate marriage according their beliefs. In other words, anything short of government endorsement of their beliefs is interpreted as government persecution. But in a society of true religious liberty, the government should not be engaged in either.

Finally, I do not agree that the Supreme Court has redefined marriage, as is asserted repeatedly throughout the declaration. The assumption behind this claim is that “the Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.” It does not. I defy anyone to find a verse of scripture that says so. It’s just not there. What the Bible does teach is that God has ordained the union of male and female for the propagation of the species. That can hardly be denied. But the union between Adam and Eve is never called “marriage.” They did not stand before anyone to profess any vows. There was no ceremony. If you insist that the Bible defines marriage “from the beginning” (as this document claims) as the union of man and woman, then logically you have to say that all co-habitating heterosexual couples are married whether they have repeated marriage vows or not. “Marriage” as an institution is entirely cultural, constantly evolving, and always regulated by human government. (This is even true in scripture, in which marriage is sometimes represented as polygamous and/or arranged.) Furthermore, neither Jesus nor Paul taught that the purpose of marriage is procreation, thus leaving open the door for a broader understanding of who can be married. Both describe it as a covenantal relationship of love.

While I disagree with nearly everything in this declaration, I respect the right of its signatories to uphold it as representative of their faith. I cannot say that people of their ilk afford the same respect to Christians who support to the right of same-sex couples to get married. Too many assumptions that are (ironically) rooted in tradition rather than scripture have led them to dismiss out of hand the possibility that a faith perspective could lead one to support gay marriage. It is unfathomable to most of them that Friday’s Supreme Court ruling resulted, in part, from the faithful (though often derided) witness of Christian people who have been advocating this change for decades.

©2015 by J. Mark Lawson

Comments

[Mark Lawson]

Dave,

No need to apologize. I didn't detect any bashing in your question.

Mark

[Dave Rosenfeld]

Mark,

Thanks for the clarification concerning the "sex factor" part of my comment. In no way was my comment meant to bash same sex couples. I did not take into account when this was written and it's interpretation back to that time. If I have offended anybody reading my comment, my sincerest apologies. I got caught up in a "stereotype" that society has marked as unhealthy based on pro-creation and drank the Kool-Aid.

[Mark Lawson]

Dave,

Thanks for the opportunity to respond. I assume you are referencing 1 Timothy 1:8-11 because it specifically mentions "sodomites" as among the "lawless and disobedient." But that term cannot be equated with homosexuality for two reasons. First, the term translated as sodomy refers specifically to exploitative sexual encounters - rape, prostitution, and most familiarly in that time the practice of Roman males keeping harems of young boys. We don't condemn heterosexuality because of exploitative heterosexual behavior, and that's not a reason to condemn homosexuality, either. Second, the concept of sexual orientation was not known at the time of the New Testament writings. So there is no word in biblical Greek that equates to "homosexuality." Behavior and orientation are two completely different things.

I should also say that I simply don't believe religious liberty is being undermined by extending marriage to more people. Nobody is going to win a civil suit against an ordained minister who refuses to perform a wedding for any reason. The rhetoric about "undermining religious liberty" is a ruse. The same complaint was made in the 1960's when the Supreme Court upheld the right of mixed race couples to be married, and even now, an ordained minister can refuse to marry two people of different ethnicities, even though that would be seen as clearly racist by most people.

JML

[Dave Rosenfeld]

You bring up many great points in regards to same sex marriage but I would like your viewpoint in regards to 1 Timothy 10:8-11. My brother and I had a discussion on this on our drive back from Oswego on Sunday. If support is to be given to same sex marriage, don't we have to encompass the "sex factor" as well as part of the whole package? My brother wants to support and bring Christ to everyone he comes in contact with but is on the fence on marrying same sex couples based on this one principle, not to mention possible civil suits if he does not marry them. It seems that the term "separation of Church and State" as time goes on is taking a back seat.