The subject
and discussion of same sex marriage has become a worldwide phenomenon. I
believe it is confusing and conflicting because we are discussing it within
only one frame of reference. How one frames an argument or discussion generally
determines the outcome of that discussion. If you allow your opponent to frame
the discussion, you are bound to lose. And in the process you will end up
looking foolish.
Most of the
arguments concerning same sex marriage I have read and heard have been framed
in the CIVIL RIGHTS FRAME. Based in this framework, the question becomes, “Is
marriage a civil right for a same sex couple?” Without revealing too much of my
political leaning (I don’t care even a little bit for either of the two major
parties. I believe both to be manipulative, self-serving, hypocritical, saying they
are serving the people when in reality they seek ONLY to win power and
reelection. If you are a big fan of either one, please don’t try to sell me on
your party or I may call you an unpleasant name. The nicest would be naïve. The
politicians in Washington could not possibly give less of a crap about those
they supposedly serve.) That said, if same sex marriage is debated as a civil
right, I don’t honestly see how any conclusion other than “yes” can be reached.
Within the confines of our democracy, all adults are guaranteed and due the
same civil rights. The only exceptions are if you are an adjudicated felon or
if you are mentally incapable of making rational decisions. No matter one’s
race, creed, gender, color or sexual orientation, all must have the same
rights. End of discussion. Working within the Civil Rights framework, the
SCOTUS had no rational choice other than to approve same sex marriage.
Here is where,
I believe, the confusion and conflict entered the debate. The people who wish
to have a discussion of the issue from a spiritual stand point are ill-informed
enough to drag their spiritual argument into the civil rights framework. At
that point the confusion and conflict explode. The two frameworks don’t mix. It
is a framework in which even the most intelligent and sincere person who
opposes same sex marriage on religious grounds will ultimately lose and also
look like an idiot and a bigot. The orthodox Christian understanding of
marriage, when argued from the Civil Rights framework, comes across as
senseless. Whereas the civil rights argument, when framed in the spiritual
framework, sounds confusing and Biblically off base.
That is why
we have this thing called separation of church and state. If one is a student
of history, he or she is aware that the founding fathers came from European
countries where there were state supported religions. They did not like the
results of this setup. Though we seem to have lost sight of their obvious
intent, they sought to keep the state out of religion. Many now seem to think
that the idea was to keep religion out of the state. With separation of church
and state, the church can’t control the state and the state can’t control the
church. That is because THEY ARE SEPARATED – all the time, not just when you
prefer they be separated. This is difficult for many religious people to grasp
because of our nation’s recent history. During the 20th century we
had become used to living in a syncretic society under the illusion we were a
Christian nation. While we may be a nation founded on Christian principles, we
were never intended to be governed as a Theocracy. For much of the mid years of the
20th century we seemed to think of the government and the church as
very similar if not the same. In reality, what we claimed was a “Christian
nation” was a pale shadow of true Christianity. The church of Jesus Christ is
radical in nature and will always be counter cultural. To see more thoughts on
this subject, read what
Canadian pastor Carey Nieuwhof had to say about it.
Somehow we
have allowed the church and the state to be co-involved in marriage. This was
not always so and, I believe, is a profound mistake. One or the other: make a
choice. If the state has legal power over marriage, the state can make all the
rules and regulations about marriage it pleases. People who wish to be married
can go to legal entities such as judges, to be married. Perhaps they could
bypass any antiquated ceremonies and just sign some paper work to get married.
If the church has complete oversight of marriage then the church sets the
rules. This would work in the case of same sex marriage because there are already
a multitude of churches presently doing same sex marriages. A same sex couple
only need find such a church and get married. Thus the legal system is relieved
of the difficult social engineering task, and many world-wide believe
ridiculous notion, of redefining marriage as other than a union between a man
and a woman.
When we have
the discussion in the civil framework, and then add God and Biblical values into
the mix, statements made on both sides of the issue start to sound beyond
insane. That marriage was intended for any but a male and a female, whether
considered from a scientific/natural viewpoint or a spiritual viewpoint is
ludicrous. But to make the argument work we must redefine marriage and thus must
oversimplify the idea of marriage as being all about love. Sounds sweet but
isn’t true. Through the centuries marriage has been about procreation,
convenience, comfort, basic needs, political power, economics, safety, family
name and more much more. Love, too. Sure, sometimes. Love is nice, but it is not
necessary. The #lovewins argument has been bandied about long enough it has
taken traction and acceptability because we as a culture make decisions based
less on intellect and more on emotion. But it still isn’t a particularly solid
argument.
Let’s review.
From my
understanding, from a purely civil rights viewpoint, saying okay to same sex
marriage is the obvious conclusion. There can be no other.
When the
civil and spiritual frameworks are mixed you get some rather bizarre arguments
from both sides to support their conclusions. Neither side’s opinions make much
sense to the other. Many thoughtful religious people, being supportive of civil
rights, tend to chuck some of their theology out the window to make their civil
rights conclusion work out. I am amazed by how many of my clergy friends have mixed
the civil rights and spiritual discussions of same sex marriage. Since this
mixed thinking is so thoroughly mixed in their minds several have told me the
discussion is over since the Supreme Court’s ruling. Not really. The legal
matter has been settled, but not the spiritual. And the two are VERY DIFFERENT.
Having the
discussion from within the spiritual framework can bring different conclusions
from different people. The conclusion one reaches depends on many factors. Some
of it depends on the strength one gives Scripture as being the inspired and
authoritative word of God. Seeing the Bible as a holy book filled with historic
stories, myths, good advice and poetry written by a bunch of people who lived
in a time totally disconnected from what we are experiencing, not only depletes
it’s authority to speak to same sex marriage, but also makes it much easier to
deal with when the reader is confronted by the laws and statements it contains that
one doesn’t particularly care for or agree with. If one can discount the Bible from
the discussion, one can end up wherever one is predisposed to land. The basic factor
determining where one’s argument concludes is where one wanted the argument to
land – pro or con – in the first place. Most of us fall prey to this flawed
thinking. We will do research, tell sweet, moving stories, fracture facts and
fold, spindle and mutilate Scripture to make those things supportive of our
preconceived notions. Yes, yes, I have heard all of the arguments about what
the Bible REALLY says about
homosexual behavior and same sex marriage. Since some of these pronouncements
and opinions come from people with advanced degrees they must be correct.
(Sarcasm)
For these
reasons, I believe that the same sex marriage debate has caused much confusion,
conflict and anger. And I don’t believe that has been necessary.
If the
powers that be were looking for my advice (Which they are not.) I would suggest
we take seriously the concept of the separation of church and state, and take
marriage out of the hands and influence of the state and make marriage a church
only thing. Thus the government would be relieved of the embarrassing, yet
necessary, task of redefining marriage (Which they can do because we who live
on earth right now are the smartest and most evolved humans ever. No other
people ever considered redefining marriage. (More sarcasm.)) When marriage becomes the sole
bailiwick of the church, marriage is not legally redefined, no one is forced to
do something they find to be morally objectionable and gays and lesbians can
get married. Problem solved.
I guess you
are as amazed as I that the government hasn’t sought my opinion.
(The
author’s views in this blog in no way reflect or represent the views of the
church he serves or the denomination he is a part of. They are just his
thoughts. If you don’t agree with him, ask yourself why not, but don’t bother trying
to straighten him out. He is a stubborn, opinionated old man and you will be
wasting your time and energy. J)
Copyright ©
2015, William T. McConnell, All Rights Reserved
Bill
McConnell is Senior Minister at Lindenwood Christian Church in Memphis, Tennessee
and is a Church Transformation consultant and a Christian Leadership Coach. He
is a frequent speaker at Church Transformation events. His latest book on
church transformation is DEVELOPING A SIGNIFICANT CHURCH and is available at Westbow
Press. He can be contacted @ bill45053@gmail.com. Connect with him on Facebook @ William T.
McConnell or on Twitter @billmc45053 or visit his Amazon Author
Page @ Amazon
No comments:
Post a Comment