I’ve got questions, questions about respecting authority and respecting authorities.
Thanks for your input!
OK, I want to go back to a recurring theme on this blog, the idea of speaking to the political system from outside the system. I admittedly wrestle with terminology a bit, for I tend to think of politics in terms of partisan struggles, while others think that anything affecting the public (the polis) is politics.
What I’m talking about is Christians refusing to align themselves with human groups, be they liberal or conservative, Republican or Democratic. At some point, those groups begin to exist with the aim of winning elections and guaranteeing their continued existence. Ideas begin to be judged more in terms of practicality, feasibility, and electability, rather than in terms of right and wrong.
So we Christians speak out on the issues, but not with the same talking points that our non-Christian friends use. If your political views line up with a non-believer’s political views, your views probably aren’t Christian. It’s as simple as that.
One area where I’d like to see Christians take a firm stand these days is on the topic of life. We need to be pro-life, far beyond what those who merely oppose abortion are. We need to be anti-death. We need to stop saying, “Well, this form of killing is worse than that form of killing, so I’ll oppose it.” I read a Christian blogger who said that the conservatives are wrong for supporting overseas wars, while liberals are wrong for supporting abortion, but he’d support the conservatives because of “body count.”
No! When we choose the lesser of two evils, we are still choosing evil.
Let’s be known for saying, “I don’t care who gets elected. I don’t care if this idea has public palatability. I’m going to speak the truth.” Let’s be known as the people who won’t compromise their beliefs just to be able to identify themselves with a popular movement. Let’s be known as those who unwaveringly seek the truth. (imperfectly, yes, but relentlessly)
Let’s stand up for life. From womb to the tomb, as they say. We oppose abortion. We oppose war. We oppose humans causing the death of other humans.
Once we start speaking out against ALL killing, people will realize that we aren’t just another partisan voice in the political maelstrom. As long as we choose the lessor of evils, no one will believe that we are really speaking out for good.
In talking about how church and State work together in creating marriages, I observed that a wedding is a unique moment, when the Christian minister becomes an agent of the State. It seems to me that we need to think long and hard about the implications of that.
Because what the minister is doing is not only a church function but a public function as well, the minister is open to State control in a new way. This is currently seen when governments (sometimes state, sometimes county) determine who can and can’t perform a marriage ceremony. Many places require that the minister have a certificate of ordination. Most ministers within churches of Christ don’t have such a certificate unless they’ve had one created specifically for this purpose. In other words, while not normally practicing ordination, they will do so (or pretend to have done so) to meet governmental requirements.
This is a small thing, I guess, but it seems to me that the subject could become quite complicated. To some degree, government decides now who can and cannot marry. If the minister is an agent of the State, could he not be compelled to marry whomever the government decides may be married? Couldn’t restrictions be placed on this public affair as to what can and cannot be said? Couldn’t the State decide many details about this public ceremony?
I’m not much into slippery slopes, so I don’t want to make this overly dramatic. Still, it bears some consideration. Once you agree to perform a legal function, a governmental function if you will, it seems to me that you’ve opened Pandora’s box.
I should state the obvious: I’m neither a lawyer nor did I get to play one in 12th grade English class when we had the mock trial based on “Enemy of the People.” Still, I’m beginning to have concerns about the wisdom of performing “official” weddings. What am I opening myself up to when I sign that wedding license?
Yesterday we talked about the overlap between the church and the State regarding marriage. There was a time when church and state were one, and this marriage (all puns intended) of civic and religious responsibilities made sense. Even when the two separated, they walked in the same direction for many years, so things still worked. That’s no longer the case.
Marriage in society in general and marriage within the Kingdom are two different things. We need to recognize that fact. It’s not just now becoming true with some places allowing gay couples to marry; it’s been true for a very long time.
Our society looks on marriage as a temporary state. It’s a contract with an easy escape clause. There is no stigma attached to marrying and divorcing multiple times. Couples join, and jokes are made about how long the union will last. That’s not the same marriage we teach in the Kingdom.
When couples exchange their vows in front of an Elvis impersonator in a Las Vegas chapel, that’s not Kingdom marriage. When couples sign prenuptial agreements before saying “I do,” that’s not our marriage. When a man and a woman decide to “tie the knot” after having their third child, that’s not Christian marriage. I could go on and on, but we need to recognize that society’s marriage and the church’s marriage are not the same. By joining the two, we aren’t strengthening society; we’re weakening the church.
Even if the two marriages continue to be intertwined, we need to teach our children the difference between the two. We need to teach our adults, for that matter. The State isn’t the church, and the church isn’t the State. We are citizens of the Kingdom of heaven and need to remember, no matter how judges rule and politicians legislate, we answer to our King. For us: “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy.” (James 4:12)
For citizens of the Kingdom, marriage is what it has always been.
We’ve been discussing some, over the last few weeks, Christians and social issues. I wanted to take some time to talk about marriage.
For many, this issue became of importance when some began pressing for the legalization of same sex marriage. I think things have been in a mess far longer than that.
Many countries have a clear separation of civil and religious aspects when it comes to marriage. There is a civil ceremony, which is the legally binding act. There is a separate religious service, which allows each person to have a ceremony in accordance with their beliefs.
In the United States, we have the strange situation of church and State overlapping with one another. Unless I’m mistaken, a wedding is the only officially recognized act that a minister can perform. Baptisms have no legal status. Ministers take part in funerals, but the State gives that no particular validation.
What’s even more puzzling, a minister can marry you, but he has no say in divorce proceedings. In what way does that make sense?
This has gone on for so long that the church accepts the situation as normal. It’s not. The State has no say in who can and can’t be baptized. The State doesn’t determine who is eligible to take the Lord’s Supper. If we believe marriage to be a religious act, we should not align ourselves with the State when it comes time for a wedding.
Would it be helpful if we switched to a system of dual ceremonies, a civil ceremony and a religious one? That would free the church to set its own standards and relieve ministers of the burden of being an agent of the State in any capacity. It would also empower the church, I think, to better address the question of divorce.
Or how we can we better separate that which is holy from that which is not?