Homosexuality Part III - Gay Marriage and Civil Unity

This is really two issues: internally in the Christian Church; and externally in a puralistic, democratic society.

On the Christian church side of the issue: I could not support, based on scripture, sanctifying gay marriage (or civil unions) within my church - or even saying that gay permanent relationships are equal in God's eyes. As Richard Hayes said (quoted by Walter Taylor):

"Likewise, those who decide that the authority of Paul's judgment against homosexuality is finally outweighed by other considerations ought to do so with a due sense of the gravity of their choice. The theological structure in which Paul places his indictment of relations 'contrary to nature' is a weighty one indeed, and it is not explicitly counterbalanced by anything in Scripture or in Christian tradition."

On the overall societal issue: I do not believe it helps the Christian Church's mission to save the lost to publicly oppose at least gay civil unions. This is really a civil rights issue: there are lifetime gay couples, with children - and these couples need the civil rights and protections granted by marriage. Of course, there are civil contract methods to achieve all of these rights (except joint tax filings, and the few state benefits offered the legally married); but why should they have to jump through these hoops? Because God doesn't believe in this relationship? Because allowing gay civil unions will "destroy" God's institution of marriage? These are really awful reasons.

"The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question-how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one . . . the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not. " -- CS Lewis, Mere Christianity

This was about divorce, but its application to gay civil unions is obvious. The lesson of the Old Testament is that the law can not make people righteous; and that is why the New Testament covenant, and Jesus's atoning sacrifice, were necessary. Do we believe we can legislate morality more effectively now?

J. Budziszewski, in The Problem With Conservatism, points out some errors Christians must avoid while carrying out secular political ideology. The applicable mistake in this discussion:

moralism: "According to this notion God's grace needs the help of the state; Christianity merely asks the state to get out of the way . . . Now I am not going to complain that moralism "imposes" a faith on people who do not share it. In the sense at issue, even secularists impose a faith on others - they merely impose a different faith. Every law reflects some moral idea, every moral idea reflects some fundamental commitment, and every fundamental commitment is religious - it proposes a god . . . the important distinction is not between religion and secularism, but between faiths that do and faiths that do not demand the civil enforcement of all their moral precepts . . . To the question "Should the civil law enforce the precepts of the faith?" the biblical answer is, "Some yes, but some no; which ones do you mean?" . . . Christianity is not a legislative religion. While the Bible recognizes the Torah as a divinely revealed code for the ruling of Israel before the coming of Messiah, it does not include a divinely revealed code for the ruling of the gentiles afterward. To be sure, the Bible limits the kinds of laws that Christians can accept from their governments, for "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). However, it does not prescribe specific laws that they must demand from them. "

It is not even true that all of God's commands limit the kinds of laws that Christians can accept. To see this, contrast two such precepts: (1) I am prohibited from deliberately shedding innocent blood; (2) I am prohibited from divorcing a faithful spouse. Both precepts are absolute in their application to me, but that is not the issue. If we are speaking of governmental enforcement, then we are speaking of their application to others. The former precept should require very little watering down in the public square, for even nonbelievers are expected to understand the wrong of murder . . . But the latter precept requires a good deal of watering down in the public square, for before the coming of Christ not even believers were expected to understand the true nature of marriage . . . No doubt the Pharisees to whom He was speaking were scandalized by the idea that their civil law did not reflect God's standards fully. They must have been even more offended by the suggestion that it was not intended to. Among religious conservatives this suggestion is still a scandal, but it does not come from liberals; it comes from the Master.

Christians, then, may certainly commend a law as good or condemn it as evil. They may declare it consistent or inconsistent with the faith. But not even a good law may be simply identified with the faith; Christians must not speak of a tax code, marriage ordinance, or welfare policy as Christian no matter how much, or even how rightly, they desire its enactment or preservation. That predicate has been preempted by the law of God. The civil law will be Christian-if it still exists at all- only when Christ himself has returned to rule: not when a coalition of religious conservatives has got itself elected."

This points out the error in thinking we must protect "God's institution of marriage" from "the world, the flesh, and the Devil". Of course, we must defend our own marriages from these forces; but God can defend His own institution by His own Grace. Is our God so weak we must come to His primary social institution's defense? Hardly.

I think the idea of covenant marriages within the church is a strong one. We could have the couple sign a pre-nuptial agreement outlining additional steps both agree to in case of conflict in the marriage. They could spell out in better detail how they view their individual responsibilities and rights within the context of being part of a one-flesh relationship in front of God; and the responsibility their relationship has to glorify God - and the steps they agree to to do that.

I think this kind of two-tiered structure can also be played out with marriage held to be between a man and a women; and civil unions used to impart civil rights to permanent gay relationships.

Again, I must ask if it helps the Church's mission to be seen as the hateful representatives of a hateful God when it comes to civil rights for permanent gay couples and their families?

(The comment line is open)