Something quite astounding happened the other day. I had been hearing of the various details involved with the Obergefell v. Hodges case, but I had not realized that a decision had been made... until I got on Facebook. Suddenly - and quite suddenly indeed - I found myself in a nation in which same-sex marriage is legal.
Even more surprisingly - and this was to me a real shocker - I found myself in support of the ruling*.
(*As you will see further on, this statement refers specifically to the ruling of the Supreme Court, not to same-sex marriage itself.)
Now, I find this altogether baffling. When I first came to know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I had been taught that the legalization of same-sex marriage was just another sign of the Lord's Return, or another sign of the utter destruction of our nation, or another sign of God's coming wrath and judgment upon America. So, when I was in high school and in college and I would hear about "equality legislation" or whatnot, I thought to myself: "What nonsense! This is another sign that our nation is going downhill."
Yet last week, when I heard that same-sex marriage bans had been removed, I found myself nodding and saying "Yes, that makes sense." I am still finding this a little strange. So, for my own sake and for your sake - because I consider you a friend, and I don't want you to be misled or confused by why I say these things - I am writing this (hopefully) short little treatise on Christianity, Homosexuality, Democracy, and that tricky little matter of the Separation of Church and State.
(My wife, Hannah Grace Caveny, and her sister, Diedra Weaver, have both blogged about the more important related matter: that is, the Gospel and how we as Christians need to respond to the homosexual community. You can read their posts here and here.)
So, first I want to lay out my two fundamental claims which inform how I feel about the SCOTUS ruling:
First: homosexual activity is sinful according to the Bible. I cannot engage in this conversation without that very, very important clarity. God's intended purpose for human sexuality is either for committed, monogamous, marriage between a man and a woman, or lifelong celibacy. Both the Old Testament and New Testament make these claims, and they all point directly to the detail of the institution of marriage in Genesis 2.
Since my purpose in this blog post is distinctly about the SCOTUS ruling, I will not elaborate more on this here. That being said, there is much more complication involved than this simple statement belies, and it certainly stirs up more questions than it reveals. For example, some would argue that the SCOTUS ruling is a sign that our country has forsaken God. Others would argue that homosexual tendencies are natural. These sorts of questions and challenges are real challenges and deserve real responses. I'm not going to give them real responses in this post. I am simply going to focus on the SCOTUS ruling itself.
(I wrote this three years ago in light of the Chic-fil-a controversy; it's feels old for me, but it is certainly helpful in light of such conversations.)
Second: it is not good for our country to legislate against the homosexual lifestyle.
It is that second claim that is more controversial within my Christian demographic. A simple glance through Facebook reveals a lot of what I had been taught long ago: "If we continue on this direction, the wrath of God is against us!" or "This is a sign that Jesus is coming soon!" (Which, by the by, read Matthew 24. Jesus doesn't say anywhere that "people will marry homosexuals" as He promises His return. Goodness gracious.)
Why do I think it is actually a good thing for our country to remove same-sex marriage bans? Well, to start with, I think it's vitally important to differentiate (as C.S. Lewis does in Mere Christianity; see below) between a legal definition of marriage and the biblical one. The United States government is not a Christian government; it is a secular democracy. As such, when it defines the term "marriage" it cannot ever be talking about the same term "marriage" as Christians discuss. Those two terms are ideologically separate.
Now, this is quite important. The Founding Fathers, having reflected on the sort of government they wanted to form and seeing the issues in the Christianized kingdoms of Europe (Britain, Germany, Spain, and France prior to the Revolution), decided to make America a distinctly secular democratic state, in which there is a separation between the Church and the State. This separation was actually quite applauded and celebrated until more recently; it seems that only within the past century have Christians held the stance that the separation is harmful to the Christian faith.
This is blatantly inconsistent with that separation's purpose. In England, the King (who was Head of the Church of England) could legislate theology. In other words, if the King didn't like... oh, say... the Puritans!... he could make a law say that people with Puritan theology could be sent to jail. And some were (like, for instance, my great-grandfather x14 Rev. Francis Marbury). The opposite sort of power was also true: if church officials could make a theological case for the removal of this-or-that political opponent, then they could influence the rulers to do their bidding.
This sort of politico-theological corruption is in fundamental opposition to the Kingdom of God! It is worth noting that Jesus never aims to replace Caesar with Himself. Nor does He fight Herod for the title "King of the Jews." Nevertheless, the situation in England (as well as in other European nations) up through the Revolutionary War was one of warring political powers using theology as a tool of power.
As such, the Founding Fathers made great stakes to avoid this Scylla and Charybdis of Theology and Politics. In founding America, nothing further from a theocracy was in their minds. They distinctly formed a secular democracy, aware their citizenry was a religiously-diverse community: Christians of various backgrounds (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopals, Baptists, Puritans, &c. &c.), non-Christians like Deists and Atheists, and pseudo-Christian Cults like the Shakers.
This is certainly an ideologically-difficult mire to consider. As Christians, we would certainly like to think that theology is of the utmost importance (and it is certainly on the top five, if you ask me). So "minor details" of this or that theology are a big deal to the Christian person. Baptism by immersion or by sprinkling; transubstantiation or emblems; how many Sacraments are there?; the two Natures of Christ; the Trinity; &c. &c. These matters are of actual importance to the Christian person, let's not lose track of that.
But to the secular political government, these controversies and differences are of no value. The secular political government is founded upon the Constitution, and that Constitution exists to defend the rights of the citizens of its nation. And those rights are irregardless of a person's theological convictions.
This is a good thing. Imagine, if you will, that my wife and I (were non-denominational evangelicals; we believe in baptism by immersion for confessing believers) lived in, say, "Catholic America," where Roman Catholicism had utter rule over the legislation in the country. They could say that the right to marry is only allowed for those who were baptized as infants, as Roman Catholics are. Or that Protestants can be fined for not attending Mass, just like how Catholics were fined for not attending Anglican services in he late 1500s. Yeah, yeah, this is silly - Italy and Spain never got this intense! (It is thought-provoking that all of the members of this SCOTUS are either Catholic or Jewish. I'm glad none of them think it their duty to expunge evangelicalism from American history!)
C.S. Lewis famously once put it this way: "At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine." (Mere Christianity) An amusing statement, but a very real concern if someone were to live in an Islamic society. (I had read this quote before, and in searching for it online found an article, not ironically, about this very subject!)
I could go on with examples of why the secular democracy cannot endorse theology in its legislation. The point of the matter is that in the eyes of a secular government (which exists for the purpose of guarding the rights of all its citizens) theological matters cannot be used to determine the rights of legislation. (And all of my theonomist and dominion theology readers said "noooooooooo!") Otherwise, this or that theological opinion could have authority. I'm glad that teacher-led prayer is not allowed in public schools - because I don't want my children to be read a Mormon hymn or a Buddhist chant to start their morning!!!
Finally, why, then, do I support the ruling of the SCOTUS? Okay, maybe it makes sense to have the above-detailed political philosophy, maybe you can see my point. But "support" sounds strong. Do I "support" gay marriage? Do I "support" homosexuality activity? Isn't "supporting" the SCOTUS ruling antagonistic with my aforementioned Christian beliefs?
You see, I see this political situation in the exact opposite view that the mainstream Christian community seems to see it. So many see it as a "slippery slope" and a "downhill slide," or that soon enough the government will be requiring the churches to perform gay marriages (... ... uhm, I can't really see how they would get around... the First Amendment).
On the contrary! Any time the SCOTUS rules in such a manner that protects one people group's civil liberties, it simultaneously, and needfully, protects all other people group's same civil liberties. (This is part of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which was used in Obergefell v. Hodges.) In other words (and isn't this ironic?), the very legal reality which removes same-sex marriage bans from the states, simultaneously has the power to defend the Christian theological viewpoint on marriage. This case just makes it easier to point out the legal distinctions between the legal, governmental definition of marriage and the theological one - which, thereby, makes the latter easier to defend should the government attempt to impinge on the church's right to freedom of religion.
And that is a very very very good thing.
In conclusion, I see it this way: Paul, in writing to his disciple Timothy, gave this instruction:
"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way." (I Timothy 2:1-2)
Likewise, in writing to the Romans, he says:
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." (Romans 13:1)
And Peter, writing to the Jewish Diaspora, says:
"Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." (I Peter 2:13-17)
In other words, the Christian response to the political authorities is to be subject to them. And why? So "that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way." I don't think it's a stretch to think that what Paul is saying there is that the Christian's interaction with his governmental system is so that he might lead a quiet life! IE. A life where that governmental institution does not impede on the Christian's pursuit of Christ.
So, if the SCOTUS makes a ruling that protects civil liberties, then the Christian should be all for it! If the SCOTUS is defending the rights of homosexuals, then we can be encouraged that, by legal definition (the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) the SCOTUS is also willing to defend the rights of Christians. I do not fear to live in a country that defends the rights of homosexuals. I would most certainly fear to live in a country that neglects the rights of any of its peoples. (See this example.)
The Christian is not commanded ever to riot against his political authority's rulings, nor to disrespect that political authority's decisions (nor is the Christian forced ever to agree or disagree with the political authority; we have freedom of conscience). The Christian is simply commanded to be subject to those authorities, so that he might live a peaceful life. And I see, as I have purported in this blog post, that those authorities have made a ruling which I feel protects civil liberties. And I think that is for the better.
