The February 2011 Harper’s Magazine noted two facts that on their face seem contradictory, but on
reflection make a great deal of sense. On the one hand, there is a 1 in 2
chance “that an unmarried American under thirty says marriage is ‘becoming
obsolete.’” That is hardly a new finding—I’ve heard the identical thing from
young adults for years—but it is worth noting. On the other hand, Harper’s notes of those respondents,
“Chances that he or she wants to get married: 19 in 20.” This too is not new
information, but important if we are to understand our neighbors.
I am a Trinitarian, which means I believe that relationship
is part of the very fabric of reality, essential to what is really real. We
were made for community, for relationship because we are made in the image of
the one God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This means God did not have to
create to have a relationship, since he is in relationship from all eternity. So,
as his image bearers, no matter how much we idealize individualism we yearn for
community, and we cannot stop that yearning. And even when those relationships
have proven disappointing and have painfully fragmented we yearn for them
because to be alone is not, as God has noted, “not good,” and that is something
that resonates deep within our souls.
I often hear that as a Christian I must rally behind
political efforts in defense of marriage in order to guarantee that society
defines marriage only as the union of one man and one woman. I hear that if
this is not done marriage itself will decline in significance for the next
generation.
This is something that begs to be discussed as an exercise
in discernment. So, to do that, I will assume a position opposing this
proposition with five points—and invite your comments.
My first point is that I’ll need a better reason to get
involved in this political effort because the decline of marriage’s
significance is old news. It’s already happened. And the idea that passing some
law or amending the Constitution will halt that decline seems to me to be
highly doubtful at best.
I would add, second, that I suspect passing some law or
amending the Constitution will have a distinct effect, namely, it will bring
the gospel into disrepute. The effort will be seen, not as a stand for truth or
for something that is natural to human flourishing, but merely as a power play
by Christians to impose their preferences and values on everyone, including
those who do not share their beliefs.
Third, when I need the proper definition of marriage I will
turn to Scripture and the church, not the State. I understand the historical
sequence of events that led to the present moment so that church leaders
(pastors and presbyters) are agents of the State when officiating at wedding
ceremonies. Things have changed since that unfolded, however, and now we find
ourselves living in a pluralistic society where a number of different
definitions are applied to what is considered a true “marriage.” In such a
setting, fighting in the public square for a biblical definition of marriage to
be the law of the land seems to me to be an unwise choice. We would be better
served, it seems to me, to quietly insist that it is the church not the State
that is the proper authority to define marriage and to act accordingly. And
this might require us to refuse to act as agents in officiating at weddings,
insisting instead the State recognize legally those the church declares
married. The traditional Christian ceremony of marriage begins with an
affirmation: “The bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in
creation, and our Lord Jesus Christ adorned this manner of life by his presence
and first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee.” The State, in this
understanding, is entirely secondary. If the State happens to agree with Scripture
and the church, fine and good, but if not, so what?
Four. I would challenge the notion that mistaken definitions
of marriage by the State will weaken the institution of marriage. Have we
perhaps been seduced by modernity to think too highly of the State? History
shows that opposition by the State strengthens the church and we have no reason
to believe it will be different this time. Yes, it is true that many in society
whose morality is reduced to what is legal will be so affected—but their
problem, from a Christian perspective is not primarily a mistaken understanding
of marriage but the fact they have made the State into an idol.
And finally, I would argue we should concentrate on modeling
loving relationships between husbands and wives before a watching world. Our
goal should be to so strengthen Christian marriages that secularists and other
non-Christians, yearning for healthy unions in a broken world, look around for
models to follow and are shocked to discover it is Christians—who would have
imagined that!—who lead the way. This would require much grace and much effort,
since sadly, this is not at present the case. If by grace we begin to be such a
model, we need to be certain that when they come to ask us about it, they will
hear about the gospel of grace, not techniques for successful relationships.
And that, this alternative perspective would argue, is the
best way to safeguard and commend marriage in a pluralistic and broken world.
What do you think?
Sources:
“Harper’s Index” in Harper’s
(February 2011) page 11; Genesis 2:18.
This entry was posted
at Tuesday, April 10, 2012
and is filed under
Church,
Discernment,
Marriage,
politics,
Relationships
. You can follow any responses to this entry through the
comments feed
.