Not Threatened By the State

Recently, I received an email inviting me to a discussion with a number of other pastors who are concerned about protecting the institution of marriage. In the header it suggested that we were in danger of being forced to perform wedding ceremonies that would violate the biblical values of marriage as an exclusive covenant partnership between one man and one woman. I believe this is the biblical value. But I was puzzled and in disagreement with my colleagues on several points.

The first is a practical point. I am not a servant of the state when it comes to performing a wedding ceremony. I don't have to unite anyone in marriage if I don't want to. It's my call. So from the beginning, their advertising was misleading and alarmist. Pastors can choose not to marry anyone.

But it's not true that we can perform weddings for anyone. In our Presbyterian church, we are bound by our constitution which says that marriage is a covenant agreement between one man and one woman. We are not free to go outside those bounds. My ordination is with the church not the state. Even if my conscience is open, as a representative of the church I am not open. I have restrictions which I agree with.

So what needs protecting? Well, I do believe in benefits and rights being the same for all domestic partnerships. I believe it is prejudicial that we don't allow single people to designate a family member or a dependent member of their household to get the same benefits afforded married people. This along with universal healthcare seem to be rights that we should protect and foster. We need to protect and encourage people to make commitments. If you are on my life insurance policy and my health benefits policy and my social security benefits, I'm committed to you. Commitment of caring for others is a good thing regardless of any kind of sexual, social, ethnic, or whatever orientation you can come up with. I know it will cost us something, but the costs are greater in the long run if we ignore it.

What about protecting marriage? First, I don't believe it needs protecting - at least not in the way that my colleagues have surmised. Marriage is a God thing. It is "created by God, blessed by the Lord Jesus Christ, and sustained by the Holy Spirit," at least that is what the marriage ceremony I use says. That means God protects it not me. We uphold it, but don't protect it.

Well, what if the state says that marriage is any two people who want to be together with a license? My response is still, "I'm not a servant of the state." I would argue against using the term marriage to mean something other than one man and one woman bound together. But, if the state, and our society is becoming more rapidly secular all the time, wants to call something marriage other than what the biblical standard is, then I am prepared to qualify what I do as Christian marriage. In fact, it already is that. For myself, if the state decides that same sex unions are to be considered marriage, then I'll stop representing the state in the marriage. People can get a marriage license, like they do in most of Europe. They can be married - but if they want recognition in the church of their marriage as a Christian union, then I will be happy to perform a Christian marriage. I'll stop being a representative of the state of California, even though I am licensed to be.

Maybe it is time we stop serving as cultural chaplains and become servants of the Kingdom of God. Oh I know, we'd lose an income source. So?

Just a thought from out there somewhere.