There has been a spate of stories over the past month or so about same-sex relationships. President Obama endorsed same-sex marriage, but chose to leave proposed legislation to the states. A Federal Court of Appeals recently struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense Department chose to join with many cities and states in celebrating June as Gay Pride Month. The California State Legislature is considering a first-of-its-kind ban on reparative therapy (therapy intended to heal same-sex attraction). And Psychiatry giant, Robert Spitzer, considered by some to be a father of modern psychiatry apologized for his prior support of reparative therapy.
How should the Christian church respond to these recent developments?
In my first blog I wrote about the complexity of moving from a biblical ethic to legislation that would be the law of the land for those who do not recognize the Bible’s authority. In my second blog I noted that the great threat to marriage in America is not same-sex marriage, but rather, the prevalence of divorce. In my third blog I encouraged churches to be better known by what we are for rather than what we are against.
Sincere Christians, of good will, will differ on whether Christian churches should be involved in attempting to legislate against same-sex marriage. Some Christians believe that marriage ought not to be a state issue in the first place. Marriage, in their opinion, is a church rite. “We must not confuse church rites with civil rights. So let civil society do whatever it wishes concerning its definition of marriage; we in the church will have our own standards for performing ‘Christian marriage.’”
I think this position is naïve. As Lincoln said in his House Divided speech: I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but, I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all of the other. Morality, Lincoln understood, is inherently aggressive. The larger society will not long tolerate churches which dissent from a consensus view of what contributes to the common good. As the consensus hardens towards acceptance of same-sex marriage, churches will experience all the means of social control available to the larger society to bring the church into line. Shaming, marginalizing, financially penalizing, etc., will be utilized against the church.
So, for example, the State of Illinois cancelled its contract with Catholic Charities over the church agency’s refusal to place adoptive children with same-sex couples. The State of New York recently did the same. And in the previously mentioned legislation that is winding its way through the California Legislature, it may soon be illegal for churches in California to engage in healing prayer for gay and lesbian teens, who wish to “change their sexual orientation.” As Lincoln said, we will become all one thing or all of the other. Societal morality will not stop at the church’s door.
On the other hand, I believe that the church as a church generally should confine itself to the teaching of scripture and the demonstration of scripture through love and good deeds. History and wisdom would suggest that in most situations we ought to leave it to individual Christians to fight for or against particular pieces of legislation. I am particularly concerned when advocacy for or against legislation might create a major obstacle to an individual’s embrace of the Savior.
While I would not suggest this to be an absolute rule, in the case of same-sex marriage, I currently believe that it is the role of churches to teach their members God’s plan for marriage - one man and one woman who live together in a lifelong covenant before God. The church should then encourage individual Christians to work through the democratic processes, as their consciences dictate, concerning whether to vote for or against a particular piece of legislation. Christians should be as invested in civil society (bringing their own moral perspectives to bear) as much as anyone else. But churches, as churches, should be very reserved about supporting or opposing specific pieces of legislation.