As many of my beloved readers probably know, I used to blog about politics and current events. Doing so was great fun for me, and for the two-and-a-quarter years that I wrote about such things, I placed myself solidly in the Conservative/Republican camp. Good times, eh?
Well, upon beating that particular dead horse to a pulp, I started to grow a bit disgusted with politics and current events (and perhaps my inability to affect them), and began to get outraged by other subjects. Thus theology and apologetics became my poison, and while I didn't write much about them, I did think about them a great deal. In fact, I still do, though I'm afraid that I haven't yet figured out a great deal about them. But I digress...
As I began to spend less time typing out Republican sound bites and more time thinking about Christianity, I started to wonder exactly how it fits into our culture and politics. Of course, my views on the subject are only just beginning to form, so I thought I'd pose a couple of questions to get some input from others whose opinions I value. Hence my (thus far question-less) post.
Earlier today, I read a Yahoo! News article about research that claims there are more unmarried households in America than traditionally married households. Rather surprising, I thought; but only briefly. Why, really, would any Christian be surprised when non-Christians neglect to take part in certain ceremonies that are often associated with Christianity? Don't answer that one, it's a rhetorical question.
The fact that Biblically, marriage was the act of consummating a relationship rather than having a clergyman say "I pronounce you man and wife" notwithstanding, what right have we to impose the Christian (and I use that term loosely) ceremony of marriage on non-Christians? That's the question I need you to answer. Can we really expect those who don't recognize our God to accept ceremonies (correctly or incorrectly) associated with Him? I'm not sure I believe so.
So then, what should the Christian attitude toward gay marriage be? If the ceremony of marriage is at best a requirement in Christianity, and at worst completely unnecessary in God's eyes, then what should become of two men who want to be recognized as a couple by the state? At this point, I'm inclined to agree with C. S. Lewis, who wrote in Mere Christianity that there should be two types of marriages; one for Christians, administered and recognized by the church, and one for non-Christians, administered and recognized by the State. Of course, it is also my opinion that marriage in God's eyes has nothing to do with ceremonies performed by man.
By now, anyone who has read my blogs for any length of time has begun to worry that I have been kidnapped, or that my blog has been hacked by some resentful Leftist who is fed up with my old rants. The "Neo" that they know and love or love to hate would never advocate the concept of civil unions in addition to traditional marriage. Indeed, if reading this seems foreign to you, imagine how it feels for me... I myself don't know if that's really where I should stand on the issue, but it currently seems rather logical to stand there, so my mind is left to wage war with the force of habit (which would compel me to take a more "Conservative" stance), to the ends that I have no earthly idea where I stand. So that's why I ask you now: In light of the nature of marriage, the irrelevance of ceremonies, and the silliness of expecting a non-Christian to observe Christian ceremonies, is it right to refuse non-Christians the ability to "marry" however they may choose, given that their marriage will not be valid in God's eyes? For if it is not valid in God's eyes, then it is not valid at all, and if it is not valid at all, then what are we so worried about?
1) Marriage is not a "Christian" concept.
Note that marriage was instituted in the Creation ordinance. It existed before man was fallen and continued despite man's need for redemption.
2) Marriage is not defined by society.
Creation has a natural order and the idea of the male/female togetherness is inherent in nature. Besides that is the obvious social complement that occurs.
3) Marriage is a universal institution, not a religious idea. Again, marriage pre-dates the whole concept of redemption, sin, and consummation of Creation. It's a fundamental aspect of man's existence.
Posted by: David Ketter | October 16, 2006 at 10:50 PM
Well, so I had this nice little reply that turned into something akin to an essay. Since it's so long I had to post it in my blog. That's just sad. I can't even tell you if my post has anything to do with you said, I got so absorbed in writing my thoughts. But since it was started by your post, I will link it to you. Please check it out. (You don't have to comment though. ;) )
My post you inspired!
Posted by: Draw2much | October 17, 2006 at 06:26 AM
David,
I agree with your points completely; I would never make the argument that marriage could include anything but one man and one woman. However, this is a concept that, while not necessarily Christian, was instituted by the Christian God before the foundation of Christianity. So then, I am still left wondering if we can expect a non-Christian government which affords certain rights to married couples to refuse some non-Christians the "right" to be married in its eyes. Yes, it's true that that marriage won't be valid in God's eyes, but neither the state nor the people applying for marriage care what God has to say about it.
And furthermore, would it not be counterproductive to try to force non-Christians, via legislation or any other means, to adhere to God's Law? Since, after all, their actions regarding marriage are not what will eternally save or condemn them...
Again, I don't really know where I stand on this, but I'm just putting a point of view that sorta makes sense to me out there for you to evaluate.
And Draw2much,
I liked your post :-)
I will say to you as well that I'm not claiming that homosexual marriages can really be marriages. I am, however, wondering just to what extent we can expect our government to enforce the "universal truth" of marriage. Many homosexuals don't really care about that "universal truth" or the God who instituted it... they just want to be recognized as a couple by the state. Now, I would say that the government has no jurisdiction over whether or not a marriage is valid in the eyes of God, or in the eyes of the church, and yet it treats married couples differently from unmarried ones... So logically, shouldn't the government have its own form of "marriage," a "civil union" that operates independently of marriage in God's eyes? Because I'm still wondering if we can expect non-Christians or the government to respect an institution put in place by a God whose existence they don't recognize.
Posted by: Jacob Thrasher | October 17, 2006 at 10:40 AM
Marriage is not defined by society.
If that be the case, how would you explain societal/state laws regulating the eligibility of married couples according to age, consent, and so on? Society certainly does define marriage, as a glimpse at historical/cultural shifts reveals. What would be considered “marriage” in Biblical times would be punished as statutory rape today…
Further, the appeal to a “natural order” fails on the count that, post-Fall, nature is also fallen. Marriage, as an aspect of “natural order”, is not exempt. To be sure, Biblical principles of marriage are redeemed from the Fall, but that is not the same as claiming that marriage as a “non-Christian” (supra-Christian?), “universal” institution has remained pure.
Posted by: Stephen Lewis | October 17, 2006 at 07:27 PM
Neo, That blurb about "gay marriage" wasn't aimed at you. That was me just thinking through my position.
I think civil unions might be a very good idea. Like I said, the government has nothing to do with making a marriage. So if it thinks it'd be easier to have civil unions than so be it. It's not like they're gonna change what marriage really is anyway. And a neutral approach might be better.
Oh, and just so ya know, I think marriage IS influenced by society. Depending on the religion and culture, society will tailor marriage to fit it's beliefs.
I do NOT, however, think society makes marriage. To me it's the other way around. Marriage came first, then society. So changing a populations defination of marriage too much can be kinda dangerous. It risks destroying the very foundation that society is based on.
Posted by: Draw2much | October 18, 2006 at 12:12 AM
Oh, and I don't think I approve of the government treating married couples differently [for tax purposes]. But then, I disapprove of how our government currently does taxes anyway. ;)
Posted by: Draw2much | October 18, 2006 at 12:14 AM
Ditto to David, Stephen, and most of the post by D2M.
The assumption that our government is atheist is only true if the vast majority of the people (by the people, for the people, etc.) are. This is not true, 30 years of supreme court activism not-withstanding.
To condone same sex civil unions by official government recognition is wrong for many reasons. It is akin to the argument that some make for legalizing illicit drug use.
It is a further erosion of the moral standards that together have worked in concert to help our society become the foremost shining light in the world. If you doubt that we are that light, then check statistics on immigration, both legal and illegal. We're certainly not actively recruiting, yet millions want to be here.
If the state that I and many other Christians support with our taxes and allegiance, sanctions such unions, then that state is no longer acting as my representative in good faith.
The reasons for society to discourage homosexual behavior are myriad, simply from a public health standpoint. Spiritual issues don't even have to enter in for this to be true. The facts are plentiful, even though they are not trumpeted by media (as they would be if they shed favorable light on "alternative lifestyles").
Witness any reputable study of mental health and physical health as it pertains to aformentioned alternative lifestyles.
AIDS would never have burst forth as the scourge it is today without the profligate sexual behavior rampant in the gay community. See this and many other sources if you doubt this. http://fohn.net/history-of-aids/
the disease indeed existed for many years prior to 1981, but it couldn't spread without the behavior common in the gay lifestyle. It was even initially known as GRID (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency).
Enough on that topic.
Certainly, we as a country condone and sanction many things that are immoral and detrimental to the overal wellness of society(murdering unborn children, propping up third world despots, no-fault divorce, (and the list goes on)), but to add sanction of homosexual civil unions to that list is not a step in the right direction.
Posted by: David Thrasher | October 18, 2006 at 09:29 AM
Upon further reflection of the things you stated in your post, the bigger issue you raise is: "Should we, as Christians, be politically neutral, or politically active?".
I don't have time to elaborate right now, but I'll just throw in my gut response for now:
I believe we are called, as part of the stewardship we are given over our lives, to try and have a positive impact on society. One method that works in this direction is political activism.
Posted by: David T. | October 18, 2006 at 11:15 AM
Excellent post, Jacob. You're asking good questions; and I think it's good to wage war upon habit now and again, if only to encourage a fresh outlook on things. With all the great comments that have been left, I don't feel like I have mcuh to add. Anyway... back to Biology.
Posted by: Nathan Knapp | October 18, 2006 at 01:01 PM
Not a whole lot to add here, but we must remember, a lot of the laws we have now are ultimately based on God's laws. I mean, well, they used to be- now they're kinda getting skewered.
But I digress - God put laws in order for both reasons, I believe: to curb man's sinful nature and also to bring us to salvation. They are not just "Christian" laws, they are the absolute moral laws of the universe.
So...yeah. But I do agree that we should not just focus on making people be "good," but be concerned about their spiritual state. After all, you can make a rotten apple look good on the outside by candy coating it, but the inside will still be rotten.
Posted by: Emily | October 19, 2006 at 02:21 AM
Hi, I think your article its very important and interesting,good work, thanks for sharing!! Have a nice day!
Posted by: Generic Viagra | August 10, 2009 at 04:22 PM
Hello,
I want to offer an Affiliate Promotion..This program basically works on the principle of paying commission for the referred business. This model was introduced when the e-commerce concept gained prominence in the 1990s. This is nothing but revenue sharing by an affiliate for promoting a company's product.
Posted by: Affiliate promotion | August 17, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Hello friend excellent post about Marriage? Sin? Non-Christians? Legislation? What a Jumbled Mess... thanks for sharing
Posted by: sprain treatment | March 29, 2010 at 06:29 PM
God put laws in order for both reasons, I believe: to curb man's sinful nature and also to bring us to salvation.
Posted by: Online Kamagra Oral Jelly | June 15, 2010 at 04:36 AM
The community's insistence on the old definition of Christian marriage is inextricably linked to the eagerness of the Church to retain its numbers. the reason why the government appoints marriage commissioners is to provide a secular alternative to religious marriages for those couples who wish to marry but who either cannot satisfy the eligibility criteria of faith groups or do not wish to have a religious wedding ceremony.
Posted by: silagra | October 12, 2010 at 02:35 AM
Marriage is a universal institution, not a religious idea. Again, marriage pre-dates the whole concept of redemption, sin, and consummation of Creation. It's a fundamental aspect of man's existence.
Posted by: Viagra Generic | January 14, 2011 at 01:09 AM
Great article, and thanks for taking the effort to publish it; I’m sure other readers benefited as wel. It really opened my eyes for some new ideas that I hadn’t thought of before.
Posted by: suhagra 100mg | May 04, 2011 at 08:12 AM
That was an interesting piece of information on handwriting analysis. Please post more about graphology. Thank you!
Posted by: generic cialis | July 22, 2011 at 08:40 PM
I thank thee that I am none of the wheels of power but I am one with the living creatures that are crushed by it.
Posted by: moncler doudoune | November 21, 2011 at 05:07 PM