Those who risked responding to my blog on same-sex marriage with differing viewpoints did us all a favor by kindly but clearly raising cogent arguments supporting same-sex marriage. Neither Christians nor non-Christians should fear open and honest conversation; rather, I hope that we can all “speak the truth in love.”
In John 9 when Jesus heals the man born blind, Jesus’ disciples did not really see the blind man as Jesus did. They saw a theological problem: who sinned, this man or his parents? They might have continued their conversation while walking right by the man himself.
Jesus, however, saw a person in need of healing, both physical and spiritual, for the glory of God. I try to remind myself that in all of these difficult conversations, we are talking about our neighbors, our family, our church members, about classmates, co-workers, about people whom God loves! That helps me with my tone of voice when responding.
But the love of Christ compels us (2 Corinthians 5:13-15) to speak and to say what God would say because “Since we believe that Christ died for all, we also believe that we have all died to our old life. 15 He died for everyone so that those who receive his new life will no longer live for themselves. Instead, they will live for Christ, who died and was raised for them.” I believe; therefore, I speak out.
So let me extend the conversation in response to those comments:
Argument: Christians should not force Christian views on non-Christians.
Response: I agree completely. God doesn’t force people to believe, Jesus did not force people to follow him, and those who follow Him should not either. However, my counter-question is how should it work in a democracy or representative government as we have when the political question involves what Christians believe to be a God-revealed truth? Can only non-religious people have a seat at the table? Can only non-Christians campaign and vote on these issues? Why are Christians who speak out and vote according to their faith “forcing” their views on non-Christians? And should any majority OR minority group, simply because they believe their cause to be moral and right, be silenced, be segregated, be harassed, or be hated?
Argument: Marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one; therefore, the definition of marriage can and should be determined by the State.
Response: I agree and disagree with this argument. There is certainly a civil aspect to marriage. The State (and I am not using that term pejoratively) regulates the societal aspects of marriage in many ways, such as:
- Who can get married? Not 10-year-olds, not siblings, not people currently married, etc.
- When can people get married? Some states have waiting periods; some require blood tests, etc.
- Who can legally perform weddings? Some states allow anyone; others require ordained ministers and/or particular government officials.
- Which marriages are recognized? If you marry in a foreign country, the U.S. may not recognize your marriage. This is regulated by federal law.
In my opinion, everyone—including Christians—should “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” We all should submit to the legal authorities in every way with one exception, and that is, if required by law to violate the higher laws of God.
But I also disagree that marriage is only a civil institution. Marriage precedes the existence of civil states. Marriage exists outside of political states. For example, I was just watching “Finding Your Roots” with Henry Louis Gates, Jr., who discussed the fact that prior to the Civil War in the United States free African-Americans could marry legally, but slaves could not. He continued to say, however, that, of course, slaves did marry, but that it was not recognized by the State.
Marriage, according to Jesus (Matthew 19:6) is God joining people together. The earliest biblical revelation states that the reason for marriage was that “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Adam was meant for Eve and Eve for Adam. No legal ceremony occurred, only God joined them. And the writer goes on to explain that because of God’s actions in the beginning, future men who marry will “leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Genesis 2:18,24)
I also believe all of the references describing Jesus as the bridegroom and the church as His bride made repeatedly from Matthew to Revelation are witnesses to the holy nature of marriage. And the metaphor is consistent with the Genesis passages and the words of Jesus in that only God joins people to Christ. We are born again, not by human will but by the will of God (John 1:13).
This is the “holy” side of marriage that Christians want to preserve. Of course, they carry those convictions into the political discussion—and don’t they have the right to? They are just one voice, not the only voice, in the political debate.
Next we will talk about the argument that opposing same-sex marriage is bigotry—a very serious charge.
Mark's Blog 
HI there! Same sex marriage is normal till it is legal. Thank you for sharing.
Can’t really agree with you. If it were normal, it would have always been legal.
You responded to:
In my opinion, everyone—including Christians—should “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”
We all should submit to the legal authorities in every way with one exception, and that is, if required by law to violate the higher laws of God.
I think we need to be more critical of what we render to Caesar. Looking back, we can see the immorality of segregation laws, for example. But few Christians spoke out, largely because the pulpits were proclaiming “Submit to the authorities, render unto Caesar.”
The assumption that “this is a Christian nation” has crippled our interaction with the State. Churches need to assume that government is a reflection of the fallen world we live in; all relationships with the powers of this world need to be seen as interaction between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world.
One example is marriage. Why have churches allowed the State to let ministers be responsible for marriages yet give lawyers and judges the responsibility for divorce? Why allow the State to tell us who can marry? Can you imagine if we did the same with baptism? (which used to happen, of course) Or if government could tell us who can take the Lord’s Supper and who can’t?
We probably need a clean break on this one. Like in many countries, let there be a religious ceremony and a civil one. Make clear the differences between the two.
There… how about some radical ideas to stir the pot? 🙂
Thank you Mark for taking a stand! Too often believers are not bold enough and nonbelievers very quick in accusing them of intolerance etc.
Yes, Gary, the whole earth belongs to God and yet He chose to give his creation (men) certain responsibilities.
Interesting. Here’s a note about “rendering unto Caesar”, though. That passage does not actually present Jesus as pro-tax or pro-government.
Jesus’ response is ambiguous. On the one hand, since the coin has Caesar’s image on it, so it sounds like he’s saying give Caesar money that has his image on it. This isn’t necessarily an endorsement of Caesar. Money shouldn’t have any images on it (there’s a “thou shalt not” about that). Does having Caesar’s image on it mean it *rightly* belongs to him? If Caesar put his name on the Temple, would it belong to Caesar rather than God? Of course not.
On the other hand, what belongs to God? Everything (Ps 24:1). So if the earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, what belongs to Caesar? Nothing.
So, Jesus’ response is a careful and ambiguous way out of a trap. You see, if Jesus had said “yes, pay taxes” then he would be a sellout who believed the Jews did not have the rights to the land of Palestine and that the Romans were NOT invaders. He would be a traitor. And yet, if he said, “no, don’t pay taxes,” then the Pharisees could report him as a rebel and try to get him killed.
It is a mistake to take Jesus’ words as a “yes, the human government is legitimate” because the Pharisees were trying to trap him in his words. If Jesus could give a safe “yes” or a safe “no”, then it’s not much of a trap, is it?