Last Sunday during our high school Sunday morning meeting, I brought in a New York Times article discussing the states (New Hampshire, Vermont, Hawaii, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Washington, Oregon and California ) that HAD same sex civil union available in 2004. On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California voted 4-3 that a state law banning same-sex marriage was constituted illegal discrimination because domestic partnerships were not a good enough substitute. On November 4th, 2008 California will have an opportunity (Prop 8 ) to change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
In light of this article, I asked these questions to the high school students:
What is your knee jerk reaction towards same-sex marriages?
Do homosexual couples have a constitutional right to get married?
Do homosexual couples have a theological right to get married?
Do same sex marriages effect the family system?
Would you vote “yes” or “no” on Prop 8? Why? Give me a theological answer about your Prop 8 answer.
The high school students were fired up in how they answered the questions. 10% of the students would vote “NO” for Prop 8, while the other 90% would vote “YES” for Prop 8.
My goal of discussing Prop 8/same-sex marriages in CHURCH was not to convince them what to vote for or to hand out Prop 8 literature. Rather, I wanted my students to think theologically about the same-sex issue and how their theological interpretations are translated into state government. They needed to think about the societal implications at the state, family, and church level. If they are voting “YES” on Prop 8, then what is their theology that is leading them in that direction? If they are voting “NO”, what is the thrust of their theology that is convicting them to say same-sex marriage is legit in society?
The Founding Fathers taught us how to think politically, and it is up to the Church to know how to think theologically.
I wanted my students to see the complexity and polarity regarding the same-sex marriage issue. I wanted to hammer home the idea that how they voted does not jeopardize their salvation. Political messages and theological messages should never be mixed. It is a bad combination. My students are smart, they will figure it out. They don’t need their youth pastor telling them how to think politically. Although their youth pastor will tell them everything about hermeneutics, church history, theology, and the Bible.
Let the pastors do what the pastors do best and let the politicians do what the politicians do best.
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 14, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Brian
“Poltical messages and theological messares should never be mixed. It is a bad combination”
What about things like John the Baptist calling out Herod? A theologian getting involved in politics. Or David being called out for killing Uriah, etc.? Prop 8 matters because it has implications for pastors. If it passes you could be sued for refusing to marry same sex couples. I think things like this matter greatly. I never discuss or advocate politics from the pulpit, but I do in discussion or when it comes up give my opinion and ask questions and encourage people to be involved.
The Pharisees sent their disciples to Jesus. “Teacher,” they said, “we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.”
(Matthew 15:15-22)
October 14, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Autumn
Kudos on getting your students to think for themselves and why they will vote however they choose. Those are good questions to make them think. In regards to leaving theology out of politics – I personally can’t ignore that a great leader like Martin Luther King, Jr. used scripture in his speeches. I also can’t ignore that our founding fathers wrote the Constitution founded on biblical principles.
http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government
I don’t think there is any way that you can leave theology out of politics. I’m not saying let’s vote a Pastor in for President but I’m also not saying let’s leave references to the all Biblical theology out of politics.
I understand times have changed but I don’t think that the U.S. today is what all 39 men had in mind when they signed the most important document that should be governing our country.
Brian made a good point that there are references to the government in scripture. Also note that two great political leaders in history were King David and King Solomon. They were both God-fearing, prayerful men that used wisdom and sought God for everything – even in decisions on war.
My relationship with Jesus Christ is something that I personally cling to and I can’t leave it out of my decisions regarding politics.
October 14, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Greg
In my youth group there are at least two youth whose parents are same sex couples and two youth who are in a same sex relationship. I wonder if your group is like that and how that might effect the discussion.
I agree that we as religious leaders need to be witnessing to our youth how to think theologically about their positions (political, social, theological, etc.) and their witness.
I participated in a class in seminary that was working with some of the issues that the Task Force for Peace Unity and Purity in the PC (USA) were dealing with.
One of them was same sex relationships. Here are some resources that I found helpful for not only thinking theologically but also opening my eyes to understanding other theological viewpoints. We actually had to argue for a position that we were assigned. I argued for the position that I thought was the opposite of what I believed. What I found was that it was closer to my beliefs than I knew.
Same Gender Relationships in the Church: Seven Theological Viewpoints
http://www.pcusa.org/peaceunitypurity/finalreport/seventheologicalviewpoints.pdf
Same Gender Relationships in the Church: Seven Theological Viewpoints (Facilitator’s Guide)
http://www.pcusa.org/peaceunitypurity/finalreport/seventheologicalviewpointsguide.pdf
I hope these help and thank you for encouraging your youth to think theologically, not believe as you believe.
Blessings,
Greg Bolt
October 14, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Greg
Also…
Brian,
You won’t be sued for not doing a same sex marriage. Just like churches aren’t sued if they don’t ordain women or pastors who refuse to do “typical” marriages now. The law protects pastors who do not participate for theological or religious beliefs. Just like you don’t have to vaccinate your child if you have a religious objection to it.
The idea of being sued is one of those red herrings that groups use to scare you into voting one way or another.
I encourage you to vote your conscience but not based on fear but based on love and your belief in the good news, wherever you believe that good news comes from.
Blessings,
Greg
October 14, 2008 at 8:35 pm
jztothejc
brian//
i don’t have a problem with theologians getting involved in politics. I have a problem with theologians using their spiritual authority to bully people into their political agenda. For example, from the pulpit the pastors states that God would vote YES on prop 8.
the church or the pastor cannot get sued. that is a myth that has been floating around the conservative christian camps to scare people into voting yes.
lastly, i am unclear why you posted Matthew 15:15-22? what was your point or what was your hermeneutic?
autumn//
first of all welcome. thanks for your contribution–very articulate.
you are right. our theological convictions will directly shape our political convictions. however, as i stated to brian, my issue is when Christians/pastors try to persuade people of their political conviction because God said so. a christian can still be a christian if they vote a certain way.
to say that our founding fathers were Christian is a bit misleading. they were more of a transcendentalists.
for example Benjamin Franklin said that he is unsure of whether God exists or not, he felt it was better to believe in Christianity and the Christian God than not to, for the Christian teachings prevented moral anarchy. Also Thomas Jefferson was a skeptic and a deist.
we have to remember that the way we interact and experience God today is very different than how our Founding Fathers experienced God. Jefferson saw Jesus as a great moral teacher and rejected the doctrine that Jesus was the Messiah.
“My relationship with Jesus Christ is something that I personally cling to and I can’t leave it out of my decisions regarding politics.” AMEN!
greg//
thanks for the resource list. i was actually in the process of looking.
October 15, 2008 at 2:20 am
john
the pastor can indeed be sued. and churches can lost their nonprofit status. In on support of that…if McDonald’s can get sued for having “hot coffee” then I’m sure people will find a way to sue a church for not performing a marriage. Though that is a lose conparison, the point is that with our legal system people can go to great lengths to sue people under the banner of equality and freedom.
Aside from that, why should a minority encroach on the rights of the majority of heterosexual couples? If they want rights and legal protection, seek it, but do not change the rights and definition of those already within the bounds of marriage. Equality you can achieve without changing the rights of another!
October 15, 2008 at 5:24 am
jztothejc
john//
Anything is possible, but gays suing the church is very unlikely. I actually found one example where gays tried to sue the church. They filed a lawsuit, but the Methodist church was able to gain leverage and won by countering suing. see here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07082104.html
We have to understand the separation of church and state. How can the state tell a church that they must wed a same-sex couple at their church? And why cannot the church tell the state what they have to do?
Sounds like a double standard to me.
Why would a gay couple want to get married at a place that will not marry them?
Marriage in the Christian tradition deeply values that the couple is making a commitment to God and that God is blessing it. The way I read the Bible, I argue that God designed human sexuality to be expressed only within the loving bounds of a monogamous, heterosexual marriage relationship.
October 15, 2008 at 5:54 am
Jake
I have been contemplating something on this subject for a while now. Basically, I see the question as this: Is marriage (right now, in the US) fundamentally a legal, civil institution or a religious one. If it is a legal institution then there should be no discrimination right, except on moral grounds that are supported by the majority (e.g. with polygamy; this could be argued for gay-marriage I admit)? If it is fundamentally a religious institution then isn’t any marriage which doesn’t recognize the presence and ordination of God in the matter become, in a sense, not a “true religious marriage?” So, why wouldn’t two heterosexual atheists marrying each other, in a sense once more, “degrade” what Christians refer to as marriage. If, however, they don’t they we must say that all non-Christians don’t participate in a religious ceremony but a legal one…in which case the laws of discrimination should apply (again barring moral injunctions by the voting majority).
My intuition is still against same-sex marriage but I just can’t put my finger on which part of the above argument doesn’t hold. Anyone shed light on this issue?
October 15, 2008 at 6:30 am
jztothejc
Yes Jake has entered the conversation!
“Is marriage (right now, in the US) fundamentally a legal, civil institution or a religious one?”
Right now, marriage is both a civil union and a religious union. However if prop 8 passes, then marriage is more likely to become a civil institution rather than a religious sanctioning.
“If it is fundamentally a religious institution then isn’t any marriage which doesn’t recognize the presence and ordination of God in the matter become, in a sense, not a “true religious marriage?””
I would assume so.
Jake I think you are locating the fundamental tension the church and the state are wrestling with? The church is scared because we are afraid that marriages will not have any religious weight. But who is the church to tell the state what to do?
In the end it will be all good and happy (no pun intended).
October 17, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Brian
I think Jake asks all the right questions. And I think they point to the confused thinking of conservative Christians on this issue. If you want to deny marriage to gay persons on the grounds that marriage is a religious institution at least in part for the purpose of procreation, then why not also fight to legislate against non-religious persons wanting to get married (often by a judge or a church which is happy to take their money)? Why not fight to legislate against marriage for couples physically unable to have children? Why not legislate against elderly persons who want to get married in their twilight years but who are clearly never going to have children together? I don’t see Christians fighting against these folks. Why is that? I think the answer is obvious but I’ll leave it to you to discern.
As Christians, we too often confuse the legal part of marriage with the sacred part. For my money, I think pastors should stop signing marriage licenses because that makes us an agent of the state. The marriage license has nothing to do with legitmizing what we do when we bless a marriage. We can bless any marriage we want, with our without the license. Two persons are not married because we sign a peice of paper. They are married because they commit to one another in the bond of God’s love. It is under that definition that churches have been marrying gay persons for decades now… and I don’t think the world has come to an end nor has the instituion of heterosexual marriage been destroyed.
October 19, 2008 at 6:08 am
brian
bond of gods love….
gay marriage?
= conflict of interest
October 19, 2008 at 3:56 pm
jeremy zach
brian L//
interesting point. Do you think God’s biblical truth need govern the general public? Do you think the teachings of Jesus need to be the guiding principles for the entire US population?
it kills me knowing that us Christians are fighting soooo hard against same sex marriage, and our (Christian) marriages have the highest divorce rate. If we redirected the same-sex marriage energy and efforts into our own Christian marriage then maybe we might have leverage to tell people who they should marry. Sounds a bit hypercritical to me?
We as Christians are so quick to talk about what not to do, when we should be talking about how to be in a healthy, Christ centered marriage.
October 20, 2008 at 12:42 am
Brian
Amen Jeremy. If Christians really wanted to do something about strengthening marriages they would put all their energy into stopping the problems that lead up to divorce. By the way, why aren’t the Christians who are so focused on stopping gay marriage also working just as hard to pass laws to outlaw divorce?
October 26, 2008 at 8:28 am
steph
yes same sex relationships can ‘effect’ a family if they choose to have children. However I fail to see how they can ‘affect’ the family system as a whole. I hope California doesn’t step backwards in November. Perhaps if Christians vote against same sex marriage on theological grounds, non Christian same sex couples should still be allowed to marry. But if they also vote because they think the couples don’t have a constitutional right to marry, perhaps the constitution should be changed.
October 26, 2008 at 10:38 am
steph
Yes it’s hypocritical but the solution isn’t to ban divorce as well as gay marriage. In some cases forcing a couple to stay together can be dangerous to one partner or harmful to the children. Surely it is to celebrate the commitments of couples who genuinely wish to marry and encourage those bonds to prosper.
What do you mean jeremy by the highest divorce rate? Highest since when? Or higher than whom?