I stated in my previous post ‘Gay Marriage - a Victimless Sin’, that in some ways a gay relationship may be much closer to God's ideal than many so-called Christian marriages and questioned if a committed, loving relationship was a victimless sin. In this post I outline my reasons for holding to the historical Christian position. Related to that of course is the question of how the Church should relate to the State in the current debate on marriage equality.
In one or more following posts I will share some thoughts on why members of the homosexual community may see the Church as ‘the enemy’ and how the Church may become more ‘user friendly’ to members of that community.
Fundamental to my understanding of marriage are the first two chapters of Genesis. Here we are given a tiny glimpse of the world as God meant it to be. Chapter 3 tells us how it all went wrong. From then on until we come to the last chapters of Revelation the story is all about God’s working with failed humanity in order to bring us back to the ideal.
In Genesis 1 we are told God created humanity in His own image, to be like Him. We see that both male and female were made in His likeness. Interestingly, God is said to have made people ‘in our image, to be like ourselves’ (Gen. 1:26). The word ‘our’ clearly refers to more than one. God is, in essence, a plurality.
If God is a plurality it follows that His image and likeness must also be a plurality. Hence, male and female. That both genders were created in the same image and likeness implies that male or female alone inadequately represent the Creator. Today, after being told for decades the only real difference between the sexes is seen in their genitalia we are learning there are many real differences in the way men and women operate and the ways they think. Perhaps we see in this that males and females were created to complement each other.
When God said ‘Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves’ we see the plurality of God working as one to achieve their objective. Humans were created for a specific purpose as seen in Genesis 1 and 2. That was to rule over and take care of the earth as God's representatives. In order to do that they were commanded to ‘Multiply and fill the earth …’ (Gen. 1:28). Adam and Eve and their descendants were to fulfill God’s purpose of populating the earth with representatives of God. While they could not create as God had done, theirs was the responsibility of creating life through their sexual union.
Genesis 2 adds to the picture. Here we see the man, Adam, formed from the earth and given life when God breathes into him. He is without a suitable companion and God determines this is not good. So God determines to rectify the situation which He does by causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep and fashioning a woman from his rib. And in this fashioning we see reflected the plurality of the one seen in Genesis 1. Adam proclaims of Eve ‘She is part of my own flesh and bone! She will be called ‘woman’ for she is taken out of a man (Gen. 2:23)’. Then in the next verse we read ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ Male and female as one entity, the image and likeness of God.
That was, and remains God’s intent today in a world that has drifted a long way from the way He meant it to be. We see this expressed in the second chapter of Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament. Again, as had the prophets before him, Malachi is called to rebuke the failings of the people and call them back to the way of God. One of the problems he addresses is that of divorce. And so we read in verses 14 & 15:
‘You cry out, “Why doesn’t the Lord accept my worship?” I’ll tell you why! Because the Lord witnessed the vows you and your wife made when you were young. But you have been unfaithful to her, though she remained your faithful partner, the wife of your marriage vows.
‘Didn’t the Lord make you one with your wife? In body and spirit you are his.And what does he want? Godly children from your union. So guard your heart; remain loyal to the wife of your youth.’
Two things stand out. First, the oneness of husband and wife. The second, ‘Godly children’ from that oneness. In a world of conflicting ideas, many of them alien to God and His way, the union of husband and wife to nurture and raise children and to teach them the ways of God both by instruction and modelling, remain of prime importance.
While that remains the Christian ideal we all know that we do not live in an ideal world. Divorce rates in the Church are very similar to those in the wider community. Neglect and abuse of children and spouses happens. Parents die. Illness or accident can mean one or both parents are unable to fulfil the parenting role. Men and women may be unable to find partners, or choose not to marry. God places no shame on these, valuing them as much as anyone else. That none of us can fully hope to live out God’s ideal does not mean we should walk away from it, for as Christians we are called to uphold it.
So, where does that leave us in the debate over marriage equality and, if we are called to vote, how should be vote? Perhaps we could reflect a little on Church history.
During the Dark Ages the monarchs of Europe kowtowed to the Pope and his Bishops, doing as the Pope commanded. Early reformers such as Luther and Calvin had the support of Princes and Magistrates and in turn argued that ‘The magistrate had a right to authority within the church, just as the church could rely on the authority of the magistrate to enforce discipline, suppress heresy, or maintain order.’ (Wikipedia, article ‘Magisterial Reformation). There was, however, another branch of the the Reformation, the Radical Reformation.
One of the hallmarks of the Radical Reformation, who were persecuted by both the Catholic Church and the Magisterial Reformers, was their belief in the complete separation of Church and State.They rejected the view that the State should have any authority over the Church and the authority of the Institutional Church. This was accompanied by the belief that being a Christian was a matter of choice and that Christianity should not be forced on anyone. And while my reading on the topic has been rather limited, there are those that argue that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been influenced significantly by the Radical Reformation, or Anabaptist, tradition.
This view appeals to me, for I have long believed that if Christianity, or any other religion or philosophy, relies on the power of the State, or any other form of coercion, to force adherence to its beliefs and practices, it loses its legitimacy. For me, the power of Christianity is in its message as demonstrated in the lives of its adherents. If they cannot demonstrate to the world the advantages marriage as understood by Christians then there should be a time for inner reflection, not outward political agitation. And, if I am called to vote on the issue, this will be a major factor that influences my vote.
Of course, you are free to disagree.
My next post will be a reflection on some of the challenges I see for the Church when it comes to accepting Gays, Lesbians and others.
If you are interested in the topic of the Radical Reformation try Google. You may also like to Google Anabaptist.
Bible quotes from the New Living Translation
No comments:
Post a Comment