Should clergy continue to act as an agent of the State by performing marriages? (A Question of Christian Witness)
With the recent Iowa State Supreme Court ruling that the state's ban on homosexual unions is unconstitutional and therefore the state is REQUIRED to recognize homosexual unions, I got to thinking about what it means that most, if not all, the pastors of our congregations are officers of the State who have been authorized to solemnize unions according to the laws of the state.
As I understand it, in most (all?) states, in addition to being the official representative of the Church, the pastor is also an official representative of the State in that the state gives authority to clergy to solemnize marriages (in some cases, even those "ordained" through an online application and payment of a fee... but I digress).
My question is simple, in view of the fact that many states have "legalized" homosexual "marriage,"ought our pastors continue to act as an official representative of the state in this matter?
In the current discussion, we are looking ONLY at the Christian pastor's role as a representative of the State in solemnizing the union of the two people before him. That he is a Christian pastor is incidental to his role as an official of the State in recognizing the union. It is assumed that the Christian pastor would not solemnize a homosexual union. We are not in any way examining the issue of the validity of the union in the eyes of God or whether or not any particular union is good, right, or salutary.
The question, quite simply, is - can the Church allow her officials to also be officers of the State if the office they hold in the State not only has the authority to, but by recent court decisions and legal situations is REQUIRED to recognize homosexual unions.
Irrespective of whether or not a Christian pastor would individually be required by the state to solemnize a homosexual union, the State, WHOM HE REPRESENTS when he solemnizes a marriage, does recognize them. Furthermore, the OFFICE he holds is REQUIRED to recognize the union of two persons of the same gender as a legitimate expression of marriage (a rose by any other name would smell as sweet). Whether a particular office holder is or is not required to recognize a particular union is not in view. The OFFICE he holds IS required to make such a recognition.
So the question becomes, does it compromise the Church's witness for a local pastor to hold an office of the state if this office is required to act contrary to God's will? Should the Church allow her official representatives to hold such offices?
I don't think we can hide behind the idea that the current arrangement provides any "protection" to the institution of marriage. Those determined to be legally joined without the sanction of the church are free to do so in our land already. The church holds no power over the state nor does she hold any coercive power over the lives of her members in that manner. As CFW Walther says, the Church has only the power of convincing through the Word. Those who reject the Word will reject the Church's sanction anyway.
There can be no doubt that there is a level of "convenience" to the couple. Rather than needing to go to the justice of the peace and then to the church, they can do everything at once at the church. But I don't believe that "convenience" is an adequate defense of the current practice. Tradition, too, is a poor excuse.
Consider, for instance, that there is also a benefit to the state in the current arrangement. The STATE which recognizes homosexual unions need not expend it's own resources to recognize many, if not most, heterosexual unions under the current system. This means that, indirectly, the Church is making it easier for homosexual couples to be legally recognized. Because the local justice-of-the-peace does not need to solemnize all the marriages that take place in churches within his jurisdiction, his time is freed to solemnize these other unions.
The ramifications of shifting the burden for the solemnization of marriage to the state could prove beneficial in other ways. For instance, the legal victories of proponents of "gay marriage" would become fairly hollow, or at least the publicity associated with them would be more difficult to generate, if the relevant government officials were booked solid for the next 3 months. The couple could obtain their "license," perhaps, but they could not finalize the process for some time.
I'll admit, there's a side of me that likes the idea of having the church separate itself from this official entanglement of having her Pastors also be state officials. I grow concerned about the day when many current arrangements that afford the Church "privileges" in the state (tax exempt status is a similar matter) will be used to attempt to force changes upon her. We've seen the problems IRS rules regarding housing allowance have caused for the Doctrine of the Ministry within the LC-MS.
While there is (currently) no coercion associated with clergy being enlisted as State Officials who are authorized to solemnize marriages, should we wait until that happens to begin looking at the issue?
More importantly, is there a problem in having a State Official who is authorized to solemnize the union of homosexual couples as the pastor of the church? This is, in fact, the situation. As one who holds the office of "solemnizer of marriage" in a State that recognizes homosexual unions, the pastor IS authorized (by the State) to recognize the union of homosexual couples. Put that way, I wonder how appropriate it is to exercise ANY "right" or "privilege" associated with such state recognition.
By "accepting" such an office, do our clergy compromise their witness to Christ and His Word? Since the STATE makes no distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples being joined, can the church continue to act as the State's agent in joining couples together? This is the fundamental question.
I personally haven't made up my mind (although my leanings are clear above) --- what do you think?
As I understand it, in most (all?) states, in addition to being the official representative of the Church, the pastor is also an official representative of the State in that the state gives authority to clergy to solemnize marriages (in some cases, even those "ordained" through an online application and payment of a fee... but I digress).
My question is simple, in view of the fact that many states have "legalized" homosexual "marriage,"ought our pastors continue to act as an official representative of the state in this matter?
In the current discussion, we are looking ONLY at the Christian pastor's role as a representative of the State in solemnizing the union of the two people before him. That he is a Christian pastor is incidental to his role as an official of the State in recognizing the union. It is assumed that the Christian pastor would not solemnize a homosexual union. We are not in any way examining the issue of the validity of the union in the eyes of God or whether or not any particular union is good, right, or salutary.
The question, quite simply, is - can the Church allow her officials to also be officers of the State if the office they hold in the State not only has the authority to, but by recent court decisions and legal situations is REQUIRED to recognize homosexual unions.
Irrespective of whether or not a Christian pastor would individually be required by the state to solemnize a homosexual union, the State, WHOM HE REPRESENTS when he solemnizes a marriage, does recognize them. Furthermore, the OFFICE he holds is REQUIRED to recognize the union of two persons of the same gender as a legitimate expression of marriage (a rose by any other name would smell as sweet). Whether a particular office holder is or is not required to recognize a particular union is not in view. The OFFICE he holds IS required to make such a recognition.
So the question becomes, does it compromise the Church's witness for a local pastor to hold an office of the state if this office is required to act contrary to God's will? Should the Church allow her official representatives to hold such offices?
I don't think we can hide behind the idea that the current arrangement provides any "protection" to the institution of marriage. Those determined to be legally joined without the sanction of the church are free to do so in our land already. The church holds no power over the state nor does she hold any coercive power over the lives of her members in that manner. As CFW Walther says, the Church has only the power of convincing through the Word. Those who reject the Word will reject the Church's sanction anyway.
There can be no doubt that there is a level of "convenience" to the couple. Rather than needing to go to the justice of the peace and then to the church, they can do everything at once at the church. But I don't believe that "convenience" is an adequate defense of the current practice. Tradition, too, is a poor excuse.
Consider, for instance, that there is also a benefit to the state in the current arrangement. The STATE which recognizes homosexual unions need not expend it's own resources to recognize many, if not most, heterosexual unions under the current system. This means that, indirectly, the Church is making it easier for homosexual couples to be legally recognized. Because the local justice-of-the-peace does not need to solemnize all the marriages that take place in churches within his jurisdiction, his time is freed to solemnize these other unions.
The ramifications of shifting the burden for the solemnization of marriage to the state could prove beneficial in other ways. For instance, the legal victories of proponents of "gay marriage" would become fairly hollow, or at least the publicity associated with them would be more difficult to generate, if the relevant government officials were booked solid for the next 3 months. The couple could obtain their "license," perhaps, but they could not finalize the process for some time.
I'll admit, there's a side of me that likes the idea of having the church separate itself from this official entanglement of having her Pastors also be state officials. I grow concerned about the day when many current arrangements that afford the Church "privileges" in the state (tax exempt status is a similar matter) will be used to attempt to force changes upon her. We've seen the problems IRS rules regarding housing allowance have caused for the Doctrine of the Ministry within the LC-MS.
While there is (currently) no coercion associated with clergy being enlisted as State Officials who are authorized to solemnize marriages, should we wait until that happens to begin looking at the issue?
More importantly, is there a problem in having a State Official who is authorized to solemnize the union of homosexual couples as the pastor of the church? This is, in fact, the situation. As one who holds the office of "solemnizer of marriage" in a State that recognizes homosexual unions, the pastor IS authorized (by the State) to recognize the union of homosexual couples. Put that way, I wonder how appropriate it is to exercise ANY "right" or "privilege" associated with such state recognition.
By "accepting" such an office, do our clergy compromise their witness to Christ and His Word? Since the STATE makes no distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples being joined, can the church continue to act as the State's agent in joining couples together? This is the fundamental question.
I personally haven't made up my mind (although my leanings are clear above) --- what do you think?
Tags: christian-witness, clergy, gay-marriage, pastoral-practice
Views: 5
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on -
Requisites of marriage; solemnization.(North Carolina Statute) (Other States are similar.)
A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously and plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either:
(1) a. In the presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination, a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate; and
b. With the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife; or
(2) In accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe.
Ministers are authorized by states to attest that a valid marriage has occurred(as agents of the State). Pastors are not required to officiate, or otherwise recognize marriages. Only magistrates would be required to attest to marriages recognized by the State.
-
Permalink Reply by Ant Sterr on -
"Consider, for instance, that there is also a benefit to the state in the current arrangement. The STATE which recognizes homosexual unions need not expend it's own resources to recognize many, if not most, heterosexual unions under the current system. This means that, indirectly, the Church is making it easier for homosexual couples to be legally recognized. Because the local justice-of-the-peace does not need to solemnize all the marriages that take place in churches within his jurisdiction, his time is freed to solemnize these other unions."
This arguement is silly. It's like saying that by recycling your plastics and metals you are supporting landfills because they won't be so full anymore and can take extra garbage. (and that's what I think gay marriage is: garabage).
Would it compremise a Christians witness to become a medical doctor who's office allows him to prescibe an abortion?
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew Dent on -
I understand the distinction, but I'm not convinced that the fact that ministers are not (yet?) required to officiate makes a difference. It seems our witness regarding the sanctity of marriage would be stronger if we were to say, we (the Church) would be happy to recognize your marriage as a Holy estate instituted by God and to pray for God's continued blessing of this union -- as opposed to the state who, misusing the authority bestowed upon it by God, is blaspheming God by recognizing as "unions" something that God does not recognize.
My argument is that ministers, as state sanctioned participants, must accept the State's overall definition of marriage in order to attest to the validity of a specific union.
To be clear, no matter who solemnizes the marriage, when a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, God is the one who unites them in marriage. In either case, whether it is a magistrate or a minister who witnesses the "free", "serious" and "plain" consent, they are simply attesting to the marriage. But that's the point.
The magistrate and the minister using the same term, "marriage," to refer to two different things. It used to be that the magistrate would be attesting to a more restricted but absolutely congruent definition of marriage (i.e., a legal contract that binds a man and a woman together as a single unit in the eyes of the state) whereas the minister would be attesting to the entire reality of both the legal and spiritual "one-flesh union". The legal contract binding them simply being a public manifestation of the reality of their "one-flesh union" in the eyes of God. This is why we do not allow people to be married in the church but not according to the state.
With the introduction of homosexual marriage, however, the legal definition of marriage is no longer a more restricted version of the "one-flesh union" definition of the church. Now they are different and absolutely incongruent.
Since not all that the state calls marriage can be called marriage by the church, ought the church (especially through her ministers) contribute to the confusion? Isn't there a tacit implication that the minister and the magistrate are attesting to the same thing?
To be sure, in both cases, what they are attesting to is the "free", "serious" and "plain" consent, but those facts point to something outside themselves -- they are the manifestation of a separate reality. In the case of a heterosexual couple, they point to their one-flesh union in holy matrimony. In the case of a homosexual pair, they point to serious spiritual issues that need to be addressed.
Because both the magistrate and the minister are DOING the same thing (signing the piece of paper attesting to the "free", "serious" and "plain" consent), the logical conclusion reached by most is that they are SAYING the same thing -- namely, these two people exist in the estate of marriage.
But they are not saying the same thing. When the minister says it -- he is talking about an estate which can be entered exclusively by a man and a woman. When the magistrate says it, he is talking about an estate which can be entered into by any two "committed" parties who meet the legal requirements.
When the legal requirements included that one be male and the other be female, the two definitions are congruent. The definition of marriage held by the state is simply an incomplete definition of the reality that is marriage according to God.
But where homosexual unions are recognized, the definitions are incongruent and irreconcilable. The definition put forth by the state is no longer an incomplete definition of the reality that is marriage, but a definition that is contrary to the reality that is marriage.
Ministers attesting to the state that a marriage was established was fine when, by default, the church was able to recognize all the marriages performed by the state. Until now, the two sets "married-in-the-eyes-of-the-state" and "married-in-the-eyes-of-the-church" overlapped 100%. There was no marriage that was recognized by the state that was not also recognized by the church -- and because of the nature of the one-flesh union and the Church's insistence that it be a public reality, the church did not perform marriages that were not also to be recognized by the state.
Now, however, the two sets do not overlap perfectly. Now, the state recognizes marriages that the church does not.
In officiating at a marriage, the minister does not simply attest to the fact that the legal requirements have been met (as a magistrate does), he is acting as both the representative of the state (with it's definition of "marriage") and as the representative of God (with His definition of marriage) simultaneously. In states where homosexual "marriage" exists, these two definitions are not the same -- in fact, they are contradictory.
In such a situation, how is it that the clear proclamation of the Divine Word on the topic of marriage is not inexorably compromised since the minister is in the position of simultaneously upholding two contradictory definitions?
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
At present I see no compromise taking place. But the future is doubtful. Gays are increasingly taking to the courts claiming that their civil rights are being violated. It's just a matter of time before suits are brought against churches which refuse marriage for them. What will the churches do then?
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew Dent on
-
In part, your trash and recycling analogy is true, but in the case of this waste, "it has to go somewhere anyway." In the case of gay marriage, it shouldn't be happening in the first place.
A more apt analogy would be saying that by recycling plastics and metals you are leaving room for nuclear waste at your local landfill. Whether or not you recycle, nuclear waste doesn't belong in the landfill. However, if I heard of a plan to ship nuclear waste to my local landfill... I might just advocate a campaign to abolish recycling so that the landfill fills up and has to close before the first radio-active shipment gets there.
Making the analogy clear... if the church or her ministers refuse to act as agents of the state in witnessing heterosexual marriages, the state would be required to do this itself. At the very least, it would introduce some delay into the process so that when stupid supreme court justices drink the kool-aid, the media can't go to the courthouse steps the next day and have footage of a bunch of people exercising their "right" to gay "marriage."
Certainly this wasn't the main point in my argument, but it is a reality that backhandedly, the church is facilitating homosexual unions by doing some of the state's work in this manner.
As to your other question... It's not quite the same. The medical doctor (even if he is a Christian) doesn't also speak authoritatively for the church (and thereby in the name of God). A minister of the church does.
-
Permalink Reply by Rev. Mike Keith on -
In my province in Canada (Saskatchewan) same sex marriage is legal. The marriage forms have been changed from Bride and Groom to Spouse and Spouse. However, we have been assured that while same sex marriage is legal in Saskatchewan we will not be forced to solemnize a same sex union. So far so good. Though, the marriage commisioners in our province do nto have that option and several have been let go because they would not officiate at a same sex marriage. I forsee a day when the challenge will come to the Church when a same sex couple will approach a church to be married and we will say no and they will chage us with discrimination. I would not think the Church would have a chance in the court system.
Personally, I woudl be happy to turn in my provincial marriage liscence. Couples would be married by an agnet of the state and then would come to the church to have a blessing upon their union. It is my understanding thisis how it is done in Germany.
-
Permalink Reply by Josh Schroeder on -
Well, let's look at the practical examples of pharmacists who have moral objections to providing contraceptives and "morning-after" pills. Even though the political Left in this country holds military conscientious objectors in the highest regard, their view of health care conscientious objectors is quite the opposite. If the Left has their way (and they seem to be winning this battle), they would force doctors and pharmacists to act against their own consciences to perform abortions or provide abortificiant drugs. Similarily, if homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land, the Left will fight to do the same to pastors who hold the Biblical view of marriage - not just give them the authority to marry homosexual couples, but require it.
Look at the fervor with which the Left continues to fight for same-sex marriage in California where the people voted to uphold marriage as is. In addition to their protests of churches and other places of worship, they try to use laws, lawyers, and judges to get their way. They aren't stopping. I see no reason to doubt that if they have their way, our clergy will be persecuted for refusing to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.
The transition from allow to require wouldn't happen overnight, but it would only be a matter of time.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Brugge on -
Everyone interested in this topic should read the excellent article by Maggie Gallagher titled "Banned in Boston." It is three years old and pretty long but it is worth reading all the way to the end. It seems prophetic, and the trends are not good for Christians or for the protections we have enjoyed under the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment. It is still posted at the Weekly Standard where it first appeared:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/1...
The Bible does not address how Christians should vote in a democratic governmental system. However, it seems to me that it is time for some Christian organizing for a Church Militant backlash. Five years ago I opposed the concept of a marriage amendment to the American Constitution, but now I have become convinced that it will be necessary to halt the trend.
As I see the trend, pastors will never be required to marry homosexual couples. However, church schools will be prevented from discriminating in hiring against homosexual activists, church schools and mission agencies that teach that homosexual behavior is a sin will lose their tax exemptions, church schools will lose their accreditations due to violations of state-mandated curricula on diversity sensitivity. This will be possible because we are headed for a collision that, unless we are vigorous in the fight, will result in the American government deciding which religious organizations and denominations are socially acceptable, and which are not, based on their level of tolerance (defined as never calling a sin a sin) and inclusiveness (meaning that you cannot teach that there is only one way to heaven).
I do not think it is too late to save American society as a safe place to practice conservative Christianity and to teach our religion to our children. I view the idea of having pastors drop out of the marriage business as another step along the path to total surrender.
-
Permalink Reply by Alicia on -
This is just my opinion and probably not popular and a little off on a tangent to your question but here goes....
I agree with Mexico.
For a marriage to be recognized, it must be performed by the government.
If you want a religious ceremony, that is done on your own if you'd like (in addition).
Having just a religious ceremony (alone) is not recognized by the government.
The two are separate.
The religious leaders do not do the job of the government.
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew Dent on
-
Alicia,
Thanks for you note! Your post made me think of another way of asking the core question: Given the current environment where States recognize homosexual unions as "marriage," does the current practice of having clergy act as official representatives of the State at weddings confuse the two realms of God's provenance?
Interesting question which I personally could make a case in answering either way.... anyone have any thoughts?
-
Permalink Reply by Kelly James Leary on -
I think we should not serve as agents for the state - marriages according to our nation are merely legal -- we should solemnize only those who seek Christ in their marriage --
pastor leary
-
Permalink Reply by Ant Sterr on
-
I guess part of the question is what is your understanding of what makes a merriage. Is it recognition from the state, or is it being established by witness of the church, or by God moving to bind in heaven though the pastor who binds you on earth, or is it the sex.
I was married in 2003 by a Church of Christ (so, no denominational statement of faith) pastor. This was a church that was all about the covenant relationship. Most sermons had to do with it, baptism was all about covenant and so was the lords supper. So I am comming from history where I probably have been tought things from a different view, or at least a different angle. But this is the line of reasoning, I won't be hurt if you disagree.
God instituted marriage. God also brings us into a covenant relationship with himself, a relationship he compares to marriage. Because marriage is a holy institution, ordained by God it belongs in the church, not just to be blessed but to be made complete before the church as a witness.
If you want to drive more wedges between the church and the state could we not do it like this. Marriage happens in churchs. A pastor performs the marriage of a couple: vows, witness, etc. The newly wed man and wife then go and register their marriage with the civil authorities. If the state insists on gays getting married, they to can register their "marriage" with the state to make it official but I believe that because God instituted marriage it belongs in the church.
© 2012 Created by Norm Fisher.
Powered by
