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 Matthew Dent on -
I quoted all the relevant info that I have from the source I have -- although I'm considering trying to track down a copy of Brecht's book (I'm sure the St. Louis Sem has a copy in their library)... If I do, and it has anything more, I'll be sure to post it.
As to Holy Communion, I have not read anything. My gut feeling would be that the Mass may have been celebrated in the Roman tradition, but that because of the misunderstandings and abuses of the Mass, Lutherans did not practice it at weddings. But, as I said, this isn't based upon anything except conjecture and supposition.
-
Permalink Reply by gnesio-lutheran on -
This recalls the fact that, prior to the 20th century, Protestant weddings were generally a small affair, usually taking place in the parsonage. The obligatory big 'church wedding' is largely a 20th century invention (except for Roman Catholics, who have always wedded in a church, as it is considered a sacrament).
-
Permalink Reply by Matt Jamison on -
I think we Lutherans would do well to work against the "big wedding" culture in our society.
This is not just in our culture. Some of our Asian-American neighbors literally bankrupt themselves to provide their children with a lavish wedding as anything else would not be socially acceptable. We would do well to help lift this burden from people.
And I think there is a growing backlash against the wedding industry, and simple, yet beautiful and dignified weddings are becoming more popular.
-
Permalink Reply by Matt Jamison on
-
P.S.: I think that is much of the appeal behind "gay marriage." Gays don't want marriage as much as they want weddings where they, too, can engage in ostentatious display (at the expense of parents), the exaggerated expressions of happiness, and the approval of the community as expressed by lots of expensive gifts.
A wedding is a big act of community approval for the wedded couple, and gays think they are excluded from this. This is why "civil unions" are unacceptable to the gay lobby.
-
Permalink Reply by gnesio-lutheran on
-
I would agree that many gays desire 'marriage' since that is an indicator of social approval, but I think you are sterotyping to claim that they all want to have big obstentious displays and lots of gifts. The gay marriages/ civil unions that I am familiar with from my business and social acquaintances were all simple 'justice of the peace' affairs, with few (or no) guests.
The fact is, civil unions do not, contrary to popular opinion, offer the same level of marital rights and benefits that a marriage does. Civil unions, as they are legally defined now in the few states that offer them, are not a 'separate but equal' equivalent of marriage. They are actually something less, which is why gays are engaging in a seemingly meaningless quibble over a word.
Please don't misunderstand, I am not defending their position, but am merely offering clarification as to why this is, for many, seen as an important civil rights issue. It is not an merely an excuse to have a lavish wedding.
These are reasonable objections which the church must overcome, if it is to win the long term battle.
-
Permalink Reply by Matt Jamison on
-
Of course, I should have said SOME gays. It was not my intent to stereotype. And my criticism of ostentatious display is directed at contemporary American wedding culture in general. I did not mean to single out gays as somehow more greedy and materialistic than others, I see how what I wrote can be read that way.
My point stands, however. The wedding is a powerful expression of social approval. In my experience (also speaking of people I know personally) this social approval is what is most at stake in the gay marriage discussion.
-
Permalink Reply by gnesio-lutheran on
-
On this we certainly agree.
The lavish largely secular wedding culture is part of the problem too. In fact the religious aspect of the wedding is frequently minimized, and the church is seen only as a pretty backdrop for wedding pictures and videos. In many weddings I have attended, most guests skipped the religious ceremony altogether. Weddings, all too often, are viewed as merely 'an expression of love' and an excuse to have a big expensive party with all ones family and friends.
If straight couples can have a big party to celebrate their love (that's all a wedding is, after all), why can't gays? It's only fair, so the pervasive thinking goes.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Brugge on -
The whole conversation about weddings may have merit but it belongs in a different thread; it is a digression from the same-sex marriage issue.
The gay activists are not just after big weddings; they are after "fairness." They are pursuing spousal insurance coverage, Social Security spousal benefits, favorable treatment of inheritances, and all of the benefits that American society has conferred on marriage. In order to achieve that, our free exercise right to state that homosexual behavior is sinful and not to be celebrated will be entirely trampled. Consider the evidence: schools are forced to "celebrate diversity," our language is twisted so that we say “partner” rather than “wife,” companies that want to do business with cities on the coasts are coerced into providing same-sex partner benefits and to introduce sensitivity training, while our entire media/ entertainment industry is promoting the corruption of our culture.
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew Dent on
-
Leaving aside the question of homosexual unions, the reasons that some find them desirable, and all the social garbage that goes along with gay "marriage," the question in this thread is, at what point (if any) does the pastor's role as the state's functionary in the ceremony compromise the church's witness with regard to the true definition of marriage?
Since the state's definition is so radically different from the Church's definition, can the pastor any longer be the state's functionary? Would the church's witness be helped or harmed if (not individually, but collectively - en masse) Christian pastors ceased being the state's functionary in this capacity not as any sort of "protest" but as a statement that the two definitions of marriage (the state's and the church's) are not the same/compatible? Why or why not?
-
Permalink Reply by Matt Jamison on
-
Matthew,
Sorry about the digression! You ask: "at what point (if any) does the pastor's role as the state's functionary in the ceremony compromise the church's witness with regard to the true definition of marriage?"
I would say at the point which the pastor conducts a wedding that disobey's the word of God, perhaps by marrying a same-sex couple. Notice in our current environment that liberal clergy are already doing this, even in some places where the state has not yet allowed same-sex marriage. By "blessing" a same-sex union, a pastor is flaunting his or her disregard for scripture, whether or not the union is legally a marriage in the eyes of the state.
I believe that the minister may continue to serve in a dual role as agent of state and church in his capacity as wedding officient as long as the state does not force him to officiate any union against his conscience or the Word of God. Currently, that seems to be the situation in states where "gay marriage" is legal. Any church may refuse to marry a couple (even if they have a marriage license) for any reason whatsover.
If that changes, if churches become forced to recognize unscriptural unions, then we will be forced to resist this pressure.
I think it would be a powerful witness if Christian clergy decided en masse to refuse to perform legal marriage until the state repented of its redefinition of marriage. But I don't think it will happen. Far too many liberal clergy are comfortable with the state's redefinition, and many others lack courage. I don't think you can get Christian clergy to do anything en masse.
Instead, we are headed for various different definitions of "legal marriage" and "church marriage" and "civil unions" that will be very confusing, both legally and socially.
Neither am I eager to throw out several centuries of legal and church tradition as it pertains to marriage. Many if not most churches require a marriage license before performing a wedding. That is to say, the church voluntarily refuses to perform any kind of "church wedding" that is not in conformance with the laws of the state. Likewise, the state allows a clergyman to perform as an agent of the state by actually performing the marriage. The church is not forced to perform every marriage that the state finds acceptable. Catholics, for example, may refuse to re-marry people who have been divorced from others, though the state has no problem with it.
Another example to consider: Several years ago in Lincoln, Nebraska, an Iraqi immigrant married a prepubescent girl, according to the traditions of his Muslim religion and the customs of his homeland. She escaped from him and reported abuse to authorities. The man claimed that the state had no right to interfere in his "church" marriage. The state protected her, as the marriage was contrary to the laws of the state, performed without a license. I think the state did the right thing.
All of this highlights the importance of Christians working in the political sphere to insure that the state does not redefine marriage. The result really will be an erosion of the concept of Christian marriage, and perhaps the end of the state's respect of marriages performed in a church (in not requiring one spouse to testify against another, for example). I'm afraid we cannot advocate for a neat separation of church and state in this matter, but must continually work to ensure that governments continue to define marriage as church and state has for centuries.
-
Permalink Reply by Matt Jamison on
-
David,
I don't think so, but it is a good point to ponder.
There are several situations where the state might marry a couple, but the church would not. For example, we Lutherans typically require pre-marital pastoral counseling before the wedding. The Justice of the Peace does not. As far as I know, the policies of our church body allow a pastor to preside at weddings of people who are not members of the LCMS; though some pastors might refuse to do so.
Marriage is not a sacrament in Lutheranism, and the rules of communion apply only to communion. Notice that we practice "open baptism;" we don't require membership in our church body to baptize someone.
I'm okay with a situation where the state has very loose standards about who can marry, but the church has higher standards; it has been that way for a long time. Gay marriage, however, creates big problems for the relationship of church and state, even if the state doesn't force the church to bless gay unions.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Brugge on
-
The church tries as much as we can to view marriage as God does. The church should therefor always have a higher standard for who can marry, and a higher view of the obligations that accompany the commitments made in marriage. The church should have no problem having pastors attest to the state that a valid marriage has been formed, and, if the pastor performs some of the state's bureaucratic paperwork in order to accomplish that simple task, that is a matter of no doctrinal consequence and contributes to the good order of the congregation.
Gay marriage stands God's order on its head, but might not be such a matter of great import except for a couple of key considerations. One is that, if the state permits same-sex marriage, then the state promotes such unions to the same extent that it promotes marriages. This puts the church in a position of teaching that the state is promoting grave error and providing societal advantages for a particular form of sin. This is why the push for same-sex marriage counters the church through government-sponsored diversity training, sensitivity exercises, and tolerance promotion. The state is undertaking efforts, through school and government programs and through civil rights legislation, that teach the opposite of what the church teaches. This puts the state in the business of religious instruction, and puts us all on the road to a big collision between church and state.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2012 Created by Norm Fisher.
Powered by
