Jonathan Lindsey, a retired Baylor University administrator, has an interested op-ed up over as Associated Baptist Press titled On marriage, time to separate civil from ecclesiastical
Lindsey writes:
(ABP) — In this 400th-anniversary year of Baptist history it’s time for Baptists to take the lead — and invite other ecclesiastical bodies to join them — in removing one of the final vestiges of theocracy in the United States. From the earliest days of the settlement of this country by Europeans, the theocratic practice of clergy functioning as civil officials has been practiced notably in the performance of marriage ceremonies.
Baptists who truly believe in separating the functions of church and state should have long ago protested this unholy alliance. But, becoming acculturated and benefiting from certain forms of cultural dominance regionally, we along with our Protestant colleagues have continued to practice this joining of a religious act with a civil act.
I’m sympathetic to “separating the civil from the ecclesiastical” as a solution to the marriage wars. See Gay Marriage: A Way Out by Oliver “Buzz” Thomas, formerly of the Baptist Joint Committee.
However, I’m pretty confident that Lindsey would have a hard time recruiting many Baptists to take the lead in ending the “theocratic practice of clergy functioning as civil officials” in the performance of marriage ceremonies. Heck, there’s still some obvious disagreement over basic church-state issues such as the Faith-Based Initiative among mainstream, moderate and progressive Baptists!
It’s a good op-ed complete with a Roger Williams reference and everything, check it out.
Related posts:
- Baptist Theologian On Gay Marriage Roger Olson, a theologian at Baylor’s Truett Seminary, has an...
- Gay Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts Here are a few more interesting findings from the Faith...
- D.C. Baptists Voice Support For Same-Sex Marriage Earlier this week, Washington D.C.’s City Council voted to legalize...
- Glenn Beck Sees No Harm In Same-Sex Marriage Here’s the video of Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Fox News...
- Study Shows GOP & SBC Marriage Consummated A recent study conducted in April by Lifeway Research...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
I absolutely agree with this.
Marriage is a state function and a religious function. The result of this mixture is that it is difficult to sort out. One solution is, of course, for one or the other to come up with a different name and leave marriage to the other. Much easier said than done. Terms like husband and wife are also used in both venues.
But the solution to the argument may be for one side or the other to change. I personally favor the government changing the term it uses, but that will take a lot of legislating.
Christian marriage is about becoming one flesh as a sign of the coming Kingdom. Civil marriage has to do with being able to sue each other if you tire of the other-and being sure your kids can legally inherit.
BP, meanwhile, has a few people who’ve gone off the deep end over this:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=30209
http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=30241
Lots of alarmism from BP as usual.
I do concede that there will be obvious emerging conflicts between religious liberty and the legalization of same-sex marriage.
States that have non-discrimination statutes such as Mass and Cali need to offer religious exemptions to groups like Catholic Charities to avoid these conflicts.
We allowed religious non-profits to get in the secular social service delivery business many decades ago. Those groups shouldn’t be forced to violate their religious convictions now in order to stay in business - in this case the adoption business.
Hmm– I think it should be illegal to forbid same-sex couples (married or otherwise) from adopting no matter whether or not the adoption agency is religious or not. Kids need to be adopted. Foster care is no solution. If that is restricted to straights, the kids suffer.
We wouldn’t allow a racist religious group to restrict adoption to couples that are not mixed race, would we?
First, let me say that I don’t think that race and sexual orientation are an apples-to-apples comparison. I know that some gays and lesbians like to make such a comparison but the gays and lesbians that I know are personally unwilling to go there.
As someone who tries to balance a strong Establishment Clause with a robust Free Exercise Clause, I do believe that some religiously motivated discrimination should be protected by the First Amendment. Looking back to 1983, I would have supported (solely on religious freedom grounds) the right of Bob Jones University to deny admission to applicants engaged in interracial dating/marriage. The BJC and many other religious liberty watchdogs sided with BJU in their right to hold racially-motivated discriminatory policies as a private university.
Let society punish those organizations that hold views that are contrary to desired public policy goals. Back in 1983, Bob Jones University was on the fundamentalist fringe. Religiously-motivated views regarding marriage as one-man and one-woman are quite mainstream. Groups like Catholic Charities which have been providing a desired public service as one of the nation’s largest adoption organizations shouldn’t be punished for their still majoritarian moral views regarding the family. If an organization pops up, say started by the MCC, that only wants to provide same-sex couples with children, fine. Religious exemptions must be part of any solution.
We need the ideologues on the right to stop the alarmism. No minister will ever be forced to perform a same-sex wedding, etc. etc. And all the talk of Christians being punished for hate speech by pointing to European examples is absurd (Interestingly one of the legal scholar’s who pushed such alarmism has backtracked from his previous assertions, assertions that are still peddled frequently by the Al Mohler’s of Christian talk radio).
I do think, however, - especially if DOMA is repealed - we will need religious liberty legislation to protect the rights of (mostly) religious organizations.
Why is it absurd to reference Christians being punished for hate speech? What is your reasoning?
Because there are no examples of Christians being punished for hate speech in the United States. There is no real threat that such prosecutions could happen in America under our political and constitutional system. Sweden and the United States have different constitutions with different forms of government. You can’t take an incident in a European country and neatly apply it to America. To do so is to purposely spread fear. Like I said, one well known scholar has changed his tune on this issue and has dropped references to hate speech prosecutions in Europe in his published discussions of same-sex marriage and emerging religious liberty conflicts in America.