After being AWOL for many weeks I am returning with a serious post. Arguably not the best strategy to increase my readership, but I stand by my blog tagline.
The following is an excerpt from my ordination paper. This issue became clearer to me as I attended a remarkable Christian wedding this weekend. The worshipful atmosphere that permeated the entire ceremony threw into stark incongruity the moment of the "signing of the registry" - the insertion of the state into what was otherwise an entirely Christian service of worship.
While the comments that follow are written from the Christian, and particularly Protestant perspective, I hope that one can insert the name of any religious confession that is in agreement with the orthodox Christian view of marriage and maintain the same argument.
Excerpt
Recent changes in Canadian marriage law have raised the issue of the relationship between the state and the church in this matter. The historical and current position is that the state, for the purposes of legal recognition and establishment, licenses and sanctions marriage in Canada. The state, at the provincial level registers specific persons charged with the solemnization of this contract. These persons are state employees – justices of the peace – and clergy - who are not state employees, but are "agents" of the state in this particular matter.
The changes in recent court decisions as to which individuals the state will allow to enter into marriage have caused considerable concern within Christian denominations and churches as well as other religious groups. The issue, as I understand it, centers on whether or not denominations and clergy can and/or should remain registered by the state to solemnize marriages if they are compelled to do so for persons whom their religious beliefs would not allow.
The first issue for me is whether or not any Christian – clergy or otherwise – is compelled by teaching in Scripture to officiate marriage ceremonies under any circumstances. My study of this issue suggests the answer is “no”. Before the Reformation marriage was, and still is, one of the “sacraments” of the Roman & Eastern Orthodox Catholic Churches - a position the protestant reformers rejected. Indeed, the North American Baptist Conference (with which the church I serve is associated) – and most protestant confessions for that matter – recognizes only two “ordinances” – those being “communion” and “baptism”. Therefore the protestant Christian church and clergy’s involvement in the state-sanctioned solemnization of marriage has been and is a matter of cultural convention – not church doctrine.
While our understanding of God’s will through our study of Scripture directs us to celebrate and practice marriage as a specific, God-ordained relationship - when in the proper circumstances - between a man and a woman, we cannot impose this view and practice upon the state if it should deem otherwise. This is also the same principle in the matter of what the state allows as reasons for divorce.
One serious theological question raised by the church being involved in the recognition or solemnization of marriage is that the rite generally includes the declaration of vows by the participants – this in seeming defiance of Christ’s admonishment against taking oaths:
"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." Matthew 5:33-37 - TNIV
I suggest that we carefully consider whether our Christian marriage ceremonies contain “oaths” or is our understanding that these "vows" are statements of intent – a “yes” or a “no” - and thus acceptable.
While I affirm that the church, as a community, has the freedom to celebrate the union of a man and woman in marriage in circumstances that are in obedience to the prescriptions of Scripture, there seems to me to be no compelling reason for Bible-believing Christian churches or clergy to do so for any union that does not meet the Lord’s standards. To do otherwise would have the appearance of giving tacit approval to this behavior in the name of the Lord - this hardly seems to be something that could glorify His name or be seen as intellectually and spiritually honest in view of Biblical truth and church doctrine.
We must be careful in how we discuss and present this position to those outside the church and those within the church who may not have thought this through fully. Individual Christians should attend and celebrate marriages with people who are their friends, regardless of the couple's religious practice or the circumstances of the union. We are not called to reject or abandon those who do not follow God’s teaching and direction. We are to witness to them and treat them with love and grace. Relationships are important and grace must be our method in all interactions.
Having said that, the church is not required by law to agree with, affirm, support or enact the policy of the state in the matter of marriage unless it is in a legal relationship with the state. Indeed, the law clearly states that it is now illegal for a government licensed person or organization to refuse to provide a legal good or service to any individuals on the basis of sexual orientation. Churches who maintain their clergy’s legal status as registered marriage officiants, but hold to policy that would reject performing marriages for couples the state deems as legal, are in effect saying that they would disobey the law as established by duly elected and appointed officials. Ironically in such a situation the church or clergy’s “yes” would not actually be “yes”.
The church and its clergy should recognize and celebrate what God is doing in the lives of believers who come together in marriage in a way that is a worshipful and obedient corporate act before God. As long as the state requires a ceremony or rite before a registered official in order to legally recognize a marriage then Christian couples can do that also, if they choose to, before state officials at another time. Or even at the same time if the Justice of the Peace is agreeable to witnessing and officially recognizing the wedding. Wedding planners may get headaches trying to coordinate clergy and a J.O.T.P. but that’s why they get paid the "big bucks".
As a clergyperson, relinquishing my “official” status as a marriage officiant would be a powerful personal public spiritual statement, at least to me if no one else. It could only be done with the full support of the leadership and congregation of the church I serve. The political and social realities of our day will, at some point, most likely force churches and their clergy to face these tough decisions.
In essence I believe I am arguing for a clearer separation of the church and the state in our country. As long as churches maintain state-sanctioned and registered clergy for the purpose of the legal solemnization of marriage they have an obligation to observe and comply with the law of the land. But, the churches must understand that they are not compelled by law to maintain this relationship. Therefore those churches that do maintain this legal relationship should, in my opinion, honor the law of the land and honestly admit that they have placed it above the law and teachings of God.
The state does not agree with the position of the majority of the Christian churches in this matter. Such differences of position are allowable and, I believe, desirable in a truly democratic society that supports the concept of freedom of religion. If the churches of Jesus Christ choose not to be agents of the state in this matter I believe they will become free to follow Him in obedience and also to continue to be obedient and lawful members, albeit dissenting ones in this matter, of our society.
To do otherwise, in my opinion, is to try to "have our cake and eat it, too."
Shalom
6 comments:
Amen.
But why is this a headache for the wedding planner? It is so myopic to think that both a justice of the peace and a pastor must be present. In fact to insert the legal fiction back into the wedding service by way of a human face will be just as artificial as signing a register. (Which does not have to be signed at the wedding.) North America is an exception to the rest of the world. Church weddings and state weddings are separate. Some seminary friends of mine were married in Switzerland. First was a state wedding then was an ecclesial wedding. One missionary I know was married in Cameroon and had three ceremonies state, church and village. Some of these can be very simple. A state wedding is only to enable certain sanctioned benefits. A church wedding is a ceremony before God doing no less than giving recognition of divine providence in the union. Very different and separate, which one has the most importance is up to the couple to decide. As a pastor we need to make as much of it as we can.
By the way, I see many places were we might need to deny the prerogatives of the state.
God Bless
Point taken. Although my vision was more in this vein - a JTOP witnesses from the pew and gets the signatures in the foyer as the couple exits, or before hand and signs the paper either way. But, you're right. I suspect that if clergy rescinded their registrations en masse the bureaucratic response would be to reduce the registration process to merely submitting the correctly completed documents to the appropriate agency with the requisite fee. As far as the state is concerned it's just a contract.
My paper will be duly edited.
Thanks Rick.
No problem brother,
If we are getting an enmasse resignation of our registrations then sign me up. I am a bit torn within that I have a registration number. Currently, dropping it seems a bit too reactionary & fundie at the moment. Of course, one good reason and I am gone.
Have you seen my latest posts on this?
I just read your post brother. It is quite right and very well stated.
I am pessimistic about an "en masse" rescinding of clergy registration in Canada but if I were given the lectern before the leaders of the denominations and associations my argument would include my previous points and the following ones.
While I agree that the general reaction to rescinding registration may seem "a bit too reactionary and fundie" I believe it is perhaps one of the last chances we will have to take the initiative in the wider conversation.
Firstly, it would place all churches that do so on much more solid ground when it comes to commenting on what the Word of God teaches about marriage and what the church is prepared to do in light of that truth. To very great degree the marginally and culturally religious see marriage as part of the "business" the church is in. Rescinding registration is a clear statement that whatever our involvement in marriage is it most definitely is not just "business" to us.
While the media may initially paint the church as reactionary for rescinding registration, this characterization would be much, much harder to refute if the churches do so after a major court case is lost over this issue. The media won't even have to accuse the church of "sour grapes" in that case - the public will already be there. Of course, the moderate mainline and independent churches will be the first to accuse those who rescind registration of being narrow-minded fundamentalists, but we have to face the fact that this issue may be our modern-day reformation cause. In any case, the truth is there already has been a parting of the theological ways over this.
I also believe it is presumptuous and arrogant on the part of the churches to assume we could or even should win such a case. The law of the land is clear and becoming clearer every day. The state is more than prepared to define legal marriage in Canada and to defend that definition by means both active and passive. In the latter case I refer you to the recent decision of the Attorney General of B.C. not to pursue prosecution of anyone in the case of alleged polygamy by some of the residents of Bountiful. While the RCMP may wish to continue their decades-long investigation they will have to find evidence of some other crime as the A.G. has made it clear he will not proceed with the charges the RCMP has labored so long to try to prove. The state is making the rules and they most definitely are not based on God's Word.
Lastly, regardless of public perception, we must face the reality that the laws of Canada put us in a hypocritical position in this matter if we choose to maintain registration and refuse to obey human law within that relationship. Public perception on this issue by those outside the church may be negative but what of those within? My conversations with Christians of good conscience suggests that the faithful have been and are still waiting for the church leadership to take a clear stand on this issue. I believe now is the time before it is too late to do so effectively.
Shalom my brother.
"Do not give your church what they want. Give them what they need." - Rev. Dr. Gary Nelson.
Just to clarify.
If I was to run off and reject my registration number by myself, it means less than it should. I would become some fundamentalist and very reactionary. A reactionary person is not necessarily wrong, just inopportune in timing. Additionally the reactionary person also has a hard time maintaining fellowship appropriately. This is why I am looking for a larger movement. I am not sure today is going to happen, but I want to encourage you in your rejection of this conflation of church and state because it will become a conflagration before too long.
And again to clarify myself - this has become a dialogue (JOY!) - as I stated earlier, I would not rescind my registration without the approval of my church - whom I suspect would also want to see some Association if not Conference support for such a move. I am of the belief that the church should do this but even as a staunch congregationalist I am loathe to take a step that would strain relationships between communities of faith of good conscience.
Never the less, I will not back down from sharing my position nor advocating for it in an appropriate and hopefully loving manner. This is not a hill to die upon yet, although I can see we agree that the state will in all likelihood make it one in the not-too-distant future.
Shalom
*Let us pray for it and seek it together even if it takes some confrontations to get there.*
Post a Comment