A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

Posted by XT on June 15th, 2009 in Progressive Faith

Martin Marty does a decent job of glossing over the issue of same-sex marriage. He writes:

Since the Protestant Reformation — blame Luther and company and the elaboration of marriage law in the United States — no American cleric, unless he or she is also a civic official, e.g., a county clerk, ever marries anyone or, to be clearer, never “performs” or “officiates” at a marriage. In all the states where I’ve “performed” marriages, it was made clear that I sign a document and it goes to the state for authorization, recording, and effecting the marriage.

What clergy do is “bless” marrying couple. To my knowledge, in American history no state has commanded (by law) any minister or priest of any faith to perform a marriage, to marry some one. It’s a civil act, again by choice first of the Protestant leadership in Europe.

Not exactly. My civil marriage certificate had to be signed by an officiant to be official. A list of people who can serve as officiants is as follows:

Judges of a Federal District Court, United States magistrates, Judges of a Municipal Court, Judges of the Superior Court, Judges of a Tax Court, Retired judges of the Superior Court, Judge or the Superior or Tax Court who has resigned in good standing, any Mayor/Deputy Mayor or Chairman of any Township Committee, Village President of New Jersey, County Clerks, and every minister of every religion, are hereby authorized to solemnize marriages or civil unions between such persons as may lawfully enter into the matrimonial relation or civil union; and every religious society, institution or organization in this State may join together in marriage or civil union such persons according to the rules and customs of the society, institution or organization.

So the retired Catholic priest that signed my marriage license didn’t just “bless” our marriage. He helped create it. He stood in the place of a legal representative of the government.

Now, I can have my pastor come and bless my home at any time. But when he does so, he isn’t going to sign a legal document that says he is standing in for a judge or mayor. When my pastor baptised my children, he blessed them – but there was no legal document forwarded to the county clerk to be recorded.

But I can find Marty’s position to be palatable, if a bit misinformed. Chuck Colson, on the other hand, is just plain wrong. He writes:

It’s nice that the New Hampshire legislature in its magnanimity has seen fit to “exempt” clergy and religious groups and their employees from “having to participate in such ceremonies,” because it will save a lot of right-believing Christians and Jewish clergy from hefty legal fees. But the same protections are not extended to all religious believers–like owners of private businesses (florists or photographers for example), who will refuse to violate the teaching of their faith and their own consciences.

Somehow, I don’t think there will be anyone trying to force a florist to give them flowers. The open competition of the market makes that unnecessary. Same thing for photographers or caterers or anything else.

His theology is as bad as his legal reasoning:

Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundational institution of our and every civilization. For Christians and Jews, marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred act because it was instituted by God from the very beginning of humanity (Genesis 2:24).

The verse he quotes doesn’t even mention marriage:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

In fact, that verse could just as easily be used to invalidate any claim to marriage being a religious act. Because, let’s be clear – there was no one there to perform a marriage for Adam and Eve (or Steve, either).

In fact, the first mention of marriage comes in Genesis 29:

Laban replied, “It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one.

Those who are familiar with the story will recognize it. Jacob has agreed to work for Laban for seven years to get the hand of his true love – Rachel. But Laban substitutes Rachel’s sister, Leah, because – wait for it – custom dictated that the older daughter be married first. And let’s not pretend this wasn’t a “real” marriage. Leah gave birth to Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah – all fathered by Jacob and all in a vain attempt to get him to love her. Instead, his marriage was little more than a regular booty call.

But wait, the story gets even better. Rachel, you see, was barren – so she gave her servant Bilhah to her husband for an extra booty call so that she (Rachel) could take Bilhah’s child as her own when she conceived. Bilhah bore two sons – Dan and Naphtali. Leah, then, gives her servant (Zilpah) to her husband and Zilpah had Gad and Asher – two more sons. Then Leah “buys” a turn in her husband’s bed by giving Rachel some of Reuben’s mandrakes and conceives Issachar. Then she conceived Zebulun. After Jacob and Leah had a daughter (Dinah), finally Rachel conceived and had Joseph.

So Colson invents a reference to marriage when there is none, and he conveniently ignores the actual first reference to marriage in the Bible. I wonder why he’d do that? Oh yeah, it doesn’t fit his politics.

Technorati Tags: Chuck Colson

Sphere: Related Content