I’m an evangelical Christian, yet I refuse to vote or advocate against gay marriage. I’ll admit, there aren’t many people like me, especially south of the Mason-Dixon line. But that’s why this argument needs to be put before the Christians who read in the Bible an admonition against same-sex acts and who, as a consequence, politically oppose same-sex marriage. Disclaimer: for the purpose of this argument, I will be treating homosexuality as wrong or sinful, and I suspect that this alone will rankle some readers. They should keep reading. I am also not addressing secular arguments for heterosexual-only marriage. I aim merely to illuminate and question the assumption that Christian faith necessitates political opposition to gay marriage.
Here is the heart of the matter: because many Christians believe homosexuality is immoral and that marriage is a strictly heterosexual institution, they feel a duty to oppose the extension of marriage to include gay couples. They believe a compromise on this stance would be akin to abandoning their morals or betraying their faith. What they overlook, however, is the leap from religious conviction to political action — a leap that requires much careful reflection before taking. Believing a behavior is sinful does not need to translate into outlawing it throughout the country.
Indeed, politics and religion are a toxic combination. The voice of evangelical Christianity in America — by which I mean primarily vocal Protestantism with a focus on cultural renewal — has been appropriated to political causes in a way that seems to imply that opposing same-sex marriage is the long-lost 11th commandment, or that Jesus would have been a Republican were he alive today. There should be voices of opposition from within — if only for the sake of variety — to protest the over-politicization of Christianity.
Drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, lying, swearing, worshiping other gods — all are considered immoral by our faith, yet you will see no Christian seriously advocating to make such behaviors illegal. The answer is plain: we recognize that we live in a society that broadly affords citizens the right to conduct their private lives as they see fit. Christians, like other religious groups, readily accept that we live in a society that will legally allow behaviors we ourselves avoid. We simply hold ourselves to a different standard than secular law. The desire to transform the culture we live in is a deeply rooted aspect of Christian faith. But expressing this desire through the polls on every issue is a questionable approach.
It is acceptable and occasionally necessary to separate religious condemnation of a behavior from political condemnation. Christians can allow same-sex marriage to occur in their communities without abandoning any of the tenets of their faith. It’s not a question of sticking to one’s morals or defending Christianity, but of recognizing that political coercion is a powerful and dangerous tool that should be used sparingly — not whenever we think someone’s private sexual behavior is wrong. It is unwise for the Church to always be the loudest voice in the legislative chambers. Christians were the driving force behind Prohibition, yet any history lesson will demonstrate the folly of attempting to promote Christian morality through secular law rather than through cultural evangelism. Moral law without the faith and love that undergird it can be an arbitrary and oppressive imposition.
Such inextricable linkage of politics and faith is noxious to both alike. Indeed, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was written at least as much to protect the Church from the corrupting influence of the state as it was to protect the state from intrusions of the Church, as Yale’s Stephen Carter pointed out in his book The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivializes Religion. While I maintain that religious belief should play a role in public life insofar as it legitimately shapes the moral convictions of our leaders, and while I believe that there are some issues on which the Christian community should take a stand, the private sexual lives of our citizens is not one of them. We cannot and should not force on others our moral stance on all issues, especially intensely private matters like sexuality, just as others cannot and should not force their morality on us. Indeed, a position such as the one I’m advocating must necessarily be reciprocated with similar tolerance from gay-marriage advocates: churches must be allowed to refuse to marry same-sex couples under their Constitutional right to freedom of religious expression. Any claims that such refusals are mere bigotry subject to legal coercion would compel resistance to the point of civil disobedience from the Christian community.
A Christian must ask himself what he hopes to accomplish by legally coercing someone who doesn’t share his beliefs to follow his moral code. Realistically, gay Americans will be allowed to marry legally in all states within the next few decades. In the meantime, the Church will be seen as an oppressive institution bent on imposing its morality by legislative fiat. What the current evangelical Christian community is fighting for is a Pyrrhic victory with little to gain other than the preservation of “traditional” marriage, which today can be legally attained in a Las Vegas chapel and annulled the next day. No, much of American society long ago abandoned the standards that Christians rightfully attach to traditional marriage, especially when marriage became seen as a function of secular government. What ideal are we upholding that hasn’t already been rejected by heterosexual abuses of the institution of marriage? Our definition of marriage will not change — has not changed — regardless of the fads in the political climate. Allowing gay people to marry to will not diminish the sanctity that Christians attach to the institution for themselves.
As I close, let me point out why ending the fight against marriage equality will benefit the Church. One thing that prevents many people from approaching the Church is its tragic reputation as an unforgiving place where disapproval comes free and compassion is pricey — a reputation that opponents of gay marriage can unintentionally feed. Whether or not it is deserved, this image is what Christians have to fight against when we seek to bring others to the faith. The day the Church says, “You know what, I disagree with your behavior, but why don’t we sit down and talk about it?” instead of “You’re wrong, and I’ll make sure the rest of the country agrees with me” is the day we begin to fight in earnest against the perception that Christ’s body is anything but a community seeking to love and transform the world.
The voting booth is not our sanctuary. Pope Francis’ recent comments touch on this aspect of our faith. We do not need to condone homosexuality in order to recognize that in a pluralistic society gay people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit — that we cannot force people to adhere to our morality by edict, just as we cannot criminalize being a non-Christian. Indeed, this recognition is the first step toward reconciliation with the gay community, and reconciliation is the first step toward having meaningful conversations with each other. Jesus’s table was open to all. Ours should be as well.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | YesterdayRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 2 days agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 2 days agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
