Podcast: Download
Subscribe RSS
I’ve talked about this before, but it’s been in the news and I happened across a great article about it that I will share at the bottom.
The issue, I suppose, is whether we’re supposed to try to reform the world and its governments. I find nothing to support the idea we should in the Bible. Jesus told us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s. He also told us to be in the world but not of it. Paul was even clearer, saying “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” (1 Cor 5:12 ESV)
I certainly think we should influence our society, but where is that line? For me, the big issue is that we are first and foremost called to share the truth of the Good News that Jesus died for us so we could be part of the Kingdom of God. Anything that makes doing that more difficult or less effective is therefore wrong. If you look at how the world sees us because of our attempts to legislate the Bible, it’s clear to me those attempts have interfered with evangelism.
So is it anything goes?
God created marriage. He made it a lifelong covenant to be shared by one man with one woman. Anything else is not a godly marriage. The issue here is we have God’s covenant of marriage and the government’s marriage laws. One belongs to Caesar, the other to God. When we try to make them the same thing we get off track.
Three decades ago, when homosexuals wanted civil unions that gave them the same legal rights as a government marriage, I was all for it. I could see it was only a matter of time and I liked that it was not called marriage. Well-meaning Christians prevented that and so they moved to the same thing only calling it marriage. Both then and now it was a Caesar thing and I think we erred when we got too involved.
For me defending marriage starts with my marriage. I work at being the best husband I can be and I do what I can to model that to those around me. Next, I support the marriages around me. I do what I can to encourage and help other couples. Because it’s what we do for a living Lori and I do more of that than most folks, but we should all be doing it to some extent.
I also defend marriages by standing against things such as adultery, porn, abuse, unloving behaviour, and unwarranted divorces. If I saw any of these things in the life of a friend I would be all over them, as lovingly as I could.
The world is driven by sin and selfishness. This is a given and it leads to many things that are not right with God. I’m not saying those things are okay, nor am I saying we should be silent. But when our efforts interfere with evangelism it’s time to step back and get our priorities right.
A post worth reading:
The Dispatch | An Open Letter to Those Who Think I’ve Lost My Christian Faith ◄ I’ve never heard of David French, so all I know about him is what I read here. I think he nailed it, It’s behind a paywall, but if you click the red “join” button and go to the bottom of the next page, you can “Continue with a free account only”.
Photo by Olivia Bauso on Unsplash
Shop Amazon ♦ Shop to give links page
We’re donation supported Thanks for your help!
This post may contain affiliate links, see my disclosure for info.
To me this statement clarifies his position. “I think the default posture of the state should be toward individual liberty and autonomy, absent evidence of direct harm to others.” He obviously believes sin doesn’t bring direct harm to others. I disagree.
@Ant123 – A valid point. But does fighting it tooth and nail do great harm to the cause of the Gospel?
I don’t see that as obvious. I’ve seen alcohol, fornication, church communities, social media do great harm to friends of mine – should these be banned?
Those things are choices individuals make. That is not the same as universally defining a term that forces all of society to abide by a moral code that is destructive.
It is not. It’s a word. Defining a term does not force anyone to follow any moral code. Americans misusing the word “football” doesn’t affect me at all, and using the word “fornication” to describe my marriage in legal terms doesn’t affect me in any way. By the same token, if my marriage is not recognised by the American government (I’m an immigrant, we were careful to ensure it would be), that affects me only inasmuch as the legal implications affect me. Doesn’t affect my marriage, recognised by my wife and I, our families, friends, church, no more than legally recognising interracial marriages changed anything morally for those involved.
I will argue that the term is already applied in legal terms to plenty of immoral relationships, theologically speaking, and that this is irrelevant and morally neutral for Christians – what we do, how we act, what we believe is what matters.
Indeed, if recognising marriage outside of traditional marriage (eg polyamory) is going to lead to a more peaceful society, less legal complexity for inheritances etc (“the peace of the city” as Paul puts it in Romans) then I think Christians should be in favour, not against. We do not have to approve of, encourage, or counsel such relationships or lifestyles.
@toonarmycaptain – Good points. Most of us have come to see marriage as what the Government calls it. Because of that, what they say about it becomes a big deal to me.
Many second marriages are illegitimate in God’s eyes. Yet we ignore that. Many divorces don’t end a marriage in God’s eyes, but we ignore that too. And the government sees marriage as a contract full of loopholes, while God most certainly does not.
This is why I want us to see that there is God’s covenant marriage AND the government’s legal definition of marriage. They are very different, and you can have either one without the other. For most, the wise and biblical choice is to have both, but God’s is the one that matters.
BTW, I find your thinking common among non-Americans, particularly European Christians. I sometimes think I was born on the wrong side of the pond!
I’ve absolutely met Christians from former USSR countries who got married under communism, and some of them had multiple weddings – a state wedding, and a church wedding in secret.
I’ve almost come to the opinion that a couple who have been living together faithful to eachother for 20 years with kids etc, unmarried, before coming to Jesus, are essentially married in all but the legal sense, and probably have just as valid a marriage as mine, before God.
I know a lot of people over here (in the US) care very much, but I couldn’t care much less. There’s an argument with some validity that getting rid of marriage in the legal sense, replacing it with some sort of partnership or civil union for administrative/inheritance/tax purposes will end strife and debates (throw religious tax exemptions in as well for all I care) will serve to advance the Gospel, rather than get people hung up on relatively small matters.
I see such preoccupation with laws/power as related to the age old human desire for rules to be checked off, over heart change. I’d hazard a vague theory that there’s something to do with the Puritan heritage in America, whereas similar inclinations were more overshadowed by the Enlightenment and then secularism in Europe, rounded out by the rise and fall of totalitarian/fascist regimes in the 20th century. Hard to be too concerned with rigid commitment to ritual/tradition when the 800 year old churches were bombed, or legal terminology when you had an illegal ‘church’ wedding in a living room and smuggled enough Bibles across borders to probably get life/death penalties (people I know).
I don’t think fighting it tooth and nail does harm to the gospel but doing it in an non Christlike way does. Just as being passive and letting the culture rot run rampant does terrible harm to the gospel. For how much do I really believe and have conviction about anything if I concede at the sign of opposition? What does that tell my wife, children, friends or relatives (especially those not in the faith)? Fighting lies with truth can be done in a proper biblical manner. It is true some have not. But in the same way just because that some Christian business owners do not operate their business in a Christ like fashion doesn’t mean all other Christians should close their business and or quite shopping, neither because some Christians have done it wrong should the rest of us forfeit our obligation to do it correctly as so helped by God.
@Ant123 – Who said concede? I stated I see marriage as between a man and a woman. I was in no way ambiguous. Choosing not to fight what is clearly a losing battle when my time, energy, and money could be better spent on other things seems like wisdom to me.
When they tried to get Jesus to speak on the political debates of the time He declined and pointed to the Kingdom of God. Some of what He refused to comment on was as contentious then as this is for us today.
I don’t really see moral issues as a political debate. If God says this is what marriage is then that is what it is and we do. If he says stealing is wrong then that is what it is. Now I certainly don’t expect non Christians to follow everything God says. But I think it is reasonable to expect all to follow the moral codes that are destructive to all of society when not followed.
“Choosing not to fight what is clearly a losing battle when my time, energy, and money could be better spent on other things seems like wisdom to me.” The problem is choosing not to fight 60+ years ago is what led to this battle being a losing battle. I have seen much more of the church being effected by the culture than the other way around. I agree we should spend most of our time influencing those around us. But I don’t believe we should abandon the public square.
Thanks for what you do here. It is a very valuable part of the fight.
@Ant123 – Your comment about sixty years ago is certainly valid. Both in and outside the church, we have failed to be the voice of morality.
Thankyou! Attitudes on this are so strange to me as an immigrant to the US. Where I come from it was often a matter of the Gospel: legislating such things running counter to the Gospel, as Jesus came to fulfil the Law, not enforce it. The way to see righteousness is to love more people more, introduce them to Jesus, and see them changed by God, not by force of law – which can only change outward behaviour, not the heart where sin resides.