This post is part of Groupthink's coverage of the June 26 Supreme Court ruling. In our first post on this topic, Logann Merritt argued in favor of full acceptance of the LGBTQ* community on the basis of Jesus' radical inclusivity. In this follow-up, Marshall Johns represents a more moderate view with a poignant reminder of the radical difference between the kingdom of this world and the Kingdom of God.
A quick preface: this post is heavily influenced by the applied realism of Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You. This is one of the most influential works I have read, and would encourage anyone with a desire to learn about nonviolence and the Church as separated from the State in a fairly Augustinian manner to check this book out. Much of Tolstoy's theological work is not without contention; then again whose is, especially if read critically?
By now, it will have been impossible for anyone to have found this page on the internet without knowing about the Supreme Court's ruling on June 26 to legalize gay marriage in the United States of America. Having read some of the statements from the Justices of our High Court that the New York Times posted shortly after this decision was publicized, as long as the Court thinks they were within their legal bounds set by the United States Code and Constitution, I say good for them.
I will say that again: I am happy for the United States Government to end a form of discrimination denying the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to millions of Americans.
This may sound shocking coming from a person who is, in all honesty, still humbly trying to work through the theological and biblical implications of the new orthodoxy in sexual ethics. It may sound to some like I am straddling the fence, wanting to stay grounded in "traditionalism" yet appear "relevant."
That is just fine by me since all Christians are straddling a fence: considering the challenges of our "dual citizenship" in our current geo-political setting and in God's current Kingdom on earth, such tensions are almost inevitable. In Paul's letter to the Philippian church, he sends them an encouraging word about where their citizenship resides. Although they were quite obviously a part of the Roman empire (an outpost where retired Roman military officers lived, in fact), Paul says to them in 3:20 "But our citizenship[or commonwealth] is in heaven..." He beseeches this church to remember that their ultimate calling is to the Kingdom of God, not to their current political regime.
This sentiment is reiterated in Romans 13:1, where Paul calls for the church in Roman to "be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God..." Let's not forget that Paul wrote this letter to the church in Rome during a time when followers of The Way were beginning to face heavy persecution from Roman authority. Yet Paul tells these people to not resist the government. Why? God's authority over His Kingdom is the authority we need to be concerned about, which means our current government should not hinder us from being a beacon of His hope and love to those around us.
(If you read the rest of chapter 13, you see that Paul thinks God is ultimately doing what He wants with governmental powers. Yeah, its confusing stuff sometimes).
Certain groups of believers in the United States have forgotten that our government, in all its potential for good through democracy and representation, is ultimately a representative of its political groups, not God. God's Kingdom and the kingdom of the Stars and Stripes are not synonymous, and that is alright; I would go so far as to argue that it is better for the integrity of the Church. We should not conflate politicians and prophets.
What I am saying does have a bit of Anabaptist flare to it. On some days, I do agree with Menno Simons that Christians have no duty in politics, and I understand that I could be charged with promoting an idealism leading to inaction and complacency in the Church, a sort of "let's just let this thing go since there is nothing we can do for it" approach. But maybe there is a wisdom in letting go of some things that we think are inalienable rights, endowed by our Creator, and I would encourage any believer who thinks that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are our highest calling to reread Philippians and 1 John.
What we need to see as the Church in this decision is not "what Constitutional rights were taken from us" or "how this country is godless and/or going to Hell."
What we need to see in this matter is how the idea of loving our neighbor (institutionally) has changed in light of this. We need to see the new cultural situation as a new chance for us to show God's love for the world, not as an opportunity to take pot shots at viewpoints that are different from ours. Our world may never feel the same again in light of this decision, but that is just fine. I pray that, in the days to come, we will find encouragement in the words of the old hymn:
1. This is my Father's world,
and to my listening ears
all nature sings, and round me rings
the music of the spheres.
This is my Father's world:
I rest me in the thought
of rocks and trees, of skies and seas;
his hand the wonders wrought.
2. This is my Father's world,
the birds their carols raise,
the morning light, the lily white,
declare their maker's praise.
This is my Father's world:
he shines in all that's fair;
in the rustling grass I hear him pass;
he speaks to me everywhere.
3. This is my Father's world.
O let me ne'er forget
that though the wrong seems oft so strong,
God is the ruler yet.
This is my Father's world:
why should my heart be sad?
The Lord is King; let the heavens ring!
God reigns; let the earth be glad!
No comments:
Post a Comment