Coalition For Marriage: an open letter to fellow Christians
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
I know many of you have been encouraging others to support the "Coalition For Marriage". And I fully respect you for that. However, I have not signed the petition, and do not intend to do so. I want to explain why.
Strictly speaking, I agree with the aims of the "Coalition". As an evangelical Christian, I believe that God really does join people together in a union called marriage. And if the state is to provide the best protection for the vulnerable, it first needs to identify those entities and institutions that exist in society. So I would ideally want the state to identify marriage correctly (as between one man and one woman), so that it can provide justice most effectively.
But I've been thinking about the following points too, in making my decision not to support the "Coalition":
(1) Marriage is something God does, not something the state does. So even if the state does adopt what I see as an incorrect definition of the word "marriage", that will do nothing to affect the actual institution of marriage. In contrast to the "Coalition", I see the legal definition of the word "marriage" as a relatively insignificant issue.
(2) We live in a deeply plural society, and (as a non-Anglican) I do not recognise the state as belonging to one group in society more than to another, nor do I recognise the state as having a role in adjudicating on matters of deep division, nor do I think Christians should seek to use the state to impose our view on others. The way forward is surely to seek consensus and compromise through reasoned and courteous discussions, and not through assertive displays of our power and influence.
(3) We follow a Lord who was mocked, marginalised and crucified, and who calls us to take up our "cross" and follow him. His priority in ministry was reaching the weak, vulnerable, marginalised and oppressed members of society, and never to seek the public honour of his name. Following him means our concern should not primarily be to stand up for our own rights, or for the public honour given to Christianity, but to serve and give ourselves for the weakest in society. I see absolutely no concern for the weak and vulnerable in the campaign of the "Coalition". No arguments are put forward that if the legal definition of "marriage" is changed, this would result in oppression for vulnerable people. Instead, the campaign appears to be solely an attempt to secure, at whatever cost, the public privilege given to the Christian understanding of marriage. This attitude strikes me as deeply un-Christian.
(4) The tone and scale of the campaign have, I think, done great harm to the public perception of Christianity. The impression among many that traditional Christians are homophobic bigots has been reinforced by this campaign. I want to distance myself from that.
(5) On the same-sex marriage issue, I do see a way forward that would satisfy the deepest concerns of all parties. If the state no longer defined the word "marriage", then there could be equal access to civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and no one would be pressurised to speak of "marriage" in ways that conflict with their sincere beliefs. I would urge all my brothers and sisters to seek solutions of this nature, so that we may follow what Paul said: "If possible, as far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Romans 12:18, ESV).
Yours in Christ,
|Print article||This entry was posted by Anthony on 9 Mar 2012 at 2.03 am, and is filed under Christian. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.|
about 2 months ago - 2 comments
The Green Party is celebrating its 40th birthday this weekend in Nottingham at its party conference. I'll be there (from tomorrow). It will be my first ever political party conference, so I'm quite excited. Here are some of the things I'm hoping to get out of it… I've been in the Green Party for almost…
about 3 months ago - 12 comments
Would you like a punch? "Punch" is an example of a word with more than one meaning. It might look like this in a dictionary—and you'd better be clear which I mean before you answer! punch n. 1 a hit or a strike with a fist. 2 a device for punching holes. 3 a drink,…
about 9 months ago - 5 comments
The Green Party—of which I am a member—has a clear commitment to equality. It's a commitment that resonates with me as a Christian. But what does "equality" mean in practice? The "hot potato" of the year is the issue of same-sex marriage: whether, in the interests of equality, the definition of the word "marriage" in…
about 1 year ago - 1 comment
If you've signed the Coalition For Marriage (C4M) petition, or the Coalition For Equal Marriage (C4EM) petition, or indeed both or neither (and I think that includes at least one if not both of you), then you may well be interested in the Keep politics out of marriage page on Facebook. "Why?" you may be…
about 1 year ago - 3 comments
A few thoughts on the proposals for allowing same-sex marriage. It seems to me that the Christian view on marriage can easily be lost in the discussion. This view was expressed by Jesus when he said, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Mt. 19:6; Mk 10:9, ESV). Note that it says…