| |
Prescript: Campus CrossWalk is a spiritual resource and voice for campus ministries serving the church of Jesus Christ. We may touch on matters of culture, art, science, theology, politics, psychology and history but our primary purpose is spiritual. The article below does not endorse a political candidate or party. It advocates a policy to protect the sacred institution of marriage, something Christians care about regardless of their politics. It also alludes to the public use of Scripture for purposes that beg for careful scrutiny. Judge the issue for yourself.
On July 13, 2004, Minnesota Senator Mark Dayton quoted the Bible prolifically in a speech on the senate floor. The usual opponents of such politicized Bible-thumping were as silent as church mice. You see, Mr. Dayton was using the Bible to advocate a liberal policy that would deconstruct marriage
into whatever any church or state wanted it to be.
Senator Dayton led with one of Jesus‘ most famous lines; "Love thy neighbor as thyself." He followed with Jesus’ warning to beware of "false prophets” who, as Dayton claimed, “spread hatred rather than love.” His interpretation of the false prophets’ mission is weak but let’s agree that Jesus wanted love, not hate, to increase.
As Mr. Dayton continued to pound his senatorial pulpit with Bible verses, his level of accuracy nose-dived.
First, the senator incorrectly claimed that the entire New Testament only contains one reference to same-sex relationships (homosexuality). He identified that reference as “Romans two.” Actually, Romans one is where it is found and Paul’s point there stands in clear contrast to the senator’s stand on this issue. In any case, homosexuality is also specifically mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (offering hope for transformation) and in 1 Timothy 1:10.
Second, Dayton protested that Jesus did not mention same-sex relationships even once in the gospels. A literal reference may be absent, but Jesus referred in the boldest manner to “Sodom” and/or “Gomorrah” in no less than six gospel passages. The profound judgment to which he referred in those passages displayed a clear disapproval by Jesus of what the ancient Sodomites were famous for (homosexuality).
Third, Dayton cited Jesus’ instruction to "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's; and render unto God, that which is God's." (Matthew 22:21). Dayton claimed this was a founding motive for “establishing the Constitutional separation between church and state.” This time, it is not so much his knowledge of the Bible but his knowledge of the U.S. Constitution that I question. The idea of separating church and state has merit but Dayton erred to aver that, in his words, “our Constitution separates church and state.” It doesn’t. But even if it did, then why was Mr. Dayton quoting so much from the Bible in his senate floor speech on public time?
Fourth, contrary to Dayton’s speech, the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment does not prohibit any sort of behavior at all. It does prevent a radical redefinition of a precious ancient and biblical institution (marriage). It would not allow a few judges to force a redefinition of marriage on us without our consent. Do we still believe in the consent of the governed?
Fifth, contrary to Dayton’s speech, the Marriage Amendment is not about tolerance or intolerance, nor is it about “hate.” Under this Amendment, Americans could still be as “different” as they please. But it maintains a legal understanding of marriage as a union between one man and one woman--rather than as three men, as seven women, as brother to brother, as woman to woman, as man to man, as uncle to nephew, as child to adult, or as one man to five women. Are these diverse combinations mere expressions of human differences? Is it intolerant or hateful to oppose them? For the correct answer, open your Bible!
Finally, Dayton referred to “the authority of established religions” as a national standard for defining marriage. He justified his unwillingness to support the Federal Marriage Amendment because he wants marriage to be under the authority of religion. Okay, which religion, I wonder? Mormonism? Most Mormons are no longer polygamists but would Dayton support those who still are to remain so legally? How about religions that affirm pedophilia? Polyamory? Considering the vast diversity of religion in America, are we willing to see marriage defined in 10,000 different ways?
Senator Dayton’s position, in my view, is a recipe for social and sexual chaos.
Marriage is the basic building block of any healthy society. It is the primary institution through which children are raised, nurtured and educated. Marriage provides children with mothers and fathers and is the framework through which relationships between mothers, fathers, and children are
established and maintained. It is where we all first learn to love. Any politician of any party who supports the use of political or legal means, or
quotes Bible verses, to call this sacred institution into question has overstepped his or her political limits.
Fortunately, whenever the definition of marriage comes to a state-wide vote, measures to protect traditional marriage always win in a landslide. But unfortunately, activist judges regularly reverse the will of the people. In November of 2003, a majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court mandated the state to create and recognize same-sex marriage. The people had no say. Then, on October 5, 2004, Louisiana's marriage protection amendment was struck down by one judge (William Morvant), even though it had been overwhelmingly approved by voters on September 18.
Unlike my Minnesota senator, I support the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution as the only effective way remaining to protect
the integrity of marriage in America.
Postscript: Senator Dayton is not the only U.S. senator to use Jesus’ warning about “false prophets” to warn America of alleged dangers lurking in the shadows. On September 9, 2004, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry quoted Jesus to say, “Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing." (Matthew 7:15). Kerry was specifically warning the National Baptist Convention about his opponent, President Bush. Considering the context of this text, Kerry equated the President with “ferocious wolves.” Kerry went on to compare Bush to the passer-by who ignored a desperate man in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 15). Kerry preached, "He's seen people in need, but he's crossed over to the other side of the street."
I wonder how Senator Kerry would feel if an opponent used the Bible similarly to judge him so harshly? I support any politician’s right to freely quote the Bible any time and any place. It’s a free country. And you and I can reserve the right to comment on their exegesis.
Joel Mark Solliday , M.Div., is the editor of Campus CrossWalk and the pulpit minister of the Brooklyn Center Church of Christ in Minnesota. A Pepperdine graduate, he later worked in their Campus Life Office and at ACU as a Missionary in Residence. He earned his M.Div. at Fuller Theological Seminary.
|
|
