 |
It is no longer news to make the argument that marriage as an institution is increasingly irrelevant. Consider comments in the Washington Post by Sara Sarasohn, who discussed her upcoming marriage to her lesbian partner: She explained how the “institution of marriage is, literally, coming apart. Today, she argues, couples can have sex without being married. They can have children without being married. They can live together, buy a house together, and partner together in a myriad of ways without marriage being necessary.” She candidly stated that “I can’t pretend to speak for the people who are against gay marriage, but I think this is part of what they mean when they say that gay marriage will unravel the whole institution. Our national conversation about gay marriage has already shown how different elements of marriage—legal, religious, romantic, economic, civil, procreative—have become independent. . . Now, adults have the prerogative to mix and match the various things that make a marriage in whatever way they choose. It’s just that when gay people do it, it’s more obvious that ‘marriage’ has already been deconstructed.” Obviously, people still desire to be married, but its purpose and meaning are longer clear. So, it is really culturally and functionally obsolete.
Consider, as well, the matter of parenting. Gene Edward Veith writes: “Single parenting has broken apart the roles of mothers and fathers in a child’s life. Mothers must often assume the entire burden of raising a child. Divorced fathers are often kept at a distance from their children, with artificial visitation rights and impersonal child support requirements. In many cases, though, now that marriage has become optional for having children, fathers often play no role whatsoever in a child’s life.” What is the effect, then? The demise of the family as God so designed it causes the government to assume a greater role of authority, power and responsibility for children. Veith adds, “The state is increasingly assuming the role of the father, functioning as the provider, the protector, and the disciplinarian. The state is also assuming the role of the mother, concerned about our health, nagging us about eating right and avoiding bad habits, and forcing us to be sensitive, well-mannered, and nice.” In some circles, that function is know as totalitarianism!
For all these reasons, consider what is occurring in two areas of our culture.
- First consider the mainline Protestant denominations. Amazingly, these very denominations should have a profound understanding of God’s Creation Ordinance, His purpose and goals for the family and how He views human sexuality. But, instead they are approving or accommodating themselves to the very practices that undermine God’s view of things. For example, the Presbyterian Church (USA), at its biennial June assembly, voted by 54% to abolish a law that requires all clergy and lay office-holders to “live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.” Further, the assembly initiated plans to revise the Heidelberg Catechism. Instead of denouncing individuals guilty of “homosexual perversion,” the church would adopt, by this revision, other translations of the 1576 text that speak of “unchaste persons.” Although delegates killed a proposal that the church redefine marriage as being between “two people” rather than a “man and woman,” it did authorize a committee to ponder the problem of marriage and civil unions. Another example is the Anglican (or Episcopalian) church. Well known by now is the ordination of Gene Robinson as a bishop of the Episcopalian Church. But on 7 June 2008, Robinson committed himself in a civil union ceremony to his partner in Concord, New Hampshire. Imagine a key Episcopalian Church leader in a civil union ceremony as a gay man! Also, approval was given for same-sex relationships in two of Anglicanism’s 38 self-governing provinces and with it the failure of the leadership to impose any discipline. For many Anglicans, this was the last straw. A large group of conservative Anglicans, called the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), met in Jerusalem on 22-29 June 2008. GAFCON correctly insists that the fundamental issue within Anglicanism is not homosexuality but the “authority of God’s Word written” and the Christian tradition. GAFCON issued a 14-point doctrinal platform (called the Jerusalem Declaration) and launched a global movement to form new structures and processes different from “Anglicanism-as-usual.” Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria and GAFCON’s chairman argues that “there is no longer any hope for a unified Communion [of Anglicans].” This action merely confirms what many have already observed, namely that the center of genuine, biblical Christianity is shifting from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere. Nothing proves this truth more forcefully that GAFCON.
- Second, consider what is occurring in California. This November the voters of the state of California will vote on a constitutional amendment affirming the historical definition of marriage. Why is this amendment before the California voters? In 2000, 61% of California voters passed Prop 22, an initiative that codified the traditional definition of marriage. Gay activists and their allies sued, and, in 2005, San Francisco judge Richard Kramer declared Prop 22 unconstitutional. Because California judges are so activist and have a reputation for siding with radical interpretations of law, a coalition of conservatives submitted to the secretary of state a measure that would amend the state constitution. But such an initiative required 700,000 signatures. [Parenthetically, throughout the nation there has been an explosion of legal challenges, suits and legislative actions. Lynn Vincent argues that “legal scholars on both sides of the debate agree that if Massachusetts begins exporting gay marriage, and/or California’s gay-marriage law is allowed to stand, it will likely trigger nationwide court clashes that will profoundly alter law and public policy in the areas of employment, education, family law, and even the boundaries of the 14th Amendment.”] Vincent, in an article in World magazine, details how three California pastors joined hands to change the law in California. Chris Clark, pastor of East Clairemont Southern Baptist Church of San Diego, Jim Garlow of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, and Miles MacPherson, a former defensive back for the NFL’s San Diego Chargers, joined hands to change the debate in California. They formed an unprecedented church-powered, volunteer petition drive throughout all of California. The trio set up meetings in Long Beach, Los Angeles, Orange County, Chino and elsewhere to promote the petition drive. Ultimately, the drive netted an unbelievable 1.12 million signatures! I can think of no greater example of a salt and light group of leaders than these three leaders. We should be praying right now and on into November that this amendment in California affirming traditional marriage will be adopted. These pastors understand the absolutely disastrous effects legitimizing gay marriage will have on their state. As I argued at the beginning of this perspective, the evidence is in: Biblically-centered marriages and families are in decline and the effects are monumental. May God in His grace honor the work of these pastors in California. Also, may God be gracious in sending a widespread revival across this nation. God has done it at least four times before in this nation; may He do it again!
See Lynn Vincent’s article on the three pastors in World (26 July/2 August 2008), pp. 44-47; Veith’s editorial in World (12-19 July 2008); and World (12-19 July 2008), pp. 55-56. |
