At her contempt of court hearing, when Kentucky’s Rowan
County Clerk Kim Davis told U.S. District Judge David Bunning, “God’s moral law
conflicts with my job duties,” she expressed a far more profound and radical reality
than she herself probably realized. Drawing on the Church’s first three
centuries (before Constantine made his own distorted version of “Christianity”
the official religion of the Roman Empire for the purpose of military and political
conquest), Anabaptists have consistently told the rest of the Church that working
for any government, whether paid or not, inevitably conflicts with the
righteousness of Jesus. For this reason some Anabaptists recuse themselves from
participating in public life as much as possible, obeying laws that do not
violate Christian conscience but avoiding being complicit with compromise.
In the Christendom culture that grew out of the Holy Roman
Empire and informed the illusion of “Christian nations,” devout Christians did (and
still do) public service in the arena of political and practical compromise in
a sincere effort to be “salt and light” in a corrupt and dark world. Christians
in non-Christendom cultures also take public service roles in this way,
sometimes at great risk to themselves and their families. Either way, they do that
in the knowledge that they are outsiders attempting to influence huge processes
with minute doses of Jesus’ righteousness. These efforts are always clouded and
the Reign of God remains largely hidden, awaiting the Parousia.
Martyrdom and civil disobedience has deep roots going all
the way back to the Hebrew Prophets and the New Testament Apostles. We admire
(at least in history) those who stand against compromising faith and
righteousness at the cost of their own lives. But from the time of the Donatist
Controversy at the end of the 3rd century, the Church has struggled with what
compromises were trivial and how to respond to the compromisers who wanted to
return to full Church fellowship. Was burning a pinch of incense to the Emperor
a mere act of civic duty (akin to saying the Pledge of Allegiance) or a renunciation
of the faith? The issue is starkly with us in our time in areas under control
by radical Islamists, and Christians are honestly debating if reciting a bit of
the Koran to spare one’s life is justified.
Kim Davis’ case poses this question in realms much less
dramatic that reach well beyond one’s religious convictions about same-sex
marriage. Many Christians have legitimately objected to legalized and state
sponsored gambling. At a personal level it compromises faith in God and good
stewardship of God’s resources entrusted to us. As a justice issue, gambling
preys on the elderly, poor and other vulnerable people with a false hope of
escaping their conditions. Since casinos are often connected with hospitality
and food services that the state regulates for the common good, can a Christian
code inspector who objects to gambling on religious grounds refuse to inspect
their facilities to insure they comply with public health and safety standards?
The examples are boundless. Discerning these boundaries and determining which
compromises are legitimate is not easy.
As one with generally Anabaptist social justice perspectives,
I am inclined to say that Christians in public service whose role (whether or
not a paid job) requires them to compromise their own standards of righteousness
for themselves, simply need to resign or withdraw from such public service.
More complex is when the role of Christians in public service facilitates in
some way others in practices of which the Christians do not approve. Often they
would not have a way of knowing this. For example, a clerk in the motor
vehicles office doesn’t know that a particular car has been purchased for the
purpose of transporting illegal drugs. In many cases, such as the code
inspector, the good of protecting the public outweighs the negative of some of
the businesses inspected.
From the days of the New Testament, the Church has struggled
with Christians participating in the military and war. The classic Just War
Ethic asserts that some wars are just and some are not, and individual
Christians are responsible to discern the difference and refuse service in
unjust wars. However, no government has ever allowed selective objection (nor
will they). In U.S. law, if you are drafted or already enlisted and choose not
to serve in the military, you must object to all war. Though the Nuremberg
Trials after World War II held that individuals were morally responsible for
their actions and are accountable to disobey unjust orders. The point here is
not pacifism vs. just war ethics but that the complexities of individual
discernment in public service leave only the options of opting out entirely or
living with the ambiguities of what is and is not legitimate compromise.
Particularly since the Supreme Court marriage equality
decision was a 5-4 margin, opponents of same-sex marriage see an opportunity
for this to be reversed by constitutional amendment or a change in the
composition of the court or by carefully (cleverly) devised laws to make
same-sex marriage difficult or unavailable without actually outlawing it.
Whether one agrees with the court or not, I do believe it is the legal reality that
is going to prevail, and public servants who object will either have resign or
accept it as the give and take reality in which they live.
The business realm (corporate and private enterprise)
presents a somewhat different issue than public service. Cases have been
mentioned of businesses that provide wedding related services being sued for
refusing to provide them for same sex couples. While I do want Christian
business people to live out their faith in the marketplace, I fail to see how
florists, bakers, photographers, formal wear shops, etc. can offer their
services to the public and not serve all customers. Would one who would want to
refuse to serve a same-sex wedding also refuse where there has been divorce or
adultery, domestic abuse, criminal convictions, religious or racial
intermarriage, non-Christian or non-religious couples, or other religious
impediments? Would not a same-sex couple prefer a sympathetic vendor to serve
their wedding? Perhaps after the political posturing on both sides passes, that
pragmatic principle will prevail. Based on Mathew 5:40-41, one friend of mine
suggested that if same-sex couples want wedding cakes from Christian bakers who
don’t affirm same-sex marriage, the bakers should bake them two. A bit tongue
in cheek, but worth pondering how our Christian posture is perceived. Legally,
the public accommodations principle from the civil rights movement would
suggest that if you offer your services to the public, you must serve whoever
in the public comes to you. Perhaps a bit less clear is the case of the wedding
chapel that is a for-profit business, albeit run by an ordained minister,
offering services to the public without religious specification. The courts
have decided, rightly I think, that this is a business and not a religious
institution and must comply with the public accommodations principle.
One other final excurses on the fear mongering about
religious liberty. I find the proposed laws to protect pastors from being sued
for refusing to perform same-sex wedding to be silly political posturing. We
pastors are not required to perform weddings for every couple who asks. We have
always been free to use our judgment to tell a couple (yes, a heterosexual
couple), that they are not ready or a good match or the pastor finds some other
impediment to preforming their wedding. I have had couples decide to call off
their weddings because of insights from the marriage preparation sessions I do
with them, without me even needed to tell them that.
Lastly, I want to point out that this essay says nothing one
way or another about my opinion on same-sex marriage, and I hope no one will
try to extrapolate one from it (though I have written about that elsewhere). While
some of the rhetoric may sound like this is a debate between the Church and the
world, I personally know very well that marriage equality and other related
issues are being vigorously explored and, yes, debated among devout,
theologically responsible Christians. This happens to be the fulcrum in which
the Church in the West (largely Europe and the Americas) is learning how “to sing
the Lord’s song in a foreign land.” (Psalm 137:4) Depending on the social
consensus of Christendom has made the Church spiritually weak with a pseudo,
generic, diluted and distorted form of Christianity (compare with the 4th
century and the awakening spiritual decay prompted the Desert Fathers and
Mothers to pursue). The challenges of secular materialism and growth of Islam
(neither limited to nor excluding radical Islam) are an opportunity for a
spiritual awakening and invigorating renewal of Christian discipleship.
No comments:
Post a Comment