The tragedy of the homosexual marriage debate is that most
people on all sides of the issue do not seem to know that the endgame is much
larger than simply redefining the traditional understanding of marriage.
The issue is portrayed as a freedom or discrimination issue or
religious/moral issue. One side attempts to paint it as a civil rights battle
while the other sees it as a continued move away from the Judeo-Christian
values upon which the United States was formed. The issue is a freedom and
religious issue, but not in the way that most people think.
Most eyes are focused on the here and now and the me and
mine. “How does this affect me and the ones I support now? What are we being
denied? What is being taken from us?” Some will talk in national terms: “Our
nation will be better or worse if we … .” But what they usually mean is “Our
nation will be better for those who believe like me if we… ” with little
thought for the other side. While the pawns fight their battle they miss the war.
They mistake their cause for The Cause, and the real power fighting the real
struggle encourages them to believe their skirmish is all that matters.
There have always been two great threats to human freedom –
religious and political tyranny. History has shown us repeatedly the tragedy of
what happens when one or the other wins or, worse, when both join forces. At
times, the pope or ayatollah anoints the leader. At others, the king declares
himself priest or even divine. Sometimes, there is no God. Sometimes, there is
only God. Sometimes, there are many. The religious and political are simultaneously
at war with each other while knowing that the first and most important battle
is the control of the masses, which is best accomplished when power is shared.
These threats do not exist because of the evil of tyrants.
They exist because the masses need leaders. The alternative is anarchy, and
anarchy always fails because those who ban together and have strong leaders
will always defeat those who live individually or will not follow others. Instinctively,
most people know that the chances for survival increase when people join
together, but joining together always means the surrendering of some freedom to
laws and leaders.
Part of the genius of the United States is the bringing
together of the masses, the government, and religion in a unique partnership. The
great tension in American democracy is human freedom in a society governed by
laws, or put another way, a society governed by laws intended to promote and
preserve human freedom. This worked because there was a common belief that
these laws, the government, and freedom were ordained by God. The religious was
simultaneously independent and integral to the nation.
For much of our history, right or wrong, the majority of
Americans believed that we could dually align with the separated powers of religion
and government. This was based on the perception that our government and
predominant religion (for most some form of the Judeo-Christian faith) agreed
on what mattered most. The two were doing in their spheres of influence
essentially the same thing, with the same end. The two powers did not join
forces and often helped check one another. People did not have to choose
because of the perceived fundamental agreement, and should government or church
stray from this agreement the people had a voice at the ballot box and the
offering plate.
In the third century of the Grand Experiment of America,
this is no longer the case. For some time, a growing number of Americans do not
believe that government and religion agree and that they must choose between
them. Part of this can be attributed to increased religious diversity in the
nation along with pluralism coupled with the deconstructionism of
post-modernism that has crippled in the minds of many the authority of religion
to do much more than speak into the life of an individual who chooses to let it
do so. Private religion and private interpretation of sacred texts is the
dominant attitude even among the devout. Few willingly submit to a teaching
that they do not like. But the lack of a centralized, common religious voice is
only one of the problems. There is also the rise in the power of the state.
A relativistic world seems safe from the religious, but at
the mercy of an unchecked government. In this world, the pope no longer crowns
the king. He is only at the inauguration by invitation. In this world, people look
increasingly to government, no longer in tension with a religious norm, for the
definitions and the final words on matters that at one time were sacraments of
the church. In this world, only the government wins and, despite history, the
masses must put total trust in our government not to abuse its absolute power.
Government defines the needy, defines compassion, defines wealth, defines
education, defines freedom, defines life. Government has become the definer of
morality, the definer of the good, and the chief provider of the good. It does so
independent of the church.
The battle over marriage is the distraction. It creates the
opportunity to show that the church is divided, the people are wrong, and only
government can save. Regardless of what side of the issue that you might be on,
you must see that we stand on the precipice of becoming the first democratic
nation to give away its democracy.
Socialism, fascism, or totalitarianism will ensue if
government, even our government, is left unchecked. It will not happen all at
once, perhaps not in our lifetimes. Government knows us too well. We will vote
away our freedoms one right at a time. We will change fundamentally who we were
founded to be and have been, one vote at a time. But as long as we get what we
want or preserve what we want, we will not care. We will not care until we disagree
with what government decides, and we decide to draw a line. But it will be too
late, and a new revolution will be needed in a world that is unlikely to
produce the same kind of patriots who fought the first one.
We cannot blame government. Government is only doing what is
natural to those who must not only enforce what is good, but define it. It believes
that the masses will be worse off if no one will care for them. It is filling
the vacuum, meeting the needs. We cannot blame the masses. They go to the
highest bidder even when they are being bribed with their own money. They do
not care as long as they have just enough freedom to believe that life is good.
But the church, the keeper of the sacred text, is supposed to know better. It
is supposed to be better.
Is there any hope? The hope is where it has always been,
placed by God from before the foundations of the world. The hope is in the true
church of Jesus Christ standing united in His love for God’s glory and not our
own. The hope is in the church regaining its prophetic voice and leading culture
to push back darkness rather than simply reacting to or drifting with culture.
The hope is in not simply believing that His Word is inerrant and inspired, but
in living as if it is inerrant and inspired.
This will not be easy for the church so divided, but God is
on our side. This will not be easy for the church whose members are enraptured
by the Sirens of individuality, comfort, and entertainment. But God is still on
our side. Who can stand against? All is not lost, but time is short for America.
It is always difficult
to paint with a broad brush. Although you might find my interpretation of
history might be general to the point of error, I believe the big ideas are
correct. In my next post, I will propose more specifically what I believe the
church should be doing. I have resisted giving a strong position (and I do have
one) on the issue of homosexual marriage and that is intentional. Forgive me
for doing so, but I believe that what I have stated here and will state in my
next post is far more important than any position that I might take.
No comments:
Post a Comment