Why should Christians be concerned with the secular definition of marriage?
Bob asked me, "Can you make a good argument for why Christians should really care about how the state defines a civil marriage?"
I don't know if I can make a good argument or not (considering my view that most political speech is meaningless). I am reminded of the axiom that a good argument is one that convinces someone that you are right. In any case, these are my initial thoughts. I admit I don't have a highly developed theology of cultural engagement yet. I am still a student after all. But this is along the lines of why I think Christians should care about the civil definition of marriage. This list is slightly different that what I would argue about how Christians should affect governmental policy. I have a healthy respect for avoiding any style of theocracy, but I also do not believe an oppressive secularism is the answer.
Why Christians should be in the debate over "secular" marriage:
A:
1) Christians have a responsibility for personal holiness. We cannot achieve personal holiness ourselves, so we must work to conform ourselves to Christlikeness and God's revealed will (which we find in the Bible).
2) As part of pursuing God's revealed will, we are guided in the moral evaluation of certain behaviors, acts, situations, and ideas.
3) In an attempt to remain faithful to our calling, we must have some level of cultural engagement to stand for what is honoring to God. Not only because it is honoring to God to be faithful to him - but because if we really believe Him, then we know that the manner of life he recommends is the best option available to us.
B:
1) Marriage (one man, one woman, together for life) is one of the primary institutions the Lord has outlined for our benefit and his pleasure.
2) Considering [A.1 and A.2], we should strive in our own lives to live up to God's standard for marriage.
3) Considering [A.3], as opportunity presents itself, we should remain true to the Biblical witness of God's revealed will and work for those ideas and philosophical precepts (in this case the definition of marriage) that are not only honoring to God, but best for our society.
C:
1) Marriage in every culture is, in part, reflective of that culture.
2) Marriage in this country - though under attack, though improperly appreciated, though subject to disagreement - had as its foundation an ideal that was the best way to arrange the institution (God's way), and was reflective of the devout and ardent followers of God that gave rise to the historical American definition of the institution. "Civil" marriage (some would not recognize a distinction) reflects the religious and God-honoring foundation of marriage.
3) Any change in the foundational understanding is reflective of a culture shift (culture wars?) that does not align with what is agreeable to Christians, honoring to God, or best for society. Again, [A.3].
D:
1) Christians are told to submit (in a general way) to government authorities and pray for them. God, in his sovereignty, has established various governments in order to restrain evil and and work some of the works of his common grace (general benefits for all mankind).
2) In America, this creates an interesting challenge. In one sense, it is easy to pray for elected leaders. In another sense, our leaders lead only with our permission and on our behalf. In one understanding, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people includes us. We are the people that we should be submitting to when we seek to honor God by our reflection of his righteousness.
3) As such, American Christians have a particular responsibility to engage in cultural debates and determine policy, legality, method, and philosophy. If I were a king, I would still be responsible to God for my actions. In America, I am one who is enabled to shape public policy. I have a responsibility to do so in a way that is honoring and pleasing to God.
Part of Bob's question assumes a certain level of legitimacy of those who oppose biblical Christians on this issue. It assumes that those citizens who identify themselves as gay (or in other cases, simply secular) have the stable ground for political action and "religious people" must justify their involvement. I could just as easily ask from the basis of another worldview, "Why would gay people care about the state definition of marriage? After all, they are already sinning by practicing homosexuality, why are they uncomfortable about the sin of sexual intercourse outside of marriage?"
**BTW - I would not pose this question in this debate. But it is a rational question given another set of assumptions about as far on the other side of center as Bob's inquiry.**
Christians have the right, and the responsibility, to be engaged in the cultural debate and the marketplace of ideas. We are losing on marriage, because the other side has more influential people dictating from the bench what will be Right and what will be Wrong. They may have the legal authority to do so, but not everything that is permissible is beneficial. Christians should care about their society. Christians should be involved.