A Baptist Response to a Baptist Resolution

In 2011 fall convocation of the NC Baptist State Convention, a resolution was passed in support of the so-called "marriage amendment" to the NC State Constitution. I have written a rather lengthy response to this resolution. I will include my entire response, but since it is so lengthy, I will break it into three separate blog posts.

A Baptist Response to a
Resolution Supporting the Proposed “Marriage Amendment”
to the North Carolina State Constitution
Russ Dean, January, 2012

The full text of a resolution, approved by messengers in the annual meeting of the Baptist State Convention of NC (fall of 2011), is printed below. I have no particular grievance with the BSC of NC. I am choosing to respond to their resolution only because it provides a venue to voice all of my concerns about the amendment.

My opposition to the amendment is not based on its impact relative to homosexuality. The treatment of homosexuals, however, especially should the amendment carry, is a serious concern, so I will respond as appropriate to statements in the resolution which denigrate homosexuals. My overriding concern is simply the way the amendment is framed and the overarching logic being used to support its passage. My responses will highlight the faulty logic and the non-sequiturs that are often employed in a “biblical justification” for marriage and against homosexuality. (My comments are interspersed between each “whereas” of the resolution.)

***
WHEREAS, In the first primary election of 2012, North Carolina will hold a statewide referendum on a proposed amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that recognizes marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

RESPONSE
Though it is preferable that the referendum on the amendment not be tied to the presidential election in the fall of 2012, it is not to be denied that the action of the NC Baptist convention is explicitly political, and the work of the NC legislature explicitly manipulative of religion for political purpose. Baptists should always decry the abuse of religion for political purpose and the dependence on politics for religious purpose.

An issue of key importance, and a critical concern of the opponents of the amendment, is the wording of the amendment – which does not simply define marriage as between one man and one woman. The wording of the amendment goes much beyond a defining of marriage when it says “[the amendment is] to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state” (emphasis added). The concern should be self-evident, but will be explicitly stated, below.

***
WHEREAS From the beginning, the Bible established the basis for sexuality by declaring that human being are created in God’s image as “male and female” (Genesis 1.26-27); and

RESPONSE:
Yes. God created them male and female – but what does this have to do with homosexuality, heterosexuality, marriage, or other “marriage substitutes”? Homosexual people are male or female just as heterosexuals are. Homosexuality does not deny the gender base of the creation narrative. Females are made in the image of God, as are males, whether married or single, homosexual or heterosexual.

***
WHEREAS Marriage originated from God, established in the order of creation to be a permanent union of one man with one woman (Genesis 12.28 and 2.24); and God ordained that “a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2.24); and marriage is therefore first and foremost a divine institution (Matthew 19.6) and is only recognized as a cultural and civil institution having a pre-existing definition; and

WHEREAS, Jesus reaffirmed the origin of marriage in the order of creation and declared marriage to be a sacred, monogamous, and life-long institution joining one man with one woman (Matthew 19.4-6); and

WHEREAS, Marriage between a husband and a wife is the beautiful allegory of Christ’s union with his bride, the church (Ephesians 5.25-32), and the sacredness of it must be protected; and

RESPONSE:
There should be no doubt that marriage is sacred. There should be no doubt that the Bible affirms that when a man chooses to be married, he clings to his wife in a mystical union beautifully imaged as “one flesh.” But what does “a permanent union” mean? Many Christians have come to recognize that divorce is an unfortunate fact of life, regardless the religious commitment of those who enter marriage. Most marriages (as the statistics now show) end in divorce. To base an understanding of marriage on such a woodenly-literal interpretation is to implicate the majority of Christian marriages in a condemning fashion. This part of the resolution upholds a view of marriage that is pristine – and while ideals are important for us – the failure to recognize the reality of marriage in its current context compounds the heartbreak of a failed relationship by adding to it the judgment of God. I make this point to show that the resolution fails to recognize the state of marriage in its current context. (Anyone who might object, claiming the timelessness of God’s truth, need only be reminded that not so long ago in the state of NC there was hardly a Christian to be found who did not believe slavery was an institution ordained of God, and ensconced in the timelessness of God’s Truth, i.e., in the literal words of scripture.)

The resolution shows little recognition that the Bible hardly endorses “marriage” as envisioned by NC Baptists. The nuclear family was hardly the norm in biblical context, and we are hard-pressed to find in the Bible a marriage which follows that definition (one mother, one father, and children born to these parents). To cite only two examples, polygamy was the norm in much of the ancient world, and “levirate marriage” was a common practice (taking the widow of a deceased brother as one’s wife – regardless how many other wives a man had). I believe in the nuclear family, and I support traditional marriage (“traditional” by our definition!), but it is unfair to the text to impose on the biblical text the imagery and cultural understandings of the 21st century Western world.

While the Bible clearly endorses the relationship between a man and a woman, there is nothing in Genesis 2.24, on its face, to indicate the marriage of “one man to one woman” is the only relationship which God might support. In other words, the text does not say the man shall cling only to this one wife. In a culture supporting polygamy, for example, this text might very well have been used to indicate God’s support for each wife the man takes (with the man and each wife becoming “one flesh.”) And, while the text does not mention homosexual relationships, again, strictly on its face, there is nothing in the text to deny such a relationship either. While there are biblical texts that speak directly to the homosexual relationship, this one does not. That “a man shall… cling to his wife” does not, in and of itself, necessarily exclude other relationships.

Finally, the resolution is correct to assert that marriage is “first and foremost a divine institution,” and to recognize this “pre-existing definition.” Why, then, does the Church need the protection of the State for a divinely sanctioned institution? The Church does not ask the State to define baptism, nor seek governmental assistance in determining whom we can and cannot admit into membership or ordain to ministry or bury. The Church does not need the government’s intervention – or its interference – in ecclesial matters. Sacred marriage is clearly in the purview of the Church to define and defend.