The decision of the California Supreme Court on May 26, 2009 not to interfere with the right of the citizens to amend the state Constitution confronts us with our culture’s confusion about the marriage relationship.

The majority of people in the U.S. still define marriage as a relationship of a man and woman only. Californians initiated the constitutional amendment process when their Supreme Court ruled that there was, under the state Constitution, a right to homosexual marriage. Last fall a large majority voted to amend the Constitution in order, in effect, to overturn the decision of the Court. The right of the people to amend the Constitution was challenged by those who believe that that it is discriminatory for the state to recognize cohabiting heterosexual couples but not cohabiting homosexual couples.

The Supreme Court decision allowed to stand those homosexual marriages that had taken place between their ruling and the amending of the Constitution. So now there will be a certain number of homosexual marriages that will be recognized by the state, but, at least for the time being, the state will again sanction only heterosexual marriages.

So, what will happen? Some are suggesting the state of California (with other states to follow) may get out of the marriage business altogether. A marriage will no longer be established by a license from the state. Rather the state will recognize some kind of contractual relationship between persons (partnerships?) establishing certain legal protections and rights. That would leave it to other institutions, particularly churches, to decide if they want marriage, to define marriage, and to sanction it as they see fit. No more will a minister say something like, “By the authority vested in me by the state, I pronounce that John and Jane Doe are husband and wife.” The state will establish a legal status applicable to all couples, while churches or other institutions, may apply their own rules to those who submit to their authority.

This confronts us with a question that has been considered in past centuries. The long-established practice is: (1) The state licenses and sanctions marriage. The state dissolves marriages. (2) The church, by its ministers, acts with authority delegated to it from the state, as an agent of the state for those who seek marriage within the church.

Is this biblically justified? I believe it is. Here is why: (1) God established marriage from the beginning as the way that man and woman are to relate in a sexual, child-bearing union. (That is, marriage itself is not a “redemptive ordinance” but a “creation ordinance.”) It applies to all, Christians and non-Christians alike. (2) Since it is a relationship that applies to all and involves obligations and rights, marriage itself is not an ecclesiastical but a civil arrangement. (3) However, the church also has interests in marriage as it applies to the church’s members. For instance, the church believes that professing Christians should marry only other professing Christians. Also, while marriage as an institution is for all, there is biblical teaching that applies to and can be practiced only in a marriage between Christians. And, the church also has standards for the dissolution of marriages. Therefore the church has a role in sanctioning the marriages of its members in the context of a service of worship, and the state, rather than having a separate arrangement for sanctioning the establishment of a marriage, gives to the church the authority to act for the state as well as for itself in establishing a legal marriage.

The California decision confronts various groups in different ways that create tensions not only between groups but also within groups. Here are some obvious ones:

(1) There are some Christians who do not think the state should have any role at all in sanctioning marriage. They look on it as an interference in personal rights and/or church authority. I have met Christians who refuse to ask the state for a license to marry. They establish their own marriages with or without the involvement of the church, but without any involvement by the state. Now, the California ruling puts them in a strange situation. On the one hand, all such Christians believe in heterosexual marriage only. On the other they do not believe the state has the right to establish marriage. So do they cheer or boo the decision? The decision upholds their view of what a marriage is, but it maintains the right of the state to define marriage legally and therefore the right of the state to license marriage.

(2) On the other hand, our civilization finds itself in a weird situation. Almost 40% of births in the United States in 2006 were (to use an old term) illegitimate, that is, to women who were not married. This is just one confirmation of what is easily observable: Increasingly people choose to live together without marriage. This is true not only of what used be thought of as “the lower classes” but is true of folks who are otherwise thought of as responsible, upstanding, respectable citizens. So the question is, why the fuss? In the case of the “homosexual community”, it is to make a point – that they must have available, if they wish, the same rights and standing of heterosexuals in every way. However, the “mainstream society” is conflicted, whether it is conscious of it or not. On the one hand, both belief and practice point to the fact that a large number do not believe that marriage is necessary for a sexual, child-bearing relationship between a man and woman. On the other hand, they want to maintain a traditional legal definition of marriage, when people choose it, as a heterosexual relationship. This tension means that sooner or later, and probably sooner, something’s got to give.

(3) But what about us “ordinary” Christians and the “traditional” church? Where are we?

(a) It seems to me we have good reason to do what we can to uphold civil marriage as an institution applicable to all of society, Christian and non-Christian alike. We want the state to define marriage as between a man and a woman and to put as many legal safeguards around heterosexual marriage as possible. We want to encourage people to marry and to say married. We do this on both Biblical and practical grounds. From the Bible, we know that God established marriage from the beginning, and that, despite the fall, marriage is still the way man and woman should relate to one another in this unique way. But, we also know from observation and common sense that a society is going to lose stability when marriage is made irrelevant and the two-parent family is not generally upheld as the norm. All sorts of things that nobody wants, such as chronic poverty, illiteracy, crime, emotional instability and the like are related to the bearing of children outside of the marriage relationship between a man and a woman.

(b) But it seems to me helpful to think in terms of the Augustinian paradigm of there being two kingdoms: the kingdom of man (the state) and the kingdom of God (the Church). Our current practice, in which the state and the church both have a say in the marriage of Christians is based on the assumption that there are “two kingdoms.” Christians differ on the way and extent to which they want the kingdoms to have identical standards. Some believe that the kingdom of man should be governed by the standards of the kingdom of God (the theonomic view). Others believe such a relationship is neither biblical nor possible, but, nevertheless, want Christians who are citizens of God’s kingdom to exercise whatever influence and rights they have as citizens of the kingdoms of man, because it is good for both kingdoms. A case in point is marriage. To what extent should the laws enacted by the state governing marriage and the church’s understanding of the teaching of the Bible on marriage be merged? But, no matter where we come down on the way and extent to which the two kingdoms should relate, in fact they are always going to be parallel and separate to some extent, short of the coming of Christ, the casting of the devil into hell, and the renewal of heaven and earth. So, the church (the kingdom of God) is always going to be in the position of having, to one extent or another, different standards for its members than those of kingdoms of man. We must not be dependent on the state to enforce what we believe and practice. In other words, regardless of what the government may do with regard to marriage and divorce, we know our standards and we must uphold them as the church for the citizens of the kingdom of God. For that to happen, we need the “two kingdoms” model and we need a new more fully Biblical recognition of the legitimate, though limited, authority of the church in the lives of its own members. All we need to follow the will of God is for the civil government to stay out of our business. We do not need the civil government to uphold God’s standards among our members.

(c) There may be an opportunity in the present situation. As we as Christian husbands and wives, Christian families, and the Christian church believe and practice our faith with regard to marriage, the world will see couples, families, and communities where the blessing of marriage is demonstrated. They will see the fruits of Christian marriage in contrast to other kinds of relationships. This could be a unique opportunity not only to have a good influence on the society but to bear witness to the Gospel to those who see, wonder, and ask, “Why do Christians have the marriages and families they do?” Of course, before that can happen, we will have to clean up our own acts so that people will see that grace does make a difference. The biggest problem we face right now, is not our civilizations conflicting understanding of marriage. Our biggest problem is the disconnect between what the Bible teaches and how we as Christians live. But, that is always the problem. How do we bear effective witness to the world, when our practice is so little different from the world’s? Until we change that for the better (which includes not only upholding Biblical standards but allowing for repentance and forgiveness), we not only will have a hard time getting society to adopt our views on marriage. We, also, will find it very difficult to get the world to listen to our Gospel.
___________________
William H. Smith is pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Louisville, Miss.