Six reasons to vote yes if you hold to a classical Christian view of marriage
Friday, 18 August 2017
| Susan Adams
I hold to what’s called a ‘classical Christian view of marriage’[1]. It’s the idea that marriage as given by God is one man, one woman, monogamous and for life, that this is God’s design for human flourishing, as well as pointing us to larger mysteries of who God is. It might seem logical, then, that I would vote ‘no’ on legalising same-sex marriage in the upcoming plebiscite. However, here I want to give a case for why a Christian who holds such a view of marriage might vote ‘yes’.
This is not an article defending the classical Christian view of marriage, either from progressive Christians or those who are not Christians. It’s also not an article arguing that such a view of marriage ought to be dispensed with by Christians. It’s an article aiming to persuade conservative Christians, holding the aforementioned ‘classical Christian view of marriage’, that they should vote to legalise same-sex marriage in Australia. These views are my own and do not represent the views of any organisation.
The first three reasons address common Christian objections to same-sex marriage, and the last three are my constructive, positive case:
1. Nomenclature. I am not concerned about a redefinition of the word ‘marriage’. Language evolves over time. The word ‘marriage’ exists in multiple cultures, with various meanings. Many countries make a distinction between state and religious marriages. Even in Australian society, churches regularly differentiate between what we see as our society’s view of marriage and our own.
2. Acknowledgement. Same-sex relationships were legalised decades ago in Australia. Same-sex couples can adopt children, form families and so on. If there was damage to be done at a societal level (and I am yet to be persuaded of that), the ship has sailed. Opposing the legalisation of same-sex marriage does not stop members of LGBTQI communities from being parents, if that is your concern. What we are talking about in the case of legalising same-sex marriage is a recognition or acknowledgement of a situation that already exists. In that sense, it’s a modest move, but one that means a great deal to these neighbours.
3. Church and state. It’s not the church’s place in Australia to be guardians of policy or morality. Where once we may have held that position (rightly or wrongly), it is no longer one that we occupy, possibly because of the erosion of trust brought about by our own sins. But Australia was never a theocracy, so any authority we had was a privilege, not a right. In a democracy, we get a say, like anyone else, but we must learn how to take our place at the table rather than expecting Christian beliefs to be legislated. I do believe that Christian freedoms ought to be legislated for along with those of other religions, but again, that is not on view here. As I understand it, only the most ungenerous reading of the agenda of the ‘yes’ case could see it as about forcing pastors to marry same-sex couples against their convictions, especially since the draft legislation on view carries religious exemptions. But, if that is your concern, campaign on protecting the rights of Christians, not on denying same-sex marriage, unless the Christian ‘right’ you’re actually campaigning for is to say who gets married and who doesn’t.
4. Safety. We know that LGBTQI kids attempt suicide at a far higher rate than their peers, whether from shame or fear or bullying. This ought to grieve all members of society, including Christians - especially Christians in fact, because we are committed to care of the vulnerable as we seek to be like the Lord, the gracious and compassionate One. LGBTQI communities are telling us that opposing same-sex marriage, however nicely, damages their youth. They say it communicates to them that they are excluded, or less than others. Christians have tried to argue that you can affirm someone’s personhood and also deny the right to marry, and I do think that sexuality has been unhelpfully conflated with personhood in our society. But, for better or worse, the two are joined in people’s minds, and though we may want to tear them asunder, there is a more urgent issue at hand. This is not moral relativism, or a sense that anything goes and ought to be legalised. I am arguing for the preservation of human life, a deeply Christian concern. If legalising same-sex marriage will contribute to that, let us do it.
5. Our mission. Ask an Aussie what Christians care about, and they will likely say abortion and same-sex marriage. Of course, the Lordship of Christ has implications for ethical issues, but they are for those who accept his Lordship, that is, Christians. To ask those who are not Christians to live by Christian ethical standards is to put the cart before the horse. Our message to them ought not to be about the goodness of traditional marriage, but about the goodness, beauty, freedom, truth and comfort of the person of Jesus.
6. Witness. I see the legalisation of same-sex marriage as largely inevitable, so a question for me is how our witness will proceed after same-sex marriage is legalised, whenever that happens. I don’t want us to come out the other side having been so consumed by the fight against it that we have no idea how to be hospitable to LGBTQI people who might walk through the door of a church. But honestly, I’m most worried that we’ll have burned our bridges so completely that they would never even consider doing so.
I understand that a Christian ‘no’ case is built on a desire to see God’s plan for greatest human flourishing enacted in our society. Perhaps the critique of my case is that it sacrifices this greater vision for immediate, pragmatic concerns. However, I cannot see how a ‘no’ vote actually achieves this in reality, neither does the Bible lead us to compel people to follow God’s ways. However, the injunctions to care for the vulnerable and to make Jesus known are critical, and move me towards a ‘yes’ vote.
Susan Adams holds qualifications in English literature, education, theology, and intercultural studies.
[1] Other terms used for this view are ‘traditional Christian’ or ‘conservative’.