This article demonstrates the true evil of sacralist culture,
Christian, Muslim or otherwise. It's evil because it's Bestial, seeking to
control and delineate every aspect of life and demands all citizens and
residents conform to the state's form of worship.
The Underground Church experienced this in the Middle Ages
and the time is probably coming that we in the West will experience it again.
Some Waldensians and other 'heretics' who refused to be married according to
the Roman rite were accused of being fornicators and their children were
bastards. Some capitulated and were married by Roman Catholic priests. Others
refused and thus lost certain social rights and privileges.
In a secular society Christians can register their marriages
with the state if they want to but contrary to the thinking of many Christian
Rightists this is not done because the state in any way ratifies the marriage. It's purely pragmatic. It's about
legal documents, medical decisions, inheritance and the like.
My marriage license from the state is to me all but
worthless. It carries about as much weight or value as does my driver's
license.
This issue generates so much confusion in Christian circles.
Many Christians believe they are married (or not) depending on their status
with the state. I know of couples that have (Biblically speaking) been divorced
(living apart) for more than a decade and yet because they have not done the
paperwork they consider themselves to still be married.
Now due to civil law it would be problematic of course if
they attempted to legally 'marry' another without the previous arrangement
being legally nullified. This raises several theological points that are beyond
what I would want to get into in this short article. Play the state's paperwork
game but don't think the state ratifies or grants legitimacy to the marriage.*
Living without social privileges can be unpleasant and
difficult. In the case of these folks in Morocco, the state ratification of
their marriage might (or might not) get their relatives to back off and leave
them alone.
Or, they may find like many before them that they must either
suffer or leave. As far as shame or lack of respect, that's what we're called
to and if we're being faithful I believe these are present realities... even in
the so-called Christian West.
I wish them well but I also pray that God will grant them
wisdom.
Of course isn't interesting how they risk being punished for
fornication? Christians in this case don't like that, don't like the state
intruding into their bedrooms. Do Christians not see that when they pass laws
regulating such things that other non-Christians will see it in the same terms
and find it both threatening and offensive?
Imagine if Spain under Franco (1939-75) had punished
fornication? In a sense they did and it's not hard to imagine the scenario as
the state went after non Roman Catholics and stole the children of unwed
mothers. What if the police would come and kick your door down in the middle of
the night hoping to catch you in the act? Some Christians would like to see
that happen to fornicators and sodomites and yet in that situation (or say
under a Theonomic regime) as a non-Roman Catholics our marriage would be viewed
as illegitimate. And so even though my
marriage is completely in accord with Scripture if I'm not part of the sacral system,
if I'm a Christian who doesn't belong to the state sect I could run the risk of
the state calling my marriage a relationship of fornication, a sin, a crime.
That's very offensive and wicked and I cringe when I see
Christians argue for the state to pursue such an agenda.
But can the state wink at sin? It will anyway. Most of the
time the state seeks order, not righteousness. Even the states that seek to implement
some kind of theocratic agenda are at best only seeking a veneer or outward
expression. The Catholic Church found this out in the Middle Ages. Most of the
time the magistrate wasn't too keen on chasing down heretics. If people were
paying their taxes and not making trouble, rulers were (in many cases) happy to
just let the situation ride.
The state cannot be Christian. It's not a possibility. It has
a different calling, one contrasted with the Church. Paul says as much in
Romans 12 -13 and 1 Corinthians 5-6. The state will sometimes pass good laws
(for the wrong reasons) and will other times pass very bad laws, again for the
wrong reasons. Its motives are different.
If the state cracked down on sexual deviance I would hardly
shed a tear and yet because such a crack-down would be associated with
conservative Christianity I don't want to see it happen and the precedent
becomes problematic. I don't want the state wielding that type of power. Such
an action would harm the testimony of the Christian Church, even worse than it
has already been tarnished.
It's all just rather ironic. In the West, Christians are
fighting against secularism but for these Christians in Morocco, secularism is
the very thing they desire. They simply want to live their lives in peace and
be left alone. It's funny, isn't that what the apostles basically said? Isn't
that the posture of the New Testament vis-à-vis the state?
And yet I wince when looking at the situation in Morocco. How
long before Western Evangelicals intervene? Morocco has a strong relationship
with the United States. It's considered a Major Non-NATO Ally. The US can put a
lot of pressure on the government and yet this breeds bitterness and dissent
with the system and while Rabat may fight Salafism, this is (in part) how
governments end up with officials clandestinely supporting paramilitaries and
terrorists. They resent the Empire and its intrusion and yet the state is
dependent upon it. Even if the state doesn't fully capitulate to Washington,
the Americans will often use the carrot and stick approach with regard to
weapons and trade. It's humiliating and degrading and everyone knows it's built
on lies.
The Christian population might receive some temporary benefit
but in the end it proves to be something of a curse. One thinks of places like
Pakistan. The alliance with the United States has only made things worse for
Christians living in that country.
*Some are quite upset at the prospect of marriage being
transformed into mere civil partnership. While this destroys the Christian
West/Christendom myth narrative (and heresy), in some ways it's actually preferable.
We as Christians can then deliberately understand our marriages as something else, something apart from
what the culture is doing.
Marriage is a common grace institution that will be
eliminated at the eschaton. It's not a Holy Christian institution. If it was it
follows that it would be part of the Kingdom. It's holy for Christians but not
intrinsically so. It's temporary, not eternal.
We won't be married in heaven and thus it would also do
Biblically minded Christians good to re-think some of the issues surrounding
it. I'm afraid all too many are thinking in Catholic-Sacramental terms and this
goes along with the whole mistaken notion of a so-called 'Church' wedding... in
a Judaized temple building officiated by a Judaized priest-clerical figure.
This is not to say that Christian marriage is secular. Not at
all. Our marriages reflect Union with Christ and thus in This Age function in a
typological sense. And yet when our relation to This Age is completed, we share
in actual Union with Christ. Whatever
temporary and imperfect shadows and symbols were ordained by God for this age
will be obsolete.
We marry in the faith, in the confines of the covenant and
this affects the status of our children and how we raise them. Baptistic
thought adds a great deal of confusion on this point as well and by Baptistic I
am also referring to the bulk of Presbyterians and other Reformed folks who may
indeed apply water to infants and yet raise their children in Baptistic
fashion.
Our marriages are covenantal but there's no basis for a 'holy
ceremony' and our Christian status and that of our marriages have nothing to do
with the state.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.