Unfortunately, the church in Canada has totally missed the boat. Completely.
I am, of course, talking about the definition of marriage.
First, let me be totally clear about this issue. The issue is not same-sex marriage. The issue is the definition of marriage. And our first mistake was letting our political opponents define the debate. As soon as pastors and Christian leaders started using the term "same-sex marriage" you knew that they had already lost. Calling it same-sex marriage already implies ownership of marriage by same-sex couples. By giving a name to something you don't believe exists you are tacitly admitting that, though you may not like it, it does certainly exist. It exists, because it has a name! So we had a debate about "same-sex marriage", not about the "definition of marriage". Our first critical mistake was not defining the debate.
Our second mistake was a lot more crucial. It had to do with how we reacted when we lost the debate and Parliament redefined marriage. And interestingly, the reaction by the church was quite different depending on which age group we are talking about. The reaction of older Christians was naive and stubborn, but the reaction by younger Christians was downright stupid.
The reaction by older Christians was, quite simply, reactionary. 'If we dig in our heels, rally the troops, and stream to the ballot box, we can elect Christians who will restore traditional marriage,' was their thinking. Like I said, naive. Naive, because anyone who reads the polls, watches the news, or reads the newspapers knows that this parliament is not going to restore traditional marriage any time in the foreseeable future. It was also stubborn because these Christians failed to entertain new political tactics and insisted on using the same old methods of political engagement which had been so hopeless in the past.
The reaction by younger Christians was, for the orthodox, infuriating. The thinking of younger Christians on this issue was the dullest example of 'cutting edge' thinking I have ever seen. Their thinking, insofar as I can divine it, was something like this: 'The church has gotten a bad name for a long time by always taking unpopular and judgemental stances on issues in society. Let's completely forget about the marriage debate and instead focus on more important issues.' So far so good - so what is the problem with this thinking? Well, there are a number of problems with this thinking.
One significant problem is the refusal by young Christians to take a stand on any social issue that is unpopular. The traditional definition of marriage is not a popular position, but that does not make it any less correct. The willingness of many young Christians to abandon the debate in favour of 'more important' issues is a prime example of spinelessness and a tragic lack of commitment to unpopular Christian positions.
An even larger problem with this position is that young Christians vowed to focus instead on 'more important' issues (which really just meant more socially acceptable issues) without articulating a positive Christian vision of what a focus on more important issues would look like! So many young Christians have decided that it means fighting AIDS - a noble calling to be sure. But instead of using a Christian approach to the AIDS epidemic, they are following non-Christian approaches. These young Christians are sending money and manpower to the Stephen Lewis Foundation, completely oblivious to the fact that Stephen Lewis's approach to HIV/AIDS is hardly consistent with a Christian approach to the crisis.
After seeing the church lose the debate on the definition of marriage, young Christians quickly and uncritically shifted their social justice efforts to socially acceptable issues, and did so in a manner that is not consistent with a Christian view of cultural engagement. I won't get into it in great detail, but let me just say that if we as Christians are going to fight HIV/AIDS (which of course we should), then we should first articulate a positive Christian vision of how to do so, instead of blindly following the advice of the opinion pages in secular newspapers. I won’t get into it here, but put simply it is the difference between Stephen Lewis's approach and Rick Warren's approach.
This band-wagoning with secularists on social issues is indicative of the attitude of many young Christians. It represents an unwillingness to go against the grain of societal norms; an unwillingness to defend unpopular positions, even if they are biblical; and a preference for following over leading.
All this to say that due to the stubbornness of traditionalists and the repudiation of traditional values by progressives, the Christian church in Canada has missed a gilt-edged chance to preach a remarkably positive message about marriage, the family, and the church's place in society.
So what should the church have done when they lost the definition of marriage debate? Well as you can tell by my polemic against progressive Christians, I don't think we should have simply abandoned the marriage issue and let the state take full ownership of it. Nor do I think we should have stuck our head in the sand, or drawn a line in the sand. If there is one thing our Lord taught us it is that we should stay away from sand.
What should the church have done? It's a suggestion I first heard in 2003 from Wes Burr, and it's brilliant.
The Christian church in Canada should stop performing civil marriages and only perform religious marriages.
Do I mean to say that we should encourage Christians to get married before God and never sign a marriage certificate?
Absolutely.
What a teaching moment this would be! This would be the perfect way to send the message that God, not the state, defines what marriage is. If God's Kingdom is not of this world, then no government-issued piece of paper can tell you when you are or are not married in the sight of God.
It would also show the church's complete commitment to the separation of church and state. In fact Church and state are so separate that we have repudiated any and all state involvement is the sacred matter of Christian marriage! What a great teaching that would be.
And legally speaking, the consequences would be virtually nil. Young Christian couples who got married before the alter without signing a civil marriage certificate would not have to worry about losing the tax and legal benefits of civil marriage, because after 6 months this little concept called "common-law partnership" would kick into effect by default. So the state would give you the title of "common-law", but it would matter not one whit - you are married before God, and you haven't polluted your marriage by accepting an unholy, secular definition of what marriage is.
By refusing to perform civil marriages, the church would have a perfect opportunity to teach not about the evil of same-sex marriages, but about the blessedness and sanctity of God-ordained Christian marriage.
But the Canadian Christian church has not done that. Instead of seizing a golden opportunity to demonstrate how the church can be a positive innovator in a society that it is in but not of, we have opened up a new fissure between never-say-die traditionalists and malleable, trend-chasing progressives.
We have very little time left to reverse this trend, and I hope we seize the opportunity very soon.
