Should Pastors Withdraw From the State?

The latest legislative battle over so-called "gay marriage" included debate over exemptions based on religion.

In other words, the legislature of one of the fifty states actually had a debate over whether or not churches ought to be compelled to bless and recognize homosexual mimicry of marriage. And even though those who sought an exemption for churches won out (this time), the fact that it is a matter of deliberation is itself an ominous development. But it is hardly surprising.

We saw much of the same scenario played out in 20th century Sweden, where the secular state, by virtue of a church-state nexus, used anti-discrimination laws to force women's "ordination" upon the Church of Sweden over the initial objection of the bishops. This radicalized campaign by secularists and non-believers wishing to control and bully the Bride of Christ - to drive her away from Scripture and from the enfleshed Word of God - has been a rousing "success." In 1998, the Church of Sweden allowed our Lord Jesus and His apostles to be depicted in the form of homosexual pornography in the sanctuary of the Cathedral of Uppsala. In 2009, the bureaucrats of the Church of Sweden are now celebrating their first openly-lesbian "bishop."

The church-state nexus is an increasingly dangerous intersection for pastors and congregations to find themselves. In the United States, our society and government are moving beyond mere secularism to outright hostility to the Christian faith. Insofar as we stand in the middle of the road between church and state, we are going to see increasing pressure to place allegiance to the flag over the cross and to elevate tolerance over and above orthodoxy.

One obvious intersection between the Two Kingdoms where we find Lutheran pastors is the military chaplaincy. The uniformed chaplain is under two specific orders - to the military establishment and to the Kingdom of God. And as long as these two worlds do not collide, this is not a problem. But as the state slips into a paradigm of anti-Christianity, there will be increasing clashes - especially when the paradigmatic shift is gradual. Like the proverbial frog in the pan of water on the stove, our church body will some day suddenly find itself at the boiling point with no exit strategy.

We're already seeing problems with this dual allegiance in our system of military chaplaincy. Military chaplains were recently ordered to destroy Bibles and to refrain from evangelism. There are reports of military chaplains being pressured to avoid references to Jesus and the Trinity. Military chaplains are required to assist in providing spiritual guidance to to those of all religions (at very least by finding chaplains to accommodate all religious beliefs). There is a good bit of pressure to allow Pagan chaplains to serve in the chaplaincy corps (and why should an American soldier not be permitted access to the religious practice of his choice?). As society itself becomes more religiously diverse, an LCMS chaplain may find himself under the command of an Episcopalian priestess, a Unitarian pastorette, a Jewish rabbi, a Muslim imam, or perhaps even in the near future, a Wiccan clergyperson or Satanic minister.

Perhaps a better way to provide military personnel with spiritual care while avoiding this increasingly problematic nexus might be to have civilian chaplains (as they do in the Wisconsin Synod). Civilian chaplains do not have to navigate dual loyalties in a divided organizational chart, are not under orders to those of other religious traditions, and are not beholden to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. There is simply less pressure that can be exerted by the military upon a civilian chaplain to water down his religious confession. Of course, my critique of the military chaplaincy system is in no way a slight to our chaplain corps - pastors who risk life and limb to bring the Word of God and the holy sacraments to military personnel. Rather, I think the system we are placing them into is increasingly problematic. I think it would be foolhardy to conclude that the religious freedom of our chaplains will continue as our culture becomes increasingly intolerant of "intolerant" Christians making exclusive claims about Jesus.

But there is a more common intersection between church and state - one that every parish pastor experiences when he conducts the rite of holy matrimony.

In the United States, ordained ministers are also officers of the state. They have the legal authority to solemnize the marriage contract in the name of the state. And acting in that capacity, the state has some degree of control over the minister who performs state-recognized weddings. This is why the secular issue of the changing definition of marriage is now bleeding over into legislative debate regarding how this impacts churches.

This intersection is an increasingly dangerous place for the church to stand - and a place she doesn't need to be at all. In much of the world (ironically even in places with a strong tradition of blurred lines between church and state), it is common to have two separate wedding ceremonies - one to satisfy the state (which may be nothing more than signing papers), and another as a rite of the church. In this scenario, the church does not tell the state how to regulate the secular institution of marriage, but more importantly, the state has no finger in the church's pie when it comes to Holy Matrimony.

I believe we ought to consider removing ourselves from the state part of weddings. This would mean not filling out paperwork with the state in the course of our conduct of wedding ceremonies in our churches. This would mean that if husbands and wives who are married by a pastor in a church rite wish government recognition of their union (as they probably should), they need to seek that state recognition out apart from the church wedding (be it a ceremony before a judge or justice of the peace, or simply getting a marriage license and signing the paperwork at the courthouse).

This would break the church-state nexus - and would give the state no pretense for telling the church whom to marry any more than it would be in a position of dictating to the church whom to baptize, commune, or ordain. As long as we maintain this cozy church-state relationship, we run the risk of the state meddling in the affairs of the church. In the near future, we may find Christian Churches under pressure - perhaps by threatening to remove tax-exempt statuses, the use of civil litigation, or even the levying of criminal charges - to perform and recognize homosexual "marriages", (or with the ascendancy of Islam), polygamy, or any number of future expansions of the state's definition of marriage in any number of ways that we can't even imagine at this time.

Christian marriage is a solemn and holy rite that recognizes what God has joined together: one man and one woman. It is an estate established by God from the time of the Garden of Eden. Christian matrimony is none of the state's business. But so long as we pastors wish to be recognized as ministers of the state, we run the risk of exposing our churches to penalties when we do not comply.

I believe we need to break ties with the state while it is a simple matter of no longer being involved in state weddings. We need to make a move now, before the water is too hot for us to be able to easily jump out of the pan.

--- Rev. Larry Beane