Mark 9:38-41
Let’s imagine the year was 1734 – Pastor Benjamin Allen was shaking his finger in the air and quoting scripture as he reminded the people here in the pews at the Second Parish of Falmouth, of God’s laws – no dancing, card-playing, lying, cheating, stealing or cursing; no buying or selling, or any other kind of work on the Sabbath.
If you broke God’s law you’d be called into court before the civil magistrates, who were, of course, Elders and Deacons of the Parish church. You might be pilloried in front of town hall for public humiliation. Or you might be excommunicated – banned from the church – and therefore no longer permitted to vote in town matters.
In those days in this place you had to be white, male, a land-owner, and a tithing member of our Parish Church. Women, servants, people of color, land-renters, or those not generous with the church had no role in government, no vote, no power.
That’s how it was in the good old days… good for some, at least. The framers of the U.S. Constitution wisely stated that no particular religion or church, no particular religious teachings or claims would be written into public law – a clear rebuttal to European and British customs of linking church and crown.
But that hasn’t been so simple to achieve. The pronouncements of early Puritan preachers have held on. Changing laws don’t always change attitudes. Most of us can recall the hang-over from the old days in what we called Blue Laws, forcing most stores to remain closed, and prohibiting sale of alcohol on Sundays.
Some say they want those religious absolutes to govern our civil laws once again:
- Benjamin Allen’s convictions once more be the law of the land?
- Roman Catholic Bishops suing the federal government saying their theology should over-rule health care policy regarding contraception and women’s health?
- Or maybe an association of Jewish Rabbis pointing out that Saturday is actually the Sabbath, so stores must be closed and all sporting events canceled?
Ironic, really, to hear these claims, in the 21st century, that echo 300 years ago, insisting that one group’s religious convictions should determine civil law for everyone.
They can quote scripture to support their claims. So can those who tell us women shouldn’t vote, slaves should be obedient to their masters, and Mormon patriarchs can have multiple wives, just as did powerful men in the Bible.
Why, until 1967 in Virginia men and women could not marry across racial lines; defenders of the law said that was God’s will. The US Supreme Court said that was illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong.
I hope we can agree that religious practices belong within religious communities and civil laws govern civil communities. Each should be protected from the other. Why, then, is it different when a ballot question asks whether gay and lesbian couples should be able to get a license from the State of Maine for a civil marriage, with the privileges and responsibilities of any legally-married couple?
Some people will quote scripture and their theology and say they find same-sex couples morally objectionable, so it should be illegal. Do you s’pose they would want Benjamin Allen, or Moses, or the Pope, or Mohammed to use the scripture to tell us all what’s right and what’s wrong? Well, maybe… but just don’t mess with their Sunday shopping or NFL games!
As a Christian, I want the Bible to shape and inform my daily life. Yours, too. That’s our choice, our desire, isn’t it? That’s why we gather for worship.
But the framers of our Constitution were right that our government cannot interfere with my religion, nor can it enshrine any one religion’s moral teachings as the law of the land. That’s the genius that has made it possible for our nation to grow and bridge so many changes as immigrants have brought their cultures and traditions and religions from other lands.
Part of the problem is our human habit of acting as though “different” means “evil,” or “other” means “enemy” That’s what Jesus confronted in this brief selection from Mark 9, the lectionary Gospel reading for today. It’s often labeled “The Unknown Exorcist.”
The disciples did not know and therefore didn’t approve of this man who was acting with generosity and power in casting out evil spirits, and claiming Jesus’ name as his authority. The disciples were angry. They considered this their exclusive territory, their proprietary right. They tried to stop him and then reported him to Jesus. They were surprised.
Jesus scolded them — “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us.”
I read this as Jesus’ saying: there are lots of people out there who are different in many ways – maybe their nation of origin, their language, their gender, sexual orientation, or even the name by which they call God. If they’re doing good then they’re building up the well-being of the universe and are doing the will of the holy one. Don’t divide them or label them. Assume good will.
When you look at everyone unknown to you as “other,” or “danger” or “enemy,” we dismiss them because of their perceived differences from us. Jesus calls us to trust that all good comes from the same source; all love comes from the same source; all hope comes from the same source. We’re the ones who insist on labels and divisions.
You already know my personal convictions about marriage equality. I’ve said it from the pulpit and in letters to the editor. I’ve been scolded by others in their letters to the editor and labeled as an arrogant, “politically correct” “extremely liberal” preacher and pastor. http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/school-fee-will-ease-taxpayer-burden_2012-09-04.html
But let’s be clear that Question One on the ballot on November 6, the so-called “gay marriage” question is not about religious freedom. The question asks: “Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”
If passed, Question One will extend legal rights to a group of citizens who’ve been excluded solely because some in the religious majority are offended by those in the minority – who they are and whom they love.
The Christian Civic League, the Maine Heritage Policy Council, the Roman Catholic Bishop, and MD Harmon, are blowing smoke when they say Question One will mess with their religious freedom. It won’t. They’ll still decide who’s welcome in their congregations and whom they will bless through their rites and sacraments.
But they want their religious convictions to dictate civil law for everyone, just like 1734 when my predecessor Benjamin Allen pounded the pulpit.
How about my Christian convictions that say it’s morally wrong for some people to excluded because they’re a minority? And that it’s wrong to have to ask the majority if they’ll kindly extend the protection of our laws to a minority? Civil courts have ruled again and again that “separate but equal” in any way, shape, or form is illegal.
As a Christian congregation we’ve always decided whom we’ll baptize, or confirm, or marry, or receive into membership. The State of Maine has never told us whom we must welcome and whom we may exclude.
I’m very proud that ten years ago you voted in a strong majority to authorize me and your other pastors to give the church’s blessing, God’s blessing, to same-gender couples who request it in light of their faith, and who offer promises of fidelity and permanence. That is our church’s right under law and under God. I assure you I’ve used that privilege with integrity and gratitude.
The future is unfolding; our society is changing… too fast for some and too slowly for others. Over time we’ve made progress – to better protect the rights of minorities from the power of the majority – just as we’ve created a safer and more secure environment for immigrants and for those who worship God in a different way.
They say when privilege is challenged it feels like discrimination. As a white, straight, Christian male, people like me have written and enforced our laws – both religious and civil. I admit it’s sometimes hard to look around and see all the others (not like me) who want to be seated at the table.
That same sense of privilege in our nation’s story causes some today to insist that their moral convictions should still trump all the others, fearful at the idea they are no longer the only voice, but one among many.
You and I can demonstrate the power of open-hearted Christians who draw a large circle, patiently and faithfully showing that Jesus challenged the Pharisees, broke the barriers, welcomed the outcast, and redeemed lives.
However you finally decide to vote on Question One, ask first choose to look into your own heart, asking what you hope for and what you fear.
Each of us can do our part to move our communities a little further along the way towards the fullness of God’s promise for all people.