The religious right isn't retreating — it's reforming

[rug]

And that's a good thing for people on all sides of the gay marriage debate



Reverend Kim K. Crawford Harvie officiates a same-sex marriage at the Arlington Street Church in Boston in 2004. (Rick Friedman/Corbis) (Rick Friedman/Corbis)

By Bonnie Kristian | 6:00am ET

Late last month, First Things magazine published a brief article arguing that pastors whose beliefs do not permit them to officiate same-sex weddings should withdraw from participating in government-sanctioned marriage entirely, thereby drawing "a clear distinction between the government-enforced legal regime of marriage and the biblical covenant of marriage." The conservative publication also hosted a pledge to the same effect. Hundreds of pastors have signed, agreeing that preservation of religious liberty and biblical faith requires such abstention.

Predictably, the pledge made headlines. Christianity Today conducted a follow-up poll, finding that about a quarter of Protestant pastors agree with First Things' proposal, as do about a third of all Americans. But despite this significant agreement, many — even those sympathetic to First Things' politics and theology — saw the pledge as a retreat, a too-soon abandoning of Christian influence in the broader culture.

Russell D. Moore of Southern Baptist Convention argued that pastors should continue to participate in government marriage unless and until doing so required them to perform marriages they believed to be unbiblical. Similarly, here at The Week, Damon Linker called the pledge "an unprecedented retreat of theologically conservative churches from engagement in American public life," heralding the end of the religious right as we know it.

What such responses fail to recognize (and what even the original First Things article fails to note) is that divorcing religious and civil marriage is not retreat but reform. It is not a new idea, but a return to the way Christian marriage operated for 1,500 years. And it is thoroughly orthodox, if the endorsement of no less a figure than C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity carries any weight.

http://theweek.com/article/index/273217/the-religious-right-isnt-retreating-mdash-its-reforming

[tradewinds]

1. Maybe they will "reform" into humans.

I doubt it, though.

[rug]

2. Maybe they will evolve into transhumans.

[tradewinds]

3. No, that would mean they are human now.

[rug]

4. So, what do you think of transhumanism?

[atreides1]

5. I'd prefer this option!

"an unprecedented retreat of theologically conservative churches from engagement in American public life," heralding the end of the religious right as we know it.

[cbayer]

10. That would be my first choice as well.

I would love to see them crawl back into the dark spaces and believe whatever they want, but give up trying to legally enforce their beliefs.

I'm even optimistic that it could actually happen.

They were promised a ban on GLBT marriage equality and that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. Despite the mightiest of their efforts, neither has happened.

I would love to see them get some new causes. The environment would be a good one.

[Sweeney]

15. Your problem is the problem of privilege.

These people consider their privilege as a God Given Right. If that was true; why was it necessary to write it into the constitution and give it legal protection. The reason those people have the privilege was for protection against each other. They were, after the English revolution such impossible asses to each other in control of the government that they found they need protection from the government in the hands of rival sects. We should simply accept freedom of religious choice as a right, but give them no privilege to abuse or bother anyone in the conduct of their rights. People join faiths like some people join the police or the IRS: to act under the authority of others as if they had some personal authority. These Christians have no personal qualities that recommend them, and only seek power over others in spite of that fact.

[immoderate]

6. It's the never ending search for the right combination of magic words...

That will make god happy.

--imm

[Sweeney]

12. Happy?

If I could make God anything, I make it get off the pot and get to work. It must be some one relative if he can keep a job he does so poorly. Honestly; if some people could not use God to serve their own ends, they would have no use for God what ever.

[safeinOhio]

7. Unbiblical? Southern Baptist?

The Sect that has the highest number of divorces and they have no problem with marrying two divorced Baptist. Pick and choose what is "unbiblical".

[cbayer]

8. He makes an excellent point about divorcing the two aspects of marriage.

It's a slippery slope, though, and the idea of ok'ing civil unions but not marriages at the state or federal level is clearly not an acceptable alternative.

[rug]

11. That's what got my attention.

The article has some history, not a lot but some, of marriage in the West.

[Sweeney]

13. World wide

there have been many forms of marriage, primarily forms of polygamy. These societies did not die because of their marriage types, but because Christians showed up and shot them with guns.

[Sweeney]

9. Christians didn't invent marriage.

They only made it worse.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. The religious right is inclusive of all who opose choice and equal marriage rights.

What these people are saying is not 'better' is just insulting in a different form, more like the shitty gloss Francis gives to his smirking bigotry. A bigot is a bigot, a fool is a fool.

[rug]

16. The article is talking about separating religious marriage from civil marriage.

Do you oppose that or would rather talk about religious figures you despise?