As some of you may recall, back in the summer of 2009, upon a covered-porch laden beach house on the border of Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach, there was conceived the notion in my head that spending more in a month than one makes in a month is not a good thing. Though we did not know how the solution would manifest itself in the coming years, both Haley and I did understand that something would have to be done in order to prevent a certain financial crisis down the road.

What followed that realization (and what proceeded it and imbued it) was a profound outpouring of grace. At the time, we knew that we wanted to move from Raleigh to Wendell where was our family and the greater portion of our friends, and so we began to search for land out in Wendell. And though Wendell is not the most luxurious place in the world, all land in Wake County comes at a premium, and so finding a lot that was not too expensive for our goals seemed to be a near impossible task. Nevertheless, we did find a lot (through our good friend, Craigslist) that was at the perfect price point. We also were able to buy a mobile home for $1500 that needed a lot of work, but was still about a quarter of the price of my first car—a 1996 Ford Escort. We then had to sell our condo in a tough market, which God graciously brought about in May 2010—a day before putting it up on the market and for $2500 above list price. And through gracious loans from both sets of our parents, we were able to make the transition from the condo in Raleigh to the trailer in Wendell.

A lot has happened in the roughly three years since that business took place, chiefly a lot of renovations and a lot of financial shuffling, but it seems as though our time in the Knightdale-side of Wendell is drawing to a close. We did enter this period of our life with the intention of paying off all of our debt and then looking to buy a house, but, with market conditions being the way they are and with interest rates on mortgages being as low as they are, we figured it would cost us more in the long run to stay longer and wind up with a higher interest rate on a mortgage.

And so a few months ago, we decided that we would try to sell the trailer and land, which meant that all of the unfinished projects would have to be finished. We did, by grace, finish by our goal date and got it up on the market in February 2013 (if you’re curious, here’s the web listing), and got an offer roughly two weeks later, which seemed like an eternity for those of us who are used to selling a house a day before it goes on the market. We are scheduled to close on the sale this Friday (March 15) at 1 p.m., at which point my nerves might rest a little easier. So, feel free to pray for that and for my faith if it comes to your mind.

Presuming and praying that the sale of the place goes through on Friday, our 3+ year journey toward unindebtedness will have ended with paying off over $63,000 dollars in debt ($171,000 if you count the mortgage on the condo), leaving behind a couple of small loans that should be paid off this year and student loans that should be paid off in, oh, 15 years. Nevertheless, our financial position today is far better than it was four years ago, and we are prepared to afford the house on which we put an offer over the weekend (you can pray for that as well).

That’s the short story, and it’s existence and brevity is for the sake of thanking God for his grace and provision throughout this time and for thanking all of you—our family, friends, and brothers and sisters in Christ—for your prayers, support, and encouragement that you have given to us throughout this time. We would have never arrived at this point apart from you, and we will forever be in your debt … and I can handle that kind of debt. Bless you all. Grace and peace. Matt

Have you ever looked to the past and reminisced on old flames or past crushes–persons whom, at that time, you thought the world of and would have done anything in your power to be with? Upon the memories of some of those persons you may still look with fondness, while on others you can hardly believe that your heart was ever inclined in their direction. On the latter group, a change in personal preference or knowing the person better may have extinguished the desires you once had for that person, or perhaps the desire you once had for them may have be trumped by a force outside the two of you–another person who you, upon your seeing and knowing them, found to be more beautiful, more handsome, and all-around more agreeable with the desires of your heart. When you found this person and your heart and mind were captured by them, your fondness for the former object of your affection was brought to nothing.

It is a callous analogy, but it is one to which most of us can relate. We all have had desires, even very strong desires, that we have witnessed become nothing in the light of circumstances, time, and greater desires. For the Christian, this is a comforting reality, for we know that some, if not many, of the desires of our heart stand against the desires of our God. While we stand and watch the world indulge itself with all that this life offers those who will “free” themselves to enjoy them, we find ourselves torn between what we can grasp now and the Promise we have been given and assured of by the Spirit of Christ.

Yet we can take comfort knowing that it will not always be this way, for, “When [Jesus] appears, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.” For when we see Christ and behold him at the end of this age, we will be changed forever. Just as our old flames were put out by seeing and knowing another more beautiful, so too will all of our worldly desires be extinguished upon a single glimpse of our Savior in glory. In his presence, our strongest desires and greatest strongholds will crumble away as though they were nothing, for at last we will know him for whom our hearts were created.

What I am disappointed in, and what I have been disappointed in for years and through numerous election cycles, is the conduct of many Christians during various campaigns and following elections. And though I could justly be thinking of the rhetoric used by Christians, their tendency to fall in line with a political party without reservation, or their seeming love affair with war, I am mostly disappointed in their passion and zealotry for politics. In this respect, this election year has been particularly poignant, having witnessed Christians, with great zeal, placing their hope and their future in man who, by its basest definition, is anti-Christ. Even our most beloved “reverend” Billy Graham saw it fitting to remove Mormonism from his list of cults for sake of the political “good” of the United States.

The reason that this zealotry, this unbridled passion for politics by Christians is so distasteful and so disappointing to me is that it is symptomatic of the church’s condition in this country. While Christians who voted for Romney are moping off to work today or carrying themselves about elsewhere in dejection, they are testifying to the unchristian world that their hope was bound to this life, to this country, to the Republican party, and to a Mormon. And while this reaction might carry with it consequences toward the general openness of persons to evangelism (for who would listen to a people who claim to have their hope in a King and Kingdom when they clearly are vested in a president and a transient government?), the bigger and more substantial matter is that we do not hope and trust in our King and are more passionate about a kingdom of men than the Kingdom of God, thus spitting on the Man who died to establish himself over all rule and authority.

While there are credible issues to be passionate about (e.g. abortion), it is apparent through this election that most professing Christians are more concerned about taxes, opposing Obamacare, taking welfare from the poor, and killing those who oppose America (as was evidenced at the SC Republican Primary Debate by the cheers of the “Christian” audience to Newt Gingrich’s “Kill them,” and the boos to Ron Paul’s recitation of the Golden Rule). Though is it not by necessity wrong to have political theories and to voice them, the predisposition of Christians to tow the entire Republican line, even those matters which we should oppose (e.g. bloodthirstiness), calls into question our integrity and our intellectual honesty. As Christians, should we really be excited about drone warfare (as both Obama and Romney are) when it has been responsible for the deaths of countless civilians? As Christians, should we really be as a passionate as we are against those who are poor who receive aid from the government? As Christians, should we despise the foreigner in our land as much as we do? These are but a few of the questions that those of us who profess Christ and are die-hard Republicans need to ask ourselves.

There are, however, other, more important questions that we must ask ourselves everyday in every sphere of our lives, including politics, namely, “Do I sincerely believe that Jesus Christ is seated as the King of kings and presidents?” and “Do I count myself as I citizen of that Kingdom first or as an American first?” For if we do believe that Jesus is our King and that being a part of that Kingdom requires that we conduct ourselves in a certain way toward our King and the people on this earth, then our American political theory will necessarily become subservient and not contradict the Kingdom of Christ. As it stands now, the testimony of the general Christian populous is that they do not believe these things, for some of the things they endorse and propagate are neither Christ-like nor accord with his Kingdom. It would be worth our while to reflect on ourselves in times such as these to ensure for our own sakes that our lives exhibit what we profess to believe.

Self-reflection and circumstantial-loathing aside, the reality of the matter is that Jesus Christ has placed Barack Obama in his position for another four years. This act is according to his good pleasure and his perfect will, and he is due praise for his decree. In this light, we in Christ must respond accordingly. Will we therefore these next four years pray for our president, Barack Obama, as our Lord instructs? Will we give him the honor that is due his position? Will we acknowledge that he, like all others in the world, is a sinner in need of the Gospel? Will we commit ourselves not to slander or to deride the leader to whom Christ has given power for the sake of peace and the Gospel? Or will we neglect these duties and do as American Christians typically do? How we respond to these things will reveal the kingdom to which we truly belong.

Consider this with me: On what subject in this world is their more contention between persons than politics? If there is none greater (save perhaps religion), on what subject is their more contention between Christians than politics? As for myself, I have found in my experience that there is none greater than politics between like-minded Christians. I have countless friends with whom I stand in almost total agreement theologically, but when it comes to the subject of politics, we could argue and debate all the day long.

Why is that?

Perhaps it’s ignorance or a lack of understanding on my part (or perhaps on another’s), perhaps it’s that we don’t have all the information on which to build a sound political theory, or perhaps (just throwing it out there) there is no right solution. For if we were to stand back and look at all the political theories in their purist, unadulterated forms, we would all have to admit that each has its merits and each has its flaws. Thus, in essence, each political theory puts us all in the position that we would wish to avoid, namely choosing the lesser of a number of evils.

For, as Christians, we all must hold that there is no perfect government aside from the Kingdom of Christ, and while we can aspire to organize government in such a way that it manages the evil of men and promotes fairness to all of its citizens to the highest degree, it will never be perfectly good and just. And if we were to establish a government that did attain to the highest possible degree of justice and equality in this world, it would mutate and crumble just as quickly as our own American government has mutated and crumbled since its establishment.

This reality by necessity forces us as Christians to consider our calling and our place in this world and the lengths to which we are willing to go to fight for a type of government in our time. When I consider my own life—the views that I’ve championed and the debates in which I’ve engaged—can I stand unashamed before Christ knowing that I have conducted myself in a way that is honoring to him and promotes the Kingdom that he is about? Have I endured those with whom I strongly disagree with patience, kindness, gentleness, and humility not merely for the sake of honoring Christ, but also because my disagreements are very likely based upon opinion and upbringing more than they are on truth and righteousness? When it comes to the subject of politics, I can scarcely say that I have conducted myself in the way that I ought, and I fear the passion about particular political convictions that would sway me away from the Lord’s calling on me.

As my pastor is preaching through the beatitudes in Matthew, I am continually being convicted about the inclinations of my heart in all areas of my life, especially in politics during this particular season. Am I poor in spirit and walking in humility? Am I mourning over my own failings, or am I rejoicing over the failings of others? Do I seek to be a peacemaker, or do I stir up strife or make unnecessary challenges to others on matters of temporal opinions? Do I seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, or am I so invested in the things of this world that I have no time to think upon or to consider the one Kingdom which we be ruled with perfect justice, equity, and righteousness?

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God (Matt. 5:9).

And as these differences of opinion between Christians have arisen on these political matters, some of us might be (or have been) tempted to simply chalk these disagreements up to the typical culprits of divisions in Church in other matters, such as biblical ignorance or theological subterfuge. In these non-political cases, we would make our claims based on our biblical arguments and theological understandings and be quick to dismiss as wrong anyone who has a differing opinion. We would then view these political issues in the same manner that we view those other issues that are contained within the Church and its theology, and we would readily divide ourselves further with the same power of conviction.

However in these political matters, we should not be so quick to judge and to divide, for I believe that there is something else at work in our time that distinguishes this battle of political opinion from disagreements and divisions of the Church in times past. For, though it is almost cliché to say such a thing, I do in fact believe that we are presently living in a unique and transitional time in our country. It is not a time of outward revolution or change in government (at least in structure), but it is a radical and visible change in the moral climate of our country. And it is changing quickly.

Concerning this matter, there is an excellent article on the Gospel Coalition’s site, and the author makes a succinct but strikingly accurate summary of the personal moral axioms of the present generation:

1. God made me this way.
2. He wouldn’t deny my natural desires.
3. And I don’t have to explain myself to you or anyone else.

By looking at these statements that are increasingly depicting the convictions of persons in our society, it is not difficult to see how the moral climate is changing so rapidly. If a person, whatever his personal vice, convinces himself to believe that he was born / created a particular way and that God would not to create him in such a way so as to frustrate his natural desires, then it is only “natural” for him to practice those things and to confer his convictions upon others in the society with similar and different personal vices. We see this perhaps most clearly in the self-righteous mantras of tolerance and the banding together of licentious groups who would otherwise have no association with one another excepting for their unity in silencing whatever opposition exists that preaches that their desires and practice of them are immoral and wrong.

They not only do such things but give approval to those who practice them (Romans 1:32).

For, as is also becoming increasingly apparent, the human conscience is a fickle thing and is only as good as the knowledge upon which it rests. And as this rebellion against the knowledge of revealed morality grows, it only fuels the suppression of God and his revelation while giving greater and greater credence to the licentious circles who mutually pat each other on the back. It a spiraling circle into moral decay that is garnering strength exponentially, and nothing short of divine intervention will slow or alter its course.

A shift in the people is a shift in the government
It is upon this realization that I base my aforementioned belief that we are in fact living in a very unique and transitional time in the history of our nation. It is also for this reason that I believe that we as Christians are having trouble coming to a consensus on such political issues as Amendment One. For as the government that is “by the people and for the people” starts reflecting the changing will and morality of the people, so too will there be a transition in the political regime. No, leaders will not be forcefully overthrown nor will new foundational documents be written, but in a country where political power is derived from the people, the country goes as the people go. As the country is turning person-by-person against revealed morality and to “whatever is right in his own eyes,” the government is shifting from one in which Christians can participate and have influence into a “tolerant” dictatorship in which they cannot. And as we shift from this present regime to the future regime, the debates over the Christian’s place in government will lessen and lessen, not by choice, but by the force of the will of the majority.

At the present time, some may rejoice that revealed morality triumphed in the passage of Amendment One, but it is hard to imagine that there is anyone who believes that that amendment will stand for long. It was a last ditch effort by the diminishing majority who believe in universal morality, and as their number becomes smaller, there will come proposals to repeal it. It is not a matter of “if” but “when.”

As these times come upon us (and I sincerely believe that they are), we all will have to reconsider our roles as Christians in the government of the United States. There was a time in our history when Christians held considerable sway over the direction of the country, and it was then rightly seen as a Christian duty to conform our laws to revealed morality. But the time is coming, probably within the next decade or two, when the Christian’s part in the governance of this country will be brought to naught. What will be our response in those days? Will we persist on politically as a picketing group with our own suppressed rights, or will we retreat back into the quietness and peace of living out our lives? Will we attempt to regain control of this country “under God,” or will we become as the Church under a hostile dictator?

We, the Church, will have to come to terms with these questions and with others that have yet to be asked, and I am curious as to how we will collectively respond. Nevertheless, despite our response, there are undoubtedly terrible times ahead, yet, even so, I cannot help but believe that the change in America will be for our good, whether we see it as good or not.

On the other side, opponents of the amendment have and still are railing against the will of the majority to “suppress the rights” of the minority. Their chief tenet is that all unions, be it between a man and woman, a man and man, a man and three women, a mother and son, a sister and brother, a goat owner and goat, etc. should receive equal benefits under the law.

Well, maybe not.

I doubt that even the anti-amendment community in all of their “tolerant” glory would support the legalization of marriage within immediate families, polygamy, or bestiality. Or maybe they would. But assuming that they would not, would they not be the new bigots against the Oedipuses and the goat-lovers of the country? What would give them the right to withhold marriage benefits from the sister-wife / brother-husband community or from unions between adults and consenting children? Even those who support legal unions between homosexuals would draw a line somewhere beyond themselves, effectively stripping the “rights” of those who do not fit into the comforts of their hetero/homo marriage model.

And while everyone is talking about rights, who gives anyone the right to do anything? The problem when anyone starts claiming that he or she has a right to something, whatever it is, he (whether he knows it or not) is appealing to some source or Being that is greater than him who has given him those rights. Thomas Jefferson knew this, for, though he was not a Christian, he wrote that we as humans are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Rights are endowed, given, granted, bestowed, etc. Therefore, to claim a right, one must be given that right.

As far as the homosexual marriage debate is concerned, I scarcely doubt that any against the amendment would look to God for those rights, for most do not believe in a specially revealed God, and, if they do, they would be hard-pressed to find religious writings that do anything but condemn homosexuality. Perhaps they could appeal to Nature, but, then again, Nature also preaches against homosexuality.*

What about government? Government could indeed confer rights upon individuals, and even (against God and against Nature) grant the benefits of marriage to homosexual unions.

But in the state of North Carolina, government did not.

The homosexual community has appealed to the state for rights, but those rights were not granted to them. Therefore, no one has taken rights from anyone. The rights of marriage were not their rights to begin with, so maybe we could all drop the references to “rights”? Probably not.

Personally, I wish that marriage did not have secular benefits or consequences. I wish that marriage was strictly a religious institution and the state had little or nothing to do with it. If these things were so, this would never be debate. Yet, these things are so and are likely never to change. And as long as these things are so, I will never lose a night’s sleep over a group of people not having rights that neither God nor Nature has granted to them.

* Imagine if everyone in the world were homosexual, the human race would be extinct in one generation. Also, the equipment it incompatible. Have you ever tried to plug a 3.5 mm female cord into the female headphone jack on iPod? Spoiler alert: you won’t hear your music.

What are the ramifications of the outcome? The immediate secular ramifications seem small, but the outcome has the potential to have much larger ones in the future. For while the failure of the amendment to be ratified does not change the fact that homosexual unions are still illegal in the state of North Carolina, it does leave open the possibility that the state’s courts could rule the present law unconstitutional and effectively repeal it.

But, honestly, I am not too concerned about the secular ramifications at the present or in the future. The one thing, however, that I am concerned about and have been trying to wrap my brain around since this debate began is how the failure of this amendment to pass would affect the Church. And with all of the strong and super-passionate support for the amendment from the pulpits, from the seminaries, from congregations, and from various and sundry blogs, you would think that I would have a laundry list of negative effects of the amendment’s failure to pass upon the Church.

But I don’t.

What I have read, over and over again, are statements that biblical marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is sin. Well, yes, and I do not think many who have read the Bible honestly would argue with that. But, is it not also biblically true that salvation is of the Lord, we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, Jesus was born of a virgin, and lust is the spiritual equivalent of adultery? Of course it is, but why are we not seeking legislation to affirm these things? Do you not know that the sin of unbelief is far more treacherous and immoral than the sin of homosexuality? Why are we not drawing up legislation against not believing in Jesus Christ?

The chief motivator, I believe, behind this evangelical push for the amendment’s ratification has little to do with biblical conviction or the supposed negative consequences to the Church, and much more to do with our personal desire for it to pass. We simply do not want homosexuals to be recognized by our state as married. We do not want to have to explain to our children why we believe that Mr. and Mr. Smith are living in sin, and why we believe and live differently as Christians. We do not want to live in a generation where the Family Channel’s slogan is “A New Kind of Family,” and where we can accidentally plan our dream Disney vacation during Gay Week. We simply do not want to live in a generation and a country where everyone does what is right in his own eyes.

And, honestly, I do not think that there is anything wrong with these desires. Despite the means, there is something admirable in wanting to live in a generation and a country that fears God and hallows his name. Yet, there comes a point when we as the people of God must swallow the hard pill of reality and realize that we are not living in such a generation or a country. Perhaps there was a time in the history of our country when that was true, but it is not this time, and no amount of legislation will bring it about. We who have such convictions and desires are quickly becoming the minority, and while there may be (in our eyes) a small victory with the possible ratification of Amendment One, it will be a short-lived one. For this country, for good or bad, is governed by the morality of the majority, and the passage of Amendment One today will only likely lead to a repeal in an Amendment Two.

This is not to say that the failure of the amendment to pass would not have consequences upon the Church, but those consequences are no different than those of living in a wicked society. Those consequences are inevitable. For whether or not the amendment passes, the growing, wicked world around us will always view Christians as intolerant, self-righteous, hypocritical, etc., and, with or without the passing of the amendment, it is very plausible that sermons, evangelism, and theological discussions will one day in the near future become hate speech with legal consequences.

And, unfortunately, there is little that can be done about it.

I know this because Jesus promised us that we would suffer. I know this because the apostle Paul told us that our suffering is a gift to us from Christ. And, now, despite the outcome of today’s vote, the direction our country seems determined. We may comfort ourselves today with the wall we have erected against the coming tsunami, but that wall will scarcely hold it once it has reached the shore. Our only course of action, I believe, is to pray and to become the Church we were called to be. For in that time, buildings will fall and programs will cease; choirs will not sing, and Awanas will be but a faint memory. In that time, all we will have is the Church, and that time will not be the time to figure out what the Church truly is.

For though it is more than evident that the institution of marriage is far older than any secular government and was instituted by no one other than God himself, the fact remains that as a society today, marriage is chiefly a secular institution. While others have said that marriage is an institution created by God and recognized by the state, it is not that simple. For if that were true, no one could bypass the church and be married in a courthouse by a magistrate, and there would be no secular ramifications for being married, except for perhaps the changing of one’s legal name. Yet, these things do exist and so demonstrate that the once religious institution of marriage has evolved into something that can elude religion entirely.

Therefore, when we go to the ballot box to cast our lot with others regarding “marriage” in the state of North Carolina, we are doing so in the efforts of preserving or changing a state-based institution not a religious one. And as such, the outcome has little to no consequences for the Church, for the state has no power over her. Christ alone is her Lord, and no vote consisting of the righteous and the wicked will ever sway his decree.

As for the state itself, I have long put aside the vision of the Separatists who longed to establish Christ’s government in the New World, and have accepted the Christ-given role for the Church to be light in the darkness of the world (including wicked governments and their citizens). As for that role, no piece of legislation can ever remove it, nor will any piece of legislation ever promote it. It is our duty to be that city on the hill, and only we ourselves can deter or uphold that role. In fact, the light that we are called to be shines all the more brighter when the world around us makes itself darker, and we should see these times as opportunities to shine, not through moral legislation and law-based, prescriptive righteousness, but through love, peace, and acceptance knowing that God alone can change the heart of the homosexual, et al, not Christian political activism.

That said, what should the Christian’s role be in the Amendment One vote? Some would say that you are not doing your Christian duty by not voting for it. I beg to differ with that assertion, for whether you vote or not, nowhere is it prescribed by Christ to take active duty in the governance of a country. Yes, we should cry out against gross injustices (e.g. abortion), but chiming in on the definitions of terms of a secular institution is hardly a gross injustice. It may be sinful to grant the benefits / costs of state-sanctioned marriage to the union between same-sex couples, but God will judge those matters not the Church. For whether or not the amendment passes, homosexuality and homosexual practices will continue to exist, and, if the current trend persists, will continue to grow. Our duty should chiefly be as it has ever been, to love each other as Christ loved the Church, and to do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith (cf. Gal. 6:10).

Perhaps if we were to do our duty as the Church, these things would not be an issue. Perhaps if we were the light we were called to be, Christ would draw more to himself. Yet we as the Church have become more legislators of morality than we have practicers of it. We have, as many outside the Church, looked to government and the law as our salvation, rather than to the righteousness and the power of Christ. As Paul so clearly put it, the law has no power to save, and its adherence alone only leads to condemnation. And while we might prevail to “circumcise” the homosexuals of this land, we have only given ourselves reason to boast in their “flesh” (cf. Gal. 6:13). If, perhaps, we were to hone the energy that we put into secular law-making and divert it toward the sanctity of marriage within the Church itself, our divorce rates would not mirror those of the world.

1. What part will this ammendment have upon the purposes of the Church?
This question assumes much, and so first I should seek to remove some of those assumptions. There are some who feel / believe that a purpose of the church is to sanctify the land in which it resides. In other words, the land should be governed by “Christian” law, so to speak. For when we debate these things, it is no debate how the Bible views homosexual relationships. They are “unnatural”, an “abomination”, and are full of sin. In other words, they stand against God’s design for human sexuality. Those who profess to be Christians who claim otherwise, obviously do not heed the Words upon which their faith is supposedly based. There are also the clear arguments from what is referred to as “Natural Law,” but that does not need to be addressed at this time.

However, when heeding this truth from the Scriptures, how does that make us respond as the church to members of our state who are outside the church? In other words, was the Law of Christ designed to govern those outside of Christ as well as those who are in Christ and to make the church his enforcers, or was it designed to govern the church alone? And if the Law of Christ does govern the state, what effect would that have upon the church?

To answer the first, I believe that (contrary to the opinion of many) that Word of Christ is designed for the People of Christ. To put it another way, I believe that the Law of Christ is designed to govern those outside of Christ as much as the law of Honduras is designed to govern American citizens. Though this is a poor illustration, my point is that the Law of Christ, which includes that axiom, “Love others as I have loved you,” is only fully applicable to those whom Christ has loved to the point of his death and substitution (assuming, of course, Particular Redemption).

This point is further shown in Scripture in that the Law of Christ is demanded of those who have died with Christ and to that Other Law, and not vice versa. In other words, we who are in Christ are not saved by binding ourselves to this thing which we call the Law of Christ by keeping it, but we are bound to it after we have been redeemed. Indeed, it is futile to attempt to keep such a Law apart from the Power of Christ residing in us.

As for the church’s duty in the state, Christ said we are to be a city on hill, shining out light into the darkness of this world. Paul puts it in clearer language saying:

I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people–for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a peaceful and quite life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1Tim. 2:1-4).

To put it differently, I believe that Christ and Paul are both commenting on the nature of the church and its effectiveness in these texts, and that they are both saying the same thing, namely that with regards to the outside world and its governance, the church is to be actively praying for it and its leaders, but not acting as its legislators. The church’s duty, therefore, is to live righteously itself, even within the world it resides, so as to be a light of Christ to it. This manner of living is designed to manifest itself in quietness and peace, which also carries with it the ability to draw those who are in darkness into the light.

To ask a simple question that corresponds with the text from Paul, How would you characterize the politically active portions of the church, particularly with regards to marriage legislation? Would it quiet and peaceful? Would it be as a city on a hill? Or is more after the liking of every other secular political institution and activist? Personally, I feel that we as the church collectively are characterized by the latter more than the former.

Which brings us back to our main question, “What part does this ammendment have upon the purposes of the Church?” In the light of these texts, it seems as though the effects upon the purposes of the church have less to do with whether or nor it passes and more to do with how we respond in the mean time and afterward. Will we be that light upon the hill that shines quietly and brilliantly into the darkness, or will we be just another secular voice being drowned in the sea of secular opinion? For I fear that morality in this country will fail despite the Church’s greatest arguments and activism, and all that will remain afterward is how we have conducted ourselves.

More thoughts to come…