Commentary
There's more than one religious view of the marriage amendment
by Pam FickenscherPastor Pam Fickenscher has served Lutheran parishes in the Twin Cities since 1997 and has served Edina Community Lutheran Church since 2002. She lives in south Minneapolis with her husband and two children.
In his recent commentary ("Why the definition of marriage matters," May 18), B. Gehling makes the stunning claim that the "definition of marriage" has been stable and fixed for most of history. Therefore, he argues, the definition currently upheld by the Roman Catholic Church should be enshrined in the Constitution. We should accept his claims neither on historical or religious grounds.
Marriage has taken a number of shapes through history, many of which would not be supported by Minnesota law, as any child carefully reading the Old Testament will discover. In many times and places, legal definitions were much more concerned with the orderly passing on of wealth than with the welfare either of a mother or her children.
Gehling makes vague reference to stepparenting as problematic for children. But a constitutional amendment defining marriage would do nothing to prevent divorce, remarriage, single parenting or stepparenting. He further asserts that "real" marriage is about bodily union open to the possibility of procreation, but neither Minnesota law nor, I would venture, most Minnesotans support forbidding marriage to those who are disabled or past the age of procreation.
Marriage, as understood in my Lutheran religious tradition, is a social good that, while not right for everyone, provides a stable framework for lifelong faithfulness and love. In such stability, indeed, children can flourish, if that stability is anchored in love and forgiveness. But it is the lifelong commitment and faithfulness of the partners and the support a community provides to a relationship that create that stability — not the inborn gender of the two people involved.
Five out of six Minnesota synods of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have already voted this spring to oppose the proposed amendment's limitation on freedom. Most of these Lutherans, I would venture, are in "traditional" marriages themselves. But they understand that Christians are called to seek the good of their neighbors, even neighbors different from them. This amendment does nothing to actually aid those traditional marriages while damaging the welfare of those whose loves happen to be the same gender.
I have been married (to a man) for more than 13 years and raise my children in a congregation where every family is honored and supported. For the sake of my neighbors whose families don't fit the man-woman model, and for the sake of my children who I hope will understand marriage as lifelong loving faithfulness, I intend to vote no.
Comments (7)
Thank you for your well reasoned challenge to the assertions of those who support this amendment!
Point well made, Pastor Pam.
We will get government out of the marriage business sooner or later.
Righty rightists using the government to force their beliefs and "feelings" on the citizenry is every bit as ugly as when the lefty leftists do it.
Once again I am amazed that a Lutheran Pastor doesnt use The Bible as her main point of reference. The questino is not whether the Bible condones same sex marriage - it clearly dos not. The question is whether Christian leaders will be courageous enoughto take a Biblical stand and accept the inevitable persecution that will follow or will we just say what itching ears want to hear? Will we stand for God's truth or embrace the spirit of the age? This is not a political issue. It's a spiritual issue that goes to the very core of our belief system. God ordained marriage in the garden of Eden as sacred. If believers don't have the courage to stand up for marriage then we are not worthy to be called followers of Christ. Martin Luther would have no problem with this or any other matter according to scripture. "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kids of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven."Matt 5;11-12
Thank God for you Beth and your stand. Contrary to popular belief we as Christians who still believe that God's word is still true, do not hate homosexuals, In fact I have some wonderful friends who are homosexual and I love them but I do not condone their choice of lifestyle and pray for their eyes to be opened. God is very clear on this matter and does not beat around the bush about same sex unions, man has changed it to satisfy their lust for self satisfaction. It has nothing to do with civil equality as some have said, if that were so we would have to give same rights to child molestors, murderers, etc......God help us.
Unfortunately, the interpretation of scripture that condones the homosexual lifestyle have been reinterpreted by these denominations to reflect their world view. Their hermeneutics do not concur with the early Church fathers or Christian writers whole lived during the New Testament period or the following century. This is a classic case of eisigisis or revisionist history. My hope is that everyone would conform their world view to reflect theology and not make theology fit their world view.
Mrs. Fickenscher wrote:
"the stunning claim that the "definition of marriage" has been stable and fixed for most of history."
It's not so stunning if you believe the objective fact marriage is between and man and a woman.
Mrs. Fickenscher is apparently making the assertion that *her* interpretation of the Bible is correct, and that it should be eventually imposed upon Minnesota. Curious the mantra of "separation of church and state" doesn't apply here.
No matter. Mrs. Fickenscher, along with her fellows, will issue a no-confidence vote to condemn Jewish morality and normative cultural standards. That is their prerogative. I won't be joining their descent into that vile, stinking trench of cultural degradation.
God wrote His laws on every mans heart and thus will not have any excuse when they stand before God on Judgement Day. He gave man a free will but He also gave consequences for disobedience. God calls for the disobedient to repentance. That is where total freedom from the flesh is. Amen
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
