© 2015 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk whose job includes issuing marriage
licenses, chose to be jailed last week rather than accept a deal that would
have allowed her to remain free after defying a federal order to issue marriage
licenses to same-sex couples.
Davis, a Democrat, had not only refused to issue licenses to such couples,
but had stopped the issuance of any marriage licenses. Furthermore,
not only did she refuse to issue them, but she also forbade her deputies to do
so. When ordered by the court to obey the law, she appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Court, which declined to hear her case.
Unlike in some other states, Kentucky requires that a marriage license state
the county clerk's name as the one issuing the license, even when it is issued
by a subordinate in that office. In these other states, a "reasonable
accommodation" (a legal term) has been found, allowing licenses to be
issued to homosexual couples without implying that the official issuing the
license was in agreement. Davis has sought accommodation whereby homosexual
couples could get marriage licenses without her involvement, direct or
indirect. She suggests an "opt-out" in the marriage license process,
deputizing another county clerk, taking her name off of the license and having
the state distribute the license.
After being jailed, Davis asked the Kentucky governor, Steven Beshear, also
a Democrat, to free her and, according to one of her lawyers, "provide
reasonable, sensible accommodation so she can do her job." The governor
said he would not intervene in a matter between her and the courts.
However, on Tuesday, after being satisfied that Davis' deputies are now
issuing the marriage licenses, the Federal Court judge who had ordered her
jailed, let her out, with a stern warning: "Defendant Davis shall not
interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy
clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples." The
judge also instructed that the deputies are to report to him every two weeks.
"If Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that
will be considered a violation of this order and appropriate sanctions will be
considered," the release order said.
Davis maintains that her refusal to issue the licenses, which are now legal
in every state following the recent Supreme Court decision creating a
constitutional right to same-sex marriage, is because of her view as a
Christian that same-sex marriages are "not of God."
Some coverage of this story has highlighted the fact the Davis' personal
history regarding marriage is not exemplary. She has been married four times to
three different men, and was reportedly impregnated by the man who became her
third husband while she was married to her first husband. Davis dates her
"religious awakening" to 2011, following her mother-in-law's
"dying wish" that she attend church. She regularly attends the Solid
Rock Apostolic Church near Morehead, Kentucky, a congregation in the Apostolic
Church, a Pentecostal Christian denomination.
It is not rare for an elected official to disobey the law. Ironically, in
2004, then San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom defied the law and forced
government clerks to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. What is
rare is for an official to be jailed. Newsom was not jailed or even fined.
Whatever the case, Davis is partaking of another long-standing American
tradition, that of civil disobedience.
In another story this week, a Muslim flight attendant, Charee Stanley, was
suspended by ExpressJet because of her refusal to serve alcohol to passengers
due to her religious beliefs. Some members of The Wired Word team
consider her story and Davis' to be examples of the same theme of obedience to
one's conscience and one's understanding of God's will. If that's the case,
then some of our responses to Davis' situation might also apply to Stanley's.
More on this story can be found at these links:
The Big Questions
1. When, if ever, is a Christian justified in refusing to do part of a job
for which he or she was hired, especially if some dimensions of that job have
changed? When, if ever, is a Christian justified in refusing to obey a court
order? Assuming you consider there to be some times when one or the other is
the right thing to do, what criteria do you use in making the decision, and
whom do you consult for a second opinion? What might lead you to conclude that
your decision to refuse was correct? What might lead you to conclude that it
was misguided?
2. (You may wish to consider the following as different versions of the
same question, or you may wish to consider them individually.) If an Amish
person works for the Department of Motor Vehicles, must they issue driver's
licenses, even though they don't believe in the use of automobiles? If a
district attorney believes that the Bible teaches that a man may beat his wife,
does that mean he is not obligated to prosecute domestic abuse cases in which a
man beats his wife? Or may a public defender who is passionate about animal
rights choose not to defend a person accused of animal abuse, or dog-fighting?
How about a postal worker who dislikes the person on his route whom he assumes
to be a mafioso? Must he deliver his mail?
3. Some might believe that the Kentucky clerk's troubled background renders
her hypocritical or lacking in personal credibility. Suppose she had not been
married four times and had a pristine moral record. How, if at all, would that
affect your opinion of her stance regarding marriage licenses?
4. Are there some jobs Christians shouldn't hold if they are convinced that
some requirements of the job conflict with their conscience or faith?
5. If you defend Kim Davis' choice to refuse on religious grounds to issue
same-sex couples marriage licenses with her name on them, even though this is a
requirement of her job, do you also defend Charee Stanley's choice to refuse on
religious grounds to serve alcoholic beverages to airline passengers, even
though this is a requirement of her job? Why or why not? Is Davis' situation
different enough from Stanley's to warrant different answers? Does the fact
that Davis' job is a government job (as opposed to a private-sector
job) have any bearing?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Acts 5:29
But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than any
human authority." (For context, read 5:17-42.)
This is from the account of the arrest of some of the apostles for preaching
and healing in the temple in Jesus' name, and the sentence above includes the
words of defense the apostles spoke when brought before the high priest and the
council. Some commentators on Davis' situation have been quick to apply the
apostles' defense to her.
But TWW team member Timothy Merrill comments that Davis "is not
in the position of the apostles in Acts ..., where Peter famously said it is
better to obey God than human authority. No one is saying she can't stand on a
street corner and proclaim her beliefs. They are saying that if she wants to
continue to get a paycheck from the government, then she'll have to do what
clerks do: issue marriage licenses."
Davis needs a job that does not offend her conscience, Merrill says.
"Being a county clerk evidently is not a job a Christian like [Davis] can
continue to hold. Perhaps there are other such jobs off limits for Christians
of a certain conscience."
TWW team member Frank Ramirez, a pastor in the Church of the Brethren,
responds, "Our denomination teaches that all war is sin and encouraged our
people to register as conscientious objectors during World War II and the
Korean and Vietnam wars, so I would suggest we shouldn't be military
recruiters. Some of my friends, because of their objections to war, actually
live at the poverty level deliberately so they don't pay taxes and thereby
support the military. I don't think I would be willing to go that far (my
stance on war is more nuanced), but I know people who will not work in
positions that require them to go against their conscience."
For a contrasting view, see the article "When Does Your Religion
Legally Excuse You From Doing Part of Your Job?" in the link list above.
Questions: Are there indeed times when Christians must
choose between following their faith and keeping their only source of income?
What sorts of jobs should Christians not hold? Why? Which ones would you be
unable to hold based on your conscience or your understanding of God's will?
Luke 20:25
Then give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the
things that are God's. (For context, read 20:20-26.)
This was Jesus' response to a question about whether it was lawful to pay
taxes to the emperor. The question was not a sincere one, but rather an attempt
to trap Jesus into saying something that would throw him either into disfavor
with the crowds or into legal jeopardy with Rome. But Jesus took the occasion
to tell people that while they needed to give to the emperor what was legally
required, they also needed to give to God the allegiance they owed him.
Clearly Jesus understood that his followers had dual responsibilities. They
were both subjects of the Roman Empire and citizens of God's kingdom. Jesus
does not discuss how far Christians should go in trying to make kingdom
principles the law of the empire, but his statement does suggest that they
could not ignore either world.
Question: What clues does this verse give you about how
Jesus might address Davis' choice to refuse to issue marriage licenses despite
it being a requirement of her job?
Romans 13:1-3
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no
authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been
instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has
appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror
to good conduct, but to bad. (For context, read 13:1-7.)
It is important to read these words of Paul about obedience to governing
authorities in the context of the early church. Christians were still a new
group in the Roman Empire and could bring brutal repression upon themselves if
they challenged the governing powers. However, except for a few periods of
severe persecution, the Roman authorities often left Christians alone. And the
social order Rome enforced throughout its empire, as well as the roads the
Romans built, made travel for the purpose of spreading the gospel relatively
safe. Thus, Paul and other Christians saw God's hand in that social order and
urged obedience to those who enforced it.
Probably this advice was not intended to be universal or to apply to every
government, no matter how repressive or notorious. Christian responses to
governing authorities should be informed by discernment of the will of God and
faithfulness to Jesus' command to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Questions: Is one's understanding of one's religious
requirements superior to the law? Who has the authority to answer that
question?
1 Corinthians 7:17, 19
... let each of you lead the life that the Lord has assigned, to which God
has called you ... obeying the commandments of God is everything. (For
context, read 7:17-24.)
Paul makes this comment in the midst of a discussion about whether unmarried
and widowed Christians should marry and how married Christians whose spouse is
an unbeliever should deal with their marriages. Some biblical commentators
believe Paul's comments were made in expectation that Christ would return very
soon, but whatever the case, the words above can be thought of as a kind of
summary statement that no matter what their marital circumstances, "obeying
the commandments of God is everything."
That sounds right to us yet today, whether talking about our marriages or
anything else. The challenge is rightly understanding and applying those
commands for our purposes here and now.
Questions: Is Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses a
matter of "obeying the commandments of God"? (After all, God nowhere
says, "Thou shalt not do anything to help same-sex couples.") If you
think it is, what specific or general command is she obeying?
When have you taken a costly stand based on obeying the commandments of God?
For Further Discussion
Reflecting somewhat the varying views among Christians nationwide
concerning Kim Davis' action, members of The Wired Word team
differ in their views as well. We offer the following samples, which you may
wish to discuss and respond to:
From TWW team member Joanna Loucky-Ramsey: "We had dear
friends who paid dearly for standing up for their faith after the Communists
took over in Czechoslovakia. He was sent to a death camp prison for 10 years
and nearly died for crimes he didn't commit, and his wife and three small
children were thrown out of their apartment and forced to live in a field for
months; she had trouble keeping her job as a nurse because she would not deny
her faith; the children in later years were denied entry to university or
refused jobs because they would not follow the party line. When an American is
thrown into jail for her unwillingness to put her signature on marriage
certificates which she feels her faith does not permit, it's not hard to
understand that a lot of Americans might see this [the arrest of Davis] as
egregious persecution that would have been unimaginable in our nation in our
parents' generation."
From TWW team member Mary Sells: "On the one hand, you have an
elected official who swears to uphold the law -- and is now in a position to
disagree with one. My view? If you run for office, you know the gig and that it
is possible that your personal view and your official duties may not match;
constituents elect persons to rise above personal views in order to administer
the law. Ms. Davis is in jail because the money being raised on her behalf,
according to the judge, influenced her more than her duty. I opine that Ms.
Davis is enjoying her moment in the sun, like a good politician, despite her
Christian belief, and will do quite well when book and movie rights offers come
to light.
"I also understand that there are people in every
generation who are standard bearers, who can cast light upon issues for us all
to make a self-examination -- Martin Luther King, for example. I wish I felt
the sincerity of such in Ms. Davis, but I do not think she belongs to that
club."
From TWW team member Liz Antonson: She points out that the
religious liberty based on the First Amendment of the Constitution not only
ensures that all Americans will be able to practice their religious convictions
freely and openly without fear of government regulation or prohibition, but
also that the government is protected from religious institutions' attempt
to garner political power over the nation.
Antonson says, "As much as we love the country we live
in, we must remember two important realities: 1) It is a temporary home, and 2)
there is a time coming when this scripture will be fulfilled: 'The kingdoms
[governments] of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his
Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever!' (Revelation 11:15). Our
citizenship is not earth-bound; 'This world is the limit of their earth-bound
horizon. But we are citizens of heaven; our outlook goes beyond this world to
the hopeful expectation of the Savior who will come from heaven, the Lord Jesus
Christ' (Philippians 3:19-20)."
"Take note," Antonson says, "none of the
first disciples, nor Paul, the latecomer disciple, took it upon themselves to
infiltrate or transform the government of Rome, nor of any other country to
which they carried the Good News of the Kingdom. They were faithful to Christ's
Great Commission; the command was to evangelize the world, not to re-fashion
political powers. ... This is not a call to be silent about harmful ideas and
practices in our country. Rather, it is a reminder to keep foremost in our
understanding that Christ is not a conservative or a liberal ... Christ is King
of the only government that matters."
From TWW team member Jim Berger: "Lots of people are convinced
they speak for God today. Just ask the Taliban, ISIS, the Aryan Nation, the Ku
Klux Klan, the Neo-Nazis and, of course, the Westboro Baptist Church. God told
them to take this stand!"
From TWW consultant James Gruetzner: "This situation provides
more indication that the government should not be in the business of approving
or 'licensing' marriages. I've been told that current licensing scheme developed
in part as a method to enforce anti-miscegenation laws (laws against
interracial marriage). Requiring the government's permission to get married is
truly beyond the legitimate scope of government power. This was brought home to
me when my older daughter was getting married, and there was the added stress
of ensuring that 'the license' was obtained prior to the ceremony. While
government may arguably have a role in maintaining a registry of marriages as a
matter of public record (as they may do with other contracts), that is much
different than seeking the permission of some mandarin in order to get married.
(To be clear, I believe that homosexual 'marriages' are mock-marriages, but if
two people of the same sex want to write a contract that they call a 'marriage'
and have it filed in a public repository, then I see no reason for the
government to forbid them.) If the government doesn't have to provide a
license, then the problem facing Davis and her opponents goes away."
Responding to the News
We all, as Christians, struggle with when to take a stand as a matter of our
faith, and when not to. This is a good time to think about where our conscience
convicts us because of requirements of our work or school or some other
circumstance of our life, and bring such matters to our church where we may
review them with the help of Christians who are mature in Christ.
This is also a good time to remember that if we substitute other names or
circumstances into a premise and the premise doesn't hold up, that may be an
indicator that it is a misguided premise. For example, in place of talking
about a county clerk who doesn't want her name on marriage licenses issued to
homosexual couples, substitute a pastor who defies his or her denominational
policy in order to conduct a same-sex wedding. (An actual case; read about it here.) After the substitution, is your view of Davis'
action any different? Is your view of your action (or contemplated action) in
one of your own circumstances any different?
Closing Prayer
O God, we thank you for calling us to make Jesus the Lord of our lives, even
while you place us in societies where our conscience is challenged. Help us to
live as good citizens of both your kingdom and our nation. Help us also,
insofar as is possible and helpful, to avoid partisanship. And when we must
disagree, let it be in a spirit of charity. In Jesus' name. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment