The Missouri “Freedom of Religion” Resolution

Senate Joint Resolution No 39 will likely come before Missouri voters in November 2016.  The Resolution amends article I of the state constitution and aims to protect certain religious organizations and individuals from being penalized by the state for their actions that are based on their "sincere religious beliefs concerning marriage between two persons of the same sex."  https://legiscan.com/MO/text/SJR39/id/1363282

 

Described by its proponents as "Religious Freedom" legislation, the Resolution actually legalizes religious discrimination. The Resolution involves the State of Missouri in taking sides in a religious dispute over the definition of what constitutes marriage.  On one side of the dispute are religious traditionalists, who hold the view that God's view of marriage consists of one man married to one woman.  They support their argument by quoting the Bible, but are simply incorrect in their conclusions as to what the Bible says about marriage (see http://blog.charleshedrick.com/2013/04/gods-view-of-marriage.html).  Their myopic misreading of the Bible makes their argument appear disingenuous.  The other side of the dispute is represented by members of the LGBT community and religious liberals in the Christian tradition who do not share the same definition of marriage and want the same status for same-sex unions as are enjoyed by other Missouri citizens.

 

            This Resolution would add Section 36 (having five subparagraphs) to Article I of the Missouri Constitution, which states that the state shall not impose penalties on religious organizations, clergy or religious leaders, churches and other houses of worship, or individuals who decline to provide goods and services to persons of same sex unions based on their "sincere religious belief" that marriage between two same-sex persons is not God's view of marriage—in short, the Resolution would not require them to associate with "those kind of people."  This Resolution in effect prohibits same-sex couples from describing themselves as married and permits discrimination against them.

 

            If SJR 39 becomes law the State of Missouri will clearly be in violation of Amendment 1 of the US Constitution by establishing a sectarian religious view as the law of the state of Missouri; Amendment 1 of the US Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  SJR 39 legalizes discrimination when it authorizes the withholding of goods and services from a group holding to a minority religious view, and would thereby "establish" the traditionalists' religious view of marriage as law.

 

            If civil actions occur, initiated by plaintiffs who feel discriminated against, as well they might, courts will be forced to validate that the respondent's belief is both religiously based and that it is "sincerely" held.  This judgment will be required in order to identify those whose religious view is insincerely held (i.e., opportunistically) and others whose prejudicial views are not religiously based; state protections cover only those whose "religious view" is "sincerely held."  Sincerity (honesty of mind, freedom from hypocrisy) is a state of mind and impossible to determine—we never know for certain if people say what they are actually thinking—even when they tell us what they are thinking.

 

SJR 39 aims to legalize religious discrimination with impunity.

 

Charles W, Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

God’s View of Marriage?

A shorter version of this essay appeared in The Springfield News-Leader on July 11, 2013

 
I am always astonished when anyone claims to know what God thinks!  It is a rash claim, at best.  A case in point is the recent editorial by Professor James D. Hernando (Professor of New Testament, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, Springfield, MO).  Dr. Hernando says "Marriage is God's idea.  He created us as sexual beings and His loving plan for the fulfillment of our sexuality is a monogamous heterosexual union in marriage" (News-Leader 4/9/13: 3B).  Actually Hernando is reciting his own ideal of marriage based on the Bible (Genesis).  The Bible, however, is inconsistent on the subject of marriage.  For example, polygamy was practiced among the ancient Hebrews (Gen 4:19, 16:1-4, 25:6, 26:34; Deut 21:15; Judges 8:30; 1 Samuel 1:1-2; 1 Kings 11:1-10; 1 Chronicles, 4:5; 2 Chron 11:21, 24:3).  Particularly relevant is Deut 21:15, which shows God condoning polygamy.  1 Kings 11:1-10 portrays God as opposed to Solomon's marriage to foreign women because it would lead to the worship of foreign Gods rather than because God placed a high view on monogamous marriage—one man and one woman.  In 2 Chron 24:1-3 Joash is extolled as "doing what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the days Jehoiada," while he was married to two wives.  So God apparently did not always, if ever, hold to the idea of marriage that Hernando attributes to him.

            Even in the New Testament the ideas about marriage do not measure up to Hernando's ideal view of marriage that he attributes to God.  Paul, for example, preferred that men and women should remain single (1 Cor 7:6-9), but he granted marriage as a concession to human weakness ("better to marry than burn with [sexual] passion," 1 Cor 7:9).  His rationale for his views lies in his mistaken idea that the end of the world was imminent (1 Cor 7:25-31).  He sets out his reasons for singularity (not monogamy) in 1 Cor 7:32-35: marriage distracts from undivided devotion to God.  His view of a kind of sexless or spiritual "marriage" is odd, to say the least. Apparently at Corinth unmarried men and women were living together without being married or engaging in sexual intercourse.  Paul reassured them that if a couple decided to marry "it was not a sin" (1 Cor 7:36—it reflects a rather low view of marriage to refer to it as "not a sin"). Thus, the man who marries his virgin does well, but the man who refrains from marriage does better (1 Cor 7:38). With this statement Paul seems to put his stamp of approval on a kind of continent spiritual living together.  And Paul argued, this kind of "union" (being accompanied by a sister as wife) was his "right," a right he shared with "the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas" (i.e., Peter: 1 Cor 9:5).  Later writings after Paul do reflect Hernando's idea of "one man and one woman" (viz., 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).  In Paul's earliest letter a passage, usually considered to be about marriage, is unclear for a reader of the Greek text (1 Thess 4:4-8). Tertullian (2^nd/3^rd century), a presbyter and regarded as the founder of Latin Christianity, in trying to deal with the large number of virgins in the church (those having taken a vow of chastity) recommended that widowers take a virgin as a kind of spiritual wife into their homes.  Indeed, "a plurality of such wives is pleasing to God" (Exhortation to Chastity 12).

           Cyprian (Bishop of Carthage, middle third century) dealt with a similar situation differently than did Paul and Tertullian (Epistle 4). He stopped the practice of a man and a virgin living together, excommunicated the men who had been involved, but permitted the virgins who remained virgins and were resolved to continue as virgins to remain in the church.  What today we see as radical actions, in antiquity was an attempt to deal with the large number of women who had taken vows of chastity.  Celibacy was a religious ideal that was honored by the Christian church and thought to be approved by God—as Paul said, however, we don't all have the same gift.  And a similar statement is attributed to Jesus about male castration: "whoever is able to receive it let him receive it" (Matt 19:12).    

Knowing the mind of God is not information to which human beings are privy.  No less a prophet than Isaiah said: "Who has known the mind of the Lord and been his counselor so as to instruct him" (Isa 40:13 Septuagint; quoted by Paul in 1 Cor 2:16).  Paul wanted all his saints to have the "mind of Christ" (Phil 2:5), but not even Paul claimed to know the mind of God (1 Cor 2:11), even though he claimed to have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16), which likely refers to Christ's self-giving attitude in life (Phil 2:2-10).  The Bible, neither as a collection nor in its individual essays, embodies the mind of God, but represents one record of the human quest for God in the Judeo-Christian tradition.  The best practice is steer clear of anyone who claims to have God's ear or know God's mind.

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University