Like most Christian bloggers, I feel that it's finally time that I comment on the Kim Davis situation. There are two words that are brought up fairly consistently around this issue: "freedom" and "persecution". I don't believe either is used correctly.
Before I address either, I would like to say this: you will never hear me personally attack Davis, nor those who oppose her stance. Ideological debates should remain focused on ideas. If you can't make your point without devolving into personal attacks, you don't really have a point.
Because it strikes me more deeply, I'll start with "freedom". Religious freedom was one of the great foundations of this country. Freedom to practice one's religion without government interference. Free to worship in the way one believed to be right. Supporters of Davis argue that her freedom to practice what she believes is compromised by the government forcing her to issue marriage licenses she deems immoral.
This requires addressing on two levels. The first is that she has been told she must issue these permits if she wishes to continue performing her job working for the government. Government jobs, as the name implies, follow the laws of the land. I do believe that God's law is higher than the laws of the land. However, I also believe that you cannot reap the benefits of a government position, yet expect to not have to follow the government's laws. The saved may belong to God, but we are still required to live in the world, and to accept consequences if we do not follow the laws. I understand that it can be difficult to find a new job. But if your job requires something you don't want to do, you may either do that thing, or leave that job. At my prior job, I hated taking phone calls from people who blamed their failed background check on me, rather than on their prior crimes. But that was part of the job. I couldn't simply tell my boss that these people weren't behaving very Christian-like and that I was not going to answer the phone anymore.
The second level is that of the distinction between "religious freedom" and "Christian freedom". If one accepts that a government employee who is Christian can choose to not issues marriage licenses that go against their beliefs, one must also accept that a government employee who is a Quaker can refuse to issue a gun license because it violates their belief in peace and non-violence. I have never heard anyone argue that the government should incorporate any religious beliefs other than Christian. In fact, President Obama so much as reading an Islamic text has been known to spark outrage. Why, then, should Christians be afforded a privilege that no other religion has?
And this brings me to the other word - "persecution". When my pastor and his wife returned from a visit to the Ukraine to share the teachings of the Lord, they came bearing stories of those who have been kidnapped, harmed, tortured, or killed for expressing their beliefs. And this isn't terribly rare in the world. There are governments that refuse to allow Christian prayer. Terrorist cells that will threaten one's life, home, and family to sway their beliefs.
In the shadow of these atrocities, to say that a person is persecuted because they are jailed for breaking a law (albeit one they disagreed with), or because people disagree with their stance, is insulting. If you can get up on Sunday and go to your church and practice your faith without fear, you are blessed - not persecuted.
I will always support someone in following God's law. But I will never support the idea that one should be able to avoid all earthly consequences while living in the world. If you need to change jobs to feel you are following God, change jobs. If you feel you need to stand against a law to follow God - do it. But humbly accept the consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment