
It has been brought to my attention by a few scholars I very much respect that this is a bit too reductive and romanticised. Though I disagree, to a point, I'm grateful for their engagement and will be reading more on the topic in the coming months. If you have a book recommendation, leave that in the comments! (And please note, these bolded sections were added later and some comments below may reflect response to this post before these additions.)
Imagine.
You wake up this morning and turn on the news. You've pulled a slice of bread from the toaster, edges a bit burnt. You're spreading orange marmalade, waiting for the coffee to brew, when you hear the broadcaster announce that Congress will be debating a law that will make the Lord's Supper, Communion, the Eucharist, the property of the State.
That is, the State will now control what defines the Eucharist, the true Body and Blood. You can still bake bread in your home, can still pour a glass of wine or grape juice, can still pull out some crackers, place hands over the table and call it the Table, and say that what you partake in is bread and wine, Body and Blood, but legally it will be unrecognised, it will be nothing more than child's play.
You would say this ridiculous, of course. The State cannot control something that is clearly the property of the Church. It cannot dictate what is and is not of God: the State's sanctioned version of the Eucharist is no more the revelation of Christ than a bag of Doritos and a Dr. Pepper, for it takes the efficacious work of God's people to see Body and Blood fully realised.
It doesn't matter what the State does, you would say, what matters is what is happening in the places where believers are gathered together. What matters is what Christians do in proclaiming Christ, whether the State agrees or recognises or condones.
Now imagine it wasn't Communion, the Lord's Supper, the Eucharist; imagine it was baptism.
Imagine that the State is threatening to take control of baptism, that it will define the parameters of what baptism means: perhaps sprinkled, perhaps immersed, perhaps as an infant, perhaps as an adult. The State will control every detail, will have the ability to legally decide what counts as an efficacious baptism or not.
And you can fill a swimming pool. You can go to a lake. You can go to a fount. You can baptise thrice in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or once or sprinkle or dunk or whatever you believe to be the Scriptural truth, but in the eyes of the State, it will not matter. What you do is not baptism, but playing in a bit of water.
You would say this was silly. It doesn't matter what the State believes about baptism at all. What matters is the confession of Christians who baptise according to the Scripture, who live out their Faith and do so in fear and trembling. Simple as that. Whatever the State decides, it has no control over the truth.
Now, imagine that you consider the Eucharist and Baptism to be sacraments of some kind.
Rudimentarily, let's suppose you believe that they are the property of the Church, that what the Church can do with Eucharist and Baptism the State could never do, for the efficacy, the good, the truth of them is through confession of Faith and orthodox adherence to the Scripture at work in and through Christ's Church.
So let's talk about marriage.
Imagine that you wake up, turn on the news, pull out your toast, spread your marmalade, and hear that the State is saying it has the authority to define what marriage is. It is going to take marriage out of the hands of the Church and define it as it saw fit, in accordance to its teaching and beliefs. You would laugh, of course, for marriage is the property of the Church. But you hear that the Church is helping the State determine the definition. It's not really the State that is defining the terms, but the Church. For if the Church is helping it along, there's no chance for something sacred, unique, and divinely given to be lost.
Right?
Would you say that made sense?
Would you say that the State was protecting the sanctity of marriage?
Would you say that it was good for the State to be able to define marriage, because the State has respected so well all of the other Christian institutions that it brought legality into?
Or is there something wrong with this picture?
Is there something wrong with believing that a secular State should be responsible for defining marriage to begin with, let alone, allegedly, redefining it?
Is there something theologically amiss when the State takes control of what only the Church can confer?
I think so.
As a conservative-evangelical-liturgical-uneasy-pacifist-environmentalist-believer-in-marriage-between-one-man-and-one-woman Christian, I still think the State has no business defining marriage, because I also don't believe the State should be able to define the Eucharist or baptism or anything else theological for that matter.
For marriage in the Scriptural sense is the property of the Church.
For sanctity is not the property of the State.
For God is not the property of the State.
(And if you want to know what I feel about homosexuality, read this, from one far, far greater than I.)
What I thought was clear in this post, but I have come to realise is not, is that I am not writing to suggest that marriage as civil unions and contracts are not part of the State and its property, but that marriage as sacrament, as something to be protected, as more than contract but as covenant, is a unique part of the life of the Church. Yes, marriage exists in other parts of society as well, but not as a sacramental practice, which is why I don't think the State can be told not to allow same-sex marriage any more than portions of the Church could be told they must approve it.