Two observations on the USA Supreme Court ruling on Same-sex marriage from a Cross-cultural Missions perspective

- MARRIAGE -

Last Friday marked a sad milestone in the Western world as the Supreme Court of the USA ruled that same-sex couples are not to be denied the right to 'marriage'.

Various leaders and groups within the USA have already commented on their websites and blogs.  Within hours of the ruling we had emails tumble into our inbox from many such places.

Here are some links if you want to read further what some Christian leaders are saying:

Al Mohler has a special edition of The Briefing to talk it through. John Piper shared a lamentation. The Ethics & Religious Liberties Commission released Here We Stand, a statement of dissent signed by a whole series of Christian leaders. CBMW released an official response. Living Waters made comment and advertised their DVD.

Two things stand out to me from the perspective of 'looking in' from an outside cross-cultural perspective.

1. Marriage has been re-defined by the culture - but that doesn't change God's definition of marriage according to the Creator's design.  Life around us here in Africa is full of mis-defined  and mis-understood concepts.  I've lost count as to how many times I have been told by the lady who assists in our home, that from a biblical perspective, Africans have no idea what marriage is.  The mis-placed beliefs have to be replaced. We always need to be alert to where a 'cultural' meaning is eroding or in conflict with a biblical meaning of a concept. Even heterosexual 'marriages' can be a far cry from God's idea of marriage.  We need to seek a personally ever deepening knowledge of the truth on marriage and pro-atively teach it wherever we can.

2. This ruling was more about honour, not the law - As I listened to Albert Mohler's 20 minute radio comment on the ruling, he referred again and again to how the Chief Justice of the USA (who himself is pro-gay-marriage) was a dissenter on the ruling because he saw this was a ruling based on the personal moral views of the people making the ruling, not an upholding of the law.  This was not just about equal 'rights' in daily living but more about a desire for equal dignity - in other words 'honour'.  In fact the conclusion of the document states : "They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law".  

As Al Mohler mentioned, this was about a desire for gay couples to feel like they were of equal worth and 'belonged'.

I find it rather interesting that in quite an unplanned way,  my previous blogpost was all about whether the USA/the West is 'allergic to honour' or not.  My conclusion was 'not', but that we might be allergic to the 'word' honour even though the concept is influencing daily life all the time.  This ruling is a significant 'case in point'.  It is astonishingly clear in this document just how much the concept of 'honour' (in various terminology) is growing in Western society especially the USA, and how much it is influencing the Western worldview.

The arguments used in the ruling were cased in honour terminology such as:

gay marriage should be approved so children of gay-couples don't have to live with the 'stigma' of being looked on as 'less' and suffer 'humiliation'

exact wording: "children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.......marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples".

"Same sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of dis-approval of their relationships, this denial works a grave and continuing harm serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbians"

"Men and women suffered pain and humiliation"

"It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out"

"The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life"

"Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect and need for its privilages and responsibilities"

"The state must accord them its respect"

"Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises  and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.."

"Same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite sex couples and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right"

Words like 'dignity' or 'humiliation' or 'respect' were recurring throughout the documented ruling and in fact occurred 4 times just in the last few lines summary of the document.

The document did not emphasise 'justice' in the eyes of the law, but 'dignity' in the eyes of the law.  This is not a legal emphasis language but an honour emphasis language. This was not just about equal 'rights' in daily living but more about a desire for equal dignity - in other words 'honour'.  In fact the conclusion of the document states : "They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law".  

So what's my point?  Although our research was initially with the purpose of better reaching Africa it may well be used on a different continent......as I've said before....if the West wants to reach the Post-modern West with the gospel that will be heard at a heart level, it MUST factor in the reality of 'honour'.  

People must come to understand true honour in Christ if they are ever going to be willing to put aside a desire for honour in the eyes of the world around them.