Yes, I realize at the onset that this would appear rather disingenuous pursuit, attempting to articulate a view which I, myself, do not hold (except for an occasional sentence here and there…which, perhaps, shows where two positions have the potential of colliding. HA!). I apologize in advance for this rhetorical exposition, but I think for me to argue a position effectively, it is helpful to spend a great deal of time attempting to understand those positions which run contrary to my own. Otherwise, I am talking without listening and not growing as a person. Also, I write this to show that I do try to consider several sides of an issue before articulating my own position. Finally, I write this to demonstrate, to the extent that my limited abilities will allow, the amount of sophistry that goes into my own rhetorical expositions. Please read the entries that precede this one if you are curious about what I believe.

Why should we proactively pursue an amendment to our state’s constitution that would keep marriage between one man and one woman? In the last few years and months, this question has surfaced more than at any other time in history. How we answer this question and how we act on our answers will have a lasting impact on the future and integrity of marriage, our relationship with God’s word, and our relationship with God.

First and foremost, if we do not have the courage to draw a line now, at this empirical juncture, when will we? If we do not have the courage to heed God’s word now, when will we?
What if a man decides it is his right to marry two women? What’s to keep two couples from marrying each other…four people wedded together in holy matrimony??

Some might suggest that conjuring up this ‘slippery slope’ in order to prove that allowing men to marry men and women to marry women is a shaky practice, and that we really must take each situation as it comes. But I claim that we walk down a perilous path by not carefully considering how it is that today’s decisions will impact decisions we make tomorrow.

A man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman does not readily fit within the scope and purpose of holy matrimony as God intended it. Nowhere in the Bible is there any mention of a holy physical and spiritual bonding between two people of the same sex. Not only that, but—according to Scripture—homosexual relations are an abomination, and marrying two people who willfully act in this way does not hide their sinfulness from God’s sight.

Some might argue that at the time Scriptures were written there was no such thing as a ‘homosexual orientation’ and that people at that time would have never conceptualized such a thing…because there were no words for it. Are we then suggesting that at the time of Jesus, and at the time of the Hebrew Bible’s formation, God’s knowledge and intentions with respect to marriage were not fully developed? Friends, I would argue that God knew then what God knows now: that marriage is for the joining of two souls, the soul of one man with the soul of one woman.

Some might put forth the notion that traditional marriage, that which is defined as being between one man and one woman, will in no way be affected by the inclusion of gays and lesbians into marriage’s circle of sacristity. While this may or may not be the case, the purpose of keeping marriage between one man and one woman isn’t primarily to maintain its integrity as an institution. Rather, it is to align ourselves with God’s plan for humanity. We align ourselves not because we are pharisaic legalists, but because God’s Word is a leading light, and—as Christians—we yearn for guidance outside the limited scope of human wisdom. If this light does not lead us, what is it that leads us?

Though gay marriage has not yet been tested in history as an addendum to the institution of marriage, Scripture prepares us for days like these…when we are not wise to decide God’s will through the lens of our own understanding. Rather, when God’s words address these issues, we must listen with humility and move forward with conviction. Though it is sometimes painful read Scripture and act in accordance with its meaning and purpose, we do so all-the-while remembering God’s greatest commandment: that we love our neighbors as ourselves.

“But an amendment to our state’s constitution?” you might ask. “Is this really necessary?”

The gay marriage issue, because of what it represents and because of the social fabric to which it is bound, must be acknowledged by the state in the same what that the state acknowledges marriage…even if it just a civil ceremony. Friends, there would be no civil ceremony were it not for marriage’s Judeo-Christian roots, and its sound influence on society even today. By proposing a ban on gay marriage, we’re not inventing anything new, but returning to the roots that brought us to where we are today. It is a time of repentance, not in the usual use of the word, but in its original Hebrew meaning, which is ‘to turn back to God.’

Wherever and whenever we can, we must turn back to God. Though Post-modern trends turn us and distract us from scriptural clarity, we cannot waver in our vigilance. We are waiting for the Kingdom and part of this waiting means taking God’s Word to our hearts and minds, and preparing ourselves for the time when, like a thief in the night, Jesus will come again.

Today I received a letter in the mail from “Minnesota for Marriage,” asking me for money to support their effort.

This is what I wrote and will mail to them on Monday morning:

Dear Friends,

     I’m concerned about the amount of money, time and energy that has gone into keeping marriage between a man and a woman. As a person of faith I find it troubling that you are choosing to use our state’s limited private resources in this way, when there are children who go to sleep hungry every night…right here in Minnesota. These same children often don’t have the health coverage they need to lead happy healthy lives.
     God calls us to be in solidarity with ‘the least of these,’ giving them food when they are hungry and putting shoes on their feet when they are cold. This is our biblical imperative. Spending large amounts of time and money on a marriage amendment will not solve the most crucial problems facing our society. If a man wants to marry a man or a woman wants to marry a woman, it ought not to be outlawed through legislation. If you must outlaw it, outlaw it in your churches, but please do not use the state to do so.
     Jesus teaches to measure actions by their fruits. There are many gay marriages that yield good fruit and many heterosexual marriages that yield bad fruit; a marriage amendment addresses none of that, but hopes to make a blanket prohibition that, in the end, will solve nothing.
     Again, please consider how much time Jesus spent using the state to police sexual morality, and how much time he spent walking with, talking with, and healing the poor and oppressed.
     Please take me off your mailing list.

Blessings,

Jeshua Erickson

The good folks at the Albert Lea Tribune wrote a nice article about me last Friday. Geri McShane, who interviewed me for “Out of the wilderness” has been working at the Albert Lea Tribune for over twenty years. A journalism graduate from St. Thomas University in Minneapolis, McShane probably knows the art of telling people’s stories better than most. She did a skillful job of covering a great deal of information in just a few short paragraphs. If you get the chance, take a moment to read the article yourself.

I find it an odd juxtaposition that I ended up on the front page with Jill Carrol, the freelance reporter who was recently released in Iraq after being held by her captors for three months. Much of what Jill did in her reporting, if what I’ve read is accurate, was to tell the story of the people of Iraq and what they’ve endured as a result of the now three-year-old invasion of their country.

Her courage has inspired me to remain vigilant in my own efforts to remember and sing about Iraq. One song on my “Swords into Plowshares” album, “Now That Many Bombs Have Come,” is rather hard to sing these days. In this song, I sing about lives that have been ended and destroyed as a result of the Iraq war, and about our need to ask for forgiveness for what has happened there. The last lines of the chorus repeat the words, “…remembering those who have died in vain.” I’ve gotten into a fair amount of trouble for those lines, but they’re emotional words, used to capture a feeling I had at the time I wrote that song. In reality, I believe that no one dies in vain. But we can’t claim to know what God has in store for us in the years to come…or even why our lives unfold the way they do. Let us hope, by God’ s grace, that good will come of this war.