Just in Time for Easter

It seems that even mainstream media 'get religion' at Christmas and Easter. That does not mean they necessarily carry stories supportive of the enterprise of faith, but they have more stories with a religious slant, even if the stories can be seen to be critical of religion.

In what I believe is the current edition of Newsweek, there is a story written by Jon Meacham entitled "The End Of Christian America" [found at URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583] in which Meacham comments on the reality of a "post-Christian" America and what that might mean. On the web, [at URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/192915], Daniel Stone has an article entitled "One Nation Under God?" that discusses results from an April 3 poll conducted by Newsweek through Princeton Survey Research Associates.

Among the poll results, I found these items of particular interest.
-- 48% agreed completely that prayer is an important part of daily life, while 9% completely disagreed.
-- 64% completely agree that "I never doubt the existence of God"; 7% completely disagree with the statement.
-- 68% think religion as a whole is losing its influence on American life; 19% think it is increasing its influence.
-- 62% think America is a Christian nation and 32% disagree.
-- 30% of the respondents consider themselves "Spiritual but not Religious"; 9% are "Religious but Not Spiritual"; 48% are "Religious and Spiritual"; 9% think of themselves as neither.

What does this tell us about the religious climate of our country? I don't know. Oft times, consulting polls is like using the entrails of animals to predict the future; you see in them what you want to see. I do think the titles of the articles are interesting and indicate how the writers view the results.

How would you have responded to these querys? Are you surprised by any of the results? What question would you have liked to ask?

Further Reflections on Marriage

Yesterday, I posed questions I have had for a number of years about marriage. I have not seen any of them addressed in any of the discussions about marriage I have read.

Two other points I would raise about marriage. One looks at the intersection of the civil and the religious authorities in determining who is allowed to marry. The other looks at that same intersection in the dissolution of marriage.

Historically, the state has defined who may or may not marry. For years, the civil government, at least in the south, denied people of different races the right to marry. Close relatives - how close being defined by law - are not allowed to marry even now. And, the civil authorities forbid a person engaging in multiple marriages. To the best of my knowledge, no main stream religious groups have challenged the states' rights to make such prohibitions.

And, when a married couple decides to divorce, it is the civil authority that is involved, not the religious. Couples may marry in a church with a minister performing a religious ritual and signing the license, but the couple divorces with a judge presiding in a legal ritual.

So, which realm - civil or religious - is the dominant one in defining marriage for our society? Which should be? What would it mean if the subordinate one were to try to trump the dominant one?

What is your opinion?

Reflections on Marriage

Two events within the past week have brought the issue of marriage back to center stage in our country. The first was the Iowa Supreme Court ruling that said prohibiting homosexuals from marrying was unconstitutional in Iowa. That set off the customary and usual firestorm of comments. The second was the conclusion of the semi-annual Conference of the LDS Church in Salt Lake City. As part of the report to the faithful, the LDS leadership defended their work to oppose same-sex marriages in California. So far, this has not generated much 'buzz', but it is still early.

While I am not going to propose any Solomon like answer for how our country can address this issue, I do want to share some questions I have had about marriage going back 25+ years. In the early 1980's, three friends of mine, who are also ministers, and I were on our way to a meeting. As we travelled, somehow, the subject of marriage came up. Several of the typical holy descriptions of marriage of the day were brought up: it is a sacrament; it is God-ordained; it is established by God in the Bible - particularly in the Book of Genesis; it is a divine institution.

Being the contrarian that I am, I questioned my collegues. I asked whether any marriage, even if it were formalized only by civic authority, could be considered a divine institution or a God-ordained relationship. They all said, "Absolutely." So, I said that this seems like humans beings were forcing God to put a stamp of approval on a relationships that may or may not have had any holy component. I then asked at what point does a marriage become a holy thing. Did it happen when the preacher showed up for the rehearsal, when the money was paid and the license was signed in the courthouse before any ceremony was held, when either or both of the couple said, "I do", or when the preacher signed the license after the ceremony was concluded? Or did it happen after years of commitment of living together in faithful relationship?

I think the questions I raised then are appropriate now. What is it that makes a marriage? Is it the commitment between two people? Is it when the words are said during a ceremony? Is it when the legal requirements of the state are satisfied?

What do you think?