Rainbow wigs and being an agent of the state

It's been a while since I've said anything particularly heretical, so maybe we can rectify that in this (crabby) post.

I went to Sunday School today before church. I kinda like that it's called Adult Sunday School and not "Adult Bible Study" because it acknowledges in the 45 minutes or so that we actually meet we aren't going to hit on anything too heavy. "Bible study" is one of those terms that makes me queasy.

Anyway, we were taking a look at the John reading from the lectionary (here's a link for those who need an explanation of the term). Part of the reading included John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (King James Version)

Now, it seems like people will turn themselves inside out with this particular verse. I recently heard a former bishop relay a story about another bishop who said the entire contents of the Bible could be summed up within that passage. Can't really say I share the enthusiasm. For one thing, the "gospel" of John chills me to the bone. If you're not with the writers of John, you suck. No middle ground. Plus, do we have to have every freakin' thing spelled out and explained to us? How 'bout letting us figure some stuff out on our own?

Of this passage I could only say two things:

1. Any time I run across this passage, I can't help but think about that dude from the 70s who wore the rainbow wig and was frequently shown in the back ground at sporting events. (By the way, the fella has a name, Rollen Stewart, and a pretty freaky story. Check it out if you're interested.)


2. I swear to God, I may implode if I hear one more person talk about "believing in Jesus" as if we were talking about Santa, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. Sparing you the rant I broke loose with this morning, suffice it to say that I was in a cranky mood, especially about folks who try to force a historical Jesus on me and make me try to suspend a lot of reality to get there. Isn't it revolutionary enough to believe in the radical teachings to an oppressed people that managed to live on despite an oppressive regime that tried to blot it out? That's the miracle. Let's not niggle over the details. Oh, I could go on about what's irksome about this verse and how it's interpreted, but that's enough for now.

The other tidbit that came out during Sunday School was a bit left field, and it caused me to out myself on a particular stand, but might as well put it out there right away, I guess. The question was quite roundabout, but it sort of had to do with the role of clergy in civil and religious capacities. Without getting into details about the actual function that clergy plays in marriages by denomination (it can vary), the up shot is within my particular denomination, clergy can perform marriages between two consenting people at the minister's discretion.

Performing marriages is the minister's choice and is based on the minister's convictions and ability to support the couple in this important step. In addition to the marriage ceremony, clergy within this denomination can sign marriage certificates...or not. (I'm talking about the legal kind here, not the suitable-for-framing versions some churches hand out as a "parting gift" after the ceremony.) While my particular minister does opt to sign marriage certificates when performing marriages, he mentioned that there are a number who have chosen not to sign any certificates, so if the couple wants to be legally married, they need to have a civil ceremony. (We did that - it's about 5 minutes' time at the courthouse.) As my pastor put it, these clergy refuse to be agents of the state by signing the legal document.

It was clear a number of folks were having trouble wrapping their heads around what the pastor was saying and why someone would refuse to do the legal part. Because I happen to be the only seminarian in the class (okay, in the church when you get down to it), they asked me what I thought. I told them I hadn't gotten to that particular class yet (as if there is one), but I would likely not be one to sign certificates. "But why?" they asked. Well, I'm not a big fan of the state dictating the meaning of marriage to the church. I disagree with the stand that gay and lesbian couples who choose to make a public and (hopefully) life-long commitment cannot be recognized legally, even though they can be united in my church. So, why would I want to be party to a government-sanctioned act of discrimination?

It's not just separation of church and state, people. It's separation of state FROM church that I'm an advocate for. The government really needs to get out of the marriage business. Y'all want to define marriage, get your own damn ordination papers. Nuff said.