While I was walking my son to school this morning we passed by a garbage truck making his morning rounds. Jacob wanted to stop and watch as the truck picked up the trash bin and dumped it into the truck. He thought it was way cool, like all little boys think, and like many he expressed a thought that maybe it would be fun to drive a trash truck.
Most parents probably do not want their kids to grow up to be trash haulers, fast food fry cooks, or custodians. We hope that our children will rise to something more 'substantial' (code: better paying), and it would be easy to try and dismiss those hopes by running down what some people do.
But I thought that this gave me an opportunity for a different kind of conversation on the rest of our walk. Yes, trash trucks are cool, but they also are a bit smelly, and there are other things I hope you will do someday. He seemed to accept that, but I decided to press on a bit further. I told him that I hoped he would do other things, but I also told him that picking up the trash is an important job. Who really wants to have trash sitting out in the streets for a long period of time? I also told him that people who work in restaurants are important, and if I had more time before I turned loose of him, I would have told him that we should also honor people who cut grass, clean school buildings, and make up hotel rooms.
Because all lives matter. All jobs are important. While as parents we hope for our children to do some things and not others, we must make sure they learn to respect people who do jobs that we ourselves do not want to do.
Recently I have seen a trend to 'elevate' some kind of jobs. Facebook posts reminding us that 'Police Lives Matter' (in response to some officer shootings). Yes, they do...but so do the people who a few bad police threaten, intimidate, injure, or kill because of an over-glorified view of their position. Then there are other posts griping about how fast food workers demand $15/hour while soldiers live in virtual poverty. Rather than take time to think that both have difficult and often undesirable jobs, we put the two 'classes' in conflict with one another instead of looking up at those who make millions pushing papers.
Maybe we need to recognize and affirm that all kinds of people matter, all kinds of job matter. Paul talked about the nature of the church in 1 Corinthians 12, how different kinds of giftedness does not give us an excuse to despise or cast off some we think are less important. It's the same way in society. We certainly don't pay him as much, but my garbageman matters just as much as the school superintendent. We might not want him making important decisions, but the guy who cleans my kids' school matters as much as the city manager. Because all lives matter.
Friday, September 11, 2015
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
The Kentucky County Clerk
The gay marriage fight continues on. I've posted on this before, and really don't have much else to say, but I am interested in the ongoing drama going on in Kentucky. An elected clerk in the courthouse has decided that she cannot issue marriage licenses to gays because of her faith, and even as the courts have ruled against her, she continues to resist. Now she says that she will not issues licenses to anybody.
The question of conscience has now become the new battleground in the fight over homosexual rights. Should those who sincerely feel that homosexuality is sin (I am one of them) have to do things that go against their conscience? Should bakers have to bake wedding cakes for gay couples? Must Christian adoption agencies have to place children with gay couples? It's a hard question: on the one hand, it does seem 'hateful' to deny somebody a service that would be offered to other couples. But on the other hand, are we 'blessing' a sin by helping somebody carry out that sin, no matter how small?
As a preacher I would feel compelled to say no to any gay couple that asks me to do their wedding. I cannot think that it is right to take part something that I feel to be sin. Maybe it will come to a point that I cannot do any weddings so as to be 'non-discriminatory', but I do know that people will always be able to be legally married, whether in a church or in a courthouse. Life and marriage will go on without me.
But as I have said before, because the legalities of marriage are dependent upon the state (e.g. inheritance rights, visitation rights in hospitals, custody rights for children), I do believe that gay people should have a legal right to be married and have that marriage recognized by the state. To deny them the same rights as straight couples seems to be an unlawful form of discrimination. I may not like or approve of what it is that they are doing, but as one who still has a libertarian bias, it is not in my power to say whether or not they can be married. I know of many straight couples that I think should not have been married (for various reasons)...but that's not in my power to contest from a legal point of view.
And so when it comes to the Kentucky clerk who will not issue licenses, here's my belief: she should either resign or be removed from her position. She does not have to like the law, but if she is an officer of the state, she has to carry out its policies or resign. If her conscience cannot allow her to do what the law requires, then she should step aside and let somebody else should do the job. Imagine a police officer who is Rastafarian: his religion tells him that drug enforcement of cannabis users is wrong. Should we keep him in his job? Or imagine a soldier who decides that he cannot kill for any reason based upon his understanding of Scripture. Should he continue to be a soldier?
Perhaps the laws were different when she was elected; too bad. Laws change, and even if as Christians we do not like the change, it is our duty to accept it in society, and officers of the law are compelled to carry out that law. If they cannot carry it out, then resign your post. When it comes to a law we do not have to like it, promote it, or affirm it. In our democratic form of government we might even work to change it. But accept it as law of the land we must.
Here's the thing about this story that most amazes me, though. The woman who will not allow gays to marry has been divorced and remarried three times. From a very literal understanding of what I read about divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, then she should not have been allowed a marriage license, either, for her current marriage! But the law of the state seems to be that somebody can be divorced and remarried as many times as possible; what of a clerk who held that she could not issue licenses to anybody with a previous marriage on their record? We would not tolerate that, would we?
The question of conscience has now become the new battleground in the fight over homosexual rights. Should those who sincerely feel that homosexuality is sin (I am one of them) have to do things that go against their conscience? Should bakers have to bake wedding cakes for gay couples? Must Christian adoption agencies have to place children with gay couples? It's a hard question: on the one hand, it does seem 'hateful' to deny somebody a service that would be offered to other couples. But on the other hand, are we 'blessing' a sin by helping somebody carry out that sin, no matter how small?
As a preacher I would feel compelled to say no to any gay couple that asks me to do their wedding. I cannot think that it is right to take part something that I feel to be sin. Maybe it will come to a point that I cannot do any weddings so as to be 'non-discriminatory', but I do know that people will always be able to be legally married, whether in a church or in a courthouse. Life and marriage will go on without me.
But as I have said before, because the legalities of marriage are dependent upon the state (e.g. inheritance rights, visitation rights in hospitals, custody rights for children), I do believe that gay people should have a legal right to be married and have that marriage recognized by the state. To deny them the same rights as straight couples seems to be an unlawful form of discrimination. I may not like or approve of what it is that they are doing, but as one who still has a libertarian bias, it is not in my power to say whether or not they can be married. I know of many straight couples that I think should not have been married (for various reasons)...but that's not in my power to contest from a legal point of view.
And so when it comes to the Kentucky clerk who will not issue licenses, here's my belief: she should either resign or be removed from her position. She does not have to like the law, but if she is an officer of the state, she has to carry out its policies or resign. If her conscience cannot allow her to do what the law requires, then she should step aside and let somebody else should do the job. Imagine a police officer who is Rastafarian: his religion tells him that drug enforcement of cannabis users is wrong. Should we keep him in his job? Or imagine a soldier who decides that he cannot kill for any reason based upon his understanding of Scripture. Should he continue to be a soldier?
Perhaps the laws were different when she was elected; too bad. Laws change, and even if as Christians we do not like the change, it is our duty to accept it in society, and officers of the law are compelled to carry out that law. If they cannot carry it out, then resign your post. When it comes to a law we do not have to like it, promote it, or affirm it. In our democratic form of government we might even work to change it. But accept it as law of the land we must.
Here's the thing about this story that most amazes me, though. The woman who will not allow gays to marry has been divorced and remarried three times. From a very literal understanding of what I read about divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, then she should not have been allowed a marriage license, either, for her current marriage! But the law of the state seems to be that somebody can be divorced and remarried as many times as possible; what of a clerk who held that she could not issue licenses to anybody with a previous marriage on their record? We would not tolerate that, would we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)