There's a piece of me that just loves peace and quiet -- that loves for things to flow along without ever needing to change.  So whenever a person proposes a new way of thinking or doing my work, I tend to resist it.  Such a proposal challenged me recently when I was attending the annual gathering of the Alliance of Baptists, a small network of Christian congregations and individuals who are committed to religious freedom, inclusion, and the separation of church and state.

What challenged me was a proposal that encouraged Alliance clergy not to sign marriage licenses.  As a pastor, I've performed a lot of weddings and, for the most part, have been the celebrant of record.   I was the one who signed the legal document recognizing that the couple was officially husband and wife.  To be honest, I have felt some tension in blending my role as a pastor with also acting as a representative of the state and local government.  The tension is especially sharp since I come from a faith tradition that values the separation of state and church so fervently.  At the same time, I always really liked the idea of signing the marriage license and of having the power to marry people.  There has definitely been some ego involved on my part!

It was not very long into my marrying career that I recognized my discomfort with pronouncing a couple husband and wife by the power vested in me by the state of Virginia, Maryland, Colorado, Missouri, or the District of Columbia.  So I changed the words I said to, "I joyfully acknowledge that they are husband and wife."  I felt better about what I was saying, but continued signing the marriage licenses and, thus, acting on behalf of the state.  There is no way around the reality that I was participating in a blurring of the distinction between church and state.

Things began to change for me in a big way this past year when I celebrated a same-sex union for the first time.   Since Missouri does not recognize this as a legal marriage, there was no question of my representing the church and not the state.  As a result, the process felt much cleaner.   So, when I heard the proposal at The Alliance of Baptists' meeting, I knew that the time had come for me to change my practice.   Therefore, I am committing myself to work with couples - gay and straight - to be with them as a pastor and to celebrate their union as a spiritual one recognized by the church.  At the same time, I will not be present as a representative of the state.  Part of this commitment will be to help them work with a Justice of the Peace to sign their legal document.

I realize that, coming out of the free-church tradition, this decision is right for me, but it may not be right for other clergy.  In addition, I know that not everyone will feel the same way I do about same-sex unions.  I speak for myself in saying that I am convinced of the importance of keeping state and church separate in the matter of marriage.  People of faith have the right and the responsibility to speak to the government and to lobby for causes they feel are just.  We have an obligation to get involved in the system to make it more just and responsive.  This is a sacred and prophetic role for communities and people of faith.  As free people of faith in a free land, we will be most effective in this prophetic role without the confusion of representing the state in matters of marriage.  I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks for continuing to bless me as we journey together.
  
Jack Price

Return to the Enotes index