Kentucky Woman
A martyr is one who suffers persecution and/or death for holding or refusing to hold a particular belief. Many martyrs become symbols of heroism and leadership. In its original meaning, a martyr meant "witness," as in bearing witness to one's faith.
Of course the heroism and exemplary nature of a martyr is conditional to one's point of view concerning the actions of the proposed martyr. Jesus, on one hand, can be viewed as a noble martyr. However to the Romans he was just another agitator. Likewise suicide bombers are venerated by a small group of fanatics who call them martyrs while to a great many more, these people are not martyrs they are murderers.
So is Kim Davis a martyr?
Certainly there is a question of her exercising her right to express her faith. Religious liberty is a cornerstone of our country and its self-understanding. But as Davis' husband Joe stated, "They [referring either to the government or to homosexuals, perhaps both] want us to accept their beliefs and their ways. But they won't accept our beliefs and ways."
That sounds a bit conditional and suddenly the question of religious liberty seems at question. The basic argument is that they want us to conform to them, but they won't conform to us. Of course anyone who has ever had a Saturday morning visit from a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness has met with that scenario. It is only threatening if one of the parties involved is armed and forcing acquiescence.
The point of Mr. Davis' statement though is to set up the scenario to be an us vs. them argument to which one has to be on one side or the other: for or against. There is no middle ground. I don't believe it would be too far of a stretch to propose that for Mr. Davis there could be no acknowledgement or acceptance of the possibility of Christians on the side of gay marriage nor could he hold the possibility that gays might be anything other than agenda drivers.
Kim Davis has stated, though, that this whole issue "has never been a gay or lesbian issue." That seems highly unlikely. However, in her mind it might not be about the issue of gays and lesbians because it, for her, is about being asked to "violate a central teaching of scripture and of Jesus himself regarding marriage."
This is, of course, problematic.
First, is marriage or homosexuality a "central teaching of scripture"? Not really. Granted marriage is clearly mentioned in the Bible as is homosexuality (though that is a trickier issue to deal with as there are only about seven places in the Bible that could or do refer to homosexuality. I won't get into that here). With regard to marriage, though, the contexts are quite varied. The biblical view of marriage is heterosexual. But it is also often polygamist and certainly favors the male as the head of the house, giving short shrift to the woman (see 1st Timothy for example) who is thought of as property. That's why 'your neighbor's wife' is listed with the neighbors cattle, servants, and land. Women were often thought of as merely commodities, not partners in the marriage.
The question then is this: is the biblical model of polygamy the ideal? Certainly the fundamentalist wing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints thinks so, though I doubt that the Davis's would appreciate solidarity from that sector. Or is the idea of levirate marriage the ideal? This is where the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother's widow, and the widow is obliged to marry her deceased husband's brother. That is certainly a biblical witness and one to which Jesus doesn't seem to object. Is that what Davis means?
Second, does Jesus talk about marriage? Yes, but as a topic it barely makes the radar when compared to the two big subjects Jesus focused on which are (1) the Kingdom of God and (2) money (usually warning against its abuses and temptations and the trappings of greed). Jesus attends a wedding in the Gospel of John but does not officiate or offer suggestions as to how a ceremony should go. It should be said that Jesus does speak against divorce, of which Kim Davis has had three.
Third, does issuing a marriage licence to a gay couple violate central teachings of scripture? Not specifically. Nowhere in the Bible is there a command, law, or injunction that says you cannot issue marriage licences to homosexuals. If there were, the argument would have far more weight.
It is interesting to note, though, that the Apostle Paul writes the following in the 13th chapter of Romans: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
Hmmm.
Paul continues: "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer, Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due."
So, given the understanding of the authority of scripture for Davis, wouldn't it seem to be that she, as an elected official, is supposed to be subject to the elected officials over her? If that's the case, couldn't it be argued that in refusing to issue the marriage licences to anyone violates her authority as well as being a violation of her scriptural duty to be subject to governing authorities?
So which authority is it that she wishes to recognize?
Of course one has to wonder from whence comes her understanding of the faith. Why does she feel "central teachings" of scripture have been violated? Likely because that's what she has been told. With so many Christians proclaiming that particular issues are against (or sometimes for) the teachings of God, one wonders if her religious conscience doesn't come from a particular preacher in a particular church in a particular denomination (or non-denomination). As much as I admire the larger Christian tradition and history, "Christianity" is now so fragmented into smaller sects as to no longer have no obvious ties to one another.
That would explain her comment as she walked out of jail, "[God's] people have rallied and you are a strong people!" I assume that by God's "people" she predominantly meant the people that were present who supported her. Perhaps not, but that seems to be in keeping with her and her husband's statements and apparent theology.
Perhaps the greatest irony of all is that one reporter likened Davis' release from jail to that of a presidential campaign stop. That may have had to do with the fact that Mike Huckabee seemed to be utilizing this story for just that reason. Huckabee said, "We gather here today to say we will not surrender to the tyranny of one branch of government." Which branch would that be and how is expecting an elected official to do their job tyrannical? Unless you don't recognize the authority of the government. But we have run that circle already.
Huckabee also said that "We cannot criminalize the Christian faith." Is anyone proposing (seriously proposing) such a thing? No. But to imply the perception of such a divided society can garner the votes of those who are inclined to believe it.
So is Davis a martyr?
Well, I suppose if you consider her actions as a witness to faith, then yes. But if you see her 'persecution' as self-inflicted from her refusal to do her job, then no. It's a fine line, I suppose, and a subjective one at that. I would say, though, that if she doesn't want to be in this position, which she has said, then discretion might have been the better part of valor. If, in good conscience, she couldn't perform the duties as an elected official, then she should have resigned. It would be a bit more noble though, perhaps, not as attention getting. But her integrity wouldn't have been in question and her point would have been made.
Now, though, it may very well be about visibility. And that has little to do with martyrdom.
Of course the heroism and exemplary nature of a martyr is conditional to one's point of view concerning the actions of the proposed martyr. Jesus, on one hand, can be viewed as a noble martyr. However to the Romans he was just another agitator. Likewise suicide bombers are venerated by a small group of fanatics who call them martyrs while to a great many more, these people are not martyrs they are murderers.
So is Kim Davis a martyr?
Certainly there is a question of her exercising her right to express her faith. Religious liberty is a cornerstone of our country and its self-understanding. But as Davis' husband Joe stated, "They [referring either to the government or to homosexuals, perhaps both] want us to accept their beliefs and their ways. But they won't accept our beliefs and ways."
That sounds a bit conditional and suddenly the question of religious liberty seems at question. The basic argument is that they want us to conform to them, but they won't conform to us. Of course anyone who has ever had a Saturday morning visit from a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness has met with that scenario. It is only threatening if one of the parties involved is armed and forcing acquiescence.
The point of Mr. Davis' statement though is to set up the scenario to be an us vs. them argument to which one has to be on one side or the other: for or against. There is no middle ground. I don't believe it would be too far of a stretch to propose that for Mr. Davis there could be no acknowledgement or acceptance of the possibility of Christians on the side of gay marriage nor could he hold the possibility that gays might be anything other than agenda drivers.
Kim Davis has stated, though, that this whole issue "has never been a gay or lesbian issue." That seems highly unlikely. However, in her mind it might not be about the issue of gays and lesbians because it, for her, is about being asked to "violate a central teaching of scripture and of Jesus himself regarding marriage."
This is, of course, problematic.
First, is marriage or homosexuality a "central teaching of scripture"? Not really. Granted marriage is clearly mentioned in the Bible as is homosexuality (though that is a trickier issue to deal with as there are only about seven places in the Bible that could or do refer to homosexuality. I won't get into that here). With regard to marriage, though, the contexts are quite varied. The biblical view of marriage is heterosexual. But it is also often polygamist and certainly favors the male as the head of the house, giving short shrift to the woman (see 1st Timothy for example) who is thought of as property. That's why 'your neighbor's wife' is listed with the neighbors cattle, servants, and land. Women were often thought of as merely commodities, not partners in the marriage.
The question then is this: is the biblical model of polygamy the ideal? Certainly the fundamentalist wing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints thinks so, though I doubt that the Davis's would appreciate solidarity from that sector. Or is the idea of levirate marriage the ideal? This is where the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother's widow, and the widow is obliged to marry her deceased husband's brother. That is certainly a biblical witness and one to which Jesus doesn't seem to object. Is that what Davis means?
Second, does Jesus talk about marriage? Yes, but as a topic it barely makes the radar when compared to the two big subjects Jesus focused on which are (1) the Kingdom of God and (2) money (usually warning against its abuses and temptations and the trappings of greed). Jesus attends a wedding in the Gospel of John but does not officiate or offer suggestions as to how a ceremony should go. It should be said that Jesus does speak against divorce, of which Kim Davis has had three.
Third, does issuing a marriage licence to a gay couple violate central teachings of scripture? Not specifically. Nowhere in the Bible is there a command, law, or injunction that says you cannot issue marriage licences to homosexuals. If there were, the argument would have far more weight.
It is interesting to note, though, that the Apostle Paul writes the following in the 13th chapter of Romans: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
Hmmm.
Paul continues: "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer, Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due."
So, given the understanding of the authority of scripture for Davis, wouldn't it seem to be that she, as an elected official, is supposed to be subject to the elected officials over her? If that's the case, couldn't it be argued that in refusing to issue the marriage licences to anyone violates her authority as well as being a violation of her scriptural duty to be subject to governing authorities?
So which authority is it that she wishes to recognize?
Of course one has to wonder from whence comes her understanding of the faith. Why does she feel "central teachings" of scripture have been violated? Likely because that's what she has been told. With so many Christians proclaiming that particular issues are against (or sometimes for) the teachings of God, one wonders if her religious conscience doesn't come from a particular preacher in a particular church in a particular denomination (or non-denomination). As much as I admire the larger Christian tradition and history, "Christianity" is now so fragmented into smaller sects as to no longer have no obvious ties to one another.
That would explain her comment as she walked out of jail, "[God's] people have rallied and you are a strong people!" I assume that by God's "people" she predominantly meant the people that were present who supported her. Perhaps not, but that seems to be in keeping with her and her husband's statements and apparent theology.
Perhaps the greatest irony of all is that one reporter likened Davis' release from jail to that of a presidential campaign stop. That may have had to do with the fact that Mike Huckabee seemed to be utilizing this story for just that reason. Huckabee said, "We gather here today to say we will not surrender to the tyranny of one branch of government." Which branch would that be and how is expecting an elected official to do their job tyrannical? Unless you don't recognize the authority of the government. But we have run that circle already.
Huckabee also said that "We cannot criminalize the Christian faith." Is anyone proposing (seriously proposing) such a thing? No. But to imply the perception of such a divided society can garner the votes of those who are inclined to believe it.
So is Davis a martyr?
Well, I suppose if you consider her actions as a witness to faith, then yes. But if you see her 'persecution' as self-inflicted from her refusal to do her job, then no. It's a fine line, I suppose, and a subjective one at that. I would say, though, that if she doesn't want to be in this position, which she has said, then discretion might have been the better part of valor. If, in good conscience, she couldn't perform the duties as an elected official, then she should have resigned. It would be a bit more noble though, perhaps, not as attention getting. But her integrity wouldn't have been in question and her point would have been made.
Now, though, it may very well be about visibility. And that has little to do with martyrdom.
Comments
Post a Comment