When people
have asked me about my “position” on homosexuality, I have reluctantly
responded that it is too nuanced and too much in flux to satisfy those who are
convinced of their settled opinions. For many who have adopted activist
stances, this seems to be an evasion of pastoral responsibility. Having come
through painful conflicts around these issues with two congregations
(admittedly, not too successfully) and with interaction with homosexual folk,
especially in six congregations I have served, I would readily acknowledge I am
still in process. The US Supreme Court’s ruling June 26, 2015 making same-sex
marriage legal throughout the US has brought this into very public discussion,
which has had its own impact on my thinking. I do not know if, how, when or
with whom I may or may not share this, but I am writing to clarify my own
thinking and not to convince anyone of anything.
Though the
public discussion has been more metaphysical, the actual Supreme Court decision
is not about theology, religion or spirituality but about money and civil law.
It addresses issues of taxation, inheritance, common property, medical
insurance and pension benefits, medical power of attorney and visitation.
Certainly government has an interest in such things and in the stability of
relationships that involve them.
I neither
expect nor want the Supreme Court or any other government entity to be involved
in theological, religious or spiritual matters. Of course, the US Constitution
prohibits that, but my interest is in the integrity of discipleship for those
who follow Jesus and their church communities.
Some of the
reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision from religious perspectives rests on a
tacit presumption that the US is or should be a “Christian nation” or is
historically based on “Christian” principles. Various quotes from people of
historic significance to the US both for and against this notion have been
hurled around during these discussions. While the US Constitution, which makes
no mention of God, would seem to preclude the possibility of any religious
designation for the US, I am more concerned about the spiritual vigor and
authenticity of the Church, which I believe is stronger when not propped up by
law and social convention.
The idea of a
“Christian nation” arises from an extension of the concept of “Christendom”
that came to characterize Europe as “The Holy Roman Empire” after the Emperor
Constantine made his own rather distorted, diluted version of “Christianity”
the official religion of the Roman Empire. Within a generation of Constantine’s
346 CE edict, the spiritual caliber of the Church plummeted precipitously.
Though any number of renewal and revival movements have brought seasons of
spiritual vitality, the Church in Europe and the New World has never recovered
its pre-Constantinian vigor.
For those who
grieve the loss of a generic Judeo-Christian social consensus in the US, I
suggest the time has come to learn to “sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land”
(Psalm 137:4) as the people of Judah struggled to do during their exile in Babylon.
We need to heed the instruction Jeremiah gave to the people of Judah when they
were in exile in Babylon to “seek the welfare of the city where I have
sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its
welfare you will find your welfare.” (29:7) Those prayers and that welfare had
no illusion of Babylon as a society turning to the God of Israel. It would
continue to be a pagan monarchy, and the people of Judah would continue to be
marginalized and persecuted outsiders. I further suggest, that Christians would
do better to devote their energy to encouraging authentic discipleship among
ourselves and bring Christ’s redemptive healing to the wounded and wandering in
our secular society, rather than trying to promote some legal or social mandate
for a watered down version of “Christianity” that dilutes authentic Christian
discipleship.
How the Supreme
Court’s decision might figure into seeking
the welfare of the city in which we are in exile is a worthy but different
direction than my concern for those who intend to be serious disciples
faithfully following Jesus. I do think those are two quite different issues. A
generalized belief in God under a cultural Christian label is a far cry from
being a serious disciple faithfully following Jesus. Why would we expect those
who do not trust Jesus to shape their lives to follow him? To be sure, sexual
promiscuity is harmful to its participants and their society, whether
heterosexual or homosexual. The Supreme Court’s decision could have the effect
of some reduction in same-sex promiscuity.
In the public
area, many who object to the Supreme Court’s decision have cited the Bible as
specifying marriage as between one man and one woman. This is a distinctly
religious argument that the US Constitution would preclude from consideration.
There has been some blowback citing considerable variation in marriage
practices that are recorded in the Bible without moral comment, notably
polygamy, concubinage, the taking of wives as the spoils of war and their
exchange as commodities between men. While not prohibiting polygamy, the Hebrew
Scriptures do often show its dysfunctional pain and jealousy, such as Jacob’s
two wives and two concubines in Genesis 29ff.
To be sure, the
Bible records no clear same-sex relationships with approval. To suggest such a
relationship between David and Jonathan based on 2 Samuel 1:26 is a stretch.
Yes, the creation order in Genesis 2:24 certainly points to one-man-one-woman
(more on that later). The qualifications for church leaders (elder, bishop,
overseer) in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 suggest one-man-one-woman. That passage has been
variously interpreted sometimes to mean that such leaders must be married men
who have never been widowed or divorced and remarried. Much of the church has
construed this as calling for marital fidelity and not speaking to the gender
or marital history of the leaders. In social context, this has often been
understood to exclude polygamous persons from church leadership, those in some
pioneer mission situations this has been recast to mean not taking on any new
wives. I’m not suggesting that it is meaningless but that careful exegesis is important.
I think this
tension between the one-man-one-woman principle and the wide variation in
marriage practices recorded in the Bible reflects two faulty understandings of
the nature of the Bible. On the one hand are those who see the Bible as God’s
dictated rules for living. Such a view is more akin to how orthodox Islam
understands the Quran than the way the Bible presents itself. The other faulty view
is that the Bible is a human document that grew out of the development of
Judeo-Christian religion. Make no mistake, I fully accept the Bible as divinely
inspired, reliable and authoritative. I also acknowledge that a small proportion
of it is in the form of laws and rules coming directly from God. Much of that
material, such as the Levitical Holiness Code and Ceremonial Law, Christians
and even Jews regard as having been relevant to specific cultural and
historical situations but are no longer relevant today. The pivotal point on
this is recorded in Acts 15 where the Jerusalem Council let go of a lot of
those rules and laws as the Holy Spirit guided them to welcome Gentiles into
the Church. This doesn’t mean anything goes as long as we claim the leading of
the Holy Spirit, nor does it mean the Bible does not teach enduring principles
of righteousness. But the very nature of the Bible (which means library) is
that it is a collection of writings from many different people in many
different historical and cultural situations. These writings record God’s
interaction with broken people who vacillate between righteousness and
waywardness. I think explains how the Bible can include both the creation order
of Genesis 2:24 which certainly presumes one-man-one-woman and includes such wide
and often unhealthy variations in practice.
I will not
attempt to comment on previous generations of Christians, among whom I know
there were both shining examples of wonderful marriages and shameful examples
of abuse and brutality. I will limit my comments to my own generation and my
own circle of fellow Christians. Many of those with a “God’s dictated rules”
view of the Bible tended to look at sex and marriage as a rather rigid “no-yes”
proposition. Sex before and outside of marriage was always “no,” though even in
the most rigid Christian communities, there were plenty of exceptions to both.
Sometimes they were hushed up and covered up, and other times they prompted public
shame and shunning. Though in a previous generation, Nathanael Hawthorne
explored this in his novel The Scarlet
Letter. This “no-yes” approach also gave tacit approval to considerable
oppression and abuse of women by their husbands, who not only demanded sex in
both frequency and form from their wives without consideration of the wives’
wishes, but also promoted oppressive and abusive forms of submission.
Drawing on a view
of the Bible as God’s conversations with people through many generations, in
different times and cultures, my interpretation of a biblical understanding is
at once more demanding and more exhilarating than the “no-yes” approach. For
the sake of simplicity I refer to it with the shorthand “sacramental covenant”
marriage. It is rooted in the creation order, not just of Genesis 2:24 but also
Genesis 1:27 that affirms that humankind, female and male, is created in the
image of God.
I think I
should include a brief excurses to explain what I mean by sacramental, which I
know may not be understood or accepted by those whose entire church experience
has been non-sacramental (if not anti-sacramental in reaction to Roman Catholic
theology). The classic Reformed definition of sacrament is something given by
Jesus to the Church in which something ordinary and physical conveys a sacred (holy)
spiritual reality. Thus the water of baptism conveys washing away of sin and
burial and resurrection with Christ. And the bread and cup of communion convey
the broken body and shed blood of Christ. Together these reenact and make real
to us our redemption in Jesus. Traditions that avoid (or reject) the word “sacrament”
as not being in the New Testament, usually call them ordinances, from the idea
they were ordained by Jesus, though the New Testament does not use “ordinance” either.
Sacrament comes from sacred simply meaning holy. Something ordinary is set
aside for holy use.
On the basis of
that definition of sacrament, the Reformed Tradition and most Protestants do
not accept the five other sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. That is a
topic for a different discussion. However, Protestants have not considered
marriage to be a sacrament because it was instituted as part of the creation order
and not by Jesus. Also, it is not specifically for Christians but for all
humans. Nevertheless, I contend that the Bible treats marriage as sacramental
in the sense that something ordinary and physical (daily life as a couple and
sexual union) as conveying a sacred, holy, spiritual reality (God’s covenant relationship
with the community of faith).
The Hebrew
prophets frequently refer to God as the husband of Israel and Judah: Isaiah
54:5; Jeremiah 3:20; 31:32; Ezekiel 16; Hosea. Ezekiel 23 addresses Judah and
Israel of the divided kingdom as sisters, perhaps reflecting Jacob’s polygamous
marriage to Leah and Rachel, but here as unfaithful wives to God. In the New
Testament, Jesus described himself as the bridegroom in Matthew 9:15; 25:1, 5,
6 10; Mark 2:19-20; Luke 5:34-35. Ephesians 5:22-33 has provoked much debate
because its reference to wives submitting to their husbands, but it clearly
presents the Church as the bride of Christ and roots this in Genesis 2:24. All
of this anticipates the vision of the consummation of the age as the Marriage
Supper of the Lamb in Revelation 19:7-9; 21:2-9; 22:17. Jesus seems to have
pointed ahead to this in his parable of the wedding banquet in Matthew 22:1-14.
This is obviously metaphorical language which ought not to be made rigidly
literal, but it is deeper than superficial symbols.
The previous paragraph
certainly does not exhaust this profound theme that runs through Scripture from
Genesis to Revelation – including the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels, the Epistles
and the Apocalypse. But I take from it that God intends human marriage and
sexual union to convey the reality of God’s relationship with the community of
faith. In the Hebrew Scriptures Israel is the wife of God, and in the New
Testament the Church is the bride of Christ. This is not only a model to which
married disciples of Jesus aspire, it is also a reality in which they
participate. In a certain sense, I see the Lord’s Supper as sort of appetizers
anticipating the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Similarly, I see the daily love
and communion between spouses as receiving a bit of the love of God for us on
our daily journeys, and sexual union as an anticipation of the consummation of
the age in the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.
In 40 years of
pastoral ministry and 46 years of marriage, I can tell you I have observed and
experienced this aspiration. At time it is glorious. But I also know that Candy
and I have not achieved the pinnacle of that aspiration, nor do I know anyone
who would claim that. I have also seen and walked with folk I have loved and
respected through the tragic shipwreck of marriage, family, church, ministry
and faith when these aspirations have been discarded and violated.
All of this
brings me to the fulcrum of updating my personal exploration of same sex
relationships in the community of disciples. I have not reached what I could
call a settled conclusion, and I know that those who have and believe their
conclusion is solidly biblical are likely to think I am copping out or have
lost my way. As I hope has been clear throughout, I have a pastoral concern to
speak to Christians who are serious about following Jesus as his disciples. I
am not addressing the political ramifications for the society as a whole, as I
believe following Jesus is independent of where culture goes.
I know that
some of my Christian colleagues who have argued biblically and advocated for
the justice of marriage equality will at least cringe that I think sacramental
covenant marriage best reflects God’s relationship to the community of faith
when it consists of one man and one woman. This is not just because of the
reference to man and woman in Genesis 2:24 but more so because of both female
and male being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and essential to being a
portrait (icon in the Eastern Orthodox sense, not of a picture to look at, but
a window to look through to see spiritual reality) of God’s covenant
relationship with the community of faith.
Having said
that and acknowledging that none of us have achieved that aspiration, I am
asking myself what pastoral guidance to give to serious disciples of Jesus who
live with same sex attraction and have a loving relationship with a similar
partner. I will not speculate on the causes for that, but I do believe it is
not chosen and is not a willful rebellion against God. Here I know my Christian
colleagues who are fully convinced that same-sex relationships are sinful and
marriage impossible with cringe if not condemn for pondering even the possibility
of pastorally calling Christian same-sex couples to aspire to represent a
sacramental covenant marriage the best they can, recognizing that heterosexual don’t
get there 100% either.
Writing about
the disputable issues of that time (dietary and worship principles), Paul wrote
in Romans 14:5, “Let all be convinced in their own minds,” while “welcoming those
who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions.”
(Romans 14:1) Same-sex relationships is certainly an issue of debate among
Christians in our time. Many on both ends of the spectrum do not want to
consider those who disagree with them to be legitimate Christians and do not
consider this to be a legitimately disputable issue. Here is a real challenge,
to be fully convinced in one’s own mind and still welcome as brothers and
sisters in Christ those who disagree. My pastoral perspective on such things is
to suggest that we engage in vigorous discussion, but not to convince each
other, but to learn from each other. I have often felt puzzled why something
that seems clear to me is not clear to someone else. When I try to understand
why, that can even help me clarify why I think the way I do.
I have written
and said this before, and reaffirm it here in light of the previous paragraph.
I believe those who are sincerely seeking to understand how Scripture speaks to
our time and hold to one-man-one-woman ought not to be accused of hate or fear
(though I know the arguments do get used that way). Conversely, I believe that
these who are sincerely seeking to understand how Scripture speaks to our time
and advocate for the justice of marriage equality in the Church (along with
responsible exegesis of relevant biblical material) ought not to be accused of
being heretics or apostates who don’t believe the Bible.
One other final
excurses of the fear mongering about religious liberty. I find the proposed
laws to protect pastors from being sued for refusing to perform same-sex
wedding to be silly political posturing. We pastors are not required to perform
weddings for every couple who asks. We have always been free to use our
judgment to tell a couple (yes, a heterosexual couple), that they are not ready
or a good match or the pastor finds some other impediment to preforming their
wedding. I have had couples decide to call off their weddings because of
insights from the marriage preparation sessions I do with them, without me even
needed to tell them that.
Cases have been
mentioned of businesses who provide wedding related services being sued for refusing
to provide them for same sex couples. While I do want Christian business people
to live out their faith in the marketplace, I fail to see how florists, bakers,
photographers, formal wear shops, etc. can offer their services to the public
and not serve all customers. Would one who would want to refuse to serve a
same-sex wedding also refuse where there has been divorce or adultery, domestic
abuse, criminal convictions, religious or racial intermarriage? Based on Mathew
5:40-41, one friend of mine suggested that if same-sex couples want wedding
cakes from Christian bakers who don’t affirm same-sex marriage, they should
bake them two. A bit tongue in cheek, but worth pondering. Legally, the public accommodations
principle from the civil rights movement would suggest that if you offer your
services to the public, you must serve whoever in the public comes to you. Perhaps
a bit less clear is the case of the wedding chapel that is a for-profit
business, albeit run by an ordained minister, offering services to the public
without religious specification. The courts have decided, rightly I think, that
this is a business and not a religious institution and must comply with the
public accommodations principle.
No comments:
Post a Comment