In his sermon for
worship of Northway Christian Church in Dallas, Texas on August 23, 2015, Dr.
Doug Skinner observed the irony that as the institution of heterosexual
marriage flounders in Western culture with increasing numbers of couples
choosing cohabitation and other alternatives to “traditional” marriage, same-sex
couples are saying vigorously, “We want to be included in the institution of
marriage.” Doug went on to speculate that this might have the potential of
stimulating a marriage renewal if the Church can speak a word where Scripture
and culture intersect. I had already been giving some thought to what such a
word might be like and am prompted to explore my thinking by setting it in
writing. I hope this can be part of a constructive conversation rather than a
debate.
I am convinced
that for any word from the Church to get a hearing it must go well beyond such
things as “those are the rules in the Bible” or “society will collapse if the
foundations of marriage and nuclear family are undermined.” Those come off as shallow,
repressive, legalistic and obsolete. I urge the Church to speak a word that is
compelling, exhilarating and uplifting. I do not believe this can be done with
slogans and catch phrases. The conversation needs to be expansive, nuanced,
probing and dynamic. Having said that, I suggest one starting place might be
what I call a “sacramental covenant” view of marriage. Please do not reduce
that to a mere motto but engage with it as convenient shorthand for divergent
thinking.
The beginning
point for exploring marriage as a sacramental covenant is to think of the
relationship between spouses as a participation in God’s covenant relationship
with the community of faith. In the Hebrew Scriptures, God is often viewed as
Israel’s husband. In the New Testament, the Church is viewed as the bride of
Christ. These images are rooted in the creation order of Genesis 1:27; 2:24
that affirm humankind, female and male, created in the image of God which is
lived out in intimate relationships. Though I have certainly grown in my
thinking, I have consistently taught this sacramental covenant understanding of
marriage and sex for forty-plus years in youth ministry, marriage preparation
for weddings and pastoral guidance. It is not a reaction or even a response to
the current debates in Church and society.
While the
creation order is clear that marriage is for all humankind, not just those who
trust and follow Jesus, I contend that those of us who aspire to live as Jesus’
disciples, the model of marriage as a sacramental covenant is powerful guidance
and inspiration for our lives and a word we speak and live out as an attractive
approach in a society in which people are hungry for relational and sexual
significance. Admittedly, it is distinctly Judeo-Christian and thus not
intended or appropriate for legal status as defined by the US Constitution that
prohibits state established religion. I sincerely believe keeping a biblical
definition of marriage out of the legal and social consensus of our culture
positively protects the power of a Christian approach to marriage as a
sacramental covenant, both as we practice it ourselves and as we invite others
into its joys.
Explaining what
I mean by sacramental is essential to this conversation, which I know may not
be understood or accepted by those whose entire Church experience has been
non-sacramental traditions (if not anti-sacramental 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 and our spiritual nourishment
by Christ’s presence within and among us. 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 the word “ordinance” either. Sacrament comes from the word sacred simply
meaning holy, something ordinary set aside for holy use, which I believe is
wholly appropriate theological and spiritual language.
On the basis of
that definition of sacrament, the Reformed Tradition and most Protestants do
not accept as sacraments the five others of the Roman Catholic Church, which
doesn’t make them illegitimate, just not identified as sacraments. That is a
topic for a different discussion. 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, even
if they do not understand it in biblical terms. 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) conveys 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. Judah and Israel of the divided
kingdom are addressed as sister wives in Ezekiel 23, perhaps reflecting Jacob’s
polygamous marriage to Leah and Rachel, but here as unfaithful to God by
whoring after idols.
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. Much debate has been provoked by Ephesians 5:22-33 because
of 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 (an intentionally sexual and marital
use of language) of the age at 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, thus I suggest sacramental.
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.
Not only is this
understanding of marriage not appropriate for legal consideration in the US, it
is specifically and intentionally distinct from how marriage is viewed in the
general culture. That is exactly its power and appeal. I believe it is a word
the Church can speak to the culture that offers hope for those who are
struggling with marriage and opportunity for those who aspire for more from
marriage.
In public
discourse and even in the Church, the Bible is often argued for or against as
“God’s dictated rules” with sex and marriage as a rather rigid “no-yes”
proposition. (an understanding of divine inspiration more akin to the Muslim
view of the Koran than Hebrew and Christian understandings of how God inspired the
Bible and how its message is encapsulated in the dynamic relationship between
God and people) This “God’s dictated rules” approach says sex before and
outside of marriage is always “no,” and sex within marriage is “yes.”
Even in the
most rigid Christian communities, there have been plenty of exceptions to both.
Sometimes violations 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, which is eerily evocative of contemporary clergy sexual
misconduct scandals. The “yes” within marriage is seldom explored with care and
has too often given tacit approval to considerable oppression and abuse of
women by their husbands, who not only demanded sex from their wives in both
frequency and form without consideration of the wives’ wishes, but also
promoted oppressive and abusive forms of submission. I would like to hope that
by moving beyond a simplistic “no-yes” approach to sex and marriage to a fuller
picture of sacramental covenant, the Church can speak a word to the society and
its own people that is positive, healing, compelling, and magnetic – a word
that can draw people to Jesus.
The recent
Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in the US has provoked
considerable metaphysical discussion both in the public arena and in the
Church. However, the actual Supreme Court decision is not about theology,
religion or spirituality, nor should it be. It is about money and civil law. It
addresses issues of taxation, inheritance, common property, medical insurance
and pension benefits, medical power of attorney and visitation rights.
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 religiously based
laws, but my interest is in the integrity of discipleship for those who follow
Jesus and their church communities. (Why I believe the “Christian nation”
concept that rises out of the residue of European Christendom is harmful and
perhaps even dangerous to Christian discipleship is the subject for another
discussion, though of some relevance here.) The word spoken by the Church about sex and
marriage can only get a hearing when it is distinct from the cacophony of
voices in society.
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 the Supreme
Court’s 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 points to one-man-one-woman (more on
that later). The qualifications for church leaders (elder, bishop, overseer) in
1 Timothy 3:2-7 have been read to 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 or those remarried after being
widowed or divorced. By way of contrast, much of the church has construed this
as calling for marital fidelity and not speaking to the gender or marital
history or status of the leaders. In global context, this has often been
understood to exclude polygamous persons from church leadership. Those in some
pioneer mission situations have sometime recast it to mean not taking on any
new wives. I’m not suggesting that it is meaningless but that careful exegesis
is important.
Make no
mistake, I fully accept the Bible as divinely inspired, reliable and authoritative
for our salvation and discipleship. 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 the Ceremonial Law,
Christians and even Jews regard as having been relevant to specific cultural
and historical situations but are no longer in force today. That doesn’t make
them meaningless but that they must be understood in historical and cultural
context. Considerable exegetical work from many perspectives is being done on
the whole range of Scriptures relevant to homosexuality. I encourage such
study, but cannot replicate it here.
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 presumes one-man-one-woman and includes such wide and
often unhealthy variations in practice.
I think this
tension between the one-man-one-woman principle and the wide variation in
marriage practices recorded in the Bible reflects our human inability to live
up to the creation order of Genesis 1:27; 2:24. In 40 years of pastoral
ministry and 46 years of marriage, I can tell you I have observed and
experienced the aspiration to fully engage in marriage as sacramental covenant.
At times it is glorious and at times disastrous. I also know that my wife Candy
and I have not achieved the pinnacle of that aspiration, though we have tasted
enough of the glory to hunger for more. Neither do I know anyone who would
claim they have reached 100% sacramental covenant ecstasy in their marriages. 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. Recognizing that our actualities
are at best approximations of our aspirations for marriage as sacramental
covenant does not mean discarding those aspirations, but together we appropriate
God’s grace for both the fleeting moments of glory and the recurrent disappointments.
Also, our expectations of each other as disciples of Jesus, in this and every
area of life, must incorporate both a profound call to and joy of righteousness
as well as compassion and grace when we do not live out the fullness of
righteousness.
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 of legal marriage standards for the society as a whole, as I
believe following Jesus is independent of where culture goes.
I know that
some of my colleagues who have argued and advocated biblically for the justice
of marriage equality have at least cringed as they have read 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 of God’s covenant relationship with the community of faith
(icon in the Eastern Orthodox sense, not of a picture to look at, but a window
to look through to see spiritual reality).
I am also aware
that others of my colleagues who view the same-sex marriage issue through the
one-man-one-woman lens of the creation order and are fully convinced that
same-sex relationships are sinful and marriage impossible will at least cringe
if not write me off as having lost my moorings when I explore if and how
sacramental covenant might apply to same-sex marriages.
In this space
between seemingly irreconcilable poles, 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 same-sex attraction, but I do believe it is not
chosen and is not a willful rebellion against God. Pastorally, can I call
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? Can I imagine that a Christian same-sex couple intending their marriage
to be the best approximation of sacramental covenant possible might inspire
heterosexual couples to also aspire to sacramental covenant in their marriages?
Even if this is in the form of jealousy (Romans 11:11-14) or reaction. Could a
vigorous discussion of marriage as sacramental covenant in the Church prompt an
awakening of marriage renewal among Christians? Might such a renewal attract
those outside of the Church to Jesus more effectively than cranky
condemnations?
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 seem not to
want to consider those who disagree with them to be legitimate Christians (or
at least label them as weak in faith, to whom Paul’s principle would suggest
extending a welcome). Those who are fully convinced have a hard time considering
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
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. And I find that when I make a sincere effort to understand why what seems
incomprehensible and even reprehensible to me seems obviously reasonable to
someone else, they are more open to understand the basis of my thinking.
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 all too often). Conversely, I believe
that those 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.
A public
discussion among Christians about same-sex marriage is inevitable and has been
underway for some time. The potential for acrimonious division that sends a
negative message about the Church and the Gospel to the larger society is great.
People are turned away from Jesus when they observe his followers bashing each
other. I resonate with Doug Skinner’s hope that a conversation about same-sex
marriage might stimulate a movement toward marriage renewal. I do not want us
to shy away from discussing difficult issues, but I urge all of us to frame our
words in such a way that they encourage marriage renewal and point people to
Jesus rather than attack our fellow disciples.
I urge my
clergy colleagues who do and will conduct weddings for same-sex couples to move
beyond being a civil functionary and invite and encourage these couples to
pursue the vision of marriage as a sacramental covenant. I also encourage you
to engage pastorally with the people whose weddings you perform and not let
what should be a sacred experience degenerate into a political statement.
I urge my
clergy colleagues who do not conduct wedding for same-sex couples to do
everything you can to teach and nourish the aspiration for the couples you do
marry to pursue marriage as a sacramental covenant. Please do not fall victim
to complaining that the Supreme Court’s decision impinges on your religious
freedom. Nothing they said limits the pastoral discretion we have always had to
decide which couples are good candidates for marriage and which ones we defer.
The last four
years of my forty years of pastoral ministry have been as an interim pastor. I
hope to do one more interim pastorate before shifting gears into the next stage
of my journey. Interim pastors typically conduct funerals but seldom weddings.
Pastoral ethics preclude performing weddings (or providing other pastoral
services) for members of congregations I have previously served. If one of my
grandchildren asked me to perform their wedding, I’d be honored but suggest
their own pastor (or the pastor of their intended) should do it and ask me to
read Scripture or pray but not be the officiant. Since I am just about out of
the wedding business, you might ask why I would bother to enter this
contentious fray. I hope I can make a positive contribution to the conversation
without needing to be a partisan to a cause.
I certainly
have more questions than answers. I hope that by posing a few of the practical
ones, I can help others prayerfully explore their own thinking. I hope to
contribute something worthwhile to the conversations that are going on from all
sorts of directions in congregations today. I hope to stimulate and nourish joy
filled wonder and awe for, yes, Christian heterosexual married couples. I hope
to stimulate a winsome word from the Church to the people of our world who are
hungry for an alternative to narrow rules or spiritual anarchy. I believe that
eventually and inevitably these questions will confront every pastor and every
congregation regardless of theological tradition. People with open and hidden
same-sex attraction and relationships are (and have been and will be) in all of
our congregations.
1. How
will I communicate, encourage and nurture inspiration for marriage as
sacramental covenant?
a.
For people related to the church?
b.
For people outside of the church?
c.
For heterosexual couples?
d.
For same-sex couples?
2. Will
I, should I, encourage cohabiting couples to marry or separate and be celibate?
a.
Those related to the church? If they don’t are
they limited or excluded from congregational activities?
b.
Those in the wider society?
c.
Heterosexual couples?
d.
Same-sex couples?
3. How
do I balance 1 Corinthians 7:15 ff about the believer not abandoning the
unbelieving spouse with 2 Corinthians 6:14 about not being mismatched with
unbelievers when one partner is much more spiritually engaged than the other?
If only one expresses Christian faith?
a.
How do I address this in marriage preparation
before a wedding?
b.
How do I address this with people who are
already married?
c.
What would be similar or different between
heterosexual and same-sex couples?
4. What
do I say to a legally married, same-sex Christian couples who start attending
or want to join a congregation I serve?
a.
You’re not welcome here?
b.
You’re welcome here, but you can’t become a
member?
c.
You can become a member with service
restrictions?
d.
You are welcome like everyone else?
5. What
do I say to the young people (or mature adults for that matter) who grew up or
are established in the congregation I serve (who may be children of established
members) who identify themselves as homosexual or bring a same-sex relationship
into the congregation?
6. On
what basis do I accept or decline a couple’s request to perform their wedding?
a.
How does my position mesh with congregational
policy?
b.
How do I communicate my decision to them?
c.
How do I customize the marriage preparation
process for each couple? Heterosexual or same-sex?
d.
How do I adapt the wedding ceremony and vows to
each couple? Heterosexual or a same-sex?
7. What
do I teach about singleness and celibacy as a calling for heterosexual or homosexual
Christians? (Despite turmoil in the institution of marriage in our culture, the
social pressure to couple, if not marry, is very strong.)
a.
1 Corinthians 7:17-38 (and a few shorter
passages) suggest the high and normative dignity of celibate singleness for the
purpose of dedicated Christian service. How have I lifted this up in the face
of social pressure to marry?
b.
By extension, is being able to serve better
together than individually the only legitimate rationale for Christians to
marry? How do I teach about the calling to celibate singleness to heterosexual
and homosexual people in the congregation I serve?
