Sunday, August 30, 2015

Marriage Renewal - A Word for and from the Church In the Context of Legal Same-Sex Marriage


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?

No comments: