I was asked recently to participate in a debate over the “gay marriage” controversy now seeming to hold much of America and too many churches hostage.
I had a schedule conflict, a previous commitment, and couldn’t participate. But had I been able to, here’s what I would have said.
In America, according to the First Amendment to our nation’s Constitution, people are “married legally” at the courthouse (or the Judge of Probate’s office, or wherever marriage licenses are issued in whatever the particular state).
Typically notaries, judges or other comparable public officials are authorized to “marry” couples in this “legal, secular” sense. As are most recognized clergy. ‘Though in some states clergy have to be “bonded” to perform weddings. And I actually knew a guy who irreverently purchased a bogus “ordained minister” certificate through the mail in order to perform the wedding of a relative. Not that much of any kind of “religion” had anything to do with that particular “marriage.” He could as well have paid the fee, sworn the oath and received the seal of a notary.
On the “religious” side of marriage in our society–as broadly construed as “religion” may be–weddings take place in synagogues, churches, mosques, Hindu or Buddhist temples, wiccan covens, or wherever and however people may understand and define themselves “religiously.”
Irrespective of where a “wedding” may take place, a “religious ceremony” (a “service of worship”?) represents a “blessing” of the marriage on the part of a couple’s “religious community.”
I once, for example, “married” a couple–friends of mine–in their home. The service I offered was thoroughly Christian. That’s why they asked me to “marry them.” Not only because I was their friend, but also out of respect for the groom’s Baptist parents. Respective “families” are usually, if not always, a consideration where “marriage” is concerned.
Later, however, the couple traveled to Atlanta where they were also “married” in a Buddhist ceremony. Unfortunately, the couple eventually divorced. So it would appear that the “blessing” of their marriage by at least two different religious traditions did not provide sufficient “saving efficacy” where their marriage was concerned.
Both their marriage and their divorce, however, were effected “legally,” and just as separately, irrespective of whatever “religion” may have been involved in the process, however authentic or otherwise.
As I understand the current circumstances, selected states now allow same sex couples to be “legally married”; most states don’t.
The same is true for churches, at least, with respect to the “blessing” of a “same sex marriage.” The United Church of Christ endorses and supports such “blessings,” as do Unitarians.
[Whether Unitarians represent a “church” is debatable. If not necessarily in the Pauline sense of “the church” as “the body of Christ,” Unitarians at least reflect the meaning of “church” in a cultural, sociological sense. That being, of course, another subject for another day.]
Most churches, these days, are either adamantly opposed to “same sex marriage” or have become quarrelsome, if not even tragically divided over the matter. And the same appears to be so, to whatever degree, among various expressions of Judaism.
What is important, in this respect, is that because the First Amendment to our nation’s Constitution prohibits a “state church” (or synagogue or mosque or whatever) by promoting, instead, “the separation of church and state,” people–depending on whether or not they consider themselves “religious”–may or may not “get married” in at least “two different places.”
I have, for example, been asked to “perform weddings” for heterosexual couples, usually friends. Except that when they were explicit in asking that it not be “Christian” (in the sense that I am a “Christian minister”), as they did not hold to any particular religious values, and hardly mine, I have politely encouraged them to seek the services of a justice of the peace or notary public if they wished to be “married” in a legal, secular way without having their marriage also “blessed” by any particular “religious community,” including my own.
Again, whatever one’s sexual orientation, legally speaking, what we call “marriage” in our society: it is a secular, state-sanctioned “civil union.” If one is “married religiously”–a separate matter–such a “religious marriage” is, more precisely, a “blessing” of the marriage, however “legal” or otherwise.
Except, in Roman Catholicism, for instance, the only “marriage” that is recognized as “valid” is the “sacrament” of marriage authorized, endorsed, supported and conducted in, of and by the Roman Catholic Church.
Just as a “legal divorce” does not qualify as the dissolution of a marriage according to the theology and ethics of marriage as understood, interpreted and promoted in and by Roman Catholicism.
As for “homosexuality” in general, and thus “same sex marriage” in particular: a “religious” understanding of this matter–at least, for Jews and Christians, from the perspective of the Bible–that is yet another (much more involved) subject for another day.
Save to say that the matter has, these days, come to have received, ironically, greater attention–in both religious and secular circles–than it does, in fact, receive in scripture.
To quote Lutheran pastor, the Reverend Lawrence E. Holst: “When we search the scriptures on this topic . . . homosexuality is given scant attention. More space is given to injustice, oppression, poverty and idolatry, even bestiality, incest and prostitution. Jesus never mentions it; nor do the Gospel writers or any of the Old Testament prophets.”
Biblical interpretation is, of course, as complex and nuanced as it is often divisive. Put simply, however–as with many other matters of contemporary concern–the Bible has essentially nothing to say on the subject of “sexual orientation” as it is understood today according to the most informed thinking on the subject.
So I’m always interested in the “need” of those who proceed to “hunt and peck” across the pages of scripture looking for a “proof text” for their particular religious, moral (or otherwise), political, social or personal agenda. Most notably, these days, with respect to “homosexuality” in general and “gay marriage” in particular. Given the fact that the Bible has essentially nothing to say on the subject.
Speaking of which–interpreting scripture–how’s this for irony?
The familiar story of the destruction of ancient Sodom in Genesis 19 has often been interpreted as reflecting a condemnation of homosexuality. Except in the Gospels of the New Testament (Matthew 10 and Luke 10), Jesus interprets the story otherwise, suggesting that the “sinfulness” in the Genesis 19 story be understood as, rather, a lack of “hospitality.”
Indeed, I can’t imagine–as so thoroughly a heterosexual person–anyone being so often treated more “in-hospitably” than those whose predominant “sexual orientation” happens to be different from my own.
Keeping in mind that–when it comes to a faithful interpreting of scripture–we Christians are meant to “read the Bible” always in and through the person and purpose of Jesus (Luke 24:32). Or as Paul puts it, with “the mind of Christ” (Philippians 2: 5).
[I will not post a blog next week. Instead, I will be celebrating the bicentennial of Princeton Theological Seminary. My regular Thursday blog posting will continue the following week.]
