Christian Marriage: It Is Not Just for Heterosexuals Anymore!

Well isn't this interesting! Yesterday we celebrated the Feast of the Reign of Christ and we wake up on a Monday morning to hear Jesus teach about marriage, divorce, adultery and the Eunuchs. Wow! What a great way to start the week.

I am most interested in writing about this Gospel today because for seventeen months I was involved the Catholic church's ex-gay ministry called Courage. You can read about my experience in Beyond Ex-gay. Just last Tuesday night I gave a presentation about my Courage experience at a meeting of The Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities.
During the time I was involved in Courage this Gospel of Matthew 19:1 to 12 as well as Mark 10:1 to 12 is where Fr. John Harvey and the Courage group claim Jesus didcondemn homosexuality, gay marriage and all forms of marriage that were not of one man and one woman. The problem with that interpretation is that no where in this Gospel or in Mark's Gospel did Jesus include homosexuality in his comments. In addition, there are several problems with the historical and cultural context where this Gospel would have taken place.

Among the first problems we are met with is that during the time in which Jesus would have been addressing this problem it was understood that a woman was a piece of property to be transferred. And from this particular Gospel has come centuries of the Church misusing women. Many Christian men have made poor use of this Gospel as well as the creation account in Genesis to which Jesus is referring to speak of why women should live in subjection to men. Over the many years through the use of reasonto help us interpret Scripture we have been moving past our ancient understanding of women and our understanding of marriage too.

In his column just last week Episcopal Bishop John Bryson Chane wrote: "Christians have always argued about marriage. Jesus criticized the Mosaic law on divorce, saying "What God has joined together let no man separate." But we don't see clergy demanding that the city council make divorce illegal.

Some conservative Christian leaders claim that their understanding of marriage is central to Christian teaching. How do they square that claim with the Apostle Paul's teaching that marriage is an inferior state, one reserved for people who are not able to stay singly celibate and resist the temptation to fornication?

As historian Stephanie Coontz points out, the church did not bless marriages until the third century, or define marriage as a sacrament until 1215. The church embraced many of the assumptions of the patriarchal culture, in which women and marriageable children were assets to be controlled and exploited to the advantage of the man who headed their household. The theology of marriage was heavily influenced by economic and legal considerations; it emphasized procreation, and spoke only secondarily of the "mutual consolation of the spouses."

In the 19th and 20th centuries, however, the relationship of the spouses assumed new importance, as the church came to understand that marriage was a profoundly spiritual relationship in which partners experienced, through mutual affection and self-sacrifice, the unconditional love of God.

The Episcopal Church's 1979 Book of Common Prayer puts it this way: "We believe that the union of husband and wife, in heart, body and mind, is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord."

Our evolving understanding of what marriage is leads, of necessity, to a re-examination of who it is for. Most Christian denominations no longer teach that all sex acts must be open to the possibility of procreation, and therefore contraception is permitted. Nor do they hold that infertility precludes marriage. The church has deepened its understanding of the way in which faithful couples experience and embody the love of the creator for creation. In so doing, it has put itself in a position to consider whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Theologically, therefore, Christian support for same-sex marriage is not a dramatic break with tradition, but a recognition that the church's understanding of marriage has changed dramatically over 2,000 years."

Yet the same week that this great piece of writing was published in the Washington Post a group of Catholic Bishops, Religious right wing nuts including the National Organization for Marriage's Maggie Gallagher put together and signed the Manhattan Declaration. The problem with this mean spirited declaration is that it is found on ideologies, not Biblical or even Christian principles. It is certainly not based on an adequate interpretation of Matthew 19:1-12 or Mark 10:1-12.

As part of my discussion on the teaching of Marriage I would like to include some thoughts from Bishop Gene Robinson in his Book: In the Eye of the Storm.

"It's time that progressive religious people stop being ashamed of their faith and afraid to be identified with the Religious Right, and start preaching the good news of the liberating Christ to all God's Children.

But what is a good, positive, and appropriate way to voice one's religious convictions in public discourse? I think it involves a simple shift in focus from the public to the private in these expressions. I'm free to express my own personal and religious reasons for coming to the opinions I express, but the minute I start arguing that you must come to those same opinions because my religious truth must be your religious truth too, then I violate the divide between private and public. Most alarming of all is when "my" truth becomes "the" truth, applicable to everyone. James Dobson and Pat Robertson are perfectly free to tell me about the religious beliefs that compel them to oppose the acceptance of gay people, but when they claim that their beliefs are right and true for all humankind, they move from democracy to theocracy.

Similarly, if I argue for the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in society, I must do so on the merits of my argument, not on a claim that my understanding of God is right and true and compelling for everyone. I must make my arguments based on democracy, compassion, democratic principles, and a notion of the common good--not on any reading of sacred text to which I must subscribe.

We need to separate, as best as we can, the civil realm for the religious, especially in the struggle for equal civil marriage rights for all citizens. Clergy have long acted as agents of the state in the solemnization of marriages. Because a priest or rabbi or minister acts on behalf of the state in signing the marriage license and attesting to the proper enactment of marriage, we've lost the distinction between what the state does, while the church pronounces it's blessing on it. In France, everyone is married at the mayor's office; those who are religious reconvene at the church for the religious blessing. Those who don't desire such a blessing are still fully married according to the laws of the state. In such an arrangement, it's clear where the state's action ends and the church's action begins." (Pages 26 and 27).

My final quote which I used in yesterday's blog is from Fr. Paul Bresnahan who wrote in his blog An Invitation to An Inclusive Church: "There was a special place in his (Jesus) heart too for the “eunuchs” of his time. I wonder what he meant by the following startling saying; But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can." (Matthew 19:11-12) You can define that term as you like, but they clearly were not a threat to folks of the opposite sex. There is considerable evidence that when the biblical material refers to “eunuchs” we were talking of folks whose interests lay with folks of the same sex. We now refer to this group as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgendered, LGBT for short. And isn't it interesting to note that even Jesus realized that there were those who would find this teaching a hard one to accept. The radical love of Jesus is often hard to take because it includes our enemies.

I believe that Jesus stood up for this crowd too as he stood up for us all, and I am convinced that is why they put him to death on the cross. Jesus was not a liberal. He merely loved everyone! That’s why God died. That’s why God is Risen. That’s why God will come again!"

It is clear at least to me that based on what I have read and quoted above that there really is no longer a place for the discrimination of same-sex marriage in the Christian Church. The discussion about why lesbian and gay couples should be allowed to marry in both society and the church needs to continue. We must pray for people to open their minds and hearts to the radical love of Jesus Christ for all people including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered.We must pray and work for a better understanding of marriage, love, relationships and sexuality. There is room in this great society and in Christ's Church for everyone. Those churches and religious institutions that do not want to perform weddings and commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples should not be compelled by any law or regulation to do so. However, neither should the churches and religious institutions that do wish to perform weddings and commitment ceremonies for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people be prevented from doing so by those who oppose same-sex marriage. And opposing religious institutions should not be imposing their understandings of same-sex marriage upon the State. I agree with Bishop Robinson, it is time to separate the two.

Let us continue to pray for greater openness and acceptance. Let us be instruments of God's peace in this tumultuous fight for marriage equality.

God of all love, bless all married, espoused and committed couples both straight and lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. We thank you for those who lift up their voices in support of marriage equality. We pray for the conversion of those who still voice opposition to same-sex marriage due to prejudice and limited understanding of your Holy Word. We also pray for those members of the LGBT community that still live in states and countries where inequality is still rampart and alive. We ask for the enlightening of your Holy Spirit that people, government and religious leaders will open their hearts and minds to a renewed understanding, and that those of us who are LGBT will continue our work for justice, equality and inclusion of all people; we ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.