A Helper as Partner:

Three Scriptural Arguments in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage

 

By the Rev. Matthew Calkins, St Timothy’s Episcopal Church, Fairfield, Connecticut

 

 

“It is not good that the man (Adam) should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” Genesis 2:18

 

“Covenant is the redemption of solitude.” Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks[i]

 

Introduction

Here in Connecticut the state Supreme Court has ruled that barring same sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional. What should the church say and do in response? This was the general thrust of the question Bishop Andrew Smith put to the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut, of which I am a member, as he requested counsel on several practical questions which will taken up in Part Two of this paper.

My counsel is this: the first thing to do is to take a look at where we stand theologically on the general issue. If it is our considered belief as a gathered part of the body of Christ that same sex relationships ought to be judged and held to the same standards as heterosexual ones—a growing consensus to judge by a majority vote in last year’s Annual Convention urging Bishop Smith to allow priests to use their conscience in deciding whether to officiate at same sex weddings—then we ought to issue a well-supported doctrinal statement in support of same sex marriage before embarking on local or ad hoc practices. This paper is an effort to advance that process. In particular I hope to strengthen the positive scriptural case for same sex marriage, a case often neglected by those who advocate inclusion, yet the very thing that opponents demand from arguments claiming to be Christian.

There are strong arguments from principles of justice for equal treatment before the law; these are what the court has recognized. But anyone making the case for expanding Christian marriage (or blessings of civil marriages or civil unions) to include gay and lesbian persons needs more than a civil rights argument; a theological argument needs to be made explaining what the point of the marital covenant is and why it should not be limited to only the traditional covenantal partners, a man and a woman. A robust doctrine of Christian marriage that includes same sex marriages must claim the traditional reasons a man and woman marry—for mutual joy and support, for the procreation and nurture of children (BCP 423)[ii], as a primary social good (the foundation of stable families), and as a “remedy against sin and to protect against fornication” (1549 Prayer Book)[iii]—and base a case for expansion to persons of the same sex on solid arguments from scripture, tradition and reason.

There is, of course, an extensive literature in this area. Yet I am not alone in being dissatisfied with the typical arguments advanced on both sides of the issue. The case for the progressive side often depends on negative arguments that relativize biblical texts and presume ignorance and prejudice on the side of opposing positions, whether ancient or contemporary.[iv] Positive scriptural grounding is limited to a biblical narrative or principle of progressive inclusion.[v]  This narrative is open to the objection that Jesus and the apostles insisted upon the need for amendment of life upon forgiveness, baptism or other forms of inclusion. “Fornication” --porneia, sexual immorality--remains among the three things from which Gentiles are required to refrain, according to the Council of Jerusalem decision depicted in Acts 15 (along with idolatry and meat from strangled animals and blood), as a condition of their inclusion into the people of God. But the broad principle of inclusion does not speak to the distinctive character of the sacrament of marriage. Surely it matters that one of its purposes is as a remedy against fornication, since exactly what counts as fornication (sexual immorality) is one of the issues to be settled.[vi]

On the other hand, those advocating a traditional definition of marriage—as necessarily between a man and a woman--often have internally incoherent or scientifically naïve understandings of “nature,” and ahistorically fixed yet arbitrary readings of scripture (if biblical prohibitions against homosexuality are so clear, why not hold the line on divorce?). Not to mention the obvious fact that there is still a significant reservoir of prejudice and ignorance, simple homophobia, that prevents many from giving the advocates of same sex relationships a fair hearing.

Unsatisfied with these arguments, but convinced that there is a Spirit-led movement working in the church towards full inclusion, this paper is an attempt to develop several other arguments less often encountered, particularly with an eye on strengthening the positive biblical case.

 1. “Marriage as Partnership”: An argument from Genesis on the primary reason for marriage as the human need to find a “helper as partner” to counter an existential loneliness unmet by family, friend or animal. I see no reason this need cannot be met by a person of the same sex.

2. “Marriage as Faithfulness”: An argument based on the prophets and Paul (mostly) that there is a biblical sexual ethic that opposes faithfulness to promiscuity in strict analogy to the opposition of faith in God versus idolatry. This abiding standard defends those advocating same sex marriage from the charge of being culturally captive and relativist. Furthermore, this argument also works to limit the idea of a “faithful marriage” to monogamous lifelong commitments. Changing the legal definition of marriage to a contract between two consenting adults raises the threat of legally sanctioned polygamy and other “slippery slope” developments. The covenant faithfulness argument answers the “why not more than two?” question and supports the traditional understanding of monogamous lifelong fidelity as essential to marriage. It also supports the institution of marriage as providing training in fidelity, a virtue for all people. Both of these arguments tie into a lesser reason, but one with scriptural support and a long history in the tradition (though little cited these days):

3. “Marriage as Remedy against porneia” for those for whom celibacy is not a charism (Matthew 19 and 1 Cor 7).  Obviously this reason applies to anyone, gay or straight, whose self-control is helped by a partner providing both sexual intimacy and watchful accountability.

 

To jump ahead:

My conclusion is that it is unjust and unwise to exclude gay and lesbian persons from a blessed (but not easy) state of lifelong mutual love and exclusive fidelity that mirrors and trains us in the fundamental option of faith—love and exclusive fidelity to God.

 

In the text below I lay out a brief account of often-heard arguments on both sides of the issue to set the context. I follow this with a look at the Prayer Book understanding of marriage as covenant. Then I argue at fuller length the positions summarized above. But I am mindful that we have also been asked specific practical questions:

Three more specific and practical questions were raised in the “Bishop’s Address at Annual Convention” (10/25/2008): 1. Are priests ordained in the Episcopal Church permitted to officiate at civil marriages of gay and lesbian couples? 2. What standards of commitment should we have for ordained deacons and priests (or bishops) who are in same-sex relationships? 3. In all things, how can we be the face of Christ, to invite, welcome and pastorally care for seekers and believers who are gay and lesbian, including those who seek to be married?

 

The answers to these particular questions should follow from the general consideration, adapted at the local diocesan level in the light of its being located in one of two states allowing same sex marriage, and in the larger context of membership in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion. I believe our pastoral care “for seekers and believers who are gay and lesbian, including those who seek to be married” should always be open and loving, following the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, but whether this response is affirming, challenging or a mix of both depends on our prior theological convictions, practical ecclesiology and personal contexts; mine will be stated in conclusion—for those who wish to “cut to the chase” this begins in Part II, Practice.

---

[i] Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, Address to the Lambeth Conference 2008: “The Relationship between the People and God”.  The larger context of the statement is an extended reflection on covenant, as distinguished from contract and essential to a healthy society. The whole address is well worth reading. The relevant passage is taken from pages 16-17: “Covenant is what allows us to face the future without fear, because we know we are not alone. 'Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil for You are with me.'  Covenant is the redemption of solitude.”

(http://www.chiefrabbi.org/speeches/lambethconference28july08.pdf)

 

[ii] All references to the BCP in this paper are to The Book of Common Prayer: and Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, Together with The Psalter or Psalms of David, According to the use of The Episcopal Church (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990 [1979]. This is the Prayer Book authorized by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, USA, and is a lineal descendent of the Prayer Book of 1549 authorized by the Church of England. Unless otherwise noted scriptural references are taken from the New Revised Standard Version (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).

 

[iii] Marion  J. Hatchett, Commentary on the American Prayer Book (San Francisco: Harper, 1995) 432-3, observes: “The exhortation goes back to the 1549 Prayer Book where the form included quotations from the exhortation of the Sarum rite, from the Cologne Encheiridion, from Luther’s marriage rite…and from the King’s Book.”

 

The relevant portion of the 1549 form reads: “therefore [marriage] is not to be enterprised or taken in hand unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding: but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God, duly considering the causes for which matrimony was ordained. One cause was the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and praise of God. Secondly, it was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication, that such persons as be married might live chastely in matrimony, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body. Thirdly, for the mutual society, help and comfort that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. 

 

Hatchett further notes, “In the first American Book the section on the causes for which marriage was ordained was deleted from the Exhortation. In 1948, however, a canon, (Title I, Canon 17, Section 3) was passed which required a couple to sign a declaration of intention which included a modified form of this section in which the causes were rephrased and listed in a different order. (The assertion that procreation was the first cause for which marriage was instituted was objected to as far back as Bucer’s Censura of 1551, in which he maintained, on the basis of Genesis 2:18, that the primary cause was mutual society, help, and comfort.)…The present Prayer Book updates the language of the exhortation and restores to it some of the content of the declaration of intention”

 

To elaborate on Hatchett’s parenthetical comment above: Martin Bucer, commenting on Thomas Cranmer’s 1549 rite, argued that “Three reasons for matrimony are enumerated, that is, children, a remedy and mutual help, and I should prefer what is placed third among the causes for marriage might be in the first place, because it is the first”; cited in To Set Our Hope On Christ: A Response to the Invitation of the Windsor Report ¶ 135, prepared by a group of theologians convened at the request of Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold (New York: The Office of Communication, The Episcopal Church, 2005), 27.

 

The 1948 declaration reads: “We believe it [marriage] is for the purpose of mutual fellowship, encouragement, and understanding, for the procreation (if it may be) of children, and their physical and spiritual nurture, for the safeguarding and benefit of society.”

 

Note also the Lambeth resolution of 1958: “It is not to be held that the procreation of children is the sole purpose of Christian Marriage.” Cited in To Set our Hope, 66.

 

In summary, then, the Anglican and Episcopal tradition, over the course of its liturgical and canonical deliberation, has affirmed these four causes or reasons for matrimony: 1) procreation and nurture of children, 2) mutual joy and support (the so-called “unitive function”), 3) as a remedy for sexual frustration, and 4) as a fundamental social good. Of these the only ones mentioned in the current Prayer Book are 1 and 2. The others, however, are not to be neglected in arguing the admissibility of same sex marriages, particularly as 4 is often used by opponents of same sex marriage (as well, of course, as 1). For more on historically developing understandings of marriage see John Witte, From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion and Law in the Western Tradition (Westminster: John Knox, 1997).

 

In addition to these human goods, there is the sacramental or iconic role of marriage as a reflection of the covenantal love of God and the People (Israel) and Christ and the Church. Most recently the House of Bishops’ Committee on Theology wrote, “Holy Scripture teaches us that God gave sex as one of the means for married persons to share themselves with each other (1 Cor 7:3-5); for procreation (Gen 1:28); and to be used as an icon, on the human level, of the relationships between God and the people of Israel, and Christ and the Church (Eph 5:25-33).” “The Gift of Sexuality,” The Journal of the 74^th General Convention (2003), 782, para.4.4. No one gets married in order to be an icon or sacrament (it is not a cause of marriage), however, it is one of the reasons (a good or end for which) God instituted marriage (“ It signifies to us the mystery of the union between Christ and his Church” BCP 423). I argue in the paper that Christian marriage is a training in covenant faithfulness that works in concert with faith in and worship of God, the Trinity in Unity who is covenanted in faith and love with humanity through the covenants with humanity (through Noah), Israel (Abraham/Moses) and the Church (Christ).

 

[iv] A recent example in the popular press is Lisa Miller, “Our Mutual Joy,” the cover article of Newsweek, December 15, 2008. In this article Miller claims to base her case in favor of same sex marriage on biblical warrant but procedes to argue that the Bible’s teaching on marriage is a mashup of polygamy, patriarchy and outdated theories of nature (the relativizing scripture move), to be superceded by an ethic of acceptance and love supposedly attributable to Jesus, now finally heard clearly thanks to modern science and civil rights progress (the ‘we know better now’ move).  For a conservative response that sums up the problem with arguments that evade making a positive biblical case see Joseph Bottum, Jon Mark Reynolds and Bruce D. Porter, “No Case for Homosexuality in the Bible,” at Newsweek’s On Faith Guestvoices website. On the academic front, see Marilyn McCord Adams (Regius Professor of Divinity, Christ Church, Oxford), “Shaking the Foundations: LGBT Bishops and Blessings in the Fullness of Time,” Anglican Theological Review, vol. 20, number 4 (Fall 2008), 713-732. Adams begins her précis with these words: “Homophobia is a sin, and its end-time is now! At stake in current Anglican Communion disputes is the uprooting of institutional homophobia within the church.” Here we see the progressive ju-jitsu approach: it is not gay sex that is sinful but homophobia. Forget any call to mutual restraint and unity in the face of profound disagreement. After all, if opponents are no more than bigoted heretics, then “Liberals should repent of these concessions, reassess the limits of tolerance, and—where they gain the majority—forward the gospel by giving institutional expression to their content-convictions (that is, to authorize ordaining and blessing non-celibate LGBTs).”  Despite my critique of Newton and Adams I am not in disagreement with their support for same sex marriage, but I advocate a more positive approach to scripture and irenic approach to dispute.

 

[v] See for instance the recent Statement of the Theology Commission of the Diocese of California concerning same sex marriage, Some Questions and Answers: Same Sex Marriage and Holy Matrimony” (October 2008), which uses the analogy from baptismal inclusion, or the response of the Episcopal Church to the Windsor Report: To Set our Mind on Christ (13-17), which uses the example of the Gentile inclusion in Acts 10-15; sections 2.10-13, followed by a relativizing of the negatives texts in sections 2.16-2.21, pp 12-22.

 

[vi] Cf. Luke Timothy Johnson, “Debate and Discernment, Scripture and the Spirit,” Commonweal, 29 January 1994, 11-13; reprinted in Nancey Murphy, Brad J. Kallenberg and Mark Thiessen Nation, eds., Virtues and Practices in the Christian Tradition: Christian Ethics After MacIntyre (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997), 218: “Another order of questions concern the connection of homosexuality to porneia. The church, it is clear, cannot accept porneia. But what is the essence of “sexual immorality”? Is the moral quality of sexual behavior defined biologically in terms of the use of certain body parts, or is it defined in terms of personal commitment and attitudes? Is not porneia essentially sexual activity that ruptures covenant, just as castitas is sexual virtue within or outside marriage because it is sexuality in service to covenant?” 

 

Part One: Theology: Frequently Heard Arguments

Part I. Theology

A summary of frequently heard arguments pro and con

On one hand

Many can and do use reasons based on scripture, nature and tradition to argue for an unchanging definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. They cite tradition; for example, The Book of Common Prayer: “Christian marriage is a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God” (BCP 422). They wonder whether a western cultural movement towards group civil rights and individual choice, and against authority and tradition—a movement that, like all revolutions, can be excessive in its zeal and claims, and destructive of established goods--is a sufficient reason to alter an important doctrine and sacrament, marriage, and fundamental social unit, the family.

Opponents of same sex marriage cite the Lambeth 1998 Resolution (1.10) that “homosexual practice is incompatible with scripture.” The Resolution has in mind the obvious scriptural prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-26, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10—and resists revisionist readings that argue that these prohibitions did not have in view mutual and faithful loving partnerships between members of the same sex, which supposedly were unimaginable in biblical times.[i] But the Resolution also reflects a reading of scriptural texts that reinforce a view of the created world (“nature”) as inherently ordered toward complementary genders (“male and female he created them” Genesis 1:27) and as having procreation as the predominant reason (end and good) of sexual difference (“be fruitful and multiply” Genesis 1:28) and the care and nurture of children, then, as the primary end and good for marriage.[ii] Other reasons given for marriage in the traditional view-- “for mutual joy and support,” and, in the older Prayer Book rite, “as a remedy against sin”—are important but secondary. Marriage is to be commended and “honored among all people” (a reference to Hebrews 13:4: “Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers”) because it is the most socially approved and stable way to form the fundamental unity of human society, the family.[iii] Marriage also mirrors and symbolizes the union of God and Israel (the People of God) and Christ and the Church (the Body of Christ). Jesus blessed the marriage at Cana and took a hard line against divorce, suggesting that God’s intention in creation (quoting the Genesis passages cited above) was monogamous marriage, and God’s action in joining husband and wife (“what God has joined let no one separate”), a lifelong union.

Preserving the “sanctity of marriage” against the culturally corrosive forces of promiscuity and divorce is crucial to the health of the society, particularly its children.[iv] Conservative social critics believe that evidence from European countries that permit same sex marriages suggests it is a factor further weakening the institution of marriage, which for practical purposes has become little more than a nostalgic version of commonplace cohabitation—and another factor in a serious demographic decline. These are substantial reasons to oppose altering the definition of marriage; any proposal to alter them must not only make positive arguments of its own but also acknowledge and respond to these.

On the other hand

Many argue for a revision of the definition of marriage—or addition of a category of civil unions—to include gay and lesbian partners. The central argument is a plea for justice, an argument accepted on its merits in recent judicial decisions in states that allow same sex marriage.[v] Gay and lesbian persons deserve equal access to the civil rights of marriage (rights secured through civil unions) and also the legitimization and valorization of their relationships that the institution of marriage alone confers. 

In responding to arguments based on scripture, proponents attempt to weaken the force and narrow the application of the biblical prohibitions.  They argue that these are culture-bound, and misapplied to faithful same sex partnerships. For instance, the “Holiness Code” of Leviticus serves to create a separate and distinct people by decreeing social practices distinct from and often counter to those in the surrounding Canaanite culture. Such cultural boundary markers include diet, dress, and other practices that Christians have no tradition of following. Nor do we follow ancient sexual mores such as levirate marriage or consider “uncleanness” inherent in menstrual blood or semen. The prohibition against “lying with a man as with a woman,” refers, it is claimed, to the practice of homosexual prostitution, often aligned with cultic worship. Similarly Pauline prohibitions reflect a Jewish antipathy to loose Greco-Roman sexual mores, particularly the practice of older men seeking adolescent lovers, or powerful persons using the powerless for sexual gratification. These practices indeed are rightly prohibited, but, the argument goes, what was not in mind of the biblical authors—and therefore not prohibited--was a stable, faithful, mutually loving partnership between two members of the same sex.

This is primarily because the biblical worldview assumes a created order in which marriage is intended for procreation and procreation requires a male and female “one flesh union”—not quite the case today. The social worldview of the time, whether Hebrew or Greco-Roman, saw marriage as involving property rights and familial contracts—with less attention given to securing freely offered and accepted love. Ancient marriage was deeply patriarchal, often to the degree of countenancing polygamy and an exclusively male right of divorce; this is reflected and not condemned in the Old Testament, although Jesus certainly moves away from it—an exemplar of more weight than Paul.[vi] Most contemporary western Christians disagree with Paul where he advocates submission by women and the analogy of husband to wife as Christ to the Church (and wonder if men having long hair is necessarily “unnatural”). May we not also disagree with him on absolutely categorizing same sex passion as unnatural and idolatrous porneia?  Careful biblical readers note that Paul’s own advice on marriage is framed as his opinion, not a command from the Lord (1 Cor 6;12, 7:25; cf. 6:10 where he explicitly writes that it is not he but the Lord who commands—a teaching on  divorce).

Furthermore there are biblical counter voices. Although there are no supporting “proof texts,” proponents of same sex relationships point to a deep gospel principle of inclusion (Gentiles, the poor, and repentant sinners) and egalitarianism (in Christ there is no male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile). Though tradition may be conservative, there is in history a progressive trajectory towards justice and equal rights, and this trajectory rejects slavery and sexism, including heterosexism.

Arguments from nature against same sex relationships are also weak, proponents argue, in that nature is a shifting concept that includes fixed physical and instinctive animal natures as well as the more adaptable and “free” human nature. We no longer live in a “three tier world” of heaven above and hell beneath the earth; nor do we suppose that sexual orientation is always “naturally” heterosexual.[vii] Regardless of how much of our sexual desires are biologically encoded, they are also culturally formed; furthermore there are distinct differences between male and female patterns of same sex attraction, with women appearing to be much more fluid and men more fixed. All of this points to a need to suspend judgment on the etiology or “natural history” of sexual desire, while noting that increasing experience of the “normality” of same sex partners argues for, and not against, suitability for marriage and the nurture of children. Far from weakening the institution of marriage, proponents argue, the desire of gays and lesbians to get married show its value and increase its normative force. Allowing same sex marriage will help to stabilize an institution whose difficulties certainly cannot be laid at the feet of a class of people who have been excluded from participation.[viii] Furthermore, if one of the purposes of marriage is to serve as a “remedy against sin,” then it would appear that marriage might help mitigate patterns of promiscuity. It would also promote honesty and truth.  Just as the Old Testament strongly opposed idolatry, so Jesus rails against hypocrisy. Acceptance of same sex attraction and the move into normative relationships will reduce the number of people pressured into pretence, and thereby forming unsatisfying and hypocritical marriages that ultimately benefit no one and result in divorce. Finally, as more and more gay and lesbian people freely commit to a “solemn and public covenant”—whether legally and ecclesially sanctioned or not—evidence of what Paul called “the fruit of the Spirit” may be discerned: lives of increasing mutual love, kindness, patience, gentleness and self-control (Gal 5).

In my introduction I mentioned something of my dissatisfaction with both these positions.

---

 

[i] For a conservative response to liberal hermeneutics see Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001) chapter 5, “The Hermeneutical Relevance of the Biblical Witness” pp. 341-471.

 

[ii] Early Christian tradition was heavily influenced by the Hellenistic Stoic view of marriage as necessary for the establishment of households (oikos), which make up the city/state (polis) and  populate the world (kosmos); marriage thus was a duty and its primary purpose was procreation. St Paul supported celibacy on similar grounds to the classical Cynic position (the classical debate partner on the subject with Stoicism) that the philosopher eschewed domestic and political entanglements in order to pursue wisdom (Sophia). This became, in Paul’s Christian revision, the choice of celibacy in order to concentrate “on the affairs of the Lord” rather than “the affairs of the world and how to please his wife [or, her husband]” (1 Cor 7:32-34). Philo among turn of first millennium Jewish thinkers also embraced this view. A recurring theme of his writing is his insistence that the goal of marriage is the procreation of legitimate children, not sexual pleasure. Early Christian writings from second and third century apologists (Epistle to Diognetus 6.4-6; Athenagoras, Legatio 33.1-2; Minucius Felix, Octavius 31.5; and Justin Martyr, Apology 1.27.1-3 and 29.1), all agree that the sole purpose of marriage is the procreation of children; for instance, Clement of Alexandria defined marriage as “the legal union of a man and a woman for the procreation of legitimate children” (Stromoteis bk. 2, chap. 23.137. 1,3-4). See Will Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). Stoic emphasis on “marital duty” (not pleasure) combined in the early church with an increasing emphais on worldly renunciation, and sexual asceticism in particular, to lead to glorfication of viriginity and demeaning of sexuality and other bodily pleasures. See Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Colombia University Press, 1988). John Chrysostom, although part of this ascetic movement, is a dissenting voice in regards to the primary purpose of marriage; in his view the primary purpose of marriage is to restrain promiscuity: “Marriage is not an evil thing. It is adultery that is evil, it is fornication that is evil. Marriage is a remedy to eliminate fornication”  … “These are the two purposes for which marriage is instituted: to make us chaste and to make us parents. Of these two, the reason of chastity takes precedence…especially now, when the whole earth is filled with our kind” From Homily 1 on Marriage, in Eugene F. Rodgers, ed., Theology and Sexuality: Classic and Contemporary Readings (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 87, 89.

 

Procreation as the primary purpose of marriage was reaffirmed as the position of the Episcopal Church in the 1922 report of the Joint Committee on Home and the Family, “[Marriage] is not an end in itself but the divinely appointed agency whereby God’s will may be fulfilled in giving life, protection, and proper rearing to the young of the human species.” As this last line suggests this period was influenced by social Darwinism, which led the 1922 General Convention to reject birth control as a threat to the “future of the race,” yet call for federal and state laws to regulate “the marriage of those who are physically or mentally defective” and to restrict reproduction among such, which leads “to an increase of misery and crime.” See Robert E. Hood, Social Teachings in the Episcopal Church: A Source Book (Harrisburg, Pa.: Morehouse Publishing, 1990), 138-139. Hood, 141, notes that “By the 1960s, the church’s mind about the purpose of Christian marriage and its relationship to family life had changed radically. In 1961, General Convention adopted teachings forwarded by the Joint Commission on Human Affairs. Citing the Encyclical Letter of the 1958 Lambeth, the commission said: “Although it is clearly a primary obligation of Christian marriage that children be born within the supporting framework of parental love and family support, it is not to be held from this that the procreation of children is the sole purpose of Christian marriage. Implicit within the bond between husband and wife is the relationship of love with its sacramental expression in physical union’.”

 

[iii] Note again the third reason given in the 1949 declaration of intention cited in endnote 3: “for the safeguarding and benefit of society.”

 

[iv] See, for instance, David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage (New York: Encounter Books, 2007). Blankenhorn and Elizabeth Marquardt work on parenthood and marriage issues through the Center for American Values; papers and other research may be accessed through their website, http://center.americanvalues.org/. Another socially conservative academic, sociologist James Q. Wilson, comes to similar conclusions and marshals a great deal of evidence in his book, The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2002).

 

[v] For instance, here is part of the California Supreme Court decision:

“While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children. As discussed above, because of the long and celebrated history of the term "marriage" and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples — while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples — likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.

Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term "marriage" is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship.

Finally, in addition to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite-sex couples.

In light of all of these circumstances we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional.”

 

[vi] From “The Good of Marriage”  XV, in Rodgers, ibid., 82.

 

[vii] See Richard Norris’ unfinished paper, “Some Notes on the Current Debate Regarding Homosexuality and the Place of Homosexuals in the Church,” published in The Anglican Theological Review, Volume 90, Number 3 (summer 2008), 554. Norris, late a Professor of Church History at Union Theological Seminary, goes into some depth on the issues of scriptural interpretation and moral reasoning involved in this debate. I was privileged to have him, Christopher Morse and Phyllis Trible as teachers.

 

[viii] For statistical evidence that the strongest factors predicting success or failure of marriage are age and education, not commitment to the institution and religious faith see recent articles by Margaret Talbot, “Red Sex, Blue Sex: Do evangelicals practice what they preach?” in The New Yorker, November 3, 2008, 64-70; and Tim Stafford, “Educated for Marriage: The difference college makes,” in Christian Century, November 4, 2008, 11-12. These factors are heavily influenced by and predictive of poverty and single parenting—which also are heavily correlated.

 

Marriage as God-Joined Covenant

Marriage as God-joined Covenant

To begin let us look at the distinctive character of the sacrament of marriage, using the Book of Common Prayer marriage rite as a source for theological reflection (as the ancients said, lex orandi est lex credendi; the rule of prayer is the rule of belief; liturgy embodies theology).[i] The current definition reads: “Christian marriage is a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God” (BCP 422). [ii]

Christian marriage is related to but distinct from civil marriage (or civil unions), as covenant is related to but distinct from contract. As Rabbi Sacks put it in his keynote address to the Lambeth Conference 2008: “In a contract, two or more individuals, each pursuing their own interest, come together to make an exchange for mutual benefit.  So there is the commercial contract that creates the market, and the social contract that creates the state. A covenant is something different.  In a covenant, two or more individuals, each respecting the dignity and integrity of the other, come together in a bond of love and trust, to share their interests, sometimes even to share their lives, by pledging their faithfulness to one another, to do together what neither can achieve alone. A contract is a transaction.  A covenant is a relationship.  Or to put it slightly differently: a contract is about interests.  A covenant is about identity.  It is about you and me coming together to form an 'us'. That is why contracts benefit, but covenants transform.” [iii]

What kind of covenant is marriage? Marriage is a God-joined covenant of two persons vowing exclusive fidelity and self-giving love for life, as language in the marriage rite makes clear: it is a “joining together in Holy Matrimony,” it is “bond and covenant,” a “holy union” (424) of the spouses “in heart, body, and mind.” (423) It involves “promises and vows” (425) which are “witnessed and blessed” (423) by God and present human witnesses (it is a public covenant). The vows include a declaration of free consent “to live together in the covenant of marriage.” Marital living together means much more than mere cohabitation, for to “have” and to “hold” this person as spouse means to promise and vow “to love, comfort, honor and keep him or her, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others be faithful as long as you both shall live” (424); this consent is subsequently solemnly ratified in the actual marriage vow, which involves a public declaration—a performative utterance which accomplishes in the saying the act it describes—that the speaker “takes” (both understands and claims) the one whom he or she faces and whose right hand is being held “to be my [husband or wife], to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow.” The exchange of rings is a further sign of the vows by which the persons “have bound themselves to each other, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (427) The ring is a “symbol of my vow” to  “honor you” with “all that I am, and all that I have” in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (427)

The invocation of the name of God indicates that it is not only the promises the spouses make to each other that seal the union—much less the official pronouncement made by the Celebrant (428)--but God, in whose name the celebrant pronounces. Thus at the climactic moment following the exchange of vows and the pronouncement of marriage the Celebrant (echoing Jesus) warns:  “Those whom God has joined let no one put asunder” (428).”  Thereupon the Peace is exchanged and prayers are said, the first of which has this telling phrase:  “Look with favor …upon this man and woman [these persons] whom you make one flesh in Holy Matrimony” (429, my italics).

If then “Marriage is a God-joined covenant of two persons vowing exclusive fidelity and self-giving love for life”—must it be that the two persons are necessarily male and female, or necessarily two?

I believe that the nature of the covenant bond is such that it must be between two persons, though not necessarily of opposite sex. I support this covenant principle with the following arguments from scripture.

---

[i] This is a common Anglican practice and is used by both opponents and advocates of the blessing of same sex marriages. See, for instance, the Bishop’s Task Force on Marriage of the Diocese of Los Angeles, “Some Questions and Answers: Same Sex Marriage and Holy Matrimony” (October 2008): “Like all our prayer book liturgies, ‘what we pray is what we believe’. Our liturgy is the proclamation of our doctrine. When we use the prayer book and celebrate marriage as Episcopal/Anglican Christians, we say something about how we understand marriage and make a profession of faith.” See also Bishop’s Bruno’s letter referencing the study. Essays on liturgical resources in Catholic, Orthodox and Reformation traditions may be found in Eugene Rodgers, ibid., 45-70; see also Rodgers’ essay in the same volume, “Sanctification, Homosexuality, and God’s Triune Life,” especially the section entitled “Sexuality as Narrated Providence in Eastern Orthodoxy,” 238-242. Rodgers comments, “Gay and lesbian relationships must wait upon a churchly form--call it sacramental if you think of marriage as a sacrament—to give their holiness ecclesial shape, just as heterosexual relationships had to wait centuries for the church to integrate them fully into its life with heterosexual marriage forms. Conservatives are right to complain about what you might call unformed love: we must mine Scripture and tradition under the Spirit, who will enact new rules for us.” Rodgers continues, “If we want to see the Rule enacted who is the Spirit, we need to look to the liturgy—especially liturgies that tell stories of lives ruled by the Spirit, or inspired by the Rule.” He particularly cites the Orthodox Order of Crowning, in which “the appeal to God’s providence emerges from a catena of biblical and saintly examples, so that the economy of salvation of the couple before the congregation is incorporated into the economy of biblical history.” For more on the Orthodox ceremony see Paul Evdokimov, from “The Sacrament of Love: The Nuptial Mystery in the Light of the Orthodox Tradition” in ibid. 179-193.

 

[iii] Sacks, ibid., 3.

Marriage as Equal Partnership

Marriage as Equal Partnership:  The Argument from Creation (if not Nature)

The opening address of The Book of Common Prayer marriage rite, “The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage” (423) cites several sources of scriptural authority: “The bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in creation (Genesis 1:27; 2:23-24), and our Lord Jesus Christ adorned this manner of life by his presence and first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee (John 2:1-11). It signifies to us the mystery of the union between Christ and his Church (Ephesians 5:23, 32), and Holy Scripture commends it to be honored among all peoples” (Hebrews 13:4).

Although the more obvious reference to God establishing marriage in the order of nature is to Adam and Eve, the natural order of male and female sexual difference is first laid out in Genesis 1:27: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” This seminal passage, source for all imago dei theology, is also a rich source of scriptural reflection on natural sexual difference in humankind (literally, Adam): “In his image he created them, male and female he created them”—surely this means that his  (God’s) image includes male and female, as does Adam’s (humankind).

Later, in Genesis chapter 2, the genesis of human sexual difference is portrayed through a story of loneliness, sleep and divine surgery. God takes a part of Adam and fashions Eve. She is immediately recognized by Adam as the missing part of him—that which (in the immortal words of Jerry McGuire) “completes” him—“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman (ishah) for out of Man (ish) this one was taken.”  A narrative voice then comments: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife; and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:23-24).

For those who advocate same sex marriage an important question to answer is this: is this essential complementarity (as defenders of traditional marriage definitions call this part of their reasons to limit marriage to male and female) a complementarity of gender, or is there also a way in which it applies to same sex unions? To answer this question it is necessary to go back a few verses to the reason why God created Eve. It was because Adam was lonely: “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the human (Adam) should be alone; I will make him a helper (‘ezer) as his partner’” (Genesis 2:18). None of the other animals would do (“there was not found a helper as his partner” 2:20). So God made Eve. The key point is this: not even a human family and friends (mother and father, friends and siblings)—let alone an animal as pet-- will slake the longing for “a helper as his partner.”

What is interesting here is that the stated scriptural reason for the creation of Eve is not the “natural” (biological) reason for sexual differentiation (as a strategy for the procreation of the species). The stated scriptural reason for the creation of Eve is that Adam was lonely and needed a “helper as a partner.” As Phyllis Trible has taught, the Hebrew word for helper here can refer as well to God as to oxen—we are in need of helpers above and below.[i] But in this case our helper is to be an equal—a partner. As Trible notes, it is only as a consequence of the Fall that Adam “shall rule” over Eve (Genesis 3:16). The original pattern of equal creation in the image of God is being restored through the coming of Christ’s kingdom. One might think another human –a friend or family member—would do, but no, for there is a clear recognition of a special kind of intimacy, sexual union, between spouses: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (2:24). The “one flesh” union is a unique bond of intimacy and partnership; we are (most of us) lonely without it.

And in God’s original plan of creation this longing and union is good, as all creation is good, even very good: “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed”.[ii]  Of course the first marital argument and assignment of blame follows shortly thereafter, as does the begetting of generations, but this very order—that procreation comes after the Fall--shows that the first biblical principle of marriage is as the Book of Common Prayer suggests: “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 sand adversity; and [then], when it is God’s will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord” (BCP 423). This human need for equal partnership is obviously as great for people whose sexual orientation is toward members of their own gender as for heterosexual people. Nor, indeed, is the biological impulse for procreation necessarily limited. Social experience over time will allow a fuller test of child-raising by couples of the same sex. It is too early to tell, but certainly given the prevalence of divorce and single parents it is not the greatest threat to child welfare. Providing appropriate gender role modeling is a practical obstacle, not an insurmountable one.

 

Summary of the main points of this section: 1. The “one flesh” union is a unique bond of intimacy and partnership; we are (most of us) lonely without it. 2. This human need for equal partnership is obviously as great for people whose sexual orientation is toward members of their own gender as for heterosexual people.

---

 

[i] Phyllis Trible, “Eve and Adam: Genesis 2-3 Reread,” Andover Newton Quarterly 13 (March, 1973), reprinted in Womanspirit Rising: A Feminist Reader in Religion, ed. Carol P. Christ and Judith Plaskow (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), 74-83. See also Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality: Overtures to Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 88-105. Trible prefers the translation, “I will make a companion (‘ezer) corresponding to it,” instead of the NRSV, “ I will make him a helper as his partner.’ ibid., 90.

 

[ii] For less innocent sex read Paul on fornication with prostitutes: “Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, ‘The two shall become one flesh’.” (1 Corinthians 6:16)

 

Marriage as Covenant Faithfulness

Marriage as Covenant Faithfulness: The Bright Line of Biblical Sexual Ethics

Why only two persons? why not polygamy? If we’re changing the definition of marriage to include formerly disenfranchised classes of gays and lesbians, then surely observant Muslims and originalist Mormons will speak up soon in the courts. We may also encounter people who claim that their bisexual orientation cannot be satisfied in a partnership of two but needs a third—is there an argument from justice that would deny them? If there is one, I do not see it. Therefore I agree with conservative opponents of same sex marriage in foreseeing the possibility of civil marriages becoming no more than contracts among consenting adults. But the Church can insist on a further principle, the biblical principal of exclusive fidelity modeled on the covenant relationship between God and the People (Christ and the Church). This has not only a sacramental dimension, but also an experiential one. Our training in love and faithfulness with another person has implications for our ability to love and keep faith with God.[i] Furthermore I would claim (contra Walter Wink) that there is a clear biblical sexual ethic (and not just a changing set of sexual mores and an overall ethic of love).[ii] This is the line between faithfulness to one spouse and promiscuity, and it explicitly parallels the line between faithfulness to one God and idolatry.

The core covenantal principle is enunciated in Exodus: I will be your God and you shall be my people (Exod 19:5-6; Deut 29:12-15). It is an exclusive covenant: you shall have no other gods but me. Seeking after other gods is consistently likened to seeking after other lovers. The opening chapter of Isaiah makes it clear that this idolatry/harlotry is not only a matter of cultic observance or sexual mores, but injustice: “How the faithful city has become a whore! She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her—but now murderers!” (Isaiah 1:21). Jeremiah chapter two begins with the Lord “remembering the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride…Israel was holy to the Lord”—but proceeds to condemn the priests, who did not know God, the rulers (“shepherds”) who transgressed justice, and the prophets who  “prophesied by Baal”; they are all pimps. Again in chapter 4, “as a faithless wife leaves her husband, so you have been faithless to me, O house of Israel, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 3:20). Ezekiel has a blistering denunciation of the harlotry of Jerusalem (chapter 16), while Hosea is commanded “to take for yourself a wife of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord.” In due time “she conceived and bore a son [whose is unclear]. Then the Lord said, Name him ‘Lo-ammi’, for you are not my people, and I am not your God” (Hosea 1:9). The prophet Malachi makes an explicit connection between cultic unfaithfulness and marital unfaithfulness. The prophet complains that Judah has “been faithless and profaned the sanctuary of the Lord, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god” (Malachi 2;11). Two verses later the prophet turns to Israel and explains why his offerings are not accepted with favor: “Because the Lord was a witness between you and the wife of your youth to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (2:14). His idolatry parallels his adultery.

Yet despite all human unfaithfulness and injustice, God is characterized as the one who is always faithful and loving (hesed); though there is just punishment for sin, there is also final restoration. “On that day, says the Lord, you will call me ‘my husband’ and no longer will you call me ‘my Baal’…I will make for you a covenant on that day with the wild animals, the birds of the air, and the creeping things on the ground; and I will abolish the bow, the sword and war from the land; and I will make you lie down in safety, And I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. I will take you for my wife in faithfulness, and you shall know the Lord” (Hosea 2:16, 18-20). On that great (and terrible) day the prophet Malachi also sees a restoration of the family, embittered and divided by idolatry, injustice and sin, through the agency of a returning Elijah (we may read, Messiah): “He will turn the hearts of parents to their children, and the hearts of children to their parents” (Malachi 4:6).

God’s covenant with the people of Israel is restored and extended through the New Covenant made through the cross, which establishes Christ’s followers as his Body, given power and led “into all truth” by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). This relation of the ascended Christ as the Head of the Church, his earthly Body, is also portrayed in Ephesians (5:32) and Revelation (21:2) in terms of Christ as bridegroom and the church as bride. Hence marriage “signifies to us the mystery of the union between Christ and his Church” (BCP 423). What is of note about this union and partnership is that it is made through Christ’s self-giving (of his body and blood), and therefore calls for a continuing pattern of self-giving love (agape). Paul (or a follower) says that all marriages should be characterized by subjection to each other “out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 4:21)—so that even existing patterns of male headship should be understood in the light of servant leadership not domination. Indeed, in all areas Paul calls for a consistent ethic of self-giving love for the purpose of building up the body of Christ. We see then that Christian marriage is not only a mutual commitment (covenant) but an exchange of selves for life, in all conditions and of “all that I am and all that I have” (it is hard to defend prenuptial agreements as part of a Christian marriage)—and serves as form of training for spiritual love and faithfulness in all spheres of life and faith.

Christian marriage, a true and deep union of two “selves, souls and bodies,” is thus far from a contract for sharing sex, expenses and childcare. By its nature it precludes other “one flesh” commitments. Furthermore, by our union with Christ through faith into his body (the church), we are “temples of the Holy Spirit” and sanctified (set apart) from promiscuity. So Paul writes, “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute become one body with her? For it is said, ‘The two shall be one flesh’. But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun fornication (porneia)!” (1 Cor 6:15-18). Here we see clearly that “fornication”—sexual immorality, promiscuity—is not only a violation of a covenant between two people but “a sin against the body itself” (6:19), one’s own, one’s partner’s, and Christ’s.

A key text is Jesus teaching on Genesis 1:27 and 2:24: “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning made them male and female and said ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? so they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined let no one separate” (Matthew 19:4-8). I agree with the traditional interpretation that this means that God’s intention in creation is for marriage to be a lifelong, monogamous coupling, though this essay is an extended argument that God’s intention is not limited to male and females couples.

Against the objection that this passage clearly means that marriage is intended by God to be between a man and a woman, I would note that such a meaning is not as clear as it may seem from the close proximity of “made them male and female” and “for this reason.” In the passage from Matthew, Jesus is discussing divorce; that is why the argument leads to a “therefore” about the God-joined nature of marriage. To get to and make his point Jesus combines the Genesis 1 account of creation of male and female with another passage from Genesis 2 about the creation of Eve. But it is important to remember the original contexts of the statements: in the Genesis 1 passage the creation of humankind in two genders is followed by the command to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28), and this is why this text provides a clear and undisputed basis of our understanding of one of the purposes of marriage, procreation. But the Genesis 2 text is preceded by God’s concern over Adam’s loneliness; this is the antecedent of “for this reason”—not procreation or biological complementarity. The point is that there a number of reasons why marriage is a good and ought to be held in honor and supported by the community (and so divorce ought to be discouraged).

Nobody seeks to deny that one of the primary goods of marriage is to support the procreation and nurture of children; and humans are gendered for this very purpose (the Genesis 1 account). But in addition to creating people as “male and female” with a desire to bear and raise children, God has also created people as gifted with sexual desire for an equal partner (“for this reason” a person leaves his or her family and clings to the partner; so Genesis 2). But not all people are created with the same desires, either for children or for partners. There is a wonderful and mysterious and puzzling diversity of sexual attraction. Some forms of sexual attraction are sinful and pathological; they are, as the Roman Catholic tradition puts it, disordered. A very good analysis of this subject was made in the “Report on Human Sexuality” delivered to the Lambeth Conference 1998. In this report the authors, a broad cross section of theologians and leaders of the Anglican Communion, affirm that there are some forms of sexuality unambiguously good, such as the form that leads to stable monogamous marriage of man and woman and the raising of children. Others are unambiguously bad, such as those that exploit children and the vulnerable—pedophilia and prostitution for example—or demean the dignity of the persons involved. But the authors observed that there are other forms of sexual practice that are neither clearly right nor wrong; such, the report concludes, is faithful same sex partnership. The report recommends tolerance of the diversity of opinion on this contentious subject. But the report’s recommendations were jettisoned in favor of a majority statement of the Lambeth bishops that came out strongly against the possibility that holiness of life could include same sex partnerships. As Resolution I.10 unambiguously put it, “Homosexual practice is incompatible with scripture.” Thus a majority of bishops in the Anglican Communion affirmed their understanding of scripture. Yet, as one of the foundational documents of the Anglican Reformation tradition notes, “councils may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining to God,” (Articles of Religion, XXI, BCP 872).

 

Main points of this section: 1: We can discern a clear biblical and theological sexual ethic: on one side is covenant faithfulness (hesed) and self-giving love (agape), on the other idolatry and promiscuity (porneia) as a symptom of self-seeking and lack of self-control. Naturally we want to encourage the one and discourage the other. There is no good reason to suppose that all sexual acts between persons of the same sex fall into the category of fornication, any more than all sexual acts of people of the opposite sex do. The crucial test is whether the acts are within a relationship of faithfulness and self-giving love. Such relationships ought to be encouraged and blessed by the church and society—and such indeed is the function of marriage.

2. This clear biblical ethic rules against the extension of marriage into polygamy. By its nature as a covenant of faithfulness and equality (helpers as partners) it cannot be extended to more than two people. Every attempt to do so must fall into the well-observed problems of jealousy, domination and privilege. Together with the basic sin of promiscuity this list goes a fair way to filling what Paul calls “the works of the flesh”: “fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, envy, drunkenness and things like these” (Galatians 5:19-21).

Against the obvious objection that polygamy is part of the Biblical sexual ethic, considering that the Patriarchs had many wives—and this was seen as perfectly normal—it may be observed that although polygamy was certainly practiced, and not condemned, in Old Testament times, it is nowhere proscribed or valorized in Holy Scripture, except in the practice of taking a brother’s childless widow as a wife (levirate marriage), rather than letting her fend for herself or seek a return to her birth family (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). In the Hebrew Scriptures the preferred model is clearly monogamous: Adam and Eve and Abraham and Sarah. The multiple wives of Moses, Jacob, David and Solomon are portrayed as incidental to the story (Moses), accidental (Jacob and Leah) or a positive impediment to righteousness (David and Solomon), with foreign (strategic alliance) wives in particular mistrusted as advocates of idolatry. The tradition had stabilized in favor of monogamy by the time of Jesus, and it seems fair to extend his comment on divorce—that it was allowed in the Mosaic Law on account of the people’s “hardheartedness”--to a similar allowance for polygamy (or serial monogamy) on account of contingent factors (mostly the need to fulfill the commandment “be fruitful and multiply” or to create strategic or economic alliances). In later tradition, Augustine commented on “the mysterious difference in times” that God has ordained, such that, “In those days [speaking of the patriarchs] it was even permissible for husbands who could have children to take other wives in order to produce more numerous progeny, which is something that is certainly not allowed today.” Whereas “today a man who does not marry even one wife does the better thing, unless he cannot remain continent.”[iii]

3. This ethic of covenant faithfulness is completely congruent with the “holiness of life” standard we expect Christians to aim for, and demand of those ordained as clergy. [iv]  A frequently heard argument in support of same sex unions is that they can and do display the “fruit of the Spirit” (love, patience, kindness, self-control etc; Galatians 5:22).[v] And so the full inclusion of gay and lesbian persons into the life and sacraments of the Church may be part of a new leading by the Holy Spirit, a teaching that the church was not ready for until now: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear to hear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes he will guide into all the truth” (John 16:12-13). Lest proponents of inclusion become too self-convinced, however, it is good to remember that Jesus also said this, “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have said to you” (14:26).  There is a tension between the prophetic role of calling the people forward in hope and back to a renewed covenant faithfulness and the enduring commandments of Christ. This is the task of discerning the truth, in theory and in practice. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments, and I will ask the Father to give you another Advocate to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of Truth” (John 14:15-16).

---

[i] Marriage not only trains us in faithfulness but teaches us something about God’s love and faithfulness: See Rogers, ibid., 218, “Marriage is peculiarly suited to teaching God’s desire for humans beings because it mirrors God’s choosing of human beings for God’s own.” See also Rowan D. Williams’ celebrated essay, “The Body’s Grace.” (reprinted in the same volume, 209-321).

 

[ii] Walter Wink, “Homosexuality and the Bible” (available in a pdf file or included in Wink, ed., Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of Conscience for the Churches. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 44, “The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no Biblical sex ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.”

 

[iii] From “The Good of Marriage”  XV, in Rodgers, ibid., 82.

 

[iv] The standard for a Christian marriage or faithful partnership is set out in Resolution D039 of the 73^rd General Convention of the Episcopal Church (2000): The Episcopal Church has called all in relationships of sexual intimacy to the standard of life-long commitment “characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication” and the “holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.” Cited in To Set Our Hope, 26, para. 2.25.

 

[v] See for instance To Set Our Hope, 1.4 (Introduction), and 2.0-2.1 (“Discerning Holiness in the Members of Christ’s Body”), 4; 8-9.

Marriage as Protection against Porneia

Marriage as Protection against Porneia

Marriage is not only a monogamous “one flesh union” but also a hedge against sexual immorality. Marriage is what makes sex safe, as well as sanctified. There can be a difference of Christian opinion about the permissibility of adult sexual relationships outside of marriage, in certain circumstances (again, the question of what constitutes pornia, or sexual immorality). But adultery within a marriage is clearly a sin and breaking of covenant. Nevertheless, after one has made vows of lifelong fidelity, sexual desire does not disappear, nor does it miraculously stay focused on one’s spouse. Though the thrill of the chase is over and the candles of romance less frequently lit, eros remains a powerful force. This is one of the reasons why we need a helper who is also a partner. Paul has liberal advice for the frequency of sex—whenever either partner desires it, unless both spouses agree to a season of abstinence and prayer: “Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind” (1 Cor. 6:5-7).

Paul writes as a celibate man, and commends celibacy for the unmarried in light of the urgency of the Christian mission and the imminence of the end of the world. Celibacy remains an honorable and high calling and condition of life. But there is no reason, biblical, theological or experiential, to suppose that gay and lesbian persons are particularly gifted at celibacy, and therefore it ought to follow that Paul’s advice to “the unmarried and the widows” also applies to them: “it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (6:8-9).

This understanding of the gift of celibacy accords with that of Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 19. In response to the disciples’ objection to their teacher’s strict prohibition on divorce-- “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:11)--Jesus said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching [not to marry], but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth [naturally asexual], who have been made eunuchs by others [castrated], and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven [celibate]. Let anyone accept this who can” (19:11-12). On the grounds of these passages, John Calvin rejected clerical celibacy as a mandate for all than rather than as a particular gift for some: “But this is to tempt God: to strive against the nature imparted by him, and to despise his present gifts as if they did not belong to us at all.”[i]

 

Main point of this section: there is no reason, biblical, theological or experiential, to suppose that gay and lesbian persons are particularly gifted at celibacy—therefore it ought to follow that Paul’s advice to “the unmarried and the widows” also applies to them: “it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (1 Corinthians 6:8-9).

---

 

[i] Calvin, Institutes, Vol. 21, Bk 4, Ch. 13, Par. 3, 1257; cited in Christopher Morse, “Has Mrs. Spaulding Been Addressed?”—a response to Richard Norris’ unfinished paper, “Some Notes on the Current Debate Regarding Homosexuality and the Place of Homosexuals in the Church,” published in The Anglican Theological Review, Volume 90, Number 3 (summer 2008), 554. See also Morse, “Being Human Sexually,” in Not Every Spirit: A Dogmatics of Christian Disbelief  (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994), 273-284.

 

Part II: Practice

Part II. Practice

Three more specific and practical questions were raised in the “Bishop’s Address at Annual Convention” (10/25/2008): 1. Are priests ordained in the Episcopal Church permitted to officiate at civil marriages of gay and lesbian couples? 2. What standards of commitment should we have for ordained deacons and priests (or bishops) who are in same-sex relationships? 3. In all things, how can we be the face of Christ, to invite, welcome and pastorally care for seekers and believers who are gay and lesbian, including those who seek to be married?

 

I joined my parish in objecting to the consecration of Bishop Robinson because I thought it would lead to schism, and because I thought the church had not yet settled on a clear rationale concerning the doctrine of marriage and its application to gay and lesbian unions—and it seemed to me this ought precede the consideration of ordination, especially to the episcopate. As events since then have shown, there was some truth in that—but the die was cast. Both preceding that parish letter and in subsequent years I have followed the matter closely and read extensively in the literature. This essay—and I apologize for its length—is at least the distillation of some of my reflections on the need for shoring up biblical arguments in favor of same sex union, if for no one else then at least for me, for whom biblical authority is a key ingredient in weighing whether developments are consonant with the will of God and the mind of Christ.

I have come to a settled mind concerning the arguments in favor in favor of a change in the doctrine of marriage, and consequently a return to consistency in the canonical requirements for ordination. The arguments laid out in this essay are weighty enough at least to justify my support, if not convincing to those who follow a more traditionalist line. I am eager to see the church implement changes in its doctrine and practice, but I remain a moderate in respect to the pace of change. I believe we are well served to change doctrines at (at least) a national level—and in conference with our brothers and sisters in the worldwide Anglican Communion, while allowing a degree of latitude and local option to the diocesan level. This is of course being worked out in practice now. In the particular case at hand I advocate this:

1. We should not permit priests of this diocese to officiate at same sex marriages until the rite of marriage has been changed through two successive General Conventions. This demonstrates that we take seriously and faithfully the “doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church” to which we have vowed obedience. It is hypocritical to wish to evade some canons while enforcing others (such as enforcing diocesan boundaries and claiming all church properties). Furthermore, the House of Bishops has also agreed to abide by a promise to keep the “three moratoria.” The Anglican Church of Canada has recently met as a house of bishops and decided to support the Archbishop of Canterbury’s call for “gracious restraint” as the process of designing an Anglican Covenant is completed.[i] We ought to follow their example—as they indeed have been struggling with how to respond to legalization of same sex marriage for a number of years. However we may and ought to support a change in rite, beginning at GC 2009, even though this strains the moratorium on blessing same sex unions. For this process will go hand in hand with a consideration of our willingness to live in covenant relation with our other partners in the AC. We need to be honest about our intentions, but not unilateral or hegemonic in our decisions.

2. Clergy or candidates for ordinations living in same sex relationships should get married in a civil ceremony.  It would, of course, be desirable to have a full Christian marriage ceremony, but such will not be immediately available if we follow the counsel above. Nevertheless the lack of the perfect should not prevent the attainment of the good. It is a matter of simple fairness that all clergy should abide by the same requirement for “holiness of life.” Cohabitation--or any sex outside of marriage-- is not an option for heterosexuals; it should not be either for gays and lesbians. Civil marriage may not be full Holy Matrimony, but it is certainly a binding contract that demands strong commitment. This is what we ask of some; it should be asked of all.

         3. As a provisional step, and providing the House of Bishops and General Convention approve, both clergy and lay gay and lesbian members of our diocese who are civilly married should have the opportunity to receive a blessing, provided that the congregations support the couple and the bishop approves the rite of blessing. Although I know that this also violates the moratorium on the blessing of same sex unions I consider the rite “The Blessing of a Civil Marriage” to be a public reaffirmation of a prior commitment. In other words, the blessing is not a sacrament. The “performative utterance” that accomplishes the marriage has already been made; this service only repeats it. Furthermore, it requires no change in language, only a repetition of one part rather than a use of both (either husband and wife said twice), except in the exchange of rings at the end. It seems to me reasonable then to treat the use of this rite as a provisional step in accommodating a clear change in status for those living in states that allow same sex marriage (namely that they can be legally married and so be “eligible” to receive a blessing on their civil marriage).  Of course it signals the church’s acceptance of a disputed change in doctrine—but this is why indeed I would like to see the step approved by the General Convention even though it may not yet be applicable to many dioceses. Nevertheless, I am hesitant in proceeding unilaterally. “The local Church alone is never the entire Church” (Archbishop Rowan Williams, First Presidential address at 2008 Lambeth Conference).[ii] It may be best to continue the current policy of permitting special prayers within a community Eucharist, without however permitting a “marriage like” exchange of vows or priestly blessing.

---

 

[i] A Statement from the House of Bishops (Anglican Church of Canada). The conclusion reads: “As a result of these conversations a large majority of the House can affirm the following:

A continued commitment to the greatest extent possible to the three moratoria -- on the blessing of same-sex unions, on the ordination to the episcopate of people in same-sex relationships and on cross-border interventions -- until General Synod 2010. Members of this House, while recognizing the difficulty that this commitment represents for dioceses that in conscience have made decisions on these matters, commit themselves to continue walking together and to hold each other in prayer.

The House also affirms:

A commitment to establishing diocesan commissions to discuss the matter of same-sex blessings in preparation for conversations at General Synod 2010.

Continued commitment to exercise the greatest level of pastoral generosity in keeping with provisions approved by this House in Spring, 2007 and continued commitment to the Shared Episcopal Ministry document approved in Fall, 2004.

We ask for your continuing prayers as we steadfastly seek to discern the mind and heart of Christ for the wholesome care of all members of his Body, the Church. We share a deep hope that though we may never come to consensus over this matter of the blessing of same-sex unions, we will live with differences in a manner that is marked by grace and generosity of spirit, one toward another.

October 31, 2008

 

See also the article on diocesan reactions, especially that of the diocese of New Westminster, which has allowed the blessing of same sex unions in six parishes since 2002—although refraining from allowing more in response to the call for a moratorium.

 

[ii] It is worthwhile to reflect seriously on Archbishop William’s thoughts concerning covenant, both in terms of our relation with partners in the Anglican Communion, and in the context of a discussion about the covenant of marriage. Excerpts from his Lambeth addresses are may be found in the concluding pages of A Lambeth Commentary on the Saint Andrew’s Draft for an Anglican Covenant. http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/docs/a_lambeth_commentary.pdf