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?
[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 74th 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?”
No comments:
Post a Comment