Towards a Christian Approach to Gay Marriage, Part II: Biblical Views on Marriage & the Implications

Defining Our Terms

Before beginning conversations about topics that invite disagreement, I like to start by defining the terms. Oftentimes, when two people disagree, it seems almost like they are speaking different languages. We're using the same words, but mean very different things. The current disagreement is but a manifestation of a deeper disagreement about language and meaning.

This is certainly true with regard to the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.

So, before we talk about gay marriage, we need to define our terms. We'll start with the general term, marriage. As I mentioned in the previous post, before we look at same-sex marriage, we must first define marriage in general.

What is marriage? It sounds like a simple question, right? But, as it turns out, this question is much more complicated than it first appears.

What is marriage? Well, it depends on who you ask.

Within the Christian tradition, Catholics differ very much from Congregationalists, who differ greatly from Presbyterians. And we Baptists, as we often do, differ mightily with each other. Jews and Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, and more -- all have their own views on marriage. Then there are understandings of marriage that are more secular in nature.

In short, when we talk about marriage, we're not talking about just one thing. This is an important point when Christians look to the Bible for guidance.

From a Christian perspective, it's important to understand the big picture. What marriage means has changed many times over the course of history -- from the Old Testament to the New Testament, across 2,000 years of Christian history spread across every continent, down to today. This is not the first time conservatives in the church have defended a "traditional" view of marriage, nor is this the first time progressives in the church have pushed for a redefinition of marriage.

It's healthy, I would say, to reexamine beliefs from time to time. Marriage has evolved, and it will continue to evolve. Before we look to the future, though, it's important to understand the past.

Here's how we'll proceed:

1. First, we'll look at what the Old Testament has to say about marriage.
2. We'll turn then to the New Testament to see what it says.
3. After laying out the biblical view -- or shall I say views, plural? -- we'll examine them, comparing and contrasting what's in the Bible with 21st century belief and practice.
4. Finally, we'll consider the implications for same-sex marriage.

Old Testament Views on Marriage

Marriage in the Old Testament (OT) is not especially complicated. Overall, the various texts speak with one voice: Marriage between man and woman is the normative way of life. Singleness and other arrangements against the norm are looked upon with suspicion.

Patriarchy is the rule, with the husband being the head of the household. In fact, the Hebrew word for master (baal) is occasionally applied to the husband. The wife -- indeed, the female in general -- is valued as property. She is first the possession of her father, who then makes a business transaction with a man or his family, whereby the woman is transferred over a new ownership. Thus, the woman, now as wife, becomes the property of her husband.

Biologically speaking, the purpose of marriage is to extend the family and the bloodline. In other words, marriage is about procreation -- especially of male offspring. Yet, since the family is the locus of the religious experience in the OT, marriage also has a religious purpose.

The family existed within a tribe or clan, which existed within the framework of the nation. The larger community is more than merely a political organization; it is also a religious community.  Indeed, Israel is a religious community first of all. Although there is some evidence that Israel accepted converts, the primary means of expanding or replenishing the religious community is through childbirth. Thus, marriage in the OT is ultimately about the survival of the people.

The presence and action of God is connected concretely to human sexuality and material bodies. In other words, God cannot be purely spiritualized. If God works through bodies, though, there are definite limits in the OT. Not only are certain sexual acts prohibited, but marriage itself is the boundary between acceptable sex and sinful sex.

Divorce, however, was allowed; there was a fence around marriage, but it had a way out. Indeed, the OT has a very broad understanding of divorce. If the purpose of marriage is to produce offspring, divorce and Levirate marriage can be legitimized. Polygamy can also be understood in this context. In short, procreation was so important that liberties could be taken in order to ensure an heir.

To review, marriage is relatively simply and straight-forward: It is normative from the OT perspective. Its purpose is to sustain and extend the family and the community through procreation, which is understood as a sign of God’s blessing. God is intimately involved in the life of the people, even working through sex. Yet, God’s work through sex is understood primarily as occurring within the institution of marriage.

New Testament Views on Marriage

Marriage becomes immensely less clear in the New Testament (NT). The political climate is vastly different from that of the OT. Whereas the religious and the political in the OT were one, such was no longer the case in the NT -- at least, not with regard to Christianity.

In such a political climate, it makes sense to join together with those you can trust. But the biological family could not necessarily be trusted. Even Jesus didn't recognize his biological family as his true family (Lk. 8.19-21), and he requires those who would follow him to “hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters” (Lk.14.26).

Furthermore, Jesus announced the arrival of the Jubilee, the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven. Then, Jesus was raised from the dead, followed by the Holy Spirit coming down at Pentecost. The end was at hand, and a radically new lifestyle was implemented in the early church.

And so family is radically redefined in the NT. Family is no longer husband, wife, and children. For the church, the religious community is now the family. Indeed, Jesus says, “whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Mt. 12.50). The church a fictive family of strangers, transformed and joined together into one body for a common purpose, pitching into the communal pot to meet the needs of the family.

More important is the NT model of (re)generation. Of course, natural procreation still requires the sex act. Yet, the new family now operates according to the law of adoption. New members are no longer welcomed at biological birth, but rather at the new birth into the new family. Blessing is no longer associated with sexual fertility and procreation, but rather obedience to God (Lk.11.27-28). And the church looks to Abraham as its ancestor, not because of biological or tribal connection, but through faith (Luke 3.8). 

How, in light of the situation of the early church, would marriage be understood? Recall that Jesus requires that his disciples hate their spouses. In the age to come, following the resurrection of the dead, “they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven,” (Mk.12.18-27).  Furthermore, Jesus never married; nor did Paul. In fact, Paul reflects on the topic of marriage:

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am.....I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that, in the view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are...Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife (1 Cor. 7. 8, 25-27).

Not only should marriage be avoided, but those with spouses should “be as though they had none” (1 Cor. 7.29). It would seem, therefore, that Jesus has brought a new situation where marriage is, at the very least, no longer normative -- and quite possibly something to be avoided altogether.

However, Paul states in the very same passage that, although it is better to refrain from sex and marriage, they are not inherently sinful. “[B]ecause of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband....if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion....if you marry, you do not sin” (1 Cor. 7.2, 9, 28). The point Paul is making here is that married people have to worry about their spouses and children, whereas those who are single and chaste can devote their whole selves to the will of God (1 Cor. 7. 32-35). Still, it is better to have competing interests than to fall into sexual sin.

Over against these negative voices, however, are some passages praising and supporting the institution of marriage. It is suggested, for example, that Jesus has no problems celebrating marriages,

as he performed his first miracle at one (Jn. 2.1-12); if he attends weddings, he tacitly gives his approval to marriage. And if he enjoys himself, or at least helps others enjoys themselves, his approval becomes more explicit.

The author of Hebrews is unambiguous: “Let marriage be held in honor by all” (Heb. 13.4). In other passages, marriage is just presupposed. For example, Paul writes that “each one of you [to] know how to control your own body [or RSV: take a wife] in holiness and honor” (1 Thess. 4.4).  Paul also assumes leaders in the church will be married when he writes guiding Timothy (1 Tim. 3.1-13) and Titus (2.3-5).

Therefore, to summarize: a NT understanding of marriage is ambiguous. If Jesus and Paul are our primary guides, a strong case can be made against marriage; it need not necessarily be a sin to be placed lower on the sexual hierarchy of the church. However, neither Jesus nor Paul are unequivocal on the matter in either direction.

Biblical Views & Today's World

First, the OT.

Do we understand marriage to be primarily about procreation? In 21st century American churches, I see little evidence of such a view. We have no problem with elderly people getting married, even when procreation is no longer a possibility. We also accept as valid marriage of couples who can't, or choose not to, have children. In short, we see marriage as a good in itself -- and, while it often results in procreation, it does not have to.

Furthermore, we flatly reject the sexual hierarchy OT marriage is built on. For us, marriage is about equal partners, not an exchange of property (the female) between two males.

In short, 21st century Christians by and large reject the OT understanding of marriage.

Now, the NT.

It's more difficult to speak to marriage in the NT because the voices within the NT are less unified and because those voices themselves are less clear. But the main thrust of the teachings of Jesus and Paul is that marriage is at least problematic.

Jesus calls his disciples to hate their spouses -- and modern Christians are so uncomfortable with this teaching that even the most literal fundamentalists insist on a nonliteral interpretation here. Likewise, when Jesus speaks of the end of marriage in the age to come, modern Christians are slow to want to apply that in the here and now.

What about Paul? I've not heard of any group of Christians trying to apply his teaching. Singleness is still seen as suspect in most churches.

In short, 21st century Christians have great difficulty with most NT teachings about marriage.

Implications

First, given the fact that marriage evolved over the course of biblical history, it cannot be argued that a change in the status quo is necessarily bad. It may be, but the Bible tells the story of the status quo of marriage being challenged. Therefore, whatever decision we come to, we must at least be open to change.

If we assume an OT perspective on marriage, then same-sex marriage is obviously unacceptable. However, most 21st century Christians, at least in the West, find the OT model unacceptable on many levels. What does this mean for how we might see same-sex marriage?

If procreation no longer has to be what justifies a marriage, then a door is open for same-sex partners. In this regard, two male partners are no different than an infertile heterosexual couple or an elderly heterosexual couple.

That said, even within an OT model, two female partners could procreate using in vitro fertilization, much in the same way that a heterosexual couple could procreate if the male were infertile. In addition, procreation no longer requires biological heirs; same-sex partners can procreate through adoption.

Thus, the OT perspective on marriage does not preclude our acceptance of same-sex partners joining together. Now, there may be other reasons to not accept same-sex marriage, but appealing to OT views on marriage won't suffice.

What about the NT? Well, the prevailing view is that singleness is preferred. However, since churches don't hold heterosexuals to this standard, it's hard to see how anyone could make this the standard for homosexuals.

But one could use Paul's allowance of marriage (e.g., if your passions are too strong, then marriage is an acceptable way to prevent sin) to make an interesting argument in favor of same-sex marriage. If heterosexual couples are allowed to marry if they can't control their passions, what's stopping us from applying this passage to homosexual couples as well? 

At any rate, the NT does reject the necessity of procreation in marriage -- and that in itself opens the door for same-sex couples.

On the whole, though, the NT lacks the robust theology of marriage that the OT has. And this ambiguity about marriage allows a great deal of latitude for speculation and new possibilities.

In sum, while there may be other reasons to reject same-sex marriage (e.g., if same-sex relations are wrong -- stay tuned, though, because we'll get to that question next), appealing to biblical definition(s) of marriage alone is inadequate.

*          *          *

Stayed tuned. The next post will look at Old Testament verses that apply, or have been understood to apply, to the question of homosexuality. After that, we'll look at the New Testament. And then we'll make some recommendations.

Toward a Christian Approach to Gay Marriage, Part I

After the Supreme Court ruling, which made same-sex marriage across the nation, I began a series of lessons to help our Sunday School class put the decision in context. I will be transcribing those lessons into a series of blog posts. The point is not to tell anyone what to think - I have my own opinions for sure, but this series is not about that - but rather to provide the necessary context for people to form more informed opinions.

Here's an outline of how we will proceed:

• First, before we talk about same-sex marriage, we have to talk about marriage in general. What does the Bible say about marriage? What about marriage excludes the inclusion of same-sex partners? Here, I'll say that there are multiple definitions of marriage (there's the Old Testament, the New Testament, nearly 2,000 years of Christian history, and finally the legal definition in America), so it depends on which one you use.
• Then, we will go through all the passages in the Bible that mention, or are sometimes thought to mention, homosexuality. There are six or seven passages that apply here. We'll ask what they meant, historically and for us. I'm no expert, but I did take two years of Greek for translation and will look back at the Greek to help us. (Sorry, I never took any Hebrew. The three OT passages don't have any disputed translation anyway.) I'll go ahead and tip my hand a little: The Bible is not as clear on the issue as you've been led to believe.
• Lastly, we will make some modest suggestions about how Christians might proceed. Here, the main point will be that we need to speak with more humility about "what the Bible says." We'll need to get comfortable with a less firm foundation.

Stay tuned for more...

On Riots: A Challenge to White People in America

I am not in favor of violence. I do not approve of riots. Judging the riots in Baltimore yesterday as wrong is entirely appropriate.

But, lest you be too quick to make an easy judgment, it may do you some good to think about what you would do if you lived in West Baltimore.

Imagine living amidst violence, or the threat of violence, on a daily basis. Imagine not trusting, or even being afraid of, the police. Imagine being confronted by police armed with riot gear when you exit school, being denied the right to get on a bus to go home to safety, being herded into a small public space and not being allowed to leave.

At what point would your anger erupt.

Langston Hughes, in his famous poem, "Harlem," expresses this eruption well:

What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore--
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over--
like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?

Were I a teenager, I very well may have been involved in the type of rioting we saw in Baltimore yesterday. Now, my teenage years were nothing like those experienced in Gilmore Homes, where Freddie Gray was arrested. But I did have my run-ins with the cops, despite the fact that I wasn't doing anything wrong or breaking any laws. In my hometown, riding a skateboard was enough to draw the ire of the police.

Even though the preps and the rednecks both congregated in groups of 30 or 40 in the grocery story parking lot, drinking beer underage and disturbing shoppers, the police never messed with them. But they never missed an opportunity to stop us.

And so, when my friends and I saw a police cruiser, we would take off, just like Freddie Gray did. We had experienced enough harassment. We didn't run because we had done anything wrong; we ran because we were tired of being harassed for no reason.

We were angry.

Angry.

By no means do I mean to equate my experience with theirs. But what I do intend is to draw a parallel, a way for me (and you?) to understand why one would start or join a riot. Not to justify rioting, but to understand the forces behind a riot.

One of my favorite songs in high school was Rancid's "I Wanna Riot," and I think it does a good job expressing the tension that leads to rioting. When I was angry, this was the soundtrack in my head. I felt helpless, powerless, voiceless - as teenagers often do - and the lines, "'Cause I'm a kid who's got a lot of problems / If I throw a brick, maybe the brick will go and solve them," spoke to me.

Did I actually have a lot of problems? No. But, then again, I lived in Warner Robins, Georgia, not West Baltimore.

Here's the thing, though: If, in my relative comfort, the anger that built up inside me when the police harassed us for skateboarding made me drawn to violence, just imagine what living with the weight of a dream deferred for generations will do for you.

I understand the impulse towards violence. All too well, I understand it. That's one reason why, in college, I was drawn to Stanley Hauerwas, the Duke professor of theological ethics, and pacifist, who was named TIME magazine's Theologian of the Year in 2001.

"I'm a pacifist," Hauerwas said, "because I'm a violent son of a bitch."

For Hauerwas, though, one can only be a pacifist in community, a community of shared beliefs that shares in the practice of nonviolence. Hauerwas said that he needed others to help him resist his violent tendencies, to hold him accountable to his beliefs that violence is wrong, to call him out on his violence.

But what happens when we lack such a community?

Listen to Ta-Nehisi Coates, writing for The Atlantic, respond to the calls for nonviolence in Baltimore:

When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con.

 It's one thing when a community of nonviolence, like the one Hauerwas describes, calls members of that community to uphold their commitment to nonviolence. It's another thing entirely for members of a violent community to call for nonviolence when those who have felt the brunt of its violence get fed up and lash out.

And yet that's exactly what's happening.

Coates goes on:

And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the community.

The point isn't to defend violence or to justify riots. I can't say it enough: Violence, of any kind, is wrong.

But it's not that simple. It's especially not that simple for white people. And it's especially not that simple when white people critique Black violence.

I think back to James Cone, the Black liberation theologian, who expressed his frustration with the (white) Christian response to the riots during the Civil Rights Movement:

The most sensitive whites merely said: "We deplore the riots but sympathize with the reason for your riots." ...That response was not only humiliating and insulting but wrong. It revealed not only an insensitivity to black pain and suffering but also...a theological bankruptcy. The education of white theologians did not prepare them to deal with Watts, Detroit, and Newark.

We should add Baltimore. And Ferguson. And many more.

No, violence is not wise, is not correct.

But neither is defending what Coates calls "the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the community." This is especially true when that law and order has white skin and that community has brown skin. Such law and order has lost its legitimacy. And those who defend such illegitimacy have lost their own legitimacy.

As Cone said, "How did whites muster the gall to lecture oppressed blacks about love and nonviolence? How could whites be surprised by the anger of American blacks?"

The problem, though, is that, like Cone said, we (white people) are not prepared to deal with Baltimore. We know that violence is wrong - it is wrong, after all - and yet calling for nonviolence reveals "an insensitivity to black pain."

I think back to one of my heroes, Will Campbell, one of the leading white people behind the scenes of the Civil Rights Movement. In the early 1960s, Brother Will, as he was known, accepted Stokely Carmichael's challenge for white people to stop worrying about what Black people ought to do and start worrying about what white people ought to do. And so Campbell started reaching out to Klan members and ministering to them.

What if we accepted Carmichael's challenge today? What would that look like?

I think Carmichael would tell white people today to stop worrying about Black people rioting and start worrying about the violent actions of white police, not to mention the tone-deaf statements of white politicians.

Are you up for that challenge?

Guest Blogging on RTI²

I'm exciting to be contributing a series on RTI² over at Bluff City Ed and invite you to check it out.

For those who don't know what RTI² is - and that's most people, really - think of it as a support system for struggling students. It's the extra help, called interventions, that about 15-20% of kids need.

__

Sixteen scholars entered our school in 6^th grade this year as non-readers. Non-readers, meaning they did not even have a grasp on basic letter-sound correspondence. That’s over 15% of our population, which is consistent with what we saw last year. Obviously, there’s a problem when so many kids go through six years of elementary school without learning how to read.

This is a big reason why, about a year ago, Tennessee announced an exciting new education reform initiative, RTI².

__

To learn more about RTI² and how it can benefit kids like our non-readers, hop over to Bluff City Ed to read more.