Let’s discuss marriage, biblically
speaking. Jesus says, “For this reason a man shall leave his
father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become
one flesh.” He then goes on to say, “Whoever divorces his wife
and marries another commits adultery.” (Mark 10:7-10) How
is it then that we not only allow, but sanction such marriages in the
church? There are, of course, many churches which do not. We
are not one of those. Why? Because we recognize that the
Bible contains many conditional truths particular to the historical
circumstances of their time which do not apply today. Were that
not so, we would teach that women who are not virgins at the time of
their marriage may be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-21), that men may
have more than one wife (Ex. 21:10, Deut. 21:15), that men should not
marry foreign women (Neh. 12:23-27), and that Christians should not
marry unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14).
My point is simply this: the
biblical standard for marriage is not a once and for all decree, but an
evolving ethic which has changed along with cultural norms. Who
today would advocate that rape victims must marry their rapists?
That was once the “Biblical” norm. (Deut. 22:28)
Biblical norms, however, change. This is especially clear in the
first example cited above. If you divorce and marry someone else,
you are committing adultery, no exceptions. But look what happens
when Matthew writes his Gospel, some 20 years after Mark. In
Matthew’s version of the same event, Jesus allows for the exception of
unchastity. (Matthew 19:9--Note, however, that Matthew’s version
only speaks to men who divorce their wives whereas Mark 10 speaks to
both.) How do we explain the variation? It is simple,
really. The early Christian community found in their midst good,
faithful, divorced members who sought to re-marry. The exception
was created for their benefit and included in Matthew’s gospel as
their witness to the will of God in that time and place. That is
the opinion of most NT scholars I know. There are other
interpretations of such variations, but I have found none that make
better sense.
The question today is, of course, shall
we change that standard again to include same-sex couples? Let me
put it this way. When the socially accepted norm allows for pop
singer Britney Spears to marry her childhood friend on a whim, a
marriage recognized by all 50 states before it was annulled less than 48
hours later, but does not allow committed couples of 20 to 30 years who
have successfully raised families to marry because of their sexual
orientation, something is amiss. It is my personal opinion that
same-sex couples should be allowed to marry to reflect our emerging
understanding of sexual orientation, an understanding that did not exist
in Biblical times. (For my sermon on this topic, see the link
for 5/28/2000.) And I stress personal because we do not
have any policy on such from our church, nor is it my intention to ask
for any.
I do ask for dialogue on the topic,
however, and I welcome opposing views. My hope has always been
that we will be a church that includes a broad range of views for that
is precisely the point of the old motto, “no creed but Christ.”
If we exclude gay couples, married or not, we make homophobia part of
our creed. By the same token, if we exclude those opposed to
same-sex relationships, we make acceptance of such relationships part of
our creed. But if Christ is our only creed, then we will include
both while we seek to understand each as Christian brothers and sisters.
And make no mistake, there are in our midst, including in our
congregation, gay and lesbian couples who are just as faithful
Christians as any of the rest of us. And if God has blessed their
relationship by virtue of their love and commitment to each other, who
are we to withhold ours? That is my view. What is yours?