Marriage and Gays, the continuing debate

A small majority of California voters overturned a judicial ruling that opened marriage to gays and lesbians (Prop 8). That decision, may or may not be overturned, but whatever the decision the debate will continue.

Opponents of gay marriage will say that it undermines traditional marriage. Many will turn to the Bible and say that the Bible forbids such unions, but not only that, it insists on a definition of marriage that requires marriage to be between and man and a woman.

An excellent essay in Newsweek by Lisa Miller points out the many problems with this claim. To say that traditional monogamy is the "biblical pattern" is to essentially remove the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) from the conversation. There are any number of examples of polygamy in the OT -- from Abraham to David. As for the New Testament, there is little there that defines traditional marriage. Jesus was, of course, single, and he didn't ever come across as a "pro-family" kind of guy. Paul was single as well, and while one could debate the use of 1 Corinthians 7 in defining Paul's view of marriage -- it would be difficult to use him to define traditional marriage. Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Peter utilize traditional family codes, but none of these are considered Pauline.

Miller writes:

To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

In the article Miller points out that modern marriage is very different from any thing conceived of in biblical times. We continue to redefine it in our culture -- indeed the modern understanding of egalitarian marriage would be unknown to most people just a few decades back.

So, what do we do? Miller points to a statement from Walter Brueggemann that suggests that the argument for gay marriage isn't found in specific texts, but in the message of inclusion that is inherent in the biblical message.

In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, cites the story of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well— no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend—as evidence of Christ's all-encompassing love. The great Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ." The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness."

This is an excellent piece that is worth looking at very closely. This is an issue that will continue to bedevil our culture and the church itself. The movement of society is toward inclusion. We are at a similar point as we were in the 19th century with slaves and with women. Society is moving -- will we respond in kind? When we speak of being missional, we speak of joining with God in the work that God is doing in the world. Is it possible that God is at work already, seeking to include those we have excluded? Do we need a new Pentecost (Acts 10)?

H/T to James McGrath for alerting me to the essay.