Gay Marriage (Readings Ephesians 5.25-33; Matthew19.1-12)
Introduction
Our parish’s Lent course this year followed the Church of England’s Living in Love and Faith course as we accepted the Church’s invitation to join in the (yet further!) discussion around issues of sexuality, gender and so on. Our vicar was a bit disappointed at the relatively low (but still healthy, I maintain) attendance. Some, she suggested, felt no need to be involved because they were already sure of their opinion. Maybe so.
As the course drew to its close, I was asked to preach a sermon addressing the issue of same sex marriage. Does the idea make sense? Is it theological nonsense, even if we are accepting of same sex relationships? I ended up preaching (almost) the same sermon at our two churches, and for those who may be interested, here is a sort of conflation of the two.
I don’t claim there is any new insight or argument here, but it may of of interest to whoever stumbles across it….
Tom (N.T.) Wright, noted New Testament scholar, told a story once (well, to be honest, probably quite a few times, but I only heard it once) about an encounter in a London cab.
Driver: Purple shirt? The means you’re a bishop, right? You’ve got a lot on with all this discussion about gay sex and stuff.
Tom: Well, it’s a bit complicated…
Driver: What I don’t understand is that if God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, the rest is all rock and roll, innit?
It’s a fair point. In this season of Easter, when we celebrate God’s new creation inaugurated in the resurrection, should we be not be open to the possibility that God continues to lead us to encounter new things?
We certainly live in a time of new things. Over the years, I have been privileged to preach at the funerals of many old people. I’ve got into the habit of reflecting on the changes they will have seen. My wife’s grandmother, for instance, born when a passing motor car would attract a furiously excited comet tail of small children and dogs, and dying having seen the advent of television, antibiotics, the moon landings and the rise of the digital age.
One area of change has been in the area of attitudes to sex, sexual orientation and gender identity. The very fact we can openly discuss such matters is itself a sea change. I learnt about homosexuality in the school yard, with jokes and insults about “queers.” Formal sex education was after my time.
The legalising of gay sex had happened when I was in primary school, removing the legal obstacle to sexual expression for gay men in line with most other sexual moral questions, such as adultery. Even if we think it’s wrong (except in our own particular case!) we probably don’t think it should be a criminal offence. So most would agree this is a good move. We are, of course, talking about males, here – lesbian activity was never illegal. The widely told story is that Queen Victoria would not sign into law a bill which suggested that ladies would ever do such awful things! If true, the tale is a good example of being inadvertently in line with the Bible. While there are 5 texts in scripture which condemn some sort of male/male sex, there is only one which may, but probably doesn’t, condemn female same sex activity.
Very recently came civil partnerships, giving legal protection and recognition to same sex partnerships and then marriage was extended to same sex partners.
This huge shift in law and public attitudes has posed a big question to the church, which. Like most organisations, is inherently conservative. Do we hold the line of tradition, or do we revisit our assumptions, our scriptures and theology and ask new questions?
This does happen. One good example would be usury – lending money at interest, which is condemned as a sin in the Bible, and was against church teaching for 1500 years. But the reformer Jean Calvin argued that the modern mechanism of interest was not the same as what the Bible condemns. So nowadays I can confess to having officiated at the weddings of actual practising accountants, and no one bats an eyelid!
As things stand, the CofE has official issues with, if not the decriminalising of gay sex, then with the arrival of legal partnerships. Civil partnerships are held to be just about OK for lay people, and for clergy – as long as the clergy promise to be celibate (!!!!).
But recognising marriage is a step too far presumably because, among other things, it is assumed necessarily to involve sex – and the Bible seems hot against gay sex. And certainly Christian tradition has been, and still is in many places. Around the world, we see church support for anti gay laws (as in Uganda) and the Anglican Communion is already divided over the issue.
So I’ve been asked help us to consider the possibility of same sex marriage. Is it even a meaningful term – for surely marriage is necessarily between persons of opposite genders?
And, of course, considering same gender marriage assumes that gay sex is in fact OK in principle, in certain circumstances, just as is straight sex. I’m not going to argue that here in detail. There isn’t time in one sermon, but buy me a pint anytime for further discussion! Or check out the many online resources, such as Jonathan Tallon’s site here, which illustrates the fact that the traditional view is based on 5 or 6 biblical texts whose interpretation is contested.
It’s important to be aware that the biblical texts are also about acts, while Jesus seems to have been more interested in attitudes. For instance, conservatives make much of the two prohibitions in Lev 18 and 20, but the NT tells us that Christians are not bound by the OT law, but instead look to Jesus’ overarching command to love one another. It is likely that the other, New Testament, texts are dealing with specific understandings of same sex activity which are a far cry from what we understand.
So that Rom 1 may be about the mother goddess cults in Rome, 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1 about pederasty (which was certainly the most popularly recognised same-sex activity. Scholarly arguments continue, with no sign of a real consensus emerging. What that means is that it is dangerous, and indeed impossible, to simply read an answer for our questions straight out of the Bible.
So I would argue that the biblical answer is to be found in the question of love, rather than laws against some unspecified activity, which in turn are set against a background of sexual behaviour and attitudes which are alien to us. We, today, are discussing consenting relationships between adults of equal status – which the few biblical texts almost certainly are not.
Bible – Our texts today both refer to Gen 2.24, and this is often taken both as the foundation text for a biblical understanding of marriage, and as an argument against gay relationships – the former with more justification than the latter!
When God pulls the first woman out of the first man, the man describes her as “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” This is an Old Testament term referring to kinship/covenant relationships. For instance, when Jacob meets his uncle Laban, Laban declares, ‘Surely you are my bone and my flesh!’ (Genesis 29:14). (Compare Judges 9:2, 2 Samuel 5:1, 2 Samuel 19:12, 2 Samuel 19:13, 1 Chronicles 11:1).
Gen 2.24, then, is about forming a new kinship group; hence a man leaves his father and mother to form a new group/tribe etc. It is not primarily about whom one may have sex with.
It is quite likely that this is what Jesus has in mind – the breaking of that sort of relationship is a serious matter
Paul in 1 Cor 6.16 probably has same thing in view – becoming one flesh with a prostitute is nonsense, for it is inconsistent to perform the physical act of kinship formation without the corresponding commitment of kinship and covenant and is incompatible with the kinship one has with Christ.
So, while Gen 2.24 can fairly be seen as the biblical foundation for the understanding of marriage, it is not primarily talking about sex, but about the commitment and responsibilities of kinship – of family formation.
This makes sense in the original context, because God is not seeking a sexual partner for the adam, but a companion and helper. And this is how it seems to have been understood by Jesus.
Marriage, then is not primarily about a sexual relationship (though it usually entails that) but about forming a kinship group – a covenant, in fact.
Marriage
So what is marriage?
The Church of England is pretty clear about what it is for. The Book of Common prayer explains that it is for procreation, legitimate sex and mutual help and support. The modern service puts these the other way round, but agrees. Historically, there have been a good number of other functions for marriage: maintaining a line of inheritance, cementing treaties, combining the wealth of families or nations, providing a degree of certainty of parentage, and exercising control over women as the vehicles for the next generation of the family line and its wealth.
I think it is fair to say that the functions listed in the Prayer Book are good, and place the focus on much more commendable qualities than some of the other uses of marriage.
But even they are not really what marriage is. They are what it does, rather than its essence.
In the Prayer Book the first given reason for marriage is the bearing of children. Bit is procreation of the essence of marriage? I’m pretty sure that’s not stated in the Bible, though children are generally assumed to be the result. Childless couples may be pitied, but they are not therefore seen to be in some sense not married. And we would agree. One of the most joyful weddings I have presided over was between a couple who were in their late 70s. Despite the precedent of Abraham and Sarah, no one thought children were likely, but that did not prevent the marriage from being valid and worth celebrating.
The second reason is the proper exercise of desire, and that is no doubt a good thing. but again, sex is surely not of the essence of marriage either. There are couples for whom it is not possible, but who still enter into marriage, and whose marriages are regarded as perfectly valid.
The third reason, of mutual help and support comes much closer – and it is what seems to be in view in our Ephesians passage where it is paralleled with the covenant relationship of Christ and the church.
It is that word, covenant, which brings us closest to a statement of what marriage is. Both the Prayer Book and Common Worship services describe it in this way, though the term doesn’t occupy a major place in the liturgies. A covenant is a relationship of mutual obligation and commitment, witnessed by God, who holds each partner to account for keeping the terms of the agreement.
When I used to prepare people for marriage (not that you can, other than saying, “Be prepared to be constantly surprised!”) I explained it as saying that the partner’s faithfulness to the covenant is not an excuse for your unfaithfulness. In a covenant, each is held responsible for their faithfulness to their promises.
This reflects the relationship between Christ and the church (and indeed the whole biblical story of God’s relationship to his people). A new kinship group has been formed in which God in Christ is faithful even when we are not!
Hence the writer of Ephesians stresses the Christ-likeness of the husband’s responsibilities to his wife - commitment, sacrifice, caring and respect etc.
This parallel has led much of the church to characterise marriage as a sacrament – a means of grace, a physical expression through which God gives of himself to the participants. (Officially, the CofE denies this, but the words of the modern marriage service suggest otherwise!)
So, is such a relationship possible between persons of the same gender?
If marriage is a means of grace in some sense (and I’m sure it is, at least to the extent that it fosters the virtues to which God calls us) presumably such is open to persons of the same gender? After all, the ability to make covenant promises is not gender-specific.
The Living in Love and Faith discussion material suggests this would necessitate a change in CofE doctrine, presumably referring to the marriage services’ assumption that we are speaking of the union of a man and a woman. But I’m not sure that the doctrine as such (covenant commitment before God) would change. All that would change would be the historic cultural assumption that we are necessarily speaking of a covenant union between male and female.
The answer, then, seems to me to be yes, the essence of marriage is not altered by a change in assumptions about the gender of those making the covenant commitment under God. Or to put it another way, in this season of new things, if God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, the rest is all rock and roll, innit?
