Bank Relevant Information

The current issue of Newsweek features a bible with a rainbow colored bookmark and a title caption that reads "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage." This cover story written by Lisa Miller looks at the ongoing theological argument that Christians are engaged in regarding what the bible does and does not say about same-sex marriage.  I have read the article several times now, and although I am always skeptical when the mass-media press portrays theological topics, I must admit that I am impressed with Ms. Miller's handling of the issue.  That is not to say that I agree with everything she has written; I wish she had looked deeper at the complex theological issues that underlie both sides of the debate and I wish she had been more objective in her assessment of some theological arguments.  However, those arguments aside, she has done a good job of laying out some of the relevant theological thoughts that liberal and progressive Christians (like me) read in the biblical text and find to be supportive of same-sex marriage.

One of my frustrations with the mass-media press has been in singular view that is often portrayed concerning the ???Christian??? view.  Since the rise of the Religious Right in the 1970's the media has largely deferred to voices from that segment of Christianity and anointed them the spokespeople for Christianity in America.  However, for many of Christians the theological and political views of Rev. Jerry Falwell, Rev. Pat Robertson, Rev. Oral Roberts, and Rev. James Kennedy have never been ours, even when they were the only voices being recognized and codified as by the media as "Christian."  Thus, I am happy to see Newsweek take a risk and take seriously the idea that there are faithful Christian theologians and faithful Christians alike who see supporting same-sex couples and same-sex marriage as a faithful act.

Miller???s writing functions as something of a survey course or outline of a mainline or liberal reading of the bible regarding same-sex marriage.  As such there isn???t a great deal of depth in the article (it runs only 3 pages), but it does raise most of the pertinent issues regarding how faithful supporters of same-sex marriage might read the bible and find it supportive of gay and lesbian marriage.

One of the key passages in the article is this:

"The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."

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."

Here Miller does a good job of lifting up the complicated standing that marriages have within our culture, and it builds on her earlier questions about realities of biblical marriage.  She is exactly right in identifying that although many in the church would say that marriages are strictly theological events, the cultural reality is that because the pastor serves as an agent of the county or state when they sign a marriage license, marriages then are not solely of theological import.  Instead, they must be understood and defined within the laws of the county or state where the license is issued.  In truth, because "marriage" has both a civil and religious meaning the religious meaning must come second in a nation that defines itself by its exercise of equality.  Personally I would be much happier if we shifted to state codified civil unions and marriages became fell to churches--and then each church could define who they would marry.  The time has probably long since passed when such a change would be possible, but it would be my ideal.

In a one quick sentence from this section Ms. Miller gets to the heart of the religious debate about same-sex marriage. Miller writes,

"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." 

This sentence is critical because it brings to the fore the central issue that I believe divides Christians on this and many issues.  For many the bible is "the inerrant word of God" which for them means that every word in the bible is completely true and fully applicable across time.  Other Christians however view the bible in the way that Miller describes, as a "living document," which then leaves biblical interpretation open to debate and challenges theologians to understand the bible in light of not only theological understandings, but also to be informed by sociological, psychological, scientific, and medical knowledge as well. This view might best be summed up by Pastor John Robinson, who told the Pilgrims as they left for North America, "There is still more light and truth to break forth from God's Holy Word." This debate rages on and has become a central place of division.  Interestingly, this debate also plays out among Constitutional scholars and jurists who classify themselves as "living document" scholars or "stict constructionist" scholars.  In the same way that jurists legal framework can be largely understood by their views on the nature of the Constitution Christians too tip their theological hand when their view of the inerrancy/living document argument is known.

Miller writes of the ways that marriage has changed over the years and the ways that the American public has adjusted marriage vows, marriage roles, and the expectations of marriage.  She notes that many of the changes would seem to be against biblical mandate or at least in opposition to the models offered by the marriages shown in the bible.  Based on these changes she challenges whether the focus of the teachings of Jesus weren't actually against marriage or instead about things all together other than marriage.  Ms. Miller raises important questions that are at the center of all my conversations about how the church should respond to same-sex marriage.  Personally I don't believe Jesus offered much in the way of advice or rules about marriage.  However, I do believe that he called us to live in loving relationships, which is what Miller ultimately concludes.

Miller???s conclusion concerning the notion that Jesus ultimately spoke primarily about love and inclusion rather than a specific focus on a code for marriage can be seen in these portions from her article:

"We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to  bind ourselves together in loving pairs."

Further, she features Walter Brueggemann (a renowned UCC pastor and emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary) and his thoughts concerning a biblical support for same-sex marriage.  Brueggemann, she notes, ???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."

The United Church of Christ was mentioned in Ms. Miller's article as one of the denominations that is on record as supporting same-sex marriage.  This decision was made by the UCC General Synod meeting in Atlanta in July 2005. More information about our denomination's stance on this issue please look here.  Finally, the congregation I serve, First Congregational United Church of Christ in Corvallis, has celebrated same-sex unions for many years.  I have been priviliged to participate in or officiate at several and I continue to celebrate those Holy and blessed unions.  I am happy that Newsweek has joined the conversation...