Marriage and the Church: A Mainline Response

This post is part of Groupthink’s conversation on the questions Obergefell v. Hodges. The first essay in this series was written by Logann Merritt. The second, a moderate evangelical response by Marshall Johns, may be found here. Christoph’s essay below responds from a mainline Protestant point of view.

As a life-long resident of rural Missouri, last week was not a good week to be on Facebook. For days on end, I found my newsfeed flooded with links to vitriolic conservative articles with titles like “The Roots of Marriage’s Redefinition,” “The Supreme Court and Religious Liberty: Reason for Concern,” and “Why Homosexuality is Not a Sin Like Any Other.” These responses from my conservative coreligionists were disheartening, but predictable.

Equally predictable were the debates that followed in the comment threads for these posts. The conservative line usually boiled down to some variation of the old bumper sticker cliche: “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” The progressive response was essentially, “Yes, but isn’t religion supposed to be about acceptance and love and not judging others?”

Groupthink’s own Logann Merritt used one variation of the latter argument in his own response, “Same Sex Marriage and the Christian Church.” Merritt quite correctly points out the hypocrisy of those who insist we must toe the line on Scripture’s statements on homosexuality, but not on other matters of marriage and sexuality addressed in sacred writ.** He points to the need for a hermeneutic that reads Scripture through Jesus-lenses, Jesus “the embodiment of the God of love.”

While I find myself in substantial agreement with Merritt’s main principles, I believe he is mistaken to assume that biblical interpretation is the only pertinent factor informing conservative Christians’ view of gay marriage and same-sex sexual activity in general. The same assumption is present in Matthew Vines’ best-seller, God and the Gay Christian. In spite of Vines’ excellent treatment of the six biblical passages referencing same-sex sexual behavior, he still fails to move beyond the questions of hermeneutics to a thoroughgoing examination of the history, culture, and socialization process which informs American Christians’ views of sex and sexuality.

Merritt takes an important step in the right direction, though, when he states that he doesn’t believe same-sex relationships are sinful “unless these relationships bring harm and destruction to the people in them, which could just as easily be said of heterosexual relationships.”

In most moderate to progressive evangelical discourse, examination of Scripture gives way to the conclusion that gay and lesbian relationships are acceptable to God provided they are committed, monogamous relationships based on Christian love and mutuality. This is a step in the right direction, but, in my view, does not go far enough in developing a coherent and authentically Christ-like sexual ethics.

The most important step for Christians right now is to move beyond a monogamy-promiscuity model of thinking about sexuality (with all the debates about “sexual purity” that come with it) and toward a model which prioritizes the health and wellbeing of individuals and relationships. I believe that monogamous marriage and celibacy (for those who are called to it and accept it willingly) are beautiful expressions of sexuality in the Church, but I am not willing to label all sexual acts or sexualities outside those contexts as sinful a priori. I would also stress that wedding bands do not in themselves give all sexual acts between those who wear them God’s stamp of approval. Charity, consent, and reverence for the image of God in the other person are all essential elements of authentically Christian sexual acts. The sacrament of marriage affirms, but does not magically confer those elements.

If Christianity hopes to survive in a culture that is growing increasingly aware of humanity’s amazing diversity of sexual expressions and gender identities, then the first step for Christians is to reexamine not simply the “rules” governing sex to which we have historically held, but the very principles at the heart of our ethics, principles I am sure Logann alludes to when he urges a hermeneutic with Jesus at the center.

So what does Obergefell v. Hodges mean for progressive Christians? Perhaps that our culture is heading in the right direction, but still falls far short of full-bodied Christian charity.

**As an aside, I found myself a bit irritated that Merritt repeatedly uses the inclusive abbreviation "LGBTQ*" when he really only discusses matters addressing the "LG" part of the equation.

This is My Father's World: The Church in Light of Obergefell v. Hodges

This post is part of Groupthink's coverage of the June 26 Supreme Court ruling. In our first post on this topic, Logann Merritt argued in favor of full acceptance of the LGBTQ* community on the basis of Jesus' radical inclusivity. In this follow-up, Marshall Johns represents a more moderate view with a poignant reminder of the radical difference between the kingdom of this world and the Kingdom of God.

A quick preface: this post is heavily influenced by the applied realism of Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You. This is one of the most influential works I have read, and would encourage anyone with a desire to learn about nonviolence and the Church as separated from the State in a fairly Augustinian manner to check this book out. Much of Tolstoy's theological work is not without contention; then again whose is, especially if read critically?

By now, it will have been impossible for anyone to have found this page on the internet without knowing about the Supreme Court's ruling on June 26 to legalize gay marriage in the United States of America. Having read some of the statements from the Justices of our High Court that the New York Times posted shortly after this decision was publicized, as long as the Court thinks they were within their legal bounds set by the United States Code and Constitution, I say good for them. 

I will say that again: I am happy for the United States Government to end a form of discrimination denying the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to millions of Americans.

This may sound shocking coming from a person who is, in all honesty, still humbly trying to work through the theological and biblical implications of the new orthodoxy in sexual ethics. It may sound to some like I am straddling the fence, wanting to stay grounded in "traditionalism" yet appear "relevant."
That is just fine by me since all Christians are straddling a fence: considering the challenges of our "dual citizenship" in our current geo-political setting and in God's current Kingdom on earth, such tensions are almost inevitable. In Paul's letter to the Philippian church, he sends them an encouraging word about where their citizenship resides. Although they were quite obviously a part of the Roman empire (an outpost where retired Roman military officers lived, in fact), Paul says to them in 3:20 "But our citizenship[or commonwealth] is in heaven..." He beseeches this church to remember that their ultimate calling is to the Kingdom of God, not to their current political regime. 

This sentiment is reiterated in Romans 13:1, where Paul calls for the church in Roman to "be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God..." Let's not forget that Paul wrote this letter to the church in Rome during a time when followers of The Way were beginning to face heavy persecution from Roman authority. Yet Paul tells these people to not resist the government. Why? God's authority over His Kingdom is the authority we need to be concerned about, which means our current government should not hinder us from being a beacon of His hope and love to those around us. 

(If you read the rest of chapter 13, you see that Paul thinks God is ultimately doing what He wants with governmental powers. Yeah, its confusing stuff sometimes).

Certain groups of believers in the United States have forgotten that our government, in all its potential for good through democracy and representation, is ultimately a representative of its political groups, not God. God's Kingdom and the kingdom of the Stars and Stripes are not synonymous, and that is alright; I would go so far as to argue that it is better for the integrity of the Church. We should not conflate politicians and prophets. 

What I am saying does have a bit of Anabaptist flare to it. On some days, I do agree with Menno Simons that Christians have no duty in politics, and I understand that I could be charged with promoting an idealism leading to inaction and complacency in the Church, a sort of "let's just let this thing go since there is nothing we can do for it" approach. But maybe there is a wisdom in letting go of some things that we think are inalienable rights, endowed by our Creator, and I would encourage any believer who thinks that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are our highest calling to reread Philippians and 1 John. 

What we need to see as the Church in this decision is not "what Constitutional rights were taken from us" or "how this country is godless and/or going to Hell." 

What we need to see in this matter is how the idea of loving our neighbor (institutionally) has changed in light of this. We need to see the new cultural situation as a new chance for us to show God's love for the world, not as an opportunity to take pot shots at viewpoints that are different from ours. Our world may never feel the same again in light of this decision, but that is just fine. I pray that, in the days to come, we will find encouragement in the words of the old hymn:

1. This is my Father's world,
and to my listening ears
all nature sings, and round me rings
the music of the spheres.
This is my Father's world:
I rest me in the thought
of rocks and trees, of skies and seas;
his hand the wonders wrought.

2. This is my Father's world,
the birds their carols raise,
the morning light, the lily white,
declare their maker's praise.
This is my Father's world:
he shines in all that's fair;
in the rustling grass I hear him pass;
he speaks to me everywhere.

3. This is my Father's world.
O let me ne'er forget
that though the wrong seems oft so strong,
God is the ruler yet.
This is my Father's world:
why should my heart be sad?
The Lord is King; let the heavens ring!
God reigns; let the earth be glad!

Same-Sex Marriage and the Christian Church

First, let me start off by reminding everyone that every blog post ever written is really just an opinion formed by experience, study, and personal values. At least, that’s my opinion. Therefore, please do not read this and think that I am presenting the official position of some church/denomination or other institution. I am simply writing on a subject that was handed to me and I have thoughts on. You are free to agree or disagree.

In light of the recent SCOTUS decision, I will be yet another blogger who presents his thoughts on the issue. In my opinion, it should be a non-issue, but I’ll get to that later.

Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states. Some people are thrilled, and some are very disturbed. I fall into the former category. My understanding of what this legalization entails is simply that gay and lesbian Americans are legally allowed to obtain marriage licenses in all 50 states. It is not my understanding that churches are required by law to perform ceremonies for those couples against the church’s will. Churches can already refuse to marry couples whether gay or straight, and I don’t believe that is changing. The “rights” of the church are not being encroached upon as far as I am concerned, so why is everybody getting so upset?

All of that being said, how should the Christian church respond to this new ruling? Well, I’ll put it simply: how about with love? Shouldn’t that be our first reaction to anyone if we are truly eager to imitate the person of Jesus? It is no secret that the ones primarily calling out against this decision are Christians.

The Bible seems as good a place to start as any. I will share one brief thought on the hermeneutic I use to read the Bible. I read every word in the Bible through the lens of Jesus. Jesus is the Word of God, not the Bible. Perhaps I will write another post on this subject in the future.

The Bible is just about the only thing that causes Christians to think and act the way they towards the LGBTQ* community. The Bible addresses this subject very vaguely in six places. Let me say that again: the Bible addresses homosexuality very vaguely—in its 66 books—exactly six times. That’s it. Now let me contrast that with the literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of references to things like caring for the poor and the downtrodden, people groups in our country that are largely ignored by the Christian community. It is worth it to add that Jesus—our prime model as Christians—never mentions the subject of homosexuality. Never. Now, of these few references we do have in our Bible, every single one of them refers to the act of intercourse between two people of the same sex. None of them reference any sort of relationship or background.

Seeing as these few places in the Bible are the entire foundation on which Christians against this issue stand, the fact these verses describe and prohibit only the act of sex should be somewhat enlightening. In essence, what Christians are doing when they cry out against the LGBTQ* community, calling them sinful, is taking their humanity out of the picture. Christians reduce a gay man or woman solely to the act of sex. Does sex define a relationship? A marriage? Would you say that about your own marriage? Your parents’ marriage? I sincerely doubt that. So the way I see it is that Christians are taking a small handful of references in a collection of books that is over two millennia old, and twisting them and enhancing them in order to use them for something they were never intended for in the first place.

It is just plain hypocritical to argue for a Biblical law based stance on marriage when our culture has progressed past an enormous number of other laws clearly laid out in the Bible. This includes other laws for marriage that were to be followed. In numerous places in the Pentateuch, these are some examples of laws of marriage: a woman whose husband has died and has not yet borne a son is required to marry her husband’s brother under law; a slave owner could unite a male and female slave and the female slave would then be required by law to submit sexually to her new forced husband; a male soldier could take a foreign woman for his wife if she was a virgin, and this woman would be required by law to submit sexually to her new husband; finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, a virgin who is raped was required by law to marry her rapist. These were all laws at some point in time in the Bible, if we are going to adhere to one prohibiting two males from marrying, let us joyfully adhere to these others as well.

Moving on, let us look at Jesus. I have already mentioned that Jesus never brings the issue up, so the people who read the Bible as a collection of timeless truths on display for all humanity to see and follow are already coming up short.

Jesus is the embodiment of the God of love; Christians of all shapes and sizes typically agree on that. In the Gospels, we read story after story of Jesus showing love, mercy, and compassion to those around him. We see him seeking out the outcasts of society. We see him surrounding himself with prostitutes, with the diseased, with the homeless, and with many other kinds of sinners. We also see Jesus loving those people with abandon. Does Jesus look at the prostitute and think: I am so thrilled with the healthy and loving way you are living your life? No, probably not. Yet those are the ones he seeks out. Never does he call attention to this “sinful lifestyle” they are living. That would be rude, dehumanizing, and unnecessary. That thought process is what caused me to reject “hate the sin, love the sinner.” I have come to realize that is a terribly unhealthy motto. The attempt of that motto is to let the LGBTQ* community know that some Christians accept them but still think that they are living in sin. What does that communicate to the LGBTQ* community? It communicates that even those Christians who will accept them don’t think they are deserving of the love of God. That is not helpful; that is harmful. People who argue that they “accept” the LGBTQ* community and do not “judge” them but still believe they live a sinful lifestyle have in fact already judged them and already deemed them not acceptable to God. That took place before they made a conscious decision to not do it.

Seeing as how Jesus summed up the entire Old Testament law in two commandments, love God and love your neighbor as yourself, it would seem to me that Jesus simplified some things. The word neighbor is in no way exclusive; it means anyone. If the Christian church truly valued the only two commandments Jesus gave, then once they see how harmful these dismissive attitudes are toward the LGBTQ* community, perhaps they will realize they could love their neighbor better than that.

I personally don’t believe in any way that same-sex relationships of any kind are sinful in God’s eyes, unless of course these relationships bring harm and destruction to the people in them, which could just as easily be said of heterosexual relationships. Two loving people in a consensual relationship that bears love and joy are in no way sinning, regardless of the act of sex.

Though most Christians are bound to disagree with that statement, I don’t think it takes much to see the harm the church is doing to the LGBTQ* community with the way they are acting. The Christian community should open their eyes to the fact that they are picking and choosing when it comes to the Bible. Why is this the biggest issue? When there are starving and homeless people all around us, why is the church ignoring them and spending all their energy condemning another minority? Jesus set no example that encouraged that kind of discrimination. Even if the church does not change its stance on the sinfulness of same-sex relationships, it could get a lot better at showing love and acceptance to that community.

This new SCOTUS decision is a marvelous opportunity for the Christian church to do this. We can love all the people around us, even in our disagreements.