21st Century discussion on Marriage

[Gary Condon]

I need some words of wisdom on today's concept of marriage. 1. Isn't marriage as we know it in the western world a Christian sacrament? 2. Has the Christian community shredded the sanctity of marriage by its horrendous divorce rate? 3. With so many young folks living together without marrying, is the concept of marriage as formerly practiced by Christians going to disappear? 4. Is the gay/marriage issue strictly about civil union and the benefits from tax, insurance, ownership, and other business situations that are, so far, given to married couples? Or...5. Are gays interested in marriage as a Christian ceremony and relationship?

Several questions here but I have been trying to sort out my feelings about the gay community wanting to have marriage rights and how our marriage customs seem to be changing even without the gay issue.

All I know, anymore, is that my marriage of 52 years has been a sacred commitment sustained by the awareness of that profession before my God that I will maintain faithfulness to "the woman of my youth". Otherwise, I don't think I know anything about how others view marriage anymore.

[John Reilly]

Gary, my answers to your questions:
1. Isn't marriage as we know it in the western world a Christian sacrament? The Catholic church considers marriage one of seven sacraments. Protestant chruch consider marriage sacramental but have a strict definitin for sacrament rsutling in only two: baptism and communion.

2. Has the Christian community shredded the sanctity of marriage by its horrendous divorce rate? YES! If the Christian church hopes to witness about sacramental marriage then Christians need to live a life of faithfulness, commitment, covenant and forgiveness.

3. With so many young folks living together without marrying, is the concept of marriage as formerly practiced by Christians going to disappear? NO! Because the Amish people will always be with us to model the best in contemporary Christian Community.

4. Is the gay/marriage issue strictly about civil union and the benefits from tax, insurance, ownership, and other business situations that are, so far, given to married couples? YES.

5. Are gays interested in marriage as a Christian ceremony and relationship? YES. Some churches will provide a Christian ceremony. The Catholic Church will never offer a Christian ceremony to gays and the Church of the Nazarene probably will never offer it either, at least not in my life time.

We live in a post Christian era that has been destructive to the Christian church but will also provide an opportunity for rebuilding.

[Ryan Scott]

1. Isn't marriage as we know it in the western world a Christian sacrament?

Marriage has always been a ritual of societal importance; it has been treated with differing levels of sacredness by different tribes and peoples over time. Was the traditional understanding of Christian marriage once the only definition of marriage in the West? Yes, in theory, but never in practice. It certainly is no longer a religious matter for the West, let alone a specifically Christian one.

2. Has the Christian community shredded the sanctity of marriage by its horrendous divorce rate?

I think the Christian community has devalued the sacredness of marriage by adopting the cultural understanding of marriage, part of which involves an easy willingness to divorce.

3. With so many young folks living together without marrying, is the concept of marriage as formerly practiced by Christians going to disappear?

I doubt it, but it will become a peculiar, minority practice. For those religious groups who take seriously the idea of a representative covenant of love, it will last. It may become as culturally anachronistic as an Amish buggy or a chastity belt, but it will survive.

4. Is the gay/marriage issue strictly about civil union and the benefits from tax, insurance, ownership, and other business situations that are, so far, given to married couples? Or...5. Are gays interested in marriage as a Christian ceremony and relationship?

I think most of the uproar over gay marriage is the desire for society to recognize all unions between two adults as equally valid. For the most part gay rights activists don't care much about the religious connotations or interpretations, but so long as the license from the county courthouse says "marriage" they want it for all couples.

That being said, there are some faithful and devout homosexuals who want to partake in marriage as Christians. This is clearly a matter of biblical interpretation on several different levels (is homosexuality an acceptable practice to begin with? Does a homosexual marriage represent the love of God for God's people in the same way heterosexual marriages do? etc). Different denominations are making different decisions about those questions.

My personal feeling is that we need to support and ensure strong Christian principles like chastity and selflessness and faithfulness before we get to tackling the tough questions about marriage. I suspect much of the degradation of marriage stems from our forgetfulness about those things.

[Pete Vecchi]

Let's make sure we define what we believe marriage is...

At its very basic level, it is one man and one woman committed to each other as long as they both shall live.

Does that include a ceremony presided over by a member of the clergy? Or what about if it is a civil ceremony presided over by a judge, mayor, or captain of a ship at sea?

What if a man and woman commit to each other for as long as they both shall live, but never go through a civil or religious ceremony?

I know that Hans has talked in the past about how in The Netherlands, the only legally recognized wedding ceremonies are performed by civil officials; the clergy have no legal standing to join two people in wedlock.

[Benjamin Burch]

Let's make sure we define what we believe marriage is...

At its very basic level, it is one man and one woman committed to each other as long as they both shall live.

Given the nature of the questions, even this is not the very basic level of agreement.

[Benjamin Burch]

Marriage has always been a ritual of societal importance; it has been treated with differing levels of sacredness by different tribes and peoples over time. Was the traditional understanding of Christian marriage once the only definition of marriage in the West? Yes, in theory, but never in practice. It certainly is no longer a religious matter for the West, let alone a specifically Christian one.



I think the Christian community has devalued the sacredness of marriage by adopting the cultural understanding of marriage, part of which involves an easy willingness to divorce.



I doubt it, but it will become a peculiar, minority practice. For those religious groups who take seriously the idea of a representative covenant of love, it will last. It may become as culturally anachronistic as an Amish buggy or a chastity belt, but it will survive.



I think most of the uproar over gay marriage is the desire for society to recognize all unions between two adults as equally valid. For the most part gay rights activists don't care much about the religious connotations or interpretations, but so long as the license from the county courthouse says "marriage" they want it for all couples.

That being said, there are some faithful and devout homosexuals who want to partake in marriage as Christians. This is clearly a matter of biblical interpretation on several different levels (is homosexuality an acceptable practice to begin with? Does a homosexual marriage represent the love of God for God's people in the same way heterosexual marriages do? etc). Different denominations are making different decisions about those questions.

My personal feeling is that we need to support and ensure strong Christian principles like chastity and selflessness and faithfulness before we get to tackling the tough questions about marriage. I suspect much of the degradation of marriage stems from our forgetfulness about those things.

Pretty much this.

[Bob Hunter]

That being said, there are some faithful and devout homosexuals who want to partake in marriage as Christians. This is clearly a matter of biblical interpretation on several different levels (is homosexuality an acceptable practice to begin with? Does a homosexual marriage represent the love of God for God's people in the same way heterosexual marriages do? etc). Different denominations are making different decisions about those questions.

My personal feeling is that we need to support and ensure strong Christian principles like chastity and selflessness and faithfulness before we get to tackling the tough questions about marriage. I suspect much of the degradation of marriage stems from our forgetfulness about those things.

Well, the only thing clear about the way Christians have interpreted the Bible with regards to homosexuality is that they don't view scripture as supporting it. I think that has been pretty consistent for 2,000 years. The gay theology that is becoming so popular takes us in a different direction and I would argue away from what the Bible teaches. At the heart of “Gay Theology”, is the claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexual acts that occur within the context of loving, committed, enduring homosexual relationships. Ben Burch has argued this point and he did not convince me (he tried). I hold to what Christians traditionally believe; there is a male-female requisite for what we know today as marriage. But the gay theology folk do not recognize the fact that the Bible does appear to condemn ALL homosexual acts and that reading between the lines is streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching Christian tradition in a direction it does not want to go, especially when the Christian church has steadfastly held this position since Jesus Christ established His church almost 2,000 years ago. I do not see one major vein of Christian tradition that has emerged within the history of Christian spirituality that has wholeheartedly embraced the gay theology as it is promoted today. Now, Phyliss Tickle predicts this will be a new reformation and that eventually the Church will warm to gays much like it did to divorce. I hope that is not so. If it is, I will be the last one to concede.

[Marian Schwaller Carney]

Let's remember, too, that marriage is supposed to be the place from which children proceed, the human race is continued. Obviously gay marriages really cannot fulfill that 'mandate' . Now, in saying that, I am not saying it is required of married couples to have children. I am childless, and was told by the editor of a Christian magazine (a mostly anglo-catholic one) that my husband's and my choice of childlessness means we were part of the "culture of death" that includes abortion. While I took umbrage with that, of course, the striking nature of the comment did get me thinking about the place of the family in society vis a vis what was God's will for it. God had something in mind when he made it the way he did. Today, marriage and family is often unrecognizable as coming from the hands of God.

[Jim Franklin]

In one case I heard about years ago the bride decided she preferred not to go through childbirth and made this known to her groom a few years later. He maintained his commitment even though she later renounced her vows and commitment. They continued to live together because of his commitment and convenience for her. Does that make him a marriage vows martyr?

[Gary Condon]

Thank you for your thoughts. I ask these questions because in my social and family sphere, the majority of young people are choosing to live together for up to several years before marriage becomes the convenient thing to do. It therefore occurs to me that the sanctity of wedding vows don't really mean all that much. If so, then, what's the point of continuing the custom? Perhaps, by getting rid of the marriage institution in our civil society, the argument with the gays would no longer be necessary. Those who marry out of obligation to parents or church affiliations would no longer be living pretentiously. Divorces could be drastically reduced. Marriages could still exist through the church as a Christian sacrament and the churches could make the event even more meaningful with preparation time spent with couples equal to catechism and spiritual training. Marriage would only be recognized by the participating religious institution.

Marriage has evolved like many other situations in our society. In order to refine and accommodate we add and add and add new rules and regulations until the original is unrecognizable. If the original intent is no longer understood and complied with, then there is no sense in continuing with the custom. I'm proposing that we need to reduce the regulations and simplify (get back to the original) the meaning of marriage.

[Billy Cox]

2. Has the Christian community shredded the sanctity of marriage by its horrendous divorce rate?

No. If the Christian community has desecrated marriage, it has been through a fixation on divorce avoidance, with very little meaningful investment in healthy, loving relationships.

I am convinced that the divorce rate (which has been in decline for years) is a problematic statistic. As women's economic position in society has improved, marriages held together only by economic necessity have ended in divorce. The church seems insistent on seeing no moral difference between a sham marriage and a healthy marriage. That is offensive to the Gospel.

[Dennis M. Scott]

No. If the Christian community has desecrated marriage, it has been through a fixation on divorce avoidance, with very little meaningful investment in healthy, loving relationships.

Somebody please write down the date: Billy and I agree!

Part of the difficulty with declaring marriage sacred is that it isn't the only sacred thing within what we call marriage. Human life is sacred, and marriage is an institution to value, serve and facilitate the sanctity of human life. When the greater value of human life has been violated, so has the sanctity of marriage. That doesn't willy nilly eliminate the marriage, but it may erode the foundation upon which the marriage has been based. It's never been a black and white issue: we just have often thought that by offering a quick, simple answer we could please God.

[Ryan Scott]

At the heart of “Gay Theology”, is the claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexual acts that occur within the context of loving, committed, enduring homosexual relationships.

I can't agree with this, but at the same time I can't say the Bible condemns such acts within such relationships, because scripture simply does not speak to it directly. We have to use our secondary interpretive frameworks to establish how we believe we should treat such acts.

That's where the differences come in.* I think Genesis clearly shows God's intentions for male and female to be together as representative of God's creative intentions. However, I also see a lot of things in our world that have been corrupted by the effects of sin, things that aren't necessarily a condemnation on the individual (recall, Jesus replied that physical deformity is not a result of individual sin). At that level, one has to decide if homosexual acts in committed relationships are more like physical or mental deformity (something unintended by God, but no longer considered a barrier to normal life - we have to remember they were considered a barrier for many years) or more like pedophilia or beastiality (something unintended by God, but not acceptable practice).

I see a lot of reasonable conclusions from this understanding - I have seen testimony of some Christians "delivered" from homosexual urges; I have seen testimony of some Christians who choose to be single and celibate; I have seen testimony of some Christians who choose to enter a same sex relationship and also remain celibate; and I have seen testimony of some Christians who enter same-sex marriages. While I disagree with some of these to varying degrees, I do think there's sufficient cause for faithful belief in each of these positions. This is one of the reasons we have denominations; we choose to disagree with particular choices and interpretations that our brothers and sisters make.

I'm willing to continue in fellowship, at least, so long as I see the definitive Christian practices of chastity, fidelity, and love being held up. It's also why I want government out of the marriage business - allowing religious groups to decide for themselves how best to uphold marriage.

I don't see it as a cut and dry issue and I am happy it is not a decision I have to make on my own. I am so thankful for a denomination, a body, a congregation of people who reason together to make these decisions. I have no problem abiding by these decisions, at least at this point. Being part of an evangelical denomination means I just haven't run across homosexual couples committed to Christian faith and to each other. While I know a number of married gay couples, none have ever expressed a desire for Christian marriage.

Just as there are denominations where sincere Christian who speak in tongues are more accepted, there are denominations where sincere Christians who wish to be in homosexual marriages are more accepted. I'm just not sure it's going to be a major issue I encounter in my life and ministry.

I should also add there is no such thing as "biblical marriage." There is certainly a definition of traditional marriage that comes from our interpretation of scripture. But at the same time, I suspect Jacob believed his polygamous marriage was righteous in God's eyes and I suspect the many Christian men who loved and cared for their wives throughout most of Western History, but also believed them to be property (as the legal system defined it) thought their marriages to be righteous in God's eyes.

I suspect they were. I believe God expects our understanding and practice of loving each other to grow and mature as we do. We just have to figure out together how exactly that works, while remaining faithful to our beliefs about God.



*And I should add that officially there is no major denomination has moved all the way to the acceptance side of this. The Episcopal Church has some strange, I'd argue contradictory, positions currently, but they still had a big fight this summer about whether an episcopal priest can even pray at a homosexual marriage ceremony.

[Bob Hunter]

I can't agree with this, but at the same time I can't say the Bible condemns such acts within such relationships, because scripture simply does not speak to it directly. We have to use our secondary interpretive frameworks to establish how we believe we should treat such acts.

You said this in response to my statement: At the heart of “Gay Theology”, is the claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexual acts that occur within the context of loving, committed, enduring homosexual relationships.

You might want to go back and read some of Ben's material which is a page torn from Gay proponents in the Church seeking acceptance. This logic is used again and again. I'm trying to be fair to their position, if I am not being fair and this is not accurate, then I need to be corrected. But my guess is the gay theology folk will respond with a myriad of qualifications and justifications that will pretty much result in confusion.

I should also add there is no such thing as "biblical marriage."

But there are marriages that embrace Biblical values and I would not argue with someone who wanted to claim their marriage was "biblical." So long as they don't use it as a billy club to beat down others. But in essence, the Bible is built around a man and a women. The narrative of scripture points to this reality. Metaphors the Bible writers use extol the virtues of male/female relations. Of course, there was Adam & Eve, Joseph & Mary, Abraham and Sarah...All were in some way the representatives of humanity, covenant and promise. Yes, scripture is silent on the same sex thing in a committed relationship. And if you go with that logic then you would have also acknowledge the Bible uses a megaphone to herald the good tidings of male/female relationships. In fact, the story of scripture is to tied to the marriage of men and women that it literally drowns out any consideration of same sex relations. Same sex relations don't even get a footnote. Why? I would say because it is a product of sin, one way or the other depending on how you want to define that. So my view is that gay theology takes us in a direction scripture does not want to go. The CotN agrees and our stand on this issue has enormous biblical support.

*And I should add that officially there is no major denomination has moved all the way to the acceptance side of this. The Episcopal Church has some strange, I'd argue contradictory, positions currently, but they still had a big fight this summer about whether an episcopal priest can even pray at a homosexual marriage ceremony.

This is why I asked. We haven't had a major tradition or movement that has been able to sustain itself with gay theology for 2,000 years. My guess is we will never see it, it's just not a part of Christian tradition as much as some would like it to be.

[Ryan Scott]

You said this in response to my statement: At the heart of “Gay Theology”, is the claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexual acts that occur within the context of loving, committed, enduring homosexual relationships.

Sorry. I misread that as "condone." That's what I get for skimming too quickly.

I've never heard of gay theology before; I try to just study scripture as best I can. I don't see any condemnation of such, but then again there' no condoning of such either.

(See the rest of my previous post for the rest, so as not to repeat myself.)

[Billy Cox]

This is why I asked. We haven't had a major tradition or movement that has been able to sustain itself with gay theology for 2,000 years. My guess is we will never see it, it's just not a part of Christian tradition as much as some would like it to be.

I suspect that the objection to male homosexuality is more than just a cultural taboo and is probably something primal in the male psyche. That likelihood alone probably accounts for the lack of any religion that centers around male homosexuality. Now female homosexuality is a different matter. Paganism (capital P) is quite friendly to it. I don't know if it is as interested in M4M action.

[Pete Vecchi]

Let's make sure we define what we believe marriage is...

At its very basic level, it is one man and one woman committed to each other as long as they both shall live....

Given the nature of the questions, even this is not the very basic level of agreement.

I'm starting from the premise of the denomination as found in the Manual.

Yes, we could get into all kinds of questions starting from points before that (polygamy, for example--especially when a person from a non-Christian tradition/culture and has multiple spouses and children from more than one spouse comes into a Christian tradition/culture and the expectations that brings).

But my point is this question:

What is the point when within the denomination when something is considered to be a marriage? Does the strictly civil ceremony meet that qualification? Or can two people just commit themselves to one another without a ceremony or even legal standing as husband and wife?

[Mike Smiley]

Way to go Pete. The Old Testament is required reading before addressing this issue.

[Ian Gentles]

Maybe someone has already said this? I wonder if today we are afraid to preach about christian marriage because of the many in our congregations that are single parents, divorced, live in a civil partnership, in case we offend them? Of course we dont want to offend, but encourage. But yet shouldent we teach about christian marriage? But how to do it is the thing?

[Billy Cox]

Maybe someone has already said this? I wonder if today we are afraid to preach about christian marriage because of the many in our congregations that are single parents, divorced, live in a civil partnership, in case we offend them? Of course we dont want to offend, but encourage. But yet shouldent we teach about christian marriage? But how to do it is the thing?

I don't think that offense is the issue, but rather underscoring religious disapproval where it is already well known to those on the business end of it.

[Billy Cox]

Somebody please write down the date: Billy and I agree!

We probably agree more than you think.