|
|
A Sermon by Donel McClellan
A Sermon by Donel McClellan
Hot Topics for the Summer #3:
Mark 12:18-27 - Seventh Sunday of Pentecost - July
18, 2004 In
this morning’s Seattle Times there is a full page ad placed by an
organization called Families Northwest. The opening paragraph states:
Every civilization since the beginning of time had defined marriage as
a union between man and women. It is the one institution that reliably
brings men and women together for child bearing and rearing—two things any
society must have to survive and flourish.[1] The ad
is in response to the defeat last week in the United States Senate of a
proposed “Marriage Amendment” to the constitution. The amendment reads:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a
man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State,
nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status
or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or
groups."[1] In
support of the amendment, President George W. Bush said in his radio address
on February 24th:
Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural
roots without weakening the good influence of society.[1]
Following the defeat of the amendment, Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of
the U.S. Episcopal Conference commented:
"Marriage, the union of one man and one woman, has always been
recognized as the foundation of human society, but today marriage is sadly
in need of protection,"[1]
According to many critics, marriage is in trouble today. This morning I
would like to look at marriage in a larger historical and theological
context. Although the Marriage Amendment was written specifically to protect
the nation from same-sex ,marriages, it has been promoted as a measure to
strengthen marriage and family in the modern world. As
with any contested issue, there is disagreement about the history and nature
of marriage over the years. In spite of claims that marriage and family, as
we know it, have a long and cherished history, the fact is that marriage has
changed dramatically over the centuries. Marriage, like any human
institution, is shaped by culture, religion, and especially economic
conditions. What
does marriage and family look like in the Christian tradition? The biblical
models are many but the basic Old Testament norm was polygamy. This made
some sense in a patriarchal society where extended families were political
units. Many children were needed to manage the family business whether it
was raising sheep and goats or farming. Even
in Jesus’ time, polygamy was practiced as today’s scripture lesson attests.
The Sadducees questioning Jesus are referring to levirate marriages where
brothers were responsible for marrying the wife of a deceased sibling. This
was primarily an economic protection since women were dependant upon men for
all the necessities of life. A widow had no means of supporting herself
unless she turned to begging or prostitution. The
Bible also records matriarchal families such as that of Rehab and her
household; single parent families, like the widow of Zarepath and son, or
Mary, Jesus and his brothers and sisters; Mary, Martha, and Lazarus were
adult siblings sharing a home; celibate single persons like John the Baptist
and perhaps Jesus and Paul; and Christian comminutes holding all property in
common, are some of the varieties of families in the Bible. Jesus’
family was uncommon as well. Born out of wedlock, Jesus and his parents were
refugees living in Egypt for a time. Jesus was strict about the seriousness
of the marriage bond flatly forbade divorce. Once again, this was likely a
reflection of his concern that divorced women should not be condemned to
poverty for themselves and their children. On the other hand, Jesus was
clear that blood ties were not absolute. “Who are my mother and my
brothers?” he asked. “Those who do the will of God—these are my mother and
brothers.” Family formations in the Bible are surprisingly diverse. For
the first dozen or so centuries after the birth of Christ, marriage was
considered to be the lesser of two options for adults. Celibacy and
participation in a religious community was considered superior to marriage.
Marriage was based upon the Roman ideal of a union of a man and a
woman and the communion of the whole life.[1]
In fact, the Christian Church did not celebrate weddings in liturgical
services until sometime between eight and eleven hundred years after Jesus’
death. Today,
the ideal of the modern nuclear family has become something of an historical
artifact. If we consider that ideal to consist of a husband working outside
the home, a wife working in the home, a couple of children, house, station
wagon and a dog; only 5% of American households qualify.[1] The
image of family values which is often cited as a reason to preserve
marriage in the mold of the 1960's, is no more true to our life in America
today than is Disneyland. William Sloane Coffin puts his finger on the
problem:
The Christian right talks a lot about “traditional values” and “family
values.” Almost always these values relate to personal rather than social
morality. For the Christian right has trouble not only seeing love as the
core value of personal life but even more trouble seeing love as the core
value of our communal life—the love that lives on the far side of justice.[1] So why
has marriage and family changed so much that some people fear that it is
threatened? Let me suggest a few factors. In the
last 200 years our nation has seen a move to cities, from 95% rural or farm
families to 97% non-farm families. Increased life expectancy makes marriages
longer in duration, and provides more years after children have left home.
The advent of contraception has separated sex from reproduction and at the
same time there has been a growing emphasis on personal and emotional
fulfilment in marriage rather than struggling for survival. Finally, there
has been a shift in the understanding of marriage, from an institution
sanctioned by the community and some religious body, to a personal contract
negotiated between two private partners. In
addition we note the increasing rate of divorce. Between 1970 and 1996 the
number of divorces in America quadrupled. At the same time there was a
significant increase in the number of women in the workforce. In 1975 50% of
the mothers of school-age children were employed outside the home. In 1980
50% of mothers of preschoolers worked. In the 1990's 50% of mothers of
infants under one year were in the workforce. All these factors and more
have placed pressure upon marriage as we have known it. One
commentator on marriage, looking at marriage in our culture today asked:
How more unnatural or unbiblical is simultaneous polygamy, multiple
wives at one time, that the serial polygamy, [one wife at a time]
now widely practiced in the west?
[1]
Marriage must be seen in its cultural and historical setting. And in our
setting in America today, divorce is common, eventually affecting one in
four people. All the major religious traditions promote stable marriages and
oppose divorce. At the same time, nearly all major religions provide for
divorce. From the beginning of time marriages have failed. The
Barna Research group, a respected Christian company, released the results of
their poll on divorce in 1999. They determined that 11% of the U.S.
population is currently divorced and 25% of adults have had at least one
divorce in their lifetime. One statistic shocked the conservative Christians
who depend upon Barna’s research. It was the breakdown of divorce according
to religious affiliation. Barna found that:
$ 21% of
Atheists and Agnostics have been divorced.
$ 24% of
Christians belonging to major denominations have been divorced.
$ 27% of
born-again Christians have been divorced. Let’s
face it, marriage is changing. How can we bring the wisdom of the church to
bear on this evolving institution? From medieval times the Christian church,
believing that sexual intercourse was for the generation of children, held
that marriage has two purposes: a social purpose—the procreation and nurture
of children, and an interpersonal purpose—the loving communion of the
spouses. The church considered childbearing to be the primary purpose of
marriage. In the
20th century the church changed it’s understanding and held that
the two functions of marriage were equal in importance. This is significant
because many marriages do not have the option of bearing children, the
partners may be unable to conceive a child, they may not desire children, or
they may be older people who have lost their spouses and are seeking a
relationship of mutual love and companionship. At
times, Christian marriage has been patriarchal and more concerned with
property concerns than love or faith. But at root, the Christian
understanding of marriage is liberating. Michael G. Lawler suggests that two
qualities are rooted in the story of Jesus and consistent with good
theology. The first is the equality and mutuality of the spouses.
Surprisingly, given his time and culture, the Apostle Paul insists that
the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise
the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.[1]
The second quality of Christian marriage is that it should lifelong,
providing the freedom to be imperfect and human without fear of rejection.[1] To
these qualities, let us add some wisdom from our Puritan forbears. Max
Stackhouse, writing in the Christian Century, points out that the
Puritans had a high view of sexuality in marriage which resulted in their
well-known disapproval of extramarital relations.[1]
Surprisingly, there are hundreds of Puritan sermons on love and sex. One
scholar who studied this found that mutual desire was strongly encouraged
and that the marriage bed was considered the “other altar of love”. The
communion table was the first “altar of love”, of course. Roman
Catholic theologian, David Maguire, defines marriages simply as, the
highest form of interpersonal commitment and friendship achievable between
two sexually attracted persons. I think this is a good beginning,
but is certainly not adequate as a definition of Christian marriage. The Bible uses marriage as
a metaphor of God’s relationship to Israel and Christ’s relationship to the
church. I believe that Christian marriage must include that vertical
dimension. Marriage is a covenant between two people who love each other,
the church to which they belong and God. Christian marriage is always lived
in community because the sweetest fruit of marriage is the compassion which
reaches beyond the beloved to include others. Today
to strengthen marriage we must look beyond the formal structure of marriage
as we have known it to the core of marriage as it has been envisioned in the
church. Marriage is a relationship which nurtures companionship, mutual care
and trust.[1]
Max
Stackhouse reminds us that
The Puritans believed that a marriage needs constant grace and
repeated renewal. Without it, both religion and sex can become like the
human will without God: they can fall into the powerlessness of drift or
become hardened into cynicism. They can show up as half-way commitments, or
be locked into purely opportunistic behaviors.[1]
Marriage is too great an adventure to be managed by two people alone.
Fruitful, faithful, passionate, compassionate marriage craves the support of
a beloved community and the guidance of a beloved God. I
believe that the definition of marriage is far too important to be left to
the state. I would welcome a division of responsibility. The state should
provide a legal contract to any two persons who wish to commit themselves to
one another for a lifetime of love. This contract should include all the
current benefits of a legal marriage license. The
church should celebrate such unions of lovers with the liturgies and
blessings it alone is able to bestow. The church should define marriage in
its own terms according to its traditions. Recognizing that more and more
people are seeking secular unions, the church is in an admirable position to
proclaim the good news about God’s love which can enhance and enlarge the
love of two people.
Notes:
1.
Seattle Times July 18, 2004,
Advertisement by Families Northwest
5.
Michael G. Lawler, “marriage”, The Oxford
Companion to Christian Thought, p. 408
6.
James B. Nelson, Relationships:
Blessed and Blessing, “God is Still Speaking about Marriage:
Resource Collection”, United Church of Christ, p. 54
7.
William Sloane Coffin, Credo, p.
158
8.
Lawler, p. 408
9.
1 Cor. 7: 4
10.
Lawler, p.410
11.
Max L. Stackhouse, “Edwards for Us”, The Christian Century,
October 4, 2003, p. 32.
12.
Marvin M. Ellison, Same-Sex Marriage?:
A Christian Ethical Analysis, Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 2004,
p.74
13.
Stackhouse, p. 32 |