August 21, 2010
-
What’s so sacred about marriage?
(My notes and thoughts from a sermon that I heard)
Whenever a minister officiates at a wedding, he/she acts as an agent of the state (having been granted this authority from the local municipality via the marriage license). Likewise the church, by hosting a wedding, complies with the legal system of marriage—whether through building rental, by extension via its minister, or in church members’ attendance at the wedding, the church acts a witness to the legal binding. As I see it, this involvement is essentially a conflict of the church-state boundary.
My argument to the church is that the participation of the church and minister in this legal institution goes largely unexamined and unqualified. If marriage is as valued and sacred as many Christians claim, then the church should reclaim marriage as a religious covenant and extract marriage from its currently legal entanglement. If, on the other hand, marriage is to remain as a legal institution (with nearly 1,000 laws contingent upon husband-wife designations), then the church should excuse herself from her present church-state compromise.
So: here is the hard question for the church to consider amidst all the loveliness and sentimentality of hosting weddings: What’s so sacred about marriage?
Before you leap to an answer in your mind, let me elaborate on the question. What is it about getting married that prompts many engaged couples, who are otherwise nominal Christians, to go looking for a church? When couples plan weddings, what’s the appeal of having a minister versus having a judge? And on the flip side, what’s the interest of a church in deciding who can and who cannot marry within its walls (members, non-members)? What’s the church’s purpose in hosting a wedding? And—here’s what I’m really getting at—what is it about marriage that is so sacred and so valuable to the Christian Church that she has weighed in on the legal (civic/secular) debate over gay marriage in recent years?
Marriage has not always been (and, I suggest, isn’t now) an institution of the church. In the span of history, the coming together of two individuals to create a new family unit has typically been secular: either a private family matter or the business of government. For centuries, marriage was governed by local customs. In the Middle Ages, the Church actually had trouble becoming a voice of authority over marriage because marriage traditions were so localized and secular. The Roman Catholic Church finally established marriage as a sacrament in the 13th century, only to have major leaders of the Reformation —including Martin Luther—argue that marriage was a civil contract and not the business of the church.
Simply said, the debate over who sets the rules for marriage is not new. Whenever gay marriage is debated today, there is an argument in the undercurrent of that debate: an argument of church versus government, sacred versus civil. Churches and church people are lobbying the government for the authority to say who can and who can’t marry. And, in Pennsylvania, the government has made rules for the churches over which ministers can and cannot officiate at weddings.
So let’s take the debate in society and lay the questions on the table: What part of marriage is really important? What aspect of marriage is worth defending, in your opinion? What’s the crux of marriage that we should really value and encourage?
Let’s look at an Old Testament reading. It’s a familiar story: Moses the shepherd and former prince of Egypt is having an average day watching Jethro’s flock of sheep. Suddenly, he spies a burning bush: a green, growing bush that is red and yellow with dancing flames of fire…and yet it is not dying or crumpling into a pile of ashes! Moses says to himself, “I must turn aside and look at this great sight” (Exodus 3:3). Lo and behold, the voice of the LORD speaks to him from the bush, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt, and I have heard their cry” (Exodus 3:6-7).
“Moses, Moses! You have turned aside from your sheep to marvel at a fiery bush, but I have called you here because I have already turned aside and bent my ear to hear my people’s cries.
I have turned aside from my place in the heavens to concern myself with the welfare of the Hebrew people…because that is WHO I AM. I AM WHO I AM, and my whole divine being is wrapped up in loving and rescuing my people. I have turned aside to care for them, Moses, and now I am calling you to turn aside from your business as a shepherd in order to care for them as well. I am telling you: turn aside for the sake of another, because I have turned aside for all people. Love one another, because I have loved all people. (1 John 4:19) I AM WHO I AM, and who I am is to be understood in how I turn aside, faithfully from generation to generation, to be near to those I love.”If there is a biblical mandate for marriage, if there is a God-given example for committed relationships, it is not Adam & Eve or Abraham & Sarah & Hagar, it is not Jacob & Rachel & Leah or Hosea & Gomer. If there is a biblical mandate for marriage, it is God’s own actions. It is “I AM WHO I AM” turning aside from the business of up-in-the-sky holiness to hear the Hebrew people crying in anguish in Egypt. It is God loving—over and over and over again—stubborn and selfish people such as us.
There are many examples in the world around us of people turning aside from what they are doing to focus on and care for others: parents turning aside from their work to bandage scraped knees or to rock away their children’s pain; friends turning aside from their own schedules to spend time with one another when a tragedy occurs; volunteers turning aside from lucrative jobs to assist total strangers through non-profit organizations. Turning aside for one another—loving our neighbors—is beautiful and certainly holy.
But turning aside for a partner, a lover, a spouse, in sickness and in health, in joy and in sorrow, turning aside from one’s own tunnel vision to rejoice when the other rejoices or to weep when the other weeps, day after day, faithfully through the years turning aside from one’s own ambitions and remembering to turn aside from that innate self-focus long enough to see the brilliant fire in the partner next to you, to be always tuned in to hear their cries, to say publicly that WHO I AM is wrapped up in WHO YOU ARE… that kind of turning aside in imitation of God turning aside, that kind of loving in imitation of God loving is a miracle.
In the sacred/secular battle over marriage, if we really want to weigh in on the government’s rules about marriage, then we should check our bible stories. The example of marriage that is given to us, the story of covenant that is told repeatedly from cover to cover, is not the story of one man and one woman…but the story of God’s relationship with humanity. And there’s no gender in that relationship! God speaks to Abraham and to Mary both; God appears in fire to the Israelites and to the early Christian Church alike; God turns aside to hear the cries of both Hagar and Job.
If there is something about marriage that is sacred, something about partnership that is holy, it is the faithful repetition of turning aside to see and to hear one’s partner, in imitation of God turning aside to care for those most in need, in imitation of Moses turning aside to bask in the glow of God.
So I return to the question: What’s so sacred about marriage? What’s so important about keeping marriage between a man and a woman that many Christian organizations and congregations are spending millions to lobby for legal restrictions? How does gay marriage threaten straight marriage?
Adam & Eve don’t particularly inspire me as the exemplary married couple in the bible; I want to know what their relationship was really like when the honeymoon ended and they were forced to leave the Garden of Eden. Abraham, that great father of monotheism, just wanted a son, and he would take in or throw out whichever woman (Hagar or Sarah) who was most helpful to him or most in his way. I could go on with biblical examples of “married” couples!
But show me two people—two individuals, regardless of gender, who otherwise have no reason or obligation to care for each other—and yet they faithfully and lovingly turn aside from their own egos to support, to walk with one another along life’s journey… that is the holy ground of marriage. In the brilliant flames of that partnership, you can see the reflection of God’s partnership with humanity. In the reflection of that love, you can hear God calling us out of our self-focused daydreaming, calling out to us from the miracle of a burning bush, saying, “Turn aside, for the sake of one another. Turn aside, for the sake of my name.”
Comments (12)
First… for my experience I decided to get married in the courthouse for 35 bucks because when I decided to call churches, these so called ministers told me that I have to be a “member” in their little club and some wants 200 bucks. The last one he was so rude that I just insulted him. And then they think they control everything? I don’t think so! If you’re in love with that person you don’t need laws or church to be with that person. It’s only with GOD!
Beautifully written and elouquently put! While I don’t happen to think the church needs to be involved or even the law that much since its a fully personal relationship, I totally agree with your depiction of marriage/love transcending mere gender or custom.
ha. they’re all going to come out, now. get ready. good post, btw.
So right, and yet so wrong. That is precisely the issue with Gay marriage, and broken heterosexual marriages. Man and woman together are made in the image and likeness of God, and that likeness is in their union as one flesh. This is why God is always portrayed in the Bible as the masculine, the lover, the pursuer, the hunter, while humanity, Jerusalem, the Church, are all portrayed as feminine, the beloved, the pursued, the hunted. In the use of the marital image, God’s relationship with us is most definitely spoken of in strictly and exclusively heterosexual terms, and that is the tragedy of failed marriages. They are a blasphemy of the image of Christ and the Church spoken of in Ephesians 5. And that is the problem with homosexual marriage; it can never be that image, because there is no unity in one flesh, only mutual masturbation.
Heterosexual impurity falls to the same condemnation, that the union is perverted for the sake of some other goal.
Marriage is only sacred when a man and woman chose to make it so. No church ceremony or state law can do that. There is nothing the church or state can do to sanctify a marriage in the eyes of God. As for same the sex marriage, it does not fulfill the divine plan. It is however a free choice that we have as peoples and should be respected by the state as a legal union. I would not consider a same sex marrriage as holy, but that is only my opinion, an opinion based on my interpretation of God’s plan for humanity. I do not condem those who are compelled to pursue this course. It is within their rights and freedoms to do so. The same should then also be said of heterosexual marriages which are entered into without the intention of producing children and a family.
Excellent writting and thoughts on the subject BTW!
All of these infidelities, cheating, extramarital affairs, divorce, children out of wedlock, etc does not help the “sanctity of marriage” case. People who claim that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage are fooling themselves, because it’s already been destroyed. Some clown tried to tell me that I was alive because of the sanctity of marriage. My parents could’ve had me when they were teens and never got married. My aunt and uncle got divorced after 10 years of marriage and never had kids. My other aunt had my cousin at 16 and never married the father. His conclusion? I watch too much TV. I’m choosing to have a civil ceremony, not a religious one. Heterosexuals ruined marriage and now they want to deny it to gays. How hypocritical.
Just because things existed in the secular world before they were brought to order by Judeo-Christianity doesn’t mean that marriage is secular. Judeo-Christianity is God’s revelation to man. And marriage is a huge part of that revelation, which makes marriage primarily spiritual, not secular.
And that revelation was taught, preached, lived, written and consequently passed down through the generations. That’s tradition and tradition is a great thing. Tradition is how the present keeps all the wisdom and learning from the past.
Here is just a little bit of the traditional wisdom that has been passed down over the ages. It comes from the Church:
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY
1601 “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”84
I. MARRIAGE IN GOD’S PLAN
1602 Sacred Scripture begins with the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God and concludes with a vision of “the wedding-feast of the Lamb.”85 Scripture speaks throughout of marriage and its “mystery,” its institution and the meaning God has given it, its origin and its end, its various realizations throughout the history of salvation, the difficulties arising from sin and its renewal “in the Lord” in the New Covenant of Christ and the Church.86
Such a beautiful exposition of the Gospel of Jesus from the Catechism of the Catholic Church an ancient religion which stands on the shoulders of Judaism another even more ancient religion. For more on what marriage really is go here.
what makes a marriage sacred is the oath that you and your spouse make to God. If you have not done this with your spouse yet, it is very simple and you don’t need a priest or minister to do so. You can just sit down with your spouse and pray together.
Your question as to why so many Christian organizations and congregations spend so much time and money lobbying against homosexual marriage is one I’ve asked a thousand times. Wonderful post, and very well written.
I hate seeing money wasted on lobbying things that no one is really going to solve. If people are going to ban gay marriage, they should probably work on banning quite a few more things. Oh wait, that’s right…all those things are in the OT, which a lot of Christians that support the ban on gay marriage, also believe has been replaced by the NT. How convenient.
There are a lot more worthy causes that need to be championed.
Good thoughts.
I also find it very interesting how differently marriage was handled in Old Testament days. Take Issaac and Rebekah — no minister/priest/rabbi officiated over them, no public vows (recored in Genesis, anyway), but rather, he took her to his tent and they had sex. From that point forward, they were together. Today, the church would condemn this as a hellacious sin, would it not?
Regarding gay marriage, I have so far concluded the root of the problem is that the state is involved. This is one arena where the church and the state have managed to entagle themselves together inseparably despite our “seperation of church and state” ideal, which I suspect is just one big huge oops. The only fair solution I have yet to think of is that the state should just stop regarding marriage altogether — heterosexual OR homosexual. Civil unions for all! Then if it’s so important to be “married”, the church is still there to perform it without the state having to get involved. Or, Elvis can marry you, if you don’t want the church invovled either. Whatever. But the way things are, we’ve really gotten ourselves into a sticky, messy, unfortunate situation. My question is why should the state be involved with who’s married and who’s not in the first place? When I married my wife, I found the government portion of the process to be nothing but an unnecessary pain.