![\"marriage.gif\"](\"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/marriage.gif\")
<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/span>I have <\/p>\n That doesn’t mean that it will not <\/p>\n <\/span>Let me be <\/p>\n Of course it is true that many <\/span>Listen for a moment to Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce The disciples said to him, “If this is the Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this I take this passage, which has a close parallel in <\/span>Of course it is true that <\/span>What is important about the <\/span>But there is more. <\/span>When the male disciples protest Jesus’ taking Now anyone who has studied the role of eunuchs in Ancient Fidelity in marriage or celibacy in (N.B. I have deliberately not translated the Greek <\/span>I could go on to talk about Here I want to comment on whether Christian views <\/span>Secondly, what about the No one has an inalienable right to tell the <\/span>Arguing that a minority of <\/span>Consider for a moment all In conclusion notice how I titled this essay–an Evangelical <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I have watched the debate in our country about gay marriage rights for some long time and indeed I have participated in the debate. Some things have gotten clearer over time, and some things have become more murky, but what seems evident at this point is that the majority of Americans are not…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":199,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-937","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nwatched the debate in our country about gay marriage rights for some long time
\nand indeed I have participated in the debate. Some things have gotten clearer
\nover time, and some things have become more murky, but what seems evident at
\nthis point is that the majority of Americans are not in favor of changing the
\nnormal and normative definition of marriage.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nchange in one state or another because of course we are a participatory
\ndemocracy, by which I mean that the majority does not rule, unless the majority
\nacts. <\/span>If the majority does not adequately
\nexpress its opinion through the vote or through other sorts of public actions,
\nthen the minority often does and will rule.
\n<\/span>The squeaky wheel gets the grease says the old adage, and it is often
\ntrue. <\/span>The problem for legislators is
\nthat they can only respond to the squeaky wheels they hear from. <\/span>The majority of letters sent to your
\nCongressman does not equal the majority’s sentiment, but there are few other
\nways for an elected official to judge such a matter. <\/p>\n
\nclear that this column is not about civil unions for gays and lesbians. They
\nalready have that right in most states.
\n<\/span>Nor is this column about the debate about one’s ‘significant other’
\ngetting companion coverage when it comes to health care. <\/span>We could debate that as well, but this column
\nfocuses on the most important baseline issue— the definition of marriage from
\na Biblical point of view. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nChristians don’t agree with the Bible’s definition of marriage or at least don’t
\nagree that is what the Bible says. <\/span>In my
\nview this is an example of Christians ignoring the obvious or deliberately
\ndisagreeing with the Biblical text. <\/span>So
\nlet’s start with Jesus, as all too often we hear the canard that Jesus has
\nnothing to say about this debate about gay marriage and does not oppose
\nit. <\/span>Nothing could be further from the
\ntruth. <\/p>\n
\nMatthew’s presentation of Jesus’ teaching on marriage and singleness—<\/p>\n
\n“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every
\nreason?” <\/span>“Haven’t you
\nread,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male
\nand female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother
\nand be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no
\nlonger two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not
\nseparate.” <\/p>\n
\ncommand that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her
\naway?” <\/p>\n
\nyour wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the
\nbeginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for porneia<\/i>, and marries another woman
\ncommits adultery.” <\/p>\n
\nsituation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” <\/p>\n
\nword, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because
\nthey were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced
\nmarriage
\n<\/sup>because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should
\naccept it.”<\/p>\n
\nMark 10 and surely goes back to the historical Jesus in some form, as making a
\nclear statement of Jesus’ views on marriage and singleness. <\/span>First of all marriage is grounded by Jesus in
\nhis creation theology. <\/span>God created
\nhuman beings male and female, not androgynous, not male and male or female and
\nfemale, but male and female.
\n<\/span>Furthermore, it is not just the fact that God created two genders that
\ntell us about God’s intent, it is that God plays the role of matchmaker in the
\nGenesis story bringing man and woman together for their own good and for the
\npropagation of the species. <\/span>Notice the
\nphrase “what God has joined together”.
\n<\/span>The implications of this are clear enough. God is not merely in favor of
\nheterosexual monogamy, this is the only relationship which he not merely
\nblesses but is actively involved in joining people together in. <\/span>Put simply, any other sort of arrangement is
\nnot endorsed by God, and does not meet the criteria to be called a marriage. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nall sorts of people, including God’s people, have practiced polygamy, Levirate
\nmarriage, and various other sorts of arrangements. <\/span>This is irrelevant as there is no endorsement
\nof, nor divine instigation of these other arrangements. <\/span>Levirate marriage in fact was not seen as
\nreal marriage. It was viewed under the rubric of the duty of a kinsman redeemer
\nto raise up an heir for a deceased male relative in a world where patriarchy
\nwas king. <\/span>This was not God’s original
\ndesign or desire, it was, like so much of the legislation in the Mosaic Law, an
\nattempt to limit sin and deal with the effects of human fallenness effectively.\n<\/p>\n
\ndebate between Jesus and the Pharisees, which is primarily a debate about
\ndivorce and its grounds, not about the nature of marriage, is that Jesus says
\nthat for his followers there will be no more allowance for hardness of heart.
\nJesus is going back to the original creation order design and endorsing it and God’s
\noriginal intent, which was for heterosexual monogamy. <\/span>Jesus believed that God’s final saving
\nactivity was being brought into the world through himself and his ministry, and
\nthat now God’s original plans and intents, including God’s original plan for
\nmarriage ought to be honored going forward.
\n<\/span>Clearly enough, the First Evangelist took this to be normative teaching
\nfor his community as well. <\/p>\n
\naway their privilege of divorce (which was almost always something only men had
\nthe right to do in that culture), Jesus tells them there is one alternative to
\nheterosexual monogamy with one wife for life.
\n<\/span>That option is to be a eunuch for the Kingdom of God. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nNear Eastern cultures will realize that Jesus is talking about someone who
\nengages in no sexual activity. Indeed, if they are either born eunuchs
\nliterally or made eunuchs by themselves or another literally, they are
\nincapable of sexual intercourse. <\/span>In
\nessence what Jesus is telling his disciples is that they have exactly two
\noptions if they wish to be his faithful disciples— either marry one wife for
\nlife whom God has brought into your life, or remain celibate in
\nsingleness. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nsingleness. <\/span>This has for centuries been
\nthe Christian standard when it came to appropriate sexual expression, and it
\nalso has been the Christian standard when it comes to the appropriate
\ndefinition of marriage. <\/span>This definition
\nis grounded in what Jesus himself taught his first disciples. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nword in the exception clause since there is so much debate about its meaning. <\/span>One thing is clear— it does not merely mean
\nmarital infidelity. <\/span>A porne <\/i>was a prostitute, so it is possible he is talking about an
\nexception for prostitution, but the other technical meaning of porneia <\/i>is incest, and Jesus certainly
\ncould have commented on incestuous relationships that were not proper marriages–indeed
\nhis cousin John the baptizer lost his head for critiquing such a marriage–that of
\nHerod Antipas and Herodias). <\/p>\n
\nhow Paul’s view of marriage, as expressed in places like 1 Cor. 7 or 1 Thess. 4
\ndoes not differ from Jesus’ but that is a subject for another post. <\/span>Paul also believes there are only two
\nlegitimate callings for Christians in this matter— fidelity in heterosexual
\nmonogamy or celibacy in singleness. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nof marriage should continue to be the standard for an increasingly
\nnon-Christian culture in America. <\/span>This is a fair question, and here would be my
\nresponse. As it happens, the vast majority of Americans, Jewish, Christian,
\nMuslim or even of no religious affiliation at present agree that heterosexual
\nmonogamy is marriage, and should remain the definition of marriage. <\/span>In a democracy we would and should expect if the
\nmajority people get out and vote and express their views that that view would
\ncontinue to be the law of the land. <\/p>\n
\nissue of justice and fairness? You often hear those terms thrown around loosely
\nin this debate. <\/span>Here is where I say that
\nredefining the definition of marriage is not an inherent right of anyone in America. It’s
\nnot an issue of justice or fairness. <\/span>If
\nthere is a justice and fairness issue at all, which I don’t think there is when
\nit comes to something like marriage, then surely the provision of the state for
\ncivil unions satisfies that concern. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nmajority of Americans “you must change your definition of marriage or else you
\nare being unjust”. <\/span>I am afraid that
\nthis whole way of framing the debate is totally misguided. <\/span>That would involve not only a redefinition
\nof marriage but a redefinition of justice.
\n<\/span>And it is hard to doubt that much of this has come out of the increasing
\nclamor for and sense of entitlement that we hear from so many in our culture
\nwho think that they are innately entitled to have life on their own terms. <\/span>I suppose this is where radical individualism
\ncan lead, but as long as we are still trying to be “one nation, under God,
\nindivisible, with liberty and justice for all”
\n<\/span>we need to take the first five words in that phrase as seriously as the
\nlast six. <\/p>\n
\nAmericans should have a legal right to redefine marriage is rather like arguing
\nthat a minority of Americans has a right to redefine what is and is not godly
\nlove. And on that subject, the Bible most definitely has an opinion. <\/span>Holy matrimony is supposed to be a condition which
\nsanctifies the partners, not a condition in which we baptize, endorse, or
\nlegalize someone’s sin and call it good. It’s not really marriage unless it can
\nbe holy wedlock. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nof the huge hew and cry about Tiger Woods, and even the jokes now being bandied
\nabout (e.g. that he should change his name to Cheetah Woods). Why do you think
\nit is that so many people are scandalized by his behavior? <\/span>The answer is simple— there are indeed
\nethical standards of conduct when it comes to marriage. <\/span>Tiger should be faithful to his one and only
\nwife. <\/span>Playing the field whilst married
\nis immoral. <\/span>In other words, our country
\ndoes still care about fidelity in traditional marriage. <\/span>I am saying that there is no good reason to
\nredefine the meaning of marriage now, and many good and Biblical reasons not to
\ndo so. <\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n
\nChristian point of view. <\/span>I realize
\nthere are other points of view even within the Evangelical community, and I am
\nwilling to discuss them. <\/span>The discussion
\nshould be civil, and it is not helpful to throw around words like ‘prejudice’
\nand ‘bias’ <\/span>to try and settle the debate,
\nas if those terms could be trump cards.
\n<\/span>One’s man’s supposed prejudice in this debate actually turns out to be
\nanother man’s ethical principles grounded in the Bible. <\/span> <\/span>Think
\non these things. <\/span> <\/span> <\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n