Marriage and the Family (and the Church)
January 11, 2010
A broader sense of Christian community, and even ecumenical hopefulness, has been a topic which drives my burgeoning love for the Anglican community. I know that Tony has recently posted some very lucid concerns regarding the current, though less well known, theological debates roiling the Episcopal Church. However much I may agree with his assessment of these issues (especially his statement that he feels like, “I walked into the middle of a Family Feud that I’m not much interested in taking to the grave, and while I hold on in trust, I’m still at a point where I’m apprehensive as to how it will turn out.”), I cannot help but feel like this is the place I want to struggle with and through my faith – especially given that my options are to join a communion that seems to be indefinitely charged by ethnocentric concerns (Orthodoxy) or a to join a communion that seems to be forever trapped in an authoritarian “top down” hierarchy (Roman Catholic), neither of which I have any hope of functioning within because I fail to satisfy the rites of passage that seem to entitle the leadership of these traditions beyond less tangible evidences of calling or anointing. Consequently, the BCP and the common worship play a large role in my confidence. This weekend I received a powerful reminder about why that is.
No amount of ink that I could spill on the topic of marriage as theologically analogous within Christianity would ever amount to more than a drop within the ocean of ink that has already been put to paper on the topic. Nonetheless, I attended a wedding celebration this weekend and was reminded of the power of community, yet again.
I know that our blog contributors have spent a lot of energy struggling through what marriage in our world, in our country, and within Christianity should look like. At the very least, I think we all have a renewed sense that we must allow the sacramental identity of Christian marriage to shine through as something much different than the secular civil unions that share the moniker. It is with such an understanding that I attend Christian marriages.
I am generally a happy person at a wedding, though, and this was a happy wedding. Both bride and groom were my students at one time, and I have a mentor relationship with the young man. They love each other, they are mature individuals with a strong sense of identity, and they are ready to start a life serving each other sacrificially. However, my happiness comes from more than just future prospects for the happy couple. I am happy at wedding ceremonies, because I am happy in my marriage.
When I attend a wedding ceremony, I understand that, as a guest of the families, I am part of the covenant that is about to be made. However, not only am I participating in the covenant between the bride and groom, but also I am renewing the covenant I have made with my wife. I have never attended a wedding where I did not tearfully, joyfully look back to my own wedding day and determine in my heart to love my wife better, to serve my family more faithfully, to show Christ in my home more completely. And, certainly, that is the point of ceremony for human beings.
This spiritual and communal reality is what I have come to love about the Anglican community, though. I make no attempt to say that other Christian traditions (or even other cultural or religious traditions outside of Christianity) do not understand or practice this concept. Nevertheless, I have seen time and again that the liturgy set down by the BCP continually emphasizes that living as a Christian means living within a community. When we pray for a baptismal candidate, we renew our baptismal vows, when we pray for a confirmation candidate; we renew our commitment to the Church, and so on. Time and again, the BCP hammers home the point that if we are to call ourselves Christian we will abide in Christ, but no person abides in Christ alone. We do so as a family, as a community. So, when I attend the marriage ceremonies of the people I love, I have an opportunity to remember the grace of God, to remember the union that my wife and I enjoy, to remember the heavy responsibility of raising my children, to remember that I belong to a broader community that helps me to be a better husband, father, and Christian.
Wilderness Style: Leviticus and Sex
January 5, 2010
Part of an ongoing series on Leviticus and Law in Post-Culture War America.
Is sex just for romance?
This is partially because so many of the prevailing concerns of the Priestly community no longer define our culture. It is undeniable that Leviticus betrays the social structures from which it is a product:
“The basic sociological unit in Israel was the ‘father’s house.’ It included three to five generations consisting of fifty to a hundred people living in close proximity.”- Jacob Milgrom, “HarperCollins Study Bible“
Thus Leviticus’ sexual ethic revolves around Progeny. The preocuppations with potential illegitimate offspring in the sex sections of the Holiness Code (18:1-18; 20:10-21) reflect these concerns. These prohibitions do not so much discuss adultery or incest—the great evils of which are presupposed—as the appropriation of heirs. The structure of these sexual laws concern an ancient familial hierarchy we no longer follow.
This shouldn’t mean that these Scriptures are no longer of any use to us but we should be careful when attempting to extract from them any rigid rules that stretch across time and culture.
From the short discussion above, we’ll recognize that two modern and competing visions of sex are equally foreign to the priestly writer:
1) the isolation of sex into ecstatic romantic sexual love between husband and wife as the primary goal2) the isolation of sex into an inconsequential biological event, with personal pleasure or the expression of “love” as the primary goal
These views have been pitched to us as equal and opposite with the idea being that we must choose between one or the other. However, a reflection on Leviticus should reveal this to be a false dichotomy.
Leviticus believes in a world of teeming harmony where the procreative energies of humankind coincide with those of the earth. At the center of this ideal is a theological statement of body and sex. Human physical intimacy is in fact ‘something’ for the priestly community—a designed phenomenon that will neither remain isolated from the other processes of creation, nor innocuous as a matter of arbitrary emotional expression.
In contrast, the modern scientific mind has broken sex down into it’s most elemental and thus observable state: how it affects the individual—a process that Wendell Berry criticizes in his discussion of the body and the earth.
“The division of sexual energy from the function of household and community that it ought both to empower and to grace is analogous to that other modern division between hunger and the earth. When it is no longer allied by proximity and analogy to the nurturing disciplines that bound the household to the cycles of fertility and the seasons, life and death, then sexual love loses its symbolic or ritualistic force, its deepest solemnity and its highest joy. It loses its sense of consequence and responsibility. It becomes “autonomous,” to be valued only for its own sake, therefore frivolous, therefore destructive—even of itself. Those who speak of sex as ‘recreation,’ thinking to claim for it ‘a new place,’ only acknowledge its displacement from Creation.”- Wendell Berry, “The Body and the Earth“
Both the “Traditional View” (an absurd distinction, given how recently it’s been articulated) and the “Secular View” (equally slippery but whatever) suffer from a false presupposition of sex as a primarily individual activity with the former arguing for certain restrictions on who/when etc… and the latter arguing for more license. The fact that this is the chief and most recognizable distinction between these two tumultuous and confusing powerhouses should give us pause!
From the point of view of the Levitical writer, sexual ethics—like all ethics—are discerned within the context of community and creation. In this sense, the condemnations of Canaanite customs (18:19-23; 20:1-6) are integrally connected to the land-focused warnings (18:24-30; 20:22-24). Unholy behavior by humankind—both as a community and as individuals—not only compromises the presence of God amongst his people but risks defiling the land (18:24).
“Given this witness, the exhortations in Leviticus 18 and 20 are freighted with urgent concerns; if they are not heeded, creation itself is jeopardized.”- Samuel E. Balentine, “Leviticus“
Sexual norms and family structures continue to shift in modern culture as they have throughout history. However our communities decide to discern these tangled issues, the testimony of Scripture reminds us that our sexual lives are not lived in a vacuum. Rather, it is a beautiful vision of natural harmony that our most intimate human relationships are designed to image the creator God.
|
||||||||||
Non Sequiturs from the Political Realm
November 12, 2009
This one is just for fun, kids.
I rarely write about politics, and for good reason. As one who does not trust politicians as a general rule, it’s hard to follow the politics of any given party long enough to become well versed in the arena. However, I’ll venture out on to a limb and see if anyone wants to cut it out from under me. Here are few of the things I hear happening in political conversations that make me scratch my head in wonderment. Each of these, mind you, are statements coming from a single individual in any given number of settings.
1. We should fight against abortion — We should fight for capital punishment.
2. We should restrict (or cut) welfare benefits going to the poor and disabled, because they are really lazy and worthless for not working for a living — We should repeal “death taxes” because the rich ought to be able to make sure their children never have to work for a living.
3. We should vote against healthcare reform because Universal healthcare (single payer, public option or no) is socialism (er Marxism, er communism, wait… aren’t those all the same? Oh, I know it’s Nazism) — We should keep dumping money and resources into public schools, public transportation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Medicare Advantage. They are programs that are helping the American way of life after all.
4. We should fight to get prayer back into the schools — We should fight to keep all Muslims out of the military.
5. We should fight for the sanctity of marriage and not allow same sex couples to be wed — We should uphold an individual’s legal right to divorce, prenuptial agreements, and annulment because over 50% of marriages fail.
Again, I’m no political expert, and the people I hear making these statements in the same conversation may not represent the accurate or “best” of their respective political ideology. Feel free to add your own or talk about how stupid I am for not understanding the nuance behind these contradictions. [Author’s Note: Just so you know, I am a registered Republican and voted for McCain, even though Palin scares the bejesus out of me, still - so please don’t assume I am one of those wacky “liberals” or one of those crazy "conservatives" for that matter.]
Holiday Rants and Marriage Advice from Your Favorite Crazy Uncle
October 30, 2009
I was listening to a talk radio show on my way to work this morning; and they were discussing an article about the dangers of Halloween published by one of the contributors at CBN.com – it included claims that Halloween has no basis as a real holiday only the kind of vile pagan ritualism we should associate with human sacrifice, that Halloween is a covert attempt by Satanists to ruin the minds of young children, and that witches working at candy corporations have “laced” Halloween candy with “time release” curses. I thought long and hard about launching into a sugar induced tirade about the idiocy of Christian Fundamentalists that want to ruin the holiday season with their asinine “historical proof” that modern holidays are all rooted in paganism and therefore constitute some form of witchcraft or idolatry while wearing my custom fit prosthetic vampire fangs and a cheap, pre-packaged, Wal-Mart brand Harry Potter costume made out of nylon. However, something more interesting happened today, and I think the group would be better served to discuss something else (though, I certainly hope someone takes up the clarion call to mock wacko fundamentalism of any brand – and especially of the Pat Robertson brand during the holidays).
I was approached by a young man wanting advice about relationships today. I frequently get approached by young couples in their early twenties and late teens asking for advice about their relationship. There was nothing particularly unique about today’s experience. Both the young man and his significant other have supportive, Christian families that want the best for their children. Both of them are reasonably mature for their age. Both of them are getting the same advice from their parents that ultimately sends every couple my way. Their parents want them to break up after high school, go to different colleges, and try meeting new people before they commit to one another.
I have never contradicted the authority of parents (nor will I ever), no matter the age of the people asking. Consequently, this conversation always goes the same way. I address what I perceive to be the fear of their parents. We talk, instead, about what makes marriage successful. I am going to share the essential elements of that conversation with you, dear reader, because I’d love to hear what other wisdom is available…AND, because I have never once had this conversation and not left contemplating the health of my own relationships. So, here is an outline of what I discuss with these young couples (yes, it happens so often I have an outline):
- Let’s validate the concerns of your parents: the institution of marriage is in a critical state; a person’s maturity has, at least some, corollary relationship to their age; choosing a spouse is one of the most important decisions of your life, and too often people want to make that decision independent of their families.
- Anyone who is in a relationship (marriage or otherwise) in order to get something out of it for themselves is going to fail at that relationship. We don’t thrive in communities when we are only out to satisfy our own needs.
- Most people who are trying to get something selfish out of a romantic relationship do not have a fully developed sense of self or independence. Which certainly is not to say that we do not all continue to grow into our own identities and independence, but someone who needs a relationship to validate who they are is probably not going to succeed in a marriage.
- Relationships are successful when those involved in them understand what it means to genuinely receive benefit from serving the other person. When we are finally able to see that it is fulfilling to serve the needs of another person, and can see the benefit of sacrificing for those we love, we are probably able to have a healthy marriage. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that all failed marriages got that way because one or both of the people involved quit looking out for the best interest of the other person and started worrying about pleasing themselves first.
- Do you understand and appreciate that you are entering into a relationship with that other person’s entire family (in the case of romantic relationships)? I have said repeatedly, “you are not just marrying that person – you are marrying their entire family.” Do the families of those involved in a relationship get along? Are they prepared to deal with the stress of having family members that will not approve of or support their relationship? Can you serve and sacrifice for your significant other’s family in the same way you are devoted to serving your significant other?
- If you’re considering a relationship with someone, why? Do you understand the rich personal fulfillment of raising and sacrificing for a family? Do you understand what it means to enter into a covenant with another human being? Interestingly enough, most of these young couples do indeed understand what real love means, and they have it.
(Here’s the important one)
Some Thoughts on The Church
May 8, 2009
Well, as it so often happens online, certain topics get latched onto and engage more conversation than others. I guess it’s my fault since I posted this piece, which sparked this piece, then this one. Well now it has progressed, and before I move on with my seminary pieces I wanted to weigh in again on homosexuality, especially “marriage.”
I believe that this issue is easily and quickly gets entered into haphazardly and without a systematic approach, so I hope with my posts not to “seal the deal” so to speak, but I want to dust out the cobwebs of what seem to me to be lazy arguments, manipulative language, and un-theological frameworks of discussion.
But first, I want to start with a defense of the homosexual Christian. The reason that I want to do this is because I think that until gay Christians are free from the sin and hypocrisy of homophobia in the Church then I always want to assure them that I am not “out to get them.” So much Christian damage has been done on this because of what I feel to be reactionary fear-filled rhetoric and just plain immature and unChristlike “ick” factors.
I take it to be true that:
- Of course, a gay Christian is not “half” or “3/4” of a Christian. That is, by faith, baptism, faithful partaking of the Sacraments, and faithfulness to the Church’s teaching there should be no question of a “lesser” status.
- Any person who by fear, ignorance, hatred, immaturity or any other reason, ends up communicating anything less than the piercing love of God in Jesus Christ to a gay person has done what Christ condemned when he said that those who cause siblings to stumble are in a heap of trouble. There should be no “but” attached to any soteriology, either what Christ has done is what he has done, or we all have to start earning our salvation.
- Any speaking of gay relationships means ONLY completely faithful monogamous relationships. The Church’s teaching is that sex outside of marriage, regardless of “love,” is out of bounds.
- “How can I be wrong if I’m so sincere” is not a Christian maxim.
- Words and abstractions like “love” must be drawn from larger scopes of Scripture than the Johannine Corpus alone, and even these must take exegesis and proper theological interpretation into authoritative account. Christian theo-logia must be set within a Christian framework so that words and concepts do not lose their meaning.
- Just like those in favor of accepting homosexuality get to ask the hard questions, hard questions must be addressed to them in a thoughtful and respectable manner consistent with Christian charity otherwise this whole conversation is a conversation about emotions.
Having said that, and meaning every word, I want to move on to start clearing brush. And I want to get at this by a different route than is normally taken. Before I mention anything about homosexuals and the Church, I want to speak first of Christians. How is “diversity” and “different gifts” meant? How does the Body function? And how are people “equal and unequal?” Are these appropriate terms to be using? How has the surrounding culture perhaps warped our understanding of the Kingdom and our responsibilities?
We will cover a lot of ground, but I hope the end will refine the conversation, on this site at least.
Well, I’m all for Biblical Marriage
May 2, 2009
Hey all. I’m reposting this column, with permission, from this site. Since everyone is up in arms about same sex marriage and the church’s many responses to the issue, I was asking the very same question, “Wait, what is biblical marriage, exactly?” I found the article quite enlightening. 
* * *
” We hear a lot about “biblical marriage” these days. Some of us might not be clear on what that means. The website Religious Tolerance has provided a helpful article on the types of marriage found in the pages of the bible.
Here’s a summary:
- Polygynous Marriage
- Levirate Marriage
- A man, a woman and her property — a female slave
- A man, one or more wives, and some concubines
- A male soldier and a female prisoner of war
- A male rapist and his victim
- A male and female slave
- Monogamous, heterosexual marriage
Probably the most common form of marriage in the bible, it is where a man has more than one wife.
When a woman was widowed without a son, it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her. If the resulting child was a son, he would be considered the heir of her late husband. See Ruth, and the story of Onan (Gen. 38:6-10).
The famous “handmaiden” sketch, as preformed by Abraham (Gen. 16:1-6) and Jacob (Gen. 30:4-5).
The definition of a concubine varies from culture to culture, but they tended to be live-in mistresses. Concubines were tied to their “husband,” but had a lower status than a wife. Their children were not usually heirs, so they were safe outlets for sex without risking the line of succession. To see how badly a concubine could be treated, see the famous story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19:1-30).
Women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker.
A female slave could be married to a male slave without consent, presumably to produce more slaves.
and of course …
What you might think of as the standard form of marriage, provided you think of arranged marriages as the standard. Also remember that inter-faith or cross-ethnic marriage were forbidden for large chunks of biblical history.
The important thing to realize here is that none of these models are described as better than any other. All appear to have been accepted.
So there you go. The next time someone says that we need to stick with biblical marriage in this country, you can ask them which of the eight kinds they would prefer, and why. “
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
