Bože! A Grace Catholic Project

Bože!
Gay "Marriage" – Seeing Relationships In A New Light?

This morning I watched the most recent clips from PBS’ Religion & Ethics Weekly which I often enjoy. In this week’s batch is this report on the challenge faced by Christian communities in California now that gay “marriage” is legal.

One point raised in the interviews got me thinking, on the topic in a way I had previously not. One Presbyterian minister pointed out that this creates a situation of finalising, to seal an arrangement between two people which “is not of God’s design”.

This idea of “God’s design” for the mode of human relationships is of course an important one. As I understand the teaching and tradition of our faith – at its root the idea is that the other is a reflection, an icon of Christ, thus we approach our relationships with him or her as we would approach our relationship with the Master. Later in the same interview another Presbyteran minister raised the point that our contemporary expression of “God’s design” for our relationships does not approve of models deemed perfectly acceptable in Scripture. Today we do not allow men to have multiple wives, and there is no social, religious or legal recognition of concubines (slaves).

Here we are faced with an immediate challenge – how do we OC/IC folk approach Scripture?

Normally when I think of Lv. 18.22 I reflect on the holiness code of priests serving in the temple in Jerusalem. Now I’m sitting here reflecting on an entirely diferent approach – it’s both fun and enlightening. If our basic approach to relationships is to see the divinity in the other, if a particular bond is deep, enriching, and unites two people of the same gender, how could it not be according to “God’s design”?

I can think of one problem with this model – balance. Both Genesis and the writings of Paul extol the balance and contributions of male and female in a “whole” image of human nature. The challenge here is to talk about how, as a community we address this idea of complimentary wholeness. It seems to me that it takes us down a path that I’ve often thought about (and I’m not the only one, others have written some rather interesting books and articles on it) we have, it seems, placed such emphasis on “marriage” and the theology of marriage that we’ve left other relationships out in the cold. The result I think is that we’ve been living in theological poverty – not getting the full benefit of the teaching to approach one another as icons of Christ – a model that is seriously “un-balanced” and lacking wholeness.

Here, I think, is where we OC/IC folk can once again be a vanguard – our openness to new ideas and new expressions of our tradition is both a blessing and a curse – here, however, I think it can be a real blessing. Most of our communities are not victims to what I’ve previously called “the cult of the family” – this means that we have a different perspective on the composition of our relationships, and our communities. Perhaps we could begin by sharing our individual experiences of different relational models. Perhaps too, we could call upon the wealth of examples in Scripture and Tradition to point the way out of this unhealthy over-dependence on a single model. I’m sure you can think of other ways that we can constructively engage with the theology of other relationships.

01/07/2008 | Filed under OC/IC Issues, OC/IC Theology - Social Justice, OC/IC Theology - Ways of Doing Theology.

  • Lyngine

    Welcome back, Alexis! Thought provoking as always…

    Let me reframe this and see what you think. I think one of the charisms of OC/IC communities isn’t so much creating new models as redefining and expanding older ones. So for example, we take the definition of “church” which most associate with large numbers of people, a building, and centralized organization and redefine it to encompass small faith communities celebrating liturgy/sacraments in homes/rented spaces/wherever. And in doing so, by our very nature, expand not only the definition of church, but also become visible reminders that no one organization or physical space can contain or own God’s grace in the world.

    Marriage is similar. (Yes, I know we’ll have to agree to disagree on terminology but go along with this for a bit.). I use the term marriage because that conveys not only the relationship between two people, but in a catholic context, places such a relationship on the level of sacrament—visible sign of God’s grace in the world. In using the term marriage in OC/IC parishes for both opposite and same -sex couples, we expand understanding of the term and the sacrament—hence, God’s grace is made manifest both in opposite and same-sex couples. So in using the word marriage for opposite and same-sex couples in OC/IC parishes, we expand understanding not only of what constitutes as sacrament, but also become visible reminders that God’s grace is not so easily bounded by traditional definitions.

    Family is the same. Mostly for this I reflect on a recent Sunday Mass at our parish with two families there with children. One family an opposite sex couple and the other a same sex couple. The striking thing for me was that neither noticed anything unusual and were more focused on bonding about the trials and tribulations of parenthood than another aspect. In a context where we’ve redefined and expanded the definitions of so many things and lived with those new definitions, I think it carries over to the quality and life of our communities as well as to theology.

    It’s not so much new or novel relationships. I think of the charism of OC/IC communities expanding definitions and boundaries—in my shorthand, I call it “taking God out of the box”.

    Good luck with das Elefant!

  • Tim Cravens

    Even the virulently anti-gay Washington Times, owned and operated by the Sun Myung Moon cult, has stopped putting the word marriage in quotes when referring to marriages of same-sex couples. Sad to see a homosexual mimic the usages of the far right. No one is holding a gun to your head to force you to marry your partner — but the vast majority of the lesbian and gay community realizes that only by accessing the exact same institution to which heterosexual couples have access. As for the complementarian argument, those of us who take Galatians 3:28 seriously realize that the false distinctions of race, sex, etc. must fall away in the presence of Christ. (Every argument against same-sex marriage can — and has — be used against the ordination of women — including the complementarian argument.)

    The reason that marriage receives such a high position in the Christian tradition is that the lifelong covenant of mutual self-giving required of two people who marry is an outstanding icon of the relationship between the persons of the Trinity, and of the relationship between Christ and the Church (which is why is is used by St. Paul). I don’t see why holding up marriage as one ideal works against those who are unmarried — should we abolish ordination because it might hurt the feelings of the laity?

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Thanks guys for your comments – enjoyable as always.

    You both raise a number of points which I think only fair that I sit with for a little bit before putting finger to key.

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Hi Tim,

    this is the first installment – please bear with me whilst I compose the others.

    Like you I take Gal.3.28 very seriously – indeed it is in my opinion one of the strongest arguments in favour of women’s ordination. I’m not sure I follow how you understand it working in the context of gay marriage – unless – if by extension you’re asserting that the “false distinction” is gay vs. straight; thus, just as male, female, Greek and Jew are distinctions that pass away in baptism so too sexuality. Hmmmm . . . . This is interesting.

    I do wonder though if this is not setting one up for an exegetical trap. While I do accept that in baptism all members of the body of Christ have equal access to the ministry of the ekklesia – and this to me includes both women’s ordination and the celebration of, blessing of, and sealing the covenant of various relationships including marriage/union. I think we ought to be cautious in using Gal. 3.28 as a foundation for asserting the right to marry (gay or straight) because it is in fact, and has been historically interpreted to mean that ALL social bonds are irrelevant in light of our baptism and indeed that no-one ought to marry if they were single prior to baptism, nor should they seek a separation from their spouse – because this distinction is irrelevant (1Cor. 7; see also Mt. 22.30).

    Corinthians is helpful again in that it points out how the bonds of ethnicity, social status, and particularly marriage inhibit the exercise of our freedom in Christ. “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife. If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that” (1Cor. 7.27-8).

    In the Gospel of Luke an admirer comes and promises to follow Jesus, if only he would allow him to say his goodbyes to his family. Jesus’ reply is seemingly harsh: “No one who sets a hand to plough and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God” (Lk. 9.62). The point is here, that it is our attachment to the bonds of our society, and our not-unreasonable desire to be a full participant in that society that inhibits the exercise of freedom demanded by discipleship.

    Social bonds – the distinctions Paul mentions in Galatians and Corinthians – inhibit our exercise of our birthright of absolute free will, and full equality with one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. This is why, for example, virginity was all the rage in the third and fourth century – why it was such a radical life choice for women. By not contracting marriage they were not “possessed” or “claimed” by society (1Cor. 7.32-5); see also Gregory of Nyssa On Virginity). Just as a Jew, or Greek, or in my case a Slav is “possessed” by that society – i.e. its rules and expectations. It is for this reason that the desert fathers were often said to be living with the angels, having abandoned the bonds of human society they transcended it, in favour of a life of absolute freedom.

    I am not – it must be said – arguing that we should not as Christians enter into sacramental relationships – God forbid. I think too that it is fair to say that neither Paul nor Jesus were pushing a life of celibacy and loneliness for us – Jesus attended the wedding at Cana and performed his first miracle there, and Paul himself says that while virginity is better, marriage is good too – this would, I think, be too simplistic of an interpretation. They were however, pointing out that all other relationships and distinctions pale in comparison to our unity in Christ through baptism. So much so that they are ostensibly irrelevant – and in fact could be a great hindrance. By using the familiar, and powerful models of interrelationships between people, Jesus and Paul draw our attention to the challenges of discipleship, and of expressing and experiencing the fullness of our new life in Baptism.

    Thus, I’m not entirely sure that Galatians is the best point of reference for an argument in favour of gay marriage – or marriage generally. The point of the text is to point out that only one relationship really matters – our union with Christ.

  • Tim Cravens

    I will post at greater length later as well, but I don’t think you understood my use of Galatians 3:28. Reserving marriage for heterosexual couples and denying it to same-sex couples is an application of the categories of male and female to the sacrament of marriage in precisely the same way that denial of ordination to women is an application of those categories to ordination.

    I think you’re trying to combine two separate points — one, your uneasiness with seeing same-sex marriages treated identically to opposite-sex marriages, and two, your uneasiness with undue elevation of marriage over other relationships.

    As for the first, my position has always been, since coming out over twenty years ago (gasp), that if a heterosexual individual or couple has the right to do something, a gay individual or couple must have exactly the same right, or there is no equality.

    As for the second, while there can be an overemphasis on marriage and family, I think there can also be an underemphasis, particularly among liberals. I am unapologetically conservative in my view that sexual activity is most appropriate in the context of marriage — it is a sign of the unconditional love and absolute, unreserved, lifelong commitment two people have for one another and have expressed in the covenant of marriage. In other contexts, the more it approaches this, the better (a couple who are committed to one another but not quite ready to marry are much better off having sex than a quick hookup for a one-night stand made in a bar). By de-emphasizing marriage, we run the risk of contributing to the trivialization of sex that pervades our modern Western society, which objectifies other people.

    I think that the contribution that we in the IC/OC world can give, and which the ICCC certainly does give to its members, is that by accepting same-sex marriage and moving beyond the debate over gays in the church, we have been freed to focus on other aspects of the faith — a freedom it seems that many of our sisters and brothers in the larger churches lack.

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Hi Lyngine

    Yes, absolutely God’s grace is expressed in and through marriage and “marriage” (grin) – just as I think it is expressed in my friendship with you and Tim. This is sacrament full stop. However, we don’t talk about our friendship as marriage, nor to we expect that the gifts of friendship (both to the participating individuals, and the wider community) are the same as the gifts of marriage. There is therefore, to my mind, no logical reason why we ought to expect that a straight union and a same sex union bring the same gifts. We need only look at the marriage rite, and the adelphopoeisis to see that this variety is both recognised and celebrated. It does not mean, that my union with my partner and yours with Carol set us apart from the community – quite the opposite, as Paul teaches us when he says that through acknowledging our variety (in union with Christ) we are better able to share concern for one another, share in the joys of one another, and to look after one another.

    This is not to say that the two relationships don’t overlap – as you pointed out two sets of parents, one straight one gay, will have loads of stories to share of the common struggle in parenting. Scratch a bit beneath the surface however, and I think its fair to say that the mechanics of those two sets of relationships works just differently enough to warrant the community celebrating and acknowledging that they are different types of relationship – and to my mind this is great, it encourages reflection, it encourages us to reach out to one another in ways perhaps that we would not have otherwise done – had we lumped them all in together, treating them as “the same thing” – marriage. In this way then we are, as we ought to, doing as you have said – expanding on existing models.

    You are, I think, right when you say that our OC/IC gift is not creating new models but exploring and expanding on existing ones. I think here, we are faced with expanding on something more basic – sacrament – and our sacramental relationships; rather than the more particular grace of marriage. For far too long too many sacramental Christians have believed that God’s grace may fit only in the box of the “seven sacraments” – here is where we are able, take “God out of the box”.

Pages
 
February 2012
S M T W T F S
« Jan    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829  
Recently Scrawled
Holy Tweet!