I want to thank Elon Community Church for sponsoring this important event and I want to thank my co-panelists for their comments, and I want to thank you all for having a spirit of inquiry. Our state will be making an important decision on May 8 and I hope that I can help folks become more informed as they go to the polls. When Rev. Orwig approached me about this panel, he underscored that the panelists should present a balanced perspective regarding Amendment One. I hope to do my best to provide a fair accounting; however, as someone trained to interpret the New Testament, the best I can do is to give you a glimpse at the biblical text’s approach to marriage and family within the text’s historical context. In other words, in the next few minutes I want to highlight some of the ways that the writers of the biblical texts have understood marriage, so that you might use this information as a lens to assess different groups’ claims about Amendment One.
One of the claims made by those in support of Amendment One is that it preserves a “traditional” or “biblical” view of marriage. Supporters of Amendment One and legislation like it, maintain that historically marriage has been between one man and one woman and that this legislation will offer an unprecedented change to a historically static and even “God given” institution. In particular, supporters of Amendment One note that the Bible never commends marriage between two men or two women, that the codes in Leviticus forbid a man laying with another man as with a woman, that the first couple imagined within the Book of Genesis is comprised of a male and female. Thus, marriage “traditionalists,” as we might call this position, argue that these point to a relatively fixed and historically consistent picture of marriage being between one man and one woman.
This traditionalist perspective, however, glosses over the fact that Old Testament depictions of marriage also include positive evaluations of men who took slaves as concubines (e.g. Abraham) and men who had multiple wives (e.g. Jacob had two wives and Solomon had 700, according to 1 Kings 11). In the biblical texts and in the ancient world, these marriages were considered appropriate, even though we, living in the twenty-first century, may see these marriages as far from ideal or fair. The issue here is, the biblical texts present marriage as something shaped by historical context and cultural practices, and the texts suggest that marriage changes over time. In light of these examples we, particularly Christians who claim the Bible as source of God’s direction and guidance, are forced to ask which depictions or discussions of marriage in the biblical texts are authoritative, for the biblical image of marriage is more complicated than the “one man plus one woman equals marriage” often depicted on bumper stickers and yard signs.
In fact, one of the most poignant images of faithful love in the Old Testament tradition is Ruth’s devotion to her mother-in-law Naomi. Just as in Genesis it suggests that a man will leave his home and “cling” to his wife, so Ruth clings to Naomi in Ruth 1:14. To be sure, Ruth and Naomi are not necessarily described as married (even though some might argue the word “cling” conveys this), but their story brings into relief the fact that Old Testament tradition also does depict a range of relationships between men and women, and men and men, and women and women. There is a valuing in the texts of familial configurations beyond the traditionalist vision.
But let me turn to the texts and traditions with which I am most familiar, the texts that for many are the heart of the Christian tradition—the New Testament.
One of the things that my students find most surprising when studying the New Testament is the portrayal of Jesus as disinterested in what were traditional notions of marriage and family in his time. The Gospel writers record one instance (recorded by both Mark and Matthew) in which Jesus offers an explicit teaching about marriage or, to be more accurate, about divorce. In response to questioning, Jesus teaches that divorce should happen only in the case of un-chastity; a teaching that is reinterpreted by many today. Very few Christians take this text literally, especially Jesus’ explanation that remarriage after divorce is adultery. In response to Jesus’ stringent proclamation, for Jesus’ teaching is stricter than other first-century Jewish teachings about divorce, the disciples suggest, perhaps facetiously, that it is better not to marry. Jesus doesn’t disagree with them and then he positively references those who are eunuchs for kingdom and those who renounce marriage. This episode, described in Matthew 19, surely does not offer a clear support of marriage. In fact, the importance of marriage is qualified by commitment to the kingdom of God. Marriage, here, is not God-given and Jesus explicitly seeks to offer a new and different teaching about marriage or divorce.
Jesus’ disinterested in traditional perspectives on marriage is also evidenced in his call to the disciples. Culturally and historically, we can imagine that Jesus’ closest disciples, as adult Jewish males, would have been married. Families were eager to have sons marry, as it meant another set of hands to work within the household. In spite of this, Jesus still calls them to follow him as wanders throughout Judea and Galilee. They are to leave everything, including presumably wives and children, as they accompany Jesus toward his certain death at the hands of Rome. Throughout the Gospels Jesus calls individuals to abandon their familial connections and to follow him. In fact, Jesus shows little respect for his own biological family and is depicted, in the Gospel of Mark, as defining those who follow God’s commandments as his true family. This was pretty radical in a time when one’s family was the primary means through which an individual related to his or her community. Individuals were defined by their familial relationships (e.g. Jesus is the son of Joseph, James the son of Zebedee), but Jesus is portrayed as defining individuals by their commitment to the greatest commandment, loving God fully and loving ones neighbor. Marriage, in the Gospels, isn’t the greatest good.
The apostle Paul, the Christian traditions earliest witness, offers the most explicit discussion of marriage in the New Testament in a letter sent to the Corinthian Church. In this letter, Paul clearly explains that marriage is fine . . . for those who cannot manage to remain unmarried as he happens to be. Marriage is a compromise; instead, given his belief that the Lord will return soon, Paul advocates a life of celibacy or virginity. In fact, within the first century Roman Empire, the setting for Paul’s ministry, only Roman citizens could legally marry. Soldiers, even if citizens, were not allowed to marry. In other words, only some within Paul’s communities, only a portion of early Christians, would have been able to legally marry; most would have lived in common-law, unofficial, “marriages.” In light of this, when Paul talks about marriage he might actually not be talking about legal unions since marriage was limited to only an exclusive group. Again, this points to the fact that in the biblical texts, marriage is not depicted as something unchanging and eternal, as something that should be protected as an ultimate good. To use the biblical text in this way is problematic.
More importantly, throughout his message to the Corinthian community, a community torn up by divisions, Paul advocates putting aside hierarchies and status markers to be united in love. Talking about the Christian community and not about couples, Paul proclaims in 1 Corinthians 13,
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails.
For Paul, the greatest virtue is love within the community and not love in marriage.
I’m sharing these perspectives with you to underscore two things. First, the Bible as a whole and the New Testament in particular does not offer an unequivocal picture of marriage and family. Just as it does not commend same-sex marriage, it does not offer a pro-marriage, vision. It does not idealize or idolize the image of one man and one woman, as some would argue. Second, the writings of the New Testament, including the Gospels and the Pauline letters, subordinate social relationships, such as marriage, to love, love of neighbor and love within the community. I hope that as you listen to perspectives on Amendment One, you think carefully about how people use the biblical texts to justify their position. The Bible is not a tool for arguing for or against other-sexed or same-sex marriage.
Speaking personally, as someone within the Christian community, my fear is that Amendment One runs the risk of bringing animosity between neighbors and dividing communities. To pass legislation which is redundant, to go out of the way to amend the Constitution with the only outcome being the reassertion that one group has rights and privileges that another group does not have is antithetical to love. It is hurtful and hateful.
