I’m an Episcopalian, an Anglican. That means that, following the lead of our seminal theologian Richard Hooker (1554-1600), I look at religious questions from three perspectives using three sources of authority: Holy Scripture, tradition, and reason. On the question of whether the committed, loving relationships of couples of the same sex should be blessed by the church and recognized by the state, the scriptural perspective is usually the only one the opponents of “same-sex marriage” address. They have been answered adequately on many occasions by others much more able to debate scripture than I am. Based on their analyses, I am satisfied that the Bible does not condemn homosexual relationships. It condemns perversion of human relationships, but that is quite a different thing. There is nothing perverted about two people (whatever their sexes may be) committing themselves to a life-long, mutually supportive, loving, and committed union.
In this essay, I shall examine marriage and the sacrament of matrimony from the standpoint of tradition, starting with two observations about marriage in the Christian church. The first is from an historian and Episcopal theologian, the Rev. Dr. Earl H. Brill:
Marriage is a universal human institution. It exists in every society, in every age. Can we, then, speak in any meaningful sense of Christian marriage? If by that term is meant something unique and exclusive, something significantly different from marriage as other human communities conceive it, than the answer must be No. But the answer is Yes if we mean merely that the Christian community maintains a particular view of marriage, even though it may be shared by many outside the Christian fold. Christians look at marriage from the perspective of certain presumptions about what marriage ought to be.
We have to concede that our view of marriage is historically conditioned. It has changed with time, mostly for the better, we believe. (The Christian Moral Vision, Seabury Press, New York: 1979, p. 97; italics in original)
The second is from a Roman Catholic scholar, Dr. Joseph Martos, former director of the Russell Institute of Religion and Ministry at Spalding University in Louisville, Kentucky:
Relatively early in the history of Christianity, marriage was regarded as a sacrament in the broad sense, but it was only in the 12th Century that it came to be regarded as a sacrament in the same sense as baptism and the other official sacraments. In fact, before the 11th Century there was no such thing as a Christian wedding ceremony and throughout the Middle Ages there was no single church ritual for solemnizing marriages between Christians. It was only after the Council of Trent, because of the need to eliminate abuses in the practice of private marriages, that a standard Catholic wedding rite came into existence. (Doors to the Sacred, Doubleday, New York: 1982, p. 399)
So, then, we have a picture of matrimony as being treated as a sacrament of the church only in the latter half of the church’s existence, a sacrament the nature of which has been seen to change in the church’s view during that time.
Although these two scholars use the word “marriage” to describe the church’s sacramental rite as well as the legal contract formed by the two parties, I have found it useful make a distinction between the two. Therefore, other than in quotations such as these, I use the word “marriage” to refer to the legal institution and the word “matrimony” to refer to the church’s sacrament. Though often included in the same ritual in the practice of American society, they are separate things. It would, perhaps, be easier to consider and debate the thorny issue of same-sex relationships if they were not thus confused in the American mind. For purposes of this essay, however, let’s try to keep them separate.
“Marriage” is a state-sanctioned “personal relation arising out of a civil contract”, so defined in, for example, California Family Code Sec. 300. Marriage is a union which the parties cannot of their own volition and act dissolve, but which can be dissolved only by authority of the state. Again, the California Family Code provides an example of this restriction; Section 310 thereof provides that “marriage is dissolved only by one of the following: (a) the death of one of the parties, (b) a judgment of dissolution of marriage, (c) a judgment of nullity of marriage.” Although a licensed minister of religion may be the official before whom the parties form this contract, “marriage” is not a matter of religion.
“Matrimony,” however, is. In the eyes of my tradition, the Episcopal Church, the sacrament of Holy Matrimony “signifies to us the mystery of the union between Christ and his Church, and Holy Scripture commends it to be honored among all people.” (The Book of Common Prayer, 1979, p. 423) (It is unfortunately not helpful to this distinction that the Prayer Book and the bridal liturgies of many Christian and other religious traditions use the words “matrimony” and “marriage” interchangeably! Nonetheless, the distinction is useful.) Christian sacramental theology teaches that when two persons are united in an integrated, faithful love that helps them and others to become more fully the image of God, this is a privileged sign or “sacrament” of God’s loving presence. The sex of the persons involved is irrelevant: persons of the same sex can exhibit God’s loving presence just as well as couples of opposite sex. In his classic treatise Spiritual Friendship, St. Aelred of Rievaulx showed friendship between any two people, whether a marital couple of opposite sexes or brother (or sister) religious of the same sex, to be sacramental of God’s unity, guiding the friends into relationship with Christ in this life and in eternity.
Having made this distinction between “marriage” and “matrimony”, the argument from tradition takes note that in both the civil or legal sphere and the religious or theological sphere, the relevant authorities are free to make changes in their respective definitions. In American law the nature of the civil obligations of the spouses, who can marry whom, if and when they can divorce, what property rights either may have, and so forth have been the subject of many changes. Changes in law, either by legislatures or courts, have included allowing interracial marriage, easing the availability of divorce, extending the property rights of women, allowing a married woman to retain her maiden name, and allowing married couples to purchase and use contraceptives. In other words, what constitutes the legal estate of marriage is something the secular state can, and often has, changed. (Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list of these changes.)
In the religious realm, the Bible itself displays a tradition of changing attitudes and changing norms toward marital union. Polygamy was acceptable early in the history of ancient Israel: Jacob married two sisters, Leah and Rachel (Genesis 29), and Solomon had at least 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Divorce, while not encouraged, was certainly not prohibited. Levirate unions, a man’s obligatory marriage to his brother’s widow, was at times required (Deuteronomy 25:5) and at other times disallowed (Leviticus 20:21).
With the advent of Christianity and its legalization under Constantine in the Fourth Century, the church became a sort of record keeper for marriages (which were, for the most part, a matter of concern for the upper classes only). Although the church developed, applied, and enforced a variety of new regulations (including rules about consanguinity, affinity, and spiritual affinity), marriage was not a matter of church ritual and there were no bridal liturgies until the 12th Century when the clergy started to have a role in weddings. It was not until the 13th Century that priests actually took charge of the ceremonies. Thus, the church became increasingly involved in the marriage business, mostly by adopting and enforcing rules of who could marry whom. As Dr. Martos wrote above, it was not until the 12th Century, when clergy began presiding at weddings, that a “sacrament” of matrimony was identified.
Just four centuries later that notion came under attack. The Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century rejected the sacramental concept of matrimony. Martin Luther rejected it altogether as a concern of the church, declaring marriage to be “a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government”, and Calvin agreed. (David L. Snuth, Divorce And Remarriage From The Early Church To John Wesley, Trinity Journal 11.2, Fall 1990). In the 17th Century, the English Parliament, dominated by Puritans, passed an act which proclaimed that marriage was not a sacrament but rather a purely secular matter, forbidding clergy to preside and requiring a justice of the peace to do so. The Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1545-63), in response to the Protestant Reformation, dug in its heels by affirming the sacramentality of matrimony and requiring that a priest or bishop preside at all weddings.
In North America, colonized in part on the notion of religious freedom later enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, there were numerous experiments with matrimony and marriage in many of the Utopian settlements. The “complex marriage” scheme of John Noyes at the Oneida Colony in New York, the polygamy of the early Mormons, and the complete abstinence of the Shakers in their communities through the northeast come immediately to mind.
The religious tradition of marital union, including the Christian sacrament of matrimony, like the legal tradition, is demonstrably one of acceptance of changing practices and norms.
16th Century Anglican theologian Richard Hooker understood tradition dynamically. Most Catholics and Protestants in his day (as in this) claimed to hold and practice “the faith once delivered to the saints” and to be doing nothing differently from the first Christians; everyone else they accused of innovating. Hooker believed that it was acceptable for the church to change as times changed: “The Church hath authority to establish that for an order at one time, which at another time it may abolish, and in both do well.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, V.8.2, Folger Library Edition, Belknap Press: Boston, 1977)
It is of particular note that Hooker writes, “matters necessary unto salvation are of a different nature from ceremonies, order, and the kind of Church-government.” For the latter (ceremonies, order, and polity) tradition and reason provide sufficient basis for change; one need not refer to Scripture. (Laws, III.2.2) He writes that “laws human must be made according to the general laws of nature, and without contradiction unto any positive law of scripture.” What is not prohibited in Scripture is a matter for consideration and development as the church may see fit. As I have noted above, others have made the argument (successfully in my estimation) that homosexuality and same-sex unions are not prohibited in Holy Scripture. Whether to extend the church’s sacramental blessing to persons who wish to marry someone of the same sex is a matter of ceremony and order, one with a demonstrable tradition of amendment; it is, therefore, a subject open to change.
Both the American civil law of marriage and the church’s sacramental institution of matrimony have changed through the centuries; indeed, it is not an overstatement to say that both have a tradition of change. It is my considered belief that the time is now. The time has come for the church’s sacramental blessing to be extended to same-sex couples, just as the time has come for the civil law to extend the right to marry to such couples.
This essay also appears on Mark Sandlin’s blog The God Article.
We all know how this one goes. The owner hired more workers at various times throughout the day, finally hiring some who worked only one hour. At the end of the day, he paid all of the workers the same wage regardless of the time they worked. The earliest hired thought that was unfair and complain, to which the owner replied, basically, that he paid them what they agreed. Jesus ends with the famous aphorism, “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” ~ Every time I read this passage the words that strike me most are “I will pay you whatever is right.” The definition of “right” in this circumstance, it seems to me, depends on who one is in the story, especially if it is set in our modern capitalist society. Perhaps not in Jesus’ time and place, but in our time and country with religious pluralism and economic disparity the definition of “right” is a variable thing. For the employer, a “right” wage would be that which maximizes his profit. For the supervisor in the vineyard, a “right” wage might be a perhaps larger amount sufficient to keep the workers happy and working. For the worker, a “right” wage would be enough to support his or her family with some for saving and a little left over for discretionary spending. For the government, a “right” wage would be at least enough to keep a worker off the public dole and to allow the worker to pay sufficient taxes to fund necessary public services. What is “right” is a hard thing to know. ~ In fact, I can’t imagine a modern worker accepting an employment contract that simply said, “Worker will be paid what is right”! Can you? Most employment agreements need to include a set starting wage in dollars-per-hour and a description of non-salary benefits including health insurance, pension or profit-sharing plan, vacation allowed, and so forth. Whatever is “right” needs to be carefully laid out. ~ Why should that be? Why isn’t there at least some universal notion of “rightness”? Shouldn’t there be some normative standard for the moral treatment and compensation of employees? Shouldn’t workers be able to trust their bosses to do what is “right” for them? I think there should be . . . but the truth is that human nature is “fallen”, that humans (both workers and employers) are greedy, that (as I’ve said) “right” is not always obvious. That’s why we have laws. That’s why we have regulations. That’s why government in a world where corporations are multi-national or trans-national or global (or whatever term you want to use for “great big and humungous”) cannot be “small”. Government needs to be big enough to lay down rules for how “whatever is right” can be determined in a pluriform society. ~ And the church and her members need to be “big enough” to speak up for what is “right” when others in our society – whether individuals, or big corporations, or the government – would do what is “not right”. If something is “not right”, speak up and say so! Be the first to do so, not the last.
