re-defining marriage

I have been for marriage equality for a long time and have performed a small number of same sex weddings.  For me, it is a no brainer.  And frankly I haven't really understood where all of the animus has come from on the anti side.  Nobody was ever going to make a straight person marry someone of the same sex.  What Bob & Ted do doesn't have any impact on what I do with my wife.  And no church, synagogue, temple, or mosque would be required to perform a ceremony for anyone they don't want.  Add to that the fact that we are constantly redefining marriage.  Seriously.  The folk who point to a "Biblical" marriage and define that as something like our modern nuclear family just are being dishonest.  And the thought that marriage works the same way in the United States now as it did 100 years ago is just silly.  Then today I read a piece on Red Letter Christians by Morf Morford that included a real Ah Ha moment for me.

In his short piece, Morford says that marriage is constantly being redefined, but the difference is who gets to do the defining.  In the past, it was the white male power structure who did the defining.  In this case, it is not the government, the Church, or even the majority (although the majority does favor marriage equality now)... it is the individual.  Two consenting adults can decide to marry and gender or approval of any of those institutions is irrelevant.

And I got where the animus is coming from.  I'm not sure that Morford's argument is 100% correct, but I think he did point to the key to this issue and so many of the other struggles in our society.  It is all about the loss of power.  As a pastor, I have run into lots of folk who as they got older and began to lose a variety of physical abilities, watched as the future contracted, and lost positions of power and influence just got nasty and cantankerous.   Like terriers they would grab hold of something and just not let go as they tried to assert control over something, over anything.

As a nation and as a culture we are at one of those places.  All of the old institutions and groups that held sway are losing it.  Religion has lost its influence.  Government is not trusted.  Our population is no longer white and male.  The economy doesn't work as it once did.  Everything is in flux and those who once were at the top of the heap, no longer are.  And the reaction to all of that loss is to strike out and try to hold on to whatever power can be grabbed.  Stop whatever change can be stopped.

Now, I know that this argument may not hold for any given individuals.  I guess there really are individuals who have well reasoned arguments against marriage equality and who actually are motivated by those beliefs... but I think on the large scale it is still about power and about fear.

Glide Memorial

Whenever we travel, we always try to attend a church that is doing things differently than we do.  I hope the experience will stretch me and open me to a new way of doing what we do at Cambridge Drive.

Last weekend was our anniversary.  We didn't have time or money to do a real vacation so we drove north to O'town and visited our daughter and son-in-law for a few days.  We decided to cross the bridge and attend Glide Memorial Church on Sunday morning.  It was a unique experience.  I've never been to a church before where the website advised you to arrive at least 1/2 hour early to ensure getting a seat.  Sure enough, the line was over a block long before the doors opened to allow us in.  During the service, the pastor asked the members of the congregation to stand.  Less than 1/3 of the people attending stood.  The group standing were significantly more diverse - all colors, sexual orientations, economic settings, ages - than the mostly white tourists attending.

The service itself was very much a performance.  The band and the choir were killer but rock concert loud in a room with typical lousy church acoustics - making the sound pretty muddy.  Still, the excitement was infectious and much of the time everyone was on their feet clapping along.  There was only one song that was clearly meant for the congregation to join in singing so it felt more like a performance than a worship service.   A group who had recently returned from a work trip to Kenya spoke during the sermon time... they did a very good job, clear, succinct, and meaningful.   There was little prayer, no time of silence, and I don't recall anyone mentioning Jesus.  My daughter Alexis found the experience way too intense and blogged about it here.

I was struck by the difficulties of doing worship in a congregation comprised of folk without shared history or even commitments.  I was reminded of the difficulty of doing ministry in urban areas and the resources that work requires.  I was thrilled with an obvious welcome that was there for all without question or hesitation.  I'm glad that Glide is there.  They provide a version of the gospel that is rarely seen and open doors to folk very few churches would welcome.  Still, it isn't for me... but it doesn't need to be.

So, what did I learn?  There is room for a progressive gospel and a style that is culturally relevant.  Indeed, even tourists want to experience it.  I would expect that at least some of the folk there left with a new hunger to find a church that would actually accept them as they are and speak to them in ways that touched their lives when they returned home.   I learned that I can never take the need for balance in worship for granted.  I learned that I feel pretty good about who we are, what we are doing, and the journey we are on at Cambridge Drive.

a theology of marriage

Since I've been posting on prop 8, I thought I should give a short post regarding my theology of marriage. I will not go through all of the scriptures and exegete them. Others who are much more skilled have done that. I will give you my understanding of the broad strokes. And I won't talk about the shape of marriage across the centuries or across cultures. It is enough to say that it isn't the same and never was.

About gay and lesbian people... I don't know what makes one person gay and another straight. My guess is the answers are as different as people, but at the bottom line, I don't care whether it is chosen, inborn, a combination of the two, or completely fluid. I don't think God cares either.

I believe people are not created to be alone, but that basic idea plays itself out in very different ways from individual to individual. Some of us are single and find the companionship we need in the broader community. Some of us require a different kind of intimacy that requires a life partner. Still others fall somewhere in the middle. I believe God's concern for us and God's design for us in creation is that we be in relationship and those relationships reflect the love of God. Period.

But what about sex? First, let me say that I do not believe that any of the passages traditionally used to condemn GLBT relationships are relevant to the issue as we experience it in our culture. I do not see any passages in scripture that directly address two same sex adults involved in a committed relationship. There might be hints - check out 2 Samuel 1:26 - but tey are only hints and nothing for sure. So how do we make decisions regarding the appropriateness of sexual expression between two people? The criteria for GLBT folk are the same as for straight folk.

I really like a book I read some years ago by James Nelson called Embodiment: An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology. If I remember it correctly, after talking about the meaning of sexual expression in human relationships, Nelson sets out a schema for judging the morality of sexual expressions. He says that sex is always infused with meaning and that it is never just a bodily function. As such, there must be a theological/moral framework to evaluate the appropriateness of sexual acts. His criteria, as I remember them, are
1. Is the sexual expression appropriate for the depth of the commitment of the two people?
2. Is the expression humanizing for the partners or is it exploitative of one or both of them?
3. Are both partners willing and able to live with any possible consequences of the act?

Obviously two people who just met in a bar cannot meet #1. A pair of teenagers cannot meet #3. A pedophile and a child cannot meet any of the three. Nelson would argue, and I think rightly, that there are sexual expressions between married couples that do not meet his criteria and are immoral. He would also argue, again I think rightly, that sexual intercourse between a gay couple can meet all of the criteria and if so, is proper and absolutely blessed by God in the context of their relationship.

So what is marriage in my theology? It is a covenant between two people before God in the context of their community to work together to fulfill God's yearnings for them as individuals and as a couple. Gender is not an issue. For me, the legal aspect is entirely separate. Because marriage is a covenant before God, the role of the state is secondary. I have done weddings of gay and of lesbian couples in New York where it was not sanctioned by the state. I still performed a marriage and believe they are married before God. Regardless of what happens with the law in the state of California, if a gay or lesbian couple comes to me seeking marriage, I will perform the service under the same criteria I would use for a straight couple. Unfortunately, if prop 8 passes, that same couple will not have legal standing, secondary though it is.