On Holy Unions and Covenants
Luke 14:25-33
Mark 10:2-16
Roger J. Gench
Brown Memorial Park Avenue Presbyterian Church
Baltimore, MD
{12-18-00]
A year or so ago, I met with a couple who wanted to
get married in our sanctuary, yet they had had little exposure to the
church. So I began the conversation by asking: "Why the
church?" I could have scripted their reply. They both claimed to
have religious convictions, but seemed not to have found a church to
their liking.
Even though I was used to hearing such comments, this
time it just struck me the wrong way. Perhaps it was a little too
flippant. So I said to them (in a slightly irritated preacher tone):
"You know, the most important thing about each of you is your
relationship with God -- not your relationship with one another, and how
you relate to each other is dependent on your relation to God. Otherwise
what we're doing here is probably nothing other than idolatry!"
Well after it came out, I felt a bit embarrassed. I must have sounded
pretty curmudgeonly. And they were looking a bit shocked and started
looking at the door, no doubt hoping that it wasn't locked so they could
make an escape.
Somehow I recovered my composure, and over the next
several months we had a series of good conversations and eventually I
conducted their wedding ceremony. No, they didn't join the church as
they promised, although they showed up a few times. In fact, I've never
seen them again. In my homily during their ceremony, I remember
paraphrasing the comments of a cultural critic, the gist of which goes
like this: "In the kindergarten of contemporary culture, the big
gold stars are given out for being open, tentative or provisional. We
are into this or into that, but the ease of our exits and entrances
betrays the fact that we're not into anything. We are as we say to the
sales person in the department store, 'Just looking.'" And then
came the punch line of my wedding homily: "In light of these
observations, what an extraordinary thing it is that we are witnessing
to here today, as this couple gives expression to a covenant, a promise,
a commitment to link themselves together before God." At least,
that's what I hoped they were doing that day because, I believe that
that is what marriage is about.
Indeed, as Reformed Christians, all of our
relationships should be about covenant, because our covenant with one
another before God defines all of who we are. The covenant of God with
Adam and Eve and Noah and Abraham and Sarah and Jesus is the one
constant in the biblical story. It's a covenant in which we are called
to affirm and promise to relate to all things in relation to their
relation to God. It's a covenant that demands of us that we consent to
some things about our lives on the belief that there are structures in
creation and culture that are divinely instituted, such as our belief in
the value and sustaining power of long-term relationships.
Moreover, because sin affects individuals and the
structures of our world, we are also called to discern in our covenantal
relations ways to reform those things that are out of relation to their
relation to God. Now it is important to note: the covenant promise does
not call us to relate to, and if necessary reform, all things in
relation to their relation to us, which would make us the center of the
universe. That, in other words, would be idolatrous. What our covenant
promise suggests is that we are called to relate to, and if necessary
reform, all things in relation to their relation to God. Our covenantal
relation to God is God-centered and focused. Thus, a covenantal relation
with God is expansive rather than constrictive. Our covenantal relation
to God also calls us to define our relationships by the covenant and not
vice versa. I repeat our covenant with God defines our relationships and
not vice versa.
There is a very important new book that has helped me
to understand how covenant defines our relationships and not vice versa.
The book is by ethicist Lisa Cahill and is entitled Family: A
Christian Social Perspective. Cahill argues that Christian vision
should convert families to sustain social goods such as greater
inclusion and social justice, rather than promote class-, race-, and
gender-bound notions of family which co-opt Christian vision and
underwrite social inequity (though the latter has more often proved to
be the case).
She agrees with those who believe that the
contemporary family faces crisis but notes that the crisis looks very
different from the perspective of those who are excluded from economic
and social privilege. She also strongly critiques those who would seek
restoration of the nuclear family yet remain silent on the effects of
male domination and discriminatory social-economic structures on many
families. Moreover, while she endorses traditional ideals such as
male-female parenting and sexual fidelity, she also urges the inclusion
and support of other familial forms such as single-parenting, divorced
families, blended and adoptive families, and gay and lesbian families.
Her intent is show that "the ideal of Christian family life should
focus more on function (fostering gospel-informed commitments and
behaviors) than on regularity of form" (xi).
Cahill points to the family ethic of Jesus as a
foundation for her argument, which may seem baffling to some. Our
morning scripture lessons are a case in point. In our reading from Luke,
Jesus informs his disciples that "whoever comes after me and does
not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes
even life itself cannot be my disciples." So much for family
values!
In Mark, Jesus seems to prohibit divorce for any
reason and likens remarriage to adultery. In yet anther gem that we
could have read in Mark chapter 3, Jesus seems to repudiate family
responsibility when he rebuffs his biological family by saying
"Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and
mother."
Believe it or not, I do think there is a way of making
sense of these confounding texts. Cahill points out that Jesus
consistently challenged the patriarchy of the prevailing family
structure of the Greco-Roman world. Yet in my mind, the overriding
reason Jesus questioned the family values of his day was that he was
being a good Jew, which meant that the covenant with God and others
defined the family and not vice versa. Thus, I think Lisa Cahill is
on target when she says that Christian family life should focus more on
gospel informed function rather than regularity of form.
And this brings me to a current dilemma in the
Presbyterian Church (USA): the proposed Amendment to our constitution
which would ban the blessing of same-sex unions. The proposed
amendment is a follows: "Scripture and our Confessions teach that
God's intention for all people is to live either in fidelity within the
covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in chastity in
singleness. Church property shall not be used for, and church officers
shall not take part in conducting, any ceremony or event that pronounces
or give approval of the church or invokes the blessing of God upon any
relationship inconsistent with God's intention expressed in the
preceding sentence."
What perplexes me about the wording of this proposed
amendment is that "covenant" is used exclusively for marriage
between a man and a woman. What perplexes me about that is that I have
always assumed that we have been called to define all of our
relationships under our covenantal relation with God and not simply one
relationship. I assume, for example, that there is no prohibition in our
Presbyterian constitution against the blessing a house because our homes
fall under our covenantal relation with God. I assume also that there is
no prohibition against blessing animals because our relationship with
the nature falls under our covenantal relation with God.
So what should I have done when faced with the
following circumstance? A couple who had been living together for many
years - a couple in this church that you all know - came forward and
asked for God's blessing on their relationship as mediated by the church
and by me as an officer of the church. This couple has great integrity.
Indeed, they are leaders in the church. They are here almost every
Sunday. Their Christian commitment - their understanding of the gospel -
is as sound as any I know and they practice their faith with
authenticity and integrity. I've been in their home many times and know
it to be a home where there is great love and care and attention to
detail. And they love each other very much - as much, I'm sure, as
Frances and I love each other. Their relationship is characterized by
great respect and mutuality - shown by their years of dedication to each
other - as is their commitment to the world, shaped by the gospel of
Jesus Christ. And they came to me to ask God's blessing on their
relationship, just like Frances and I once went before a minister and
the church and asked the same. The only difference between this couple
and Frances and me is that they are both women - they are lesbian. So
what should I have done?
Well, with the approval of our session, I conducted
their service as a public witness to what was and still is a covenantal
relationship, as certainly as mine is - as much a covenantal
relationship as any that I have seen. I did it because I felt it would
be unjust not to it. I did it because I believe that to deny them God's
blessing on their covenant simply because they are gay - and to bless
others simply because they are straight -- is frankly idolatrous! I did
it, and I believe our session approved my doing it right here in this
sanctuary, because we believed their relationship was as holy and
covenantal as any we know.
I did it and would do it again if the Session allows
it even if the amendment currently before us passes because I believe
that amendment is too stingy to encompass all of what God has already
blessed; indeed, I believe that proposed amendment to be
idolatrous.
I would do it again and I hope our Session would
approve it, because in our common ordination vows we promised to uphold
the unity, purity and the peace of the church - and that means to uphold
the gospel and the covenant with God and others defined in the gospel
which defines all our relationships. But first and foremost, I would
do it and I hope our Session would approve, because we believe that
"what God has joined together, let no one cast asunder"
