Opinion: Church’s gay marriage policy change a good thing
By Henry G. Brinton
The long evolution of marriage has continued in the Presbyterian Church (USA), with the decision last month to redefine marriage as “a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman, to love and support each other for the rest of their lives.” Previously, marriage had been permitted in the church only “between a woman and a man.”
While many people fear that this change represents a departure from biblical authority, I am convinced that it brings us closer to the Christian ideal of the covenant of marriage — a promise-based relationship of life-long love and commitment, with deep roots in Scripture.
Traditional marriage has been in flux for thousands of years, with numerous elements discarded for good reason. For most of human history, marriage has been a financial decision determined in large part by property transfers. The wedding question “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?” is a remnant of this transaction — the pastor is asking the father of the bride to transfer ownership of his daughter to the groom. Good riddance to this practice.
Polygamy is another traditional marriage arrangement that most people now reject. Yes, it made sense in ancient Israel, when families needed to have as many children as possible, to herd the sheep, fight the wars and continue the family line. Polygamy was an efficient way to create the largest possible families, but it imposed second-class status on women. Monogamy is now the law in the United States, for good reason.
But polygamy does raise the question of procreation, which has been a central feature of marriage for most of human history. Biblical prohibitions against same-gender sexual activity (Leviticus 18:22) and masturbation (Genesis 38:9) are designed to encourage procreation, since these activities do not produce offspring. Today, many Christians consider procreation to be an essential aspect of marriage, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that “sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”
The Bible, however, does not put procreation at the heart of the covenant of marriage. In Genesis 2:18, God creates Adam and Eve and says, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” God’s decision to create Eve doesn’t emphasize procreation but stresses relationship. Later, the prophet Hosea suggests that the marriage relationship should be one of mutual love, justice, respect and fidelity (2:19-20), with the wife calling her spouse “my husband” and not “my master” (2:16).
Jesus did not marry, nor did he advise his disciples to marry. He certainly viewed marriage in a positive way, and discouraged divorce out of concern for the welfare of vulnerable women and children (Matthew 19:1-9). But procreation was not a top priority for Jesus or his followers.
At the heart of the message of Jesus is the commandment “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). This is lived out in numerous ways, including the life-long love and commitment that is at the heart of the covenant of marriage. Children can be produced by this relationship, but they are not essential to it. In fact, many couples who are too old to have children are married in Christian churches every day, with the full expectation that they will have rich and satisfying marriages.
With its redefinition of marriage, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has focused in a biblical way on covenant — a relationship that can be entered into by any two people who are willing to promise to be faithful to each other for as long as they both shall live. Such a marriage is deeply rooted in the Christian faith, and does nothing to undermine traditional heterosexual marriage. If anything, the desire of same-gender couples to make promises to each other should be a challenge and an inspiration to heterosexual couples.
In his book “The Bible’s Yes to Same-Sex Marriage,” Presbyterian Mark Achtemeier writes, “a relationship of mutual love and commitment with a beloved partner reflects growth into the image of Christ’s self-giving love. It is precisely through giving ourselves away in this fashion that human beings find our true selves.”
Because these words are equally true for same-gender and heterosexual Christians, I am glad that my denomination has now changed its definition of marriage.
Henry G. Brinton is pastor of Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia and author of “The Welcoming Congregation: Roots and Fruits of Christian Hospitality.”
Well praise the Lord! Finally catching up with the times.
I look forward to a day when less folks try to forward their agenda of a Christian Nation, and more of those folks push for an Inclusive Nation, as our founding fathers intended.
REALLY? YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND READ THAT BIBLE OF YOURS WHERE IT CLEARLY STATES THAT A MAN LAYING WITH A MAN IS AN ABOMINATION TO THE LORD!!!!!!
in the future as we go down the path of Political correctness you will be able to marry anything that your mind can think up.
in a Christian marriage it is 1 man and 1 woman.
everything else is a Pagan marriage.
You homophobes are pathetic. Using religion as a way to discriminate is not acceptable. Christianity, Islam, Judaism and all the religions are merely fairy tales conjured by the human brain to validate their existence. The bible was written 70 years after Jesus walked the Earth. Hardly an accurate description of the times. I just can’t buy the angry white man in the sky myth.
You have something better? Proof of fairy tales would be a start.
Books deifying some invisible cloud man have been the scourge of mankind and the easily duped-low info-rabble are more than willing to kill for their beliefs-America’s foremost grifter/thieves can be found here- http://www.rightwingwatch.org
“Christian ideal of the covenant of marriage — a promise-based relationship of life-long love and commitment, with deep roots in Scripture.”
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.” Yes, folks, yes, Christian ideals, deep roots in scripture…
“Biblical prohibitions against same-gender sexual activity (Leviticus 18:22) and masturbation (Genesis 38:9) are designed to encourage procreation” Proof of that? Did you write the scriptures? How do you know? The scriptures clearly forbid these activities, and it is not up to you to re-interpret them to match what YOU would like them to say.
“a relationship that can be entered into by any two people who are willing to promise to be faithful to each other for as long as they both shall live” That isn’t a Christian marriage, but moving on:
“Such a marriage is deeply rooted in the Christian faith” Where, again? Jesus never taught it, and it was considered and abominable and very rare practice, which ALL Christian churches discouraged until very recently. And you tell me it is deeply rooted in the Christian faith? How stupid do you think I am?
“With its redefinition of marriage” Stop. In Christian terms, your redefinition is no longer a marriage, and you’re not allowed to just “redefine” whatever you want. You can’t just make up your own religion and call it the true Christian religion.
“The Bible’s Yes to Same-Sex Marriage” I challenge anyone to show me where the Bible says yes to same sex marriage.
You can’t just interpret and change whatever you want, Henry, and if you really believe what you say, you’re not a Christian. I am so sick of “Christians” doing things like this. Most of your statements are obviously wrong, and I advise you to edit this substantially. You’re not bamboozling anyone here with your meaningless banter. You obviously don’t understand anything about the Christian religion, morality, and ideals. If you don’t like the religion, leave it, but don’t change it.
And everyone else, please don’t descend on me with ridiculous accusations and insults, I just want to point out this guy’s hypocrisy to himself and everyone else. He doesn’t realize how ridiculous he sounds to me.
greengrass
AROD-
YES!
Gaspen-
Why do you need something else, better or anything to believe?
Fairy tales is an apt description. At some level we all want to believe in magic, but a few of us ultimately grow out of that.
Religion, which probably started as a tribal mutual support system in really hard times, has always mutated to control of the many by a few. Fear is used to keep people in line with what the priests want us to do. It is all financial.
Money or whatever substituted for money at any given time is what religion has sucked out of all of us since people began to think.
There is no record of a god punishing anyone for violating one of the gods principles. So of course the religious leaders, by whatever name they are called, saw the opportunity and became the punishers “in gods name”.
These priests/preachers/shaman and their minions all say god talks to and through them.
They then do whatever they want, and say god wanted it.
Unfortunately, too many of us seem to believe in the fairy tale and are willing to turn the thinking part of our existence over to them and it results in the chaos we live in.
There is no way to prove a god exists. And also no way to prove a god does not exist. Get over it.
Live with what you can see, not the fairy tales.
Wow…thats alot of hate you guys spew. As 4mer spouse said…stop complaining, if you dont like it leave…or can that idea only be used against white men or something…our country is so screwed, someone is gonna come along real soon and beat the snot out of us.
Welcome to the 19 century
Marriage is a civil/legal institution that may or may not be recognized by a church. If this were not the case, then people who identify as atheists would not be allowed to marry (as ridiculous a concept as denying the marriage right to same gender couples). A church officiated wedding is only legal if the couple has the marriage license, which is issued by the government. Defining a legal designation in terms of whether it is “christian” or not is really beside the point. Like it or not, our country was founded on, and is maintained by, separation of church and state. Our laws rightly reflect this separation.
Greengrass, even with your three masters degrees you seem to not realize that every different sect of Christianity interprets the Bible in different ways, do they not? Catholics don’t interpret it as Baptists do, or as Non-Denominational Christians do, or as Seventh Day Adventists do, or as Episcopalians do, or even as Mormons, who made their own Bible.
I guess you don’t seem to realize how ridiculous your rant sounds to those of us who don’t believe in ANY religion!
Bigger, maybe i should’ve worded my comment differently, but I was only trying to point out how ridiculous this guy sounds trying to reconcile homosexuality with a book and religion that clearly forbid it. There are way to many stretches and even outright lies in this story. I do realize that there are different interpretations, but in my opinion this one is obviously pure BS. I don’t even believe this guy’s crazy religion BS and I know it better than him.
Although I don’t like homosexuality, I’m no gay-hater, and I hate discrimination. I would hope that someday gays would see the error of their ways, but I’m not going to treat them like second-class citizens and discriminate against them.
Janice Eastburn, I still hold that marriage is only between a man and a woman. If we keep stretching the definition, pretty soon people will be “marrying” animals and who knows what else. Gay “marriage” isn’t a real marriage, it’s something else.
Separation of church and state will never work. If you separate them, they will always fight each other. Look around you right now for some perfect examples. The only way I see it can work is if they work TOGETHER, or one of them goes away.
greengrass
In my humble opinion, “Christians” who quote from the Old Testament don’t understand Christianity. If you want to use religion to discriminate against God’s children, you don’t quite understand the idea of giving yourself to God. The New Testament is about the New Covenant with God, about what Jesus Christ came to earth and died for. The New Testament paradigm replaces the Old Testament paradigm. Leviticus has very little to do with Christianity. We Christians eat shellfish and mix wool with cotton fairly regularly. And, we forgive sins, including divorce. How many of you have remarried after a divorce? Sinners all. Be ready to cast the first stone. After a thorough reading of the Bible, if you came away with the idea that Jesus wanted you to use His name to discriminate against His children, I think you have a little more reading to do.
BTW, I hope this isn’t too negative for you, AROD. I know you said that I should remain silent if I didn’t have positive things to say, but there is little about this subject that is positive. I notice that you have no problem citing negativity.
Dumbfounded,
while I agree with much of your sentiment regarding one’s interpretation of the OT, the precise picture of NT theology includes both Romans Chapter 1 and I Corinthians chapter 6 just to name two of several passages that directly deal with the gay lifestyle in practice.
To be clear same sex attraction, however it is developed, (birth, choice) in and of itself is not a sin. Just as any sexual attraction isn’t a sin, rather it’s the application thereof where sin is committed.
As for the NT admonition to be forgiving and merciful this always remains. But as Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, “Neither do I condemn you, now go and sin NO MORE.” (my emphasis)
If you folks wish to quote the bible do not cherry pick.
As others have noted:
The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals. It’s just that they need more supervision.”
Here was a clever letter written many years ago to Dr. Laura that I believe makes the point rather clearly.
Tis why mainstream Christianity and Conservative and Reform Jews (95% of Judaism) are not troubled with gay and lesbians. BTW, as Lewis Black notes, the “Old Testament” is actually our book (the Torah and Haftorah), if you need help interpreting it just ask us.
Dear Dr. Laura Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them. 1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness – Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence. 4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don.t agree. Can you settle this? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn.t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan, Jack
Enjoy all.
Rick
Ezekiel 16:17 You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them.
Lots of good stuff in that book, like the passage about men with horse dongs. Makes Tarantino look like Barney.
Some of the Angry Sky Man Cult followers are simple minded, so I will keep it very simple.
The consequences of your imaginary god, only apply to you and the others in your cult. No one else.
We don’t care, go away.
@Rick, Priceless, thanks.
Rick, exactly.
I do NOT submit to the barbarism of ‘biblical authority’.
“And if a town should reject you, change the gospel to suit their beliefs.”
Did God say that? This IS, after all, a story about a CHURCH. Not sure why all the resident atheists are so up in arms about what Christians think.
Bla, bla bla, bla, bla, fire and damnation, bla, bla, oohhhhhhh, finger pointing, hatred, im right, your wrong, bla, bla, but im (insert your religion of choice)so its all good cuz im right(eous) and your wrong….my way or the highway, …..
Bats, the only time you wander in to a discussion thread anymore is to insult people and screech something irrelevant to the topic.
We all get frustrated here on occasion, but I haven’t heard anything but anger from you in a long time. Maybe you need a vacation?
I think the majority of the bigoted-phony xtian teabaggers need to take a ‘vacation’- do the world a favor and self rapture please- you annoying invisible cloud being-rand cult fools
Nature, can’t other people express their opinion here without a personal attack from you? Aren’t they entitled to their opinion just as much as you are? It seems like you’re the self-righteous one here. If you don’t like Dog’s opinion, that’s great, but couldn’t you at least say WHY you think it’s wrong? You’re blind personal attack comes off as silly and immature.
greengrass
Oh, im sorry, I was expressing my opinion but evidently its not ok for me to say what I want, and I wasnt even addressing any specific individual yet several took offense. Must be the typical hypocritical its ok for me but not you thing.imagine that! If “you” take offense maybe “you” need to look inside and think about your own life. I personally dont care whether “you” are offended by my comments or not.
Nature, you are allowed to have a opinion, however what they are objecting to is the attack, which is not an opinion. it is rather strange that just days ago you were asking another to be nicer, yet you dont hold yourself up to the same standard.
Who am I attacking? There is no one singled out. Its just my opinion and id say you are attacking me. Where is it that I say anything directed towards any individual? Seems like you are trying to make something out of nothing. Im not taking the bait…
“Bla, bla bla, bla, bla, fire and damnation, bla, bla, oohhhhhhh, finger pointing, hatred, im right, your wrong, bla, bla, but im (insert your religion of choice)so its all good cuz im right(eous) and your wrong….my way or the highway, …..”
Seems to me you are singling out religious people… Dogula in particular… This comment is obviously a mockery of anything and everyone who believes in religion.
You’re totally entitled to your opinion, and I’d actually like to hear it, but if you’re going to make comments attacking a certain group or individual, I think the least you could do is tell us WHY you think they are wrong. Saying that someone is wrong without providing a reason only lowers your credibility and angers others. And please remember that just because someone identifies with a certain group doesn’t mean they are always wrong.
Wow, you guys are really wasting your time. I must have hit a nerve. Oh well, gives you something to do I guess…