• RSS Queering the Church

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Spirit of a Liberal

    • Gonna Stick My Sword in the Golden Sand September 15, 2014
      Gonna Stick My Sword in the Golden Sand: A Vietnam Soldier's Story has just been released. The title comes from a stanza of the gospel traditional, Down by the Riverside, with its refrain--"Ain't gonna study war no more." Golden Sand is a bold, dark, and intense retelling of the Vietnam experience through the eyes of an army scout that is […]
      Obie Holmen
    • Gay Games Symposium July 21, 2014
      I am pleased and honored that the UCC has asked me to moderate a symposium during the games entitled Queer Christians: Celebrating the Past, Shaping the Future. [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
      Obie Holmen
  • RSS There Will be Bread

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS The Wild Reed

    • Quote of the Day May 29, 2017
      Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services, have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya, and terrorism here at home.That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and implacably […]
      noreply@blogger.com (Michael J. Bayly)
    • "Imagine, Heal, Resist" – Mayday 2017 (Part 2) May 27, 2017
      This evening I share a second batch of photos from this year's Mayday parade. As I mentioned in Part 1, on Sunday, May 7, I attended the 43nd annual In the Heart of the Beast Theatre's Mayday parade in south Minneapolis. This year's theme, "Imagine, Heal, Resist," was all about coming together to "imagine a just and joyous futur […]
      noreply@blogger.com (Michael J. Bayly)
  • RSS Bilgrimage

    • Trump Meets Francis, Twitter Talks: One Photo Seen Through Many Eyes May 24, 2017
      Ok everyone, this is the photo we're going to be using for memes today. Godspeed. pic.twitter.com/jGUWt5aYMh— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) May 24, 2017One photo, many different ways of reading it — as Twitter commentary this morning is suggesting; different eyes see different things:Vacation Picture No. 937: Wednesday with the family at the Vatic […]
      noreply@blogger.com (William D. Lindsey)
    • Commentary on Manchester Terrorism: "Women [and Girls] Are the Canaries in the Coal Mine for Male Violence" May 24, 2017
      Thought-provoking commentary I have read on the Manchester terrorist bombing as in all likelihood an attack quite specifically targeting girls:Michael Daly: Eight-year-old Saffie Rose was not collateral damage. She was a target. She had been deliberately murdered with icy premeditation along with 21 others at the specific place and time that the bomber chose […]
      noreply@blogger.com (William D. Lindsey)
  • RSS Enlightened Catholicism

  • RSS Far From Rome

    • the way ahead March 23, 2013
      My current blog is called the way ahead.
      noreply@blogger.com (PrickliestPear)
  • RSS The Gay Mystic

    • Christmas at Litmanova December 29, 2016
      The Marian Shrine of Litmanova, Slovakia.Christmas 2017A forest chapel at the Slovakian Marian shrine of Litmanova.Stunning painting of the Sacred Heart inside the forest chapel.
      noreply@blogger.com (Richard Demma)
    • Not Our President November 16, 2016
      To hear the simplistic denial of those who scream out with naiveté “give Trump a chance” as they condemn others engaged in selfless protest against a certain political and social tsunami in the making, is to ignore his life-time public embrace of policies that tens of millions reject as not just destructive, but evil per se. They are not mistaken.Those in st […]
      noreply@blogger.com (Richard Demma)
  • RSS The Jesus Manifesto

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS John McNeill: Spiritual Transformations

  • RSS Perspective

    • Rep. Adam Schiff on Kushner May 28, 2017
      California Congressman Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee investigating Trump/Russia, comments on Jared Kushner and his plan to create a secret back channel with Russia ...
      noreply@blogger.com (crystal)

Memo to Cardinal George: “Redefining” Marriage.

re: Your statement on “redefining” marriage :

Everyone has a right to marry, but no one has the right to change the nature of marriage. Marriage is what it is and always has been, no matter what a Legislature decides to do; however, the public understanding of marriage will be negatively affected by passage of a bill that ignores the natural fact that sexual complementarity is at the core of marriage.

A truly "traditional" Biblical family?

Please check some Church history. This is not the first time that the nature of marriage is being “redefined” – the church itself has done so frequently.
  • In Biblical Israel, marriage was polygamous, arranged exclusively between men (the groom, and the fathers of his wives). The Hebrew patriarch, if he could afford it, would also keep concubines as well as wives.
  • In classical and medieval times, marriage was not a contract between two people based on love to raise children, but a financial and legal arrangement to protect property and inheritance.
  • In the early Christian church, there was no obligation for couples to marry in church – unless the groom was a priest.
  • There was, on the other hand, provision for same sex unions to be blessed, in church, by formal liturgical rites.
  • The idea of marriage as a “Christian Sacrament” came relatively late in Church history. The popular Western understanding of “traditional marriage” is a very modern invention, dating mostly from the nineteenth century.

Recommended Books:

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements

10 Responses

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Repeal_DADT_NOW, weldonterry. weldonterry said: Memo to Cardinal George: "Redefining" Marriage.: http://wp.me/pKyrg-Co […]

  2. How does the constant, exclusive use of I-thou language re/intimate relationship in the Bible fit into yet-another-dictionary list of martial variety?

    • ? I completely fail to understand the question. (I assume that “martial” should read “marital” – but still do not see the point).

      • I think I may understand Mark, Terry.

        I suspect he’s pointing to the fact that using the scriptures in a literal way to yield some kind of patent ethical statement on contemporary issues like condom use or homosexuality is patently fatuous, given the way in which the martial traditions of the scriptures are littered with I-thou commands.

        E.g., Exodus 9:15 and Deuteronomy 28:28 put God in the position of one who smites God’s people, while Matthew 5:39 has Jesus using the same phrase used in the preceding passages–“smite thee”–to instruct his followers that when anyone smites thee on one cheek, one must turn the other cheek to be smitten. But, then, of course, Psalm 45 instructs the holy people to take a sword and “smite thine enemies.” As does the Book of Revelations, for that matter.

        I suspect Mark is rather brilliantly noting here how absurd it is to take the multivalent testimony of the biblical texts literally, rip out a few passages from them, and claim to have formulated an adequate ethic to address a complex contemporary problem about which the biblical writers could not even have had information, or thought much at all, since they lived in a thought world entirely different from ours.

        If I have misunderstood you, Mark, please feel free to set me straight.

  3. Naw, Bill, I’m not nearly as smart as you (or I) give me credit for. Nuptial imagery is all over the Scriptures, and those images are always (I think, I haven’t checked each and every reference in context) one-to-one – woman & man, husband & wife. Even in cultures where polygamy was normative.

    The closest thing I can find to prescriptive references to polygamy, as opposed to descriptive references (e.g. “Soloman had 1,000 wives) are references to “widows & orphans.” I think that “male privilege” in ancient, Semitic cultures was preceded by “male responsibility” for those without protection, provision, of social standing.

    A transient form of marriage was polygamy; if it is practiced today (e.g. Mormon sects, some Muslims in the United States) it is not practiced today, for the same reasons that the ancients did it. The constant ideal is how a wife and a husband – a man and a woman – are in relationship.

    So, if that ideal, expressed in I-Thou language, is carried forward today, why can’t it be the ideal for same-sex relationships? I suggest it can’t because of another constant ideal we bring, and that is “male and female He created them.”

    I’m not making a shallow, literal reference to one of the creation accounts in Genesis. I suggest (pace The Context Group) that a better reading of Genesis is explaining how the *social* world came to be, and what right relationship in that world is, rather than biological origins.

    How would an ancient Jew answer the question “How was the world made? Where did plants, animals, humans and men & women come from?” The response would have probably been a cuff on the head and hearing “What a stupid question. The Almighty made everything, sustains it in existence and (the key statement) gives all of them a place in a social structure, and a role & job within that structure.”

    Genesis doesn’t tell how the world was created. It tells how the SOCIAL world was created, within which humans understand the world, their place in it, and right relationship to that world, the things in it, and the people they were most closely related to. After The Context Group, there are some critical bounds on behavior and role in that world:

    – honor & shame
    – competition for scarce resources
    – sickness, disease & early death
    – limited good, never “enough” of anything
    – for the Jews, constantly being overrun and ruled by foreigners

    As I think about ancient Jewish households, where the patriarch was the “outward” face of the family, and the matriarch was the “inward” face of the family, I wonder if this isn’t a kind of codification of something very, very, very old: male & female roles in primate family groups.

    Now that is a very big stretch, from the theological use of culture anthropology to physical anthropology and primateology (sic). I mean, what do I know, I’m just a librarian, without a Ph.D.

    I’ll close with a paraphrased quote from Genesis about the meeting of male & female: they were naked and felt no shame. That is a significant statement in an ancient culture whose pivotal value was honor (actually the acquisition of social position which made one better able to acquire scarce resources) and shame (the maintenance of both social position & allocation of acquired, scarce resources for use by the immediate & extended family).

    Jumping forward to Jesus time, I think Jesus (sounding kind of Buddhist) would offer his follows the example of the ideal householder – Abba in the ‘Our Father’ – and ask this question: who’s not your sister, your brother, your child? And how should you act towards them?

    • Sorry I misunderstood you, Mark.

      I’m fascinated by your argument. You say, “Nuptial imagery is all over the Scriptures . . . . ”

      And here I thought you wanted to point out that martial imagery is all over the scriptures! As it clearly is.

      And it’s just as ambiguous as is the nuptial imagery that you’re entirely mistaken to conclude is “one-to-one – woman & man, husband & wife.”

      For thousands of years, the model of marriage in Jewish culture–reflected in the scriptures–was one-to-many–man to women, husband to wives.

      Please re-read the Old Testament before you conclude, altogether too simplistically, that the scriptures yield a “one-to-one–woman &man, husband & wife” normative image for marriage.

      • To quote Sonny & Cher, the lyric reads “You and me babe,” not “You and me babes.” Lets both read, say, the Song of Solomon. I believe we’ll find it refers to something like a woman who is a wife – singular, not plural – no matter how many “wives” the male persona in the poem may or may not have had.

        That’s where I get the idea(l) of one-man-one-woman marriage, and not polygamy, polyandry, or the ever-popular serial-monagamy.

        • Correction, Mark. The Song famously describes a woman – who is not described as a wife. There is no reference, anywhere (as far as I know), to their being married.

          But if you re-read my original post, you will find that I was not discussing scripture. I was discussing Cardinal George’s claim that gay marriage proponents are redefining marriage – and reminding him that in fact, marriage has been constantly redefined, during biblical times, in the Roman and Byzantine periods, the medieval and renaissance eras, and the Victorian. Frequently, the church has been at the forefront of these redefinitions. The principle of redefining marriage is not a new one, nor unique to the modern gay marriage debate.

          Gay marriage itself is not even a uniquely modern idea. A form of gay marriage was a feature of many classical societies, in Rome, Crete, Mesopotamia, China and elsewhere. Even the Christian church, for over half its history, had and used liturgical rites for formal blessing in church of same sex unions. Agreed, these were not strictly comparable to the modern marriage we known today – but neither were the opposite-sex unions of the day comparable to modern marriage – the meaning of marriage has been regularly redefined in the intervening period.

  4. I think Mark has an interesting point about the OT, especially Genesis, being a description of socialization rather than creation. The problem I have with it, is that women would have written something quite a bit different–if they had been given a voice, which of course they weren’t.

    • I think the ancients read Genesis, and similar texts, as descriptive (this is how our social world is organized) and prescriptive (this is how our social world SHOULD be organized).

      As a modern, I want to be aware of the ancient descriptive & prescriptive reading but not uncritically bound by it – an interesting statement coming from me, no? The same is true of modern eisegetical readings of the ancient text. Us moderns can, too, be descriptive, prescriptive and proscriptive, but I am not reflexively bound by those narratives either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: