I just spent a training day with pastors in Canada, and the issue of “gay marriage” came up and they were speculating on happenings in America these days. One thing you notice in Canada is that they are very much up on the news in the United States–they can’t seem to escape it if they wanted to (it’s all over their televisions, for instance). The opposite is, of course, not true. I am ashamed to say that I just googled “The Prime Minister of Canada” in order to find out the answer.
Among many other matters we discussed about leadership, these Canadian pastors were sharing how they have dealt with the law in their country that gay marriage is protected by the state. They have had to deal with “losing this battle” with a different tack than most American Christians have so far been taking. The Canadian Church has retreated to the backup position of re-stating what the Church does and doesn’t do–and letting the government decide what it does and doesn’t do, even if it is contrary to the Church’s stand. I admire the Canadian Christians in how they are doing this, and I think they have a lot to teach us Americans on this issue if things progress as they seem to be in the states.
Now, I’m not saying anyone has won or lost the battles in the United States. I’m just saying that now even the highest court in the land is considering it. So perhaps it’s time for us to more concretely state what a sacred marriage is, and what it’s not, in terms of the Church. By “sacred marriage” I mean a holy union between a man and a woman, blessed by the Church that is the body of Jesus Christ on earth. This is what marriage has meant for the Church through the centuries. And while a country may change what they mean by a legal union or certified state marriage, the Church gets to decide what a sacred marriage is. I borrow this term from Gary Thomas, who wrote the best book I’ve read on marriage by the same name. I suggest that it is the best term to use from here on out. When people ask “what do you mean by ‘marriage?'” I will say: “I mean a sacred marriage, one blessed by the Church.”
So, what is the purpose of a sacred marriage?
[highlight class=”highlight_yellow” style=””]1) To make us holy[/highlight]
In his book Gary Thomas wonders “What if God designed marriage to make us holy more than to make us happy?” This might be some consolation for the great many of us who are in a marriage that is not as happy as we would like. But that is not the primary point (although it certainly applies). More importantly, the purpose of marriage is to make us more holy. This is difficult for many people to understand, of course. They don’t really believe in sin in the first place, much less a God-empowered holy life. While many vocal people oppose gay and lesbian marriages for political, cultural, and at times even homophobic reasons we oppose it because of our holiness theology, theology of sin, and my theology of marriage. We believe that “God’s plan for human sexuality is to be expressed only in a monogamous lifelong relationship between one man and one woman within the framework of marriage.”*
When we see a man leave his family and join with his wife we see a man and woman choosing to expose themselves, literally and figuratively, to one another; warts and all, again literally and figuratively. A sacred marriage is a loving institution that grinds the sin from you. Thomas wonders if “Couples don’t fall out of love so much as they fall out of repentance.” Marriage is the ultimate relationship of repentance. We sin most against those that are closest to us. And this is the most counter-cultural thing of all about a sacred marriage. The world does not even believe in sin in the first place. So for us to identify that we in fact have sinned, that we sin against each other–that is something that we willingly must do in a marriage, or we not only destroy our sacred marriages, we also harm our relationship with God. As Thomas says, “Once we enter the marriage relationship we cannot love God without loving our spouses as well.” In the end, a sacred marriage should make the husband and wife both more like God, meaning more loving. This also means we cannot be unloving to those that live a lifestyle outside of the will of God, including homosexuals. I suppose I mean that those with a sacred marriage that has made them more like God are going to be even more loving and respectful of homosexuals, even if they don’t believe they should be allowed to have a sacred marriage–one blessed by the Church. The sacred union is one which imitates God’s interrelatedness… the two become one, just as God is one (Genesis 2:23; Mark 10:7). The sacred marriage becomes a holy dance of partners, both of which sin less, and are like Christ more, because of each other. The Church, in this brave new world, may need to emphasize the growth into holy living that comes from a loving sacred marriage between a husband and wife.
[highlight class=”highlight_yellow” style=””]2) To make us authentic[/highlight]
A sacred marriage also exists to give us what we do not necessarily what but emminently need: authenticity. I have noticed many a flashy leader who sang a different tune when their spouse was around. A husband or wife knows the real you–or should. Thomas confesses: “What marriage has done for me is hold up a mirror to my sin. It forces me to face myself honestly and consider my character flaws, selfishness, and anti-Christian attitudes, encouraging me to be sanctified and cleansed and to grow in godliness.” We learn, in a sacred marriage, about our true selves. In marriage I have to come to grips with the fact that I may in fact squeeze the toothpaste wrong, or leave the toilet seat up too often. Those of us who have not changed our mind on any of these trivial matters often have not become authentic enough to expose our true selves to our spouses. It is terrifying to be this authentic–and many a sacred marriage ends because of it and the divorced ones profane what God has made sacred. “I wouldn’t be surprised if many marriages end in divorce largely because one or both partners are running,” Thomas says, “from their own revealed weaknesses as much as they are running from something they can’t tolerate in their spouse.” This makes sacred marriage counter-cultural as well. Our plastic culture thrives on inauthenticity. Fake is in. Truth is out. Augmentation is preferred over authenticity with everything from our body parts to our Resumes. Of course, now that we have social media, everyone has become both an actor and their own marketing assistant as well–spending 45 minutes deciding on just the right avatar picture is just one example. A sacred marriage cuts through the pseudo-persona and provides you with a crystal clear mirror of the self, held up by a person that loves you without conditions attached. The Church, in this brave new world, may need to emphasize the increased authenticity that comes from a loving sacred marriage between a husband and wife.
[highlight class=”highlight_yellow” style=””]3) To make us joyful[/highlight]
A sacred marriage exists to provide joy in our hearts. Nothing on earth brings more joy than a loving sacred marriage. Part of this is happiness–but not the trivial kind, that fleeting rush of adrenaline. The happiness that comes from a sacred marriage is better termed “contentment.” This is even true when it comes to our sexual selves. There is a joy that comes in being truly sexually content in a marriage. Our sex-crazed culture knows very little about this, and secular scholars are always shocked to discover that there is much more contentment about sexual lives among the traditionally married set than the jet-setting partner-swapping or casual hook-up crowds. I’m not shocked. All the way back in the Song of Solomon we were already passing on to our youth the beautiful hope to see them content in loving their spouses, where a man finds in his wife a satisfaction he cannot find anywhere else. In a bi-polar culture that swings from rabid pleasure seeking to depressed cynicism a sacred marriage finds the third way of joy. A sacred marriage thus points to the Way of Christ which provides it. The Church, in this brave new world, may need to emphasize the great joy that comes from a loving sacred marriage between a husband and wife.
[highlight class=”highlight_yellow” style=””]4) To make us fruitful[/highlight]
We would be remiss to forget that part of the purpose of a sacred marriage is to be fruitful and multiply. Our purpose on earth is not procreation, any more than it is sexuality in general. That is only one part of who we are, or only a portion of our potential. But it is key. We are biologically created in this way… and we might call other forms of sexual engagement what they are: mere mutual stimulation. This is counter-cultural as well– since we as a nation tend to define things by their extremes. Yes, I have very close friends who cannot have children. I grieve for them, but I believe that they haven’t yet experienced part of why God gave us sacred marriage. This is why I grieve for them. It’s why they grieve for themselves. Their beautiful love longs for that expression through that amazing act of sub-creation, fruitfulness: a.k.a.: children. Many have adopted, which is it’s own special grace in the world today that in some ways exceeds biological reproduction, with all it’s rich parallels to our adoption in God. However, the fact remains that part of sacred marriage is intended for fruitfulness. This romantic, sexual, and procreative love is a beautiful thing, a mature love. Thomas reminds us that “Any mature, spiritually sensitive view of marriage must be built on the foundation of mature love rather than romanticism. But this immediately casts us into a countercultural pursuit.” The Church, in this brave new world, may need to emphasize the multiplied fruitfulness of children that comes from a loving sacred marriage between a husband and wife.
In considering these four purposes I wonder if preaching, valuing and celebrating a sacred marriage between a husband and wife might be one of the most countercultural pursuits to engage in today. Of course, the Church has not modeled many marriages worthy of emulating. Christians have not been good husbands, good wives. Generations now have prioritized their irreconcilable differences over their irrevocable vows. So we may need to return to these pruposes of a sacred marriage to shore up the weaknesses in our own Church culture–so that the marriages we believe in, the sacred marriage between a husband and wife–actually looks like a better way of life, a lifestyle to admire. I worry that we have lost this, and that a sacred marriage is not only counter-cultural to our national culture–but even counter-cultural to our Church culture.
How about you… how would you “define marriage” in a sacred sense? What is the view of the Church as to what a marriage is?
_________________
Disclaimer: In case you were speculating, the first draft thoughts found on DavidDrury.com are always my own and do not necessarily represent the views of my family, my neighbors, my church, my denomination, or my third cousin from Toledo. At times the thoughts here don’t even represent my own thoughts later on, when scripture, tradition, reason, and experience have conspired to change my mind.
_________________
*For your reference here below is a copy of what those in my tribe (the Wesleyan Church) have stated officially about marriage.
[row_box class=””]”We believe that every person is created in the image of God, that human sexuality reflects that image in terms of intimate love, communication, fellowship, subordination of the self to the larger whole, and fulfillment. God’s Word makes use of the marriage relationship as the supreme metaphor for His relationship with His covenant people and for revealing the truth that that relationship is of one God with one people. Therefore God’s plan for human sexuality is that it is to be expressed only in a monogamous lifelong relationship between one man and one woman within the framework of marriage. This is the only relationship which is divinely designed for the birth and rearing of children and is a covenant union made in the sight of God, taking priority over every other human relationship.” The Wesleyan Church Discipline 2012, 222[/row_box]
I really like this perspective, David. Thank you for sharing it.
Thanks for this, Valorie. How are you finding your ministry and church connections intersecting with marriage issues these days?
Someone asked me to clarify how marriage might make us holy… In particular compared to those who are single, such as Christ or Paul
Here is my take:
Josh – a few presumptions:
1) God uses all kinds of things, particularly relationships, to make us holy
2) There are some things that God uses as a means of grace, or a sacrament, as you will, that are even more important to making us Christlike.
3) The church has held these later items in special reverence with an honored part.
4) We would not question whether reading the Bible makes us more holy, why would we question whether the most important human relationship and the one the church actually blesses in a sacramental ceremony makes us more holy?
5) this sacred marriage does not make us more holy than Jesus, and a single person today can be “more” holy than a married person–but all married people will become more holy if they allow God to use their marriage in a function of sanctifying them in this life. The same might be said for a single person allowing their celibacy to sanctify them. Marriage has a special place in this continuum however, as it is blessed by the church in a public ceremony of vows.
6) I don’t claim that married people are more holy. They aren’t. They just would be if they allowed their marriage to make them more holy, instead of seeing it as an optional union of convenience.
I should say,. Perhaps we should clarify that the concern for many is a patriotic American concern. The Church will be fine (in fact, it may thrive in a more counter cultural fashion, even if it reaches the persecution many say is coming)… But many American Christians are so very afraid for America, really. The “Christianness” of America seems to be slipping away. Of course many of us believe this has been happening for some 70 years..or more. Now it does seem clear, however, and this has become the “last straw” to fight over for some. As Keith Drury (my dad) often says, the fight gets loudest before it is lost.
David, while I have not yet remarried, the subject has been a major part of my prayer life these past few months. This is an incredible article with great insights.
A while back I listened to a couple of Tim Keller’s messages on marriage. Your words remind me of this teaching – that two of the purposes of marriage are to make us more holy and more authentic. I really do believe this… While holiness is not only for the married, that daily “mirror of marriage” does a great deal to shape and mold a person; more so, I believe, than singleness can.
As I am praying for the future, I will keep this article close by.
Thanks for this post. Well-written and thought provoking.
Thanks Jason… this is very encouraging and insightful in reply.
“mirror of marriage” – great line
I would imagine that “going through” the brokenness of a divorce is a short-term mirror as well, and can in the end be used to make us more holy as well. Knowing your story as I do, I know this has been the case for you.
May God continue to guide you.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/jeff-eckart/what-is-marriage/10151612796301522
Now I’ve seen two great messages on marriage today.
Most Protestants do not consider marriage a sacrament. American religious history vacillates between marriage as a civil contract or a religious covenant. When procreation is made a key element, an argument can be made that the civil elements of marriage should take precedence over religious elements. After all, who wants human society to end whether it is religious or not?
If marriage is to make us authentic and joyful, then the same argument will be extended by some to go beyond heterosexual unions.
The one purpose of a sacred marriage is that of holiness. Unfortunately, heterosexuals tend to truncate the Biblical narrative. Most will quote the liturgical idiom that marriage is between one man and one women. Few will add the sentiment, “… for life.” This makes their concerns seem less moral and more political. Can you imagine an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which only allows divorced heterosexuals a “civil union”?
Marriage is sacred. Our Wesleyan understanding of grace hints that it is sacred even for the non-religious.
Hello, Darrell. Good thoughts.
I didn’t offer mine above as a list of definitions of marriage that preclude same-sex unions–instead I tried to merely start with a biblical theology of marriage and see where it led in terms of same-sex unions. Like you, I see that two out of my four have this application, and not the joy or authenticity points.
But our entire theology of marriage isn’t built on precluding same-sex unions, of course! 🙂
Like you I also think we Chrisitians have devalued marriage in general and that is part of the problem, one I’m trying to counter with this article in fact, to raise it back to “sacred status.”
A distant cousin of mine recently posted a link on her Facebook wall to this very diplomatically written blog post about the difference between a gay wedding and a “sacred marriage.”’
I responded to her post by saying, “Well, I’ll give this David Drury guy credit for one thing… he’s diplomatic at least. But for the record, the God I know is a God of love, who can’t help but smile when He looks down at the love between my partner and I, a love that many churches may not endorse, but He’s not in the business of telling people they cannot or should not love.”
A woman named Joan, who I do not know, then replied, “No God is not in the business of telling people they cannot or should not love BUT He does say “Therefore a man shall leave his mother and father and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh”
As the son of a Wesleyan minister who has spent the past 10 years trying to quietly distance himself from the church the he once loved so dearly, I couldn’t just keep my mouth shut this time… so here is what I wrote back:
“I’ve spent the past week trying to figure out how best to respond to your comment. What I won’t do is go back and forth quoting scriptures. (Let’s remember that Satan quotes scripture too when it suits his mission.)
I spent some time trying at length to outline my viewpoint, but decided that the response was overcomplicated when really this needs only a very straightforward reply.
What I also won’t do is stand in judgment of you or your beliefs, because I believe that judgment is the job of God. Instead, I’ll simply explain what I believe.
I believe that God did not provide us with a Bible that was intended to be interpreted only by theologians and scholars and priests. God gave us the Bible as a historical account of the past and as a guideline for how to live our lives. How we understand the various passages and how they relate to each other and to our lives is a personal matter. No, it’s not a personal matter, I take that back. It’s a matter between individuals and God.
I do believe that I have a relationship with God. I believe in the same God as you and I think we’re both in agreement that he’s a God of love. What I know to be true, through my relationship with God and my faith, is that I have been blessed by God with a partner whom I love and who loves me back. God did not make a mistake when he made me. And the Devil has not intervened to put horrible evil, sinful thoughts in my mind. Love is not evil. Love is good. My partner and I love each other and the relationship that we have is blessed by God.
God is a God of love. Period. He does not put limits and constraints on love. This is what I believe, and I believe it regardless of any interpretation of single lines of scriptural text that may have had certain value or meaning for the author at the time and place in which they were written.”
Hello, Daniel.
Thank you for your kind comment, and the stark reality of the situation you raise here.
First of all… this will be difficult to talk about in “comment thread” form… so let me just offer to be in dialog for a while on this and other issues. While there are many heated statements on this matter I disagree with anyone who thinks this is an “easy call” or a “slam dunk” argument that can be “won” in 2 minutes.
Like you, Daniel, I believe God is a God of love, and I wish you no ill will.
You might have noticed that my “position” above is one of helping us define marriage in the church itself–and I’m not talking about politics here. I’m thinking about what the Christian Church does in spite of politices… an issue when it comes to homosexuality that is here to stay–and has little to do with the legislatures (as your own personal example points out.)
Let me start the conversation back by pointing out the major problem I have with your presumption above. You say:
“God gave us the Bible as a historical account of the past and as a guideline for how to live our lives. How we understand the various passages and how they relate to each other and to our lives is a personal matter. No, it’s not a personal matter, I take that back. It’s a matter between individuals and God.”
I’m glad for you to clarify that it is “individuals and God” not just a “personal matter.” I think this is the key rub. The reality is that we need the Church to help interpret scripture, and it comes into our lives as an authority outside of us. As a Wesleyan, my view of sin in general and specific sins in particular are not only informed by, but constrained by, my community. I am in “submission” to the Church.
Of course because of human freedom and free will, I don’t HAVE to be in submission… but I choose to be so. The reality is that I have no jurisdiction or right to impose my beliefs on others who are not outside of my corner of the Kingdom. 1 Corinthians 5:12 is wisdom on this for me: “It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning.”
So, I apologize if I have offended you, Daniel–my writing above is meant to help define, for me and mine, what is meant by a holy, Church-sanctioned, “Sacred Marriage”… Certainly the Church has the right to define what marriage is for its own. The debate in America right now centers on defining marriage for all in America, I would say. That is a somewhat different matter.
Does this make some sense as to what I am saying?
I’d love to talk more about “putting constraints or limits on love.” Well, that depends. Sexual expression of love does have “constraints” and some ways to express ourselves sexually, and otherwise, would be what Jesus Christ in scripture calls sin. That’s the key issue here… while many are marching and yelling and blogging about the definition of marriage or gay marriage, I am hoping to help us define sin a little better and what we can do about it.