Oh, wait... How ironic
is that?
Now, let me be clear, so as not to cause any confusion. In the Church of the Nazarene, as an official
position, we recognize two sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist. To be a Nazarene, you do not have to recognize
marriage as a sacrament, but I'd like to make a case for why we should.
Let's take a look at Matthew 19:4-6. These are the words of Jesus when asked
specifically about divorce, and I don't want to take them out of context, but I
think there are some relatively important points about marriage, in general,
that can be discerned from these words:
“Haven’t you read,”
he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made
them male and female,’
and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be
united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two,
but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate”
(NIV).
I think, in our current culture, that a lot
of people get really wrapped up in what people
are doing in this passage, and, perhaps a lot of people get wrapped up in what people
are doing something in this
passage. These are important details to
work through, but I'm not sure they are nearly as important as what God is doing here, particularly if we
actually believe that God does something
when we practice the sacraments.
In marriage, God joins two people and makes them one. And, come on, this is not even figurative
language here, friends. I'm pretty sure
if you're old enough to be reading my blog, you know how this works. Jesus uses the word flesh, or the Greek, sarka, in this
passage. It is the same word used for
flesh in John 6 when Jesus instructs the disciples that they must eat his flesh
and drink his blood, which, sounds somewhat like a foreshadowing of the first
Eucharist, if you ask me. It's the same
word used for various negative references to living according to the flesh, living
according to human nature or living according to what the body wants. There are a lot of beautiful literary
references in Scripture that walk us through metaphors and hyperbole and
narrative, but any way I look at this one, it means flesh. I can't seem to get around it. With the consummation of marriage, God
literally fuses the flesh of two people together.
But here's where it gets a little bit dicey. This is not temporary! Scripture doesn't say, "So they are no longer
two, but one flesh, and then a little while later they're two again, and it's
kind of a cycle that you just have to get used to." No, Scripture says that once these two people
become one flesh, joined by God, no one is supposed to mess with that. There is no going back. This is a permanent deal.
But, oh my goodness, have we ever messed it
up!
Homosexuality is a hot button issue right
now, and in a comment from my May 28th post entitled, "With Much
Wisdom," Bryan said, "The Church of Jesus Christ has shunned
and condemned the gay community for far too long. All sexual sin needs to be
addressed, not just homosexuality. How many divorces are happening in the
church because of a variety of sexual sins by those sitting in the pews every
week?" (Bryan also asked some more
excellent, specific questions, but in order to give them all ample thought and
time I am breaking it down a little bit.)
Wow. This is a
comment that needs to be addressed. Let
me share something personal, because people like stories, right?
My family is pretty special.
I used to be more legalistically leaning, though, and my definition of
special has changed over the years. Let
me explain what I mean. I used to think
that one of the defining things that made us special was our family
make-up. Phil and I were both virgins on
our wedding night. For crying out loud, I
was 17! Is it really that hard to get to
17? But I digress... We have been married for almost 18 years, and
we have five children. All of our
children are ours, together. There are
no step children. There are no previous
spouses. There are no children born
outside of marriage. Neither of us has
ever had sex with anyone else, ever. Aren't
we awesome? By pretty much everyone's
standards of sexual purity, we're it!
Let's say I
found myself in a room filled with a randomly selected cross section of adults. As sexual sins were listed, people were asked
to sit down if they had ever participated in these sins that are destroying the
"institution of marriage" (I'm sorry, but I hate that. Institution? Really?). You could run down a pretty good sized list. Homosexual acts, premarital sex, extra
marital sex. I just shared my
story! You know I'm going to be the last
one standing!
But then, here comes Jesus, again, turning the whole thing
on its head.
Matthew 5:28 "But I tell you that
anyone who looks at a woman (or man) lustfully has already committed adultery
with her (or him) in his heart" (NIV, parenthesis mine).
Oh, crap.
I just sat down.
How perfect can we get it, friends? Who gets to make the judgment call? For a long time I thought it was me, but as
you can see that's not the case, and I think, maybe, we've got the whole issue
wrong.
Bryan also asked, "How should the Church respond to the
impending ruling from the Supreme Court on gay 'marriage'?"
Marriage is a covenant relationship, but as a church we have
given it to the government and connected it with civil rights. I'm not sure marriage has anything, at all,
to do with civil rights, but I am
sure that we, as the church, have absolutely no business taking civil rights
away from anyone.
I'm all about semantics, and so I'd like to suggest that
maybe we need a new word.
If marriage is a legally binding piece of paper that says
that two people have decided to love each other for as long as it is
convenient, and most ideally forever, and that they can share benefits, raise
their kids together, have full privacy and visitation rights in the case of
illness, file taxes jointly, and have a wedding, and a reception, with a cake,
then I can't really find a reason to stand vehemently in the way of anyone
looking for this kind of contract. People
are looking for equal rights (which we have established in this country on a
political, not religious, basis, which is not really a good topic of
conversation for this particular blog, because I'm not a very good patriot).
If the church would like to reclaim marriage as a
sacramental covenant, then I think we have to recognize that we will have to
change our language. Think this through,
please. When does the government ever
get involved in the administration of baptism or the Eucharist? If the church wants to adhere to Scriptural
requirements for the sacramental covenant of marriage, we can do that, and no
one is going to get upset over it any more than I get upset when I can't
partake in the Eucharist at a local Catholic church, because I'm not a member
(OK, this kind of makes me upset, but I'm not going to create a scene or
anything).
But let's still be careful... Returning to my earlier words, who really has
it all together? Can any of us create
the perfect scenario in which our own marriages are safeguarded from every
potential evil? I don't know. Maybe those of you reading this are actually
much better people than I am. That is
certainly well within the realm of possibility.
But I can't do it on my own. I need God to do something in
marriage. I need marriage to be
sacramental, and I need it to be ongoing, too.
Let's not confuse marriage with the wedding.
L.
