Yesterday I read Tom Hobson's blog on the Presbyterian Outlook website, entitled My perspective on Belhar. He pointed to the Uniting Presbyterian Church of Southern Africa (a fellow member of the World Communion of Reformed Churches) and their Confession of Faith, saying "[It] is worthy to replace our entire Book of Confessions as a comprehensive statement of what we currently believe." This document is 42 pages long, with Scriptural endnotes making up half. It's well worth your time to read it.
While looking at their website I came across the UPCSA's Statement on Marriage. I know that the General Assembly did not send us any proposals to change the definition of marriage, but we can't separate this issue from that of ordination. I found this statement to be eminently Biblical and grace-filled. It's less than three pages long, so I'll copy and paste it here for you:
Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa Statement on Marriage
(Adopted by the Executive Commission in 2005 and confirmed by the General Assembly in 2006)
The Executive Commission affirms that Christian marriage is defined within the Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa as an ordained covenant that exists between one man and one woman under God for life, and holds this definition to be consistent with the authoritative rule of Scripture as well as the tradition of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
The Executive Commission instructs all marriage officers affiliated with the UPCSA to remain faithful to the church’s definition of marriage, and to exercise pastoral compassion and sensitivity in their
dealings with all who approach the church for assistance with marriage.
The Executive Commission exhorts all members of the church to uphold the sanctity of Christian marriage, and to acknowledge its role as the proper context for the expression of sexual intimacy
between a man and a woman.
Motivation
In view of the current initiative in our nation to re-define marriage through the law courts to include same-sex couples, it is imperative that our church give a clear and unequivocal signal as to the Christian definition of marriage, both for the guidance of its own members, and also that it may contribute effectively to the debate within wider society.
It should be noted that this matter, although clearly related, is also distinct from the debate surrounding sexuality and homosexuality. It concerns specifically the Christian understanding of marriage in the light of Scripture as our “final rule of faith and life”, as well as of our inherited tradition arising out of the church’s hermeneutic through the ages.
Both of these bear a unified resounding witness:
· Marriage arises out of the order of creation, and is defined in the creation accounts of Genesis as that which exists between a man and a woman.
· The prophetic tradition strongly reinforces this concept of marriage, and extends it to a metaphorical depiction of God and Israel (cf. Hosea, Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah).
· Jesus confirms God’s creation of man and woman as the foundation of marriage and upholds marriage as that institution by which a “man shall leave his father and his mother and be made one with his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Matthew 19:4 ff.; Mark 10:1 ff.). This is central to the Christian view of marriage, encompassing both the physical and the spiritual realities of the marriage act as that which incorporates one man and one woman.
· Both Paul (Ephesians) and John (Revelation) allude to the church as the bride of Christ, reflecting the metaphorical line of the prophets.
· The New Testament consistently exhorts that marriage as a relationship of sexual faithfulness between a man and a woman be held in honour and that it be undefiled (cf. Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 7: 1-5)
· Whilst not exclusively so, marriage is linked to the procreation and nurture of children in several Biblical passages (Cf. Genesis 1:28, 4:1; Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20-21).
· This definition has held sway in the church through the ages, as is evidenced in the writings of the Church Fathers (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome et.al.) and in marriage service orders of different denominations and eras (cf. the Sarum Liturgy, the Latin Rite, the
1549 Prayer Book right through to our own- remarkably consistent).
The conclusion inescapably to be drawn from this witness is that, according to the Christian understanding, marriage is:
· Ordained by God;
· Covenantal in nature;
· An exclusive relationship involving one man and one woman.
The Church has been remarkably consistent in this definition, across the denominations and across the ages, in spite of other serious differences and disputes. This should inform us. It is fallacious to say that our current time is unique and different to all the contexts that have gone before us. Homosexuality has been a reality in all of them, condoned in some of them, but this has never led the Church to review its definition of marriage.
We would do well to acknowledge that it is not only the same sex agenda that threatens the institution of marriage in our society. Adultery and co-habitation are far more pervasive if not as dramatic. These too require the attention of the church in its representation of grace and truth.
The intention of this motion is to uphold the Christian definition of marriage, not to provide a basis within the church for the exclusion and/or persecution of those who may pursue certain sexual practices, gay or otherwise. These practices must be addressed through the One who is “full of grace and truth”.
It should be noted that our government has given the assurance that, notwithstanding any change to the definition of marriage on the part of the state, marriage officers will not be compelled to act against their consciences or the principles of their religious bodies. Alarmist reactions to this issue should thus be
avoided. Nevertheless our church’s stance must be firm, clear and unequivocal, both for the guidance of its officials and members, and also that it may stand alongside fellow churches in faithfully representing to our lawmakers the Christian view, and that which we believe God requires of us as a nation.
[End of quote]
What are your thoughts?
In Christ,
Marty
I'm curious whether you've read Ed Koster's 'Manifesto' (is it in the list of resources you posted?) and if so what you think of his vox populii argument. I disagree with the idea that our current context is not almost unprecedented. I know of no other time when we had easy, cheap access to contraceptives, and where the average person gets married around age 28 (in America at least - 28 for men, 26 for women). When the Bible was written, 28 was more than halfway through one's expected lifespan.
ReplyDeleteI think that if the Church holds to a position where Christian marriage is the only acceptable context for sexual activity, it'll remain a very hard sell for people who are told to remain celibate for 10 years as adults, on average (not to mention adolescence, where 1/2 of High School graduates are not virgins) I'm not saying there are easy solutions, only that it is hard to compare our context with the ancient and historical context of people getting marred during, or shortly after, adolescence.
Right now what we have is G6.0106b applied only with regard to LGTBQ persons, and never with regard to other forms of sex outside of marriage (before marriage in particular - very few of those 28 year olds are virgins, even in the Evangelical churches), not to mention 'anything the Confessions call sin', which is a long list. I've heard it said that one way to ensure that amendment b is removed from the BOO is to enforce it.
The imagery from the prophets as well as Paul's letters is interesting to me, with regard to marriage. The idea that the prophets used the metaphorical image of marriage between Israel and God (where Israel's leadership is male and God was imagined primarily to be male), and that Paul refers to the church (again, mostly male leadership) as the bride of Christ (clearly historically male) is interesting in the discussion of marriage as *only* between a man and a woman. Clearly, here, we have scripture speaking metaphorically about the holy marriage between men and deities who are imagined primarily to be male. For me, that provides support for marriage being important, but actually seems to also support marriage as something that could happen between two men.
ReplyDeleteDoug,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your faithfulness in responding! I've been up to my eyeballs in work, but now that the presbytery meeting is over I'll try to catch up.
Yes, I've read Ed's manifesto. I was hoping to speak to him in person about it at the Synod-Wide Staff Retreat, but he wasn't there. I'll give a link to it in a new post today.
As for the vox populi argument, I have real problems with it. Certainly the world we live in sets our agenda as God calls us to share the gospel message in our context. But does the world tell us what is right and wrong? There's another Latin phrase, Contra Mundum (literally, against the world) that stands out against vox populi. Athanasius was nicknamed Athanasius Contra Mundum for this dogged opposition to Arianism, even when Arianism was popular and his opposition cost him dearly. And remember the Barmen Declaration. Here are some key phrases: "We reject the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God's revelation..." "We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords--areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him..."We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions..." "We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans..."
Is the voice of the people always right? It was the voice of the people that told Aaron to make the golden calf. It was the voice of the people that called for Jesus to be crucified. It was the voice of the people that called for the Christians to be martyred in the Coliseum. It was the voice of the people that shouted "Heil Hitler" and agreed with his final solution to the "Jewish problem." Be careful when listening to the voice of the people. It is to the voice of God that we must hearken.
It sounds like I agree for the most part - the voice of the people is not always right, not by a long shot. I just don't think it can be entirely discounted. It was also the majority of the Church that shouted "Heil Hitler", and once the Church became Imperial, it swiftly became complicit in killing the innocent, and has been since.
ReplyDeleteFor me, it's important that we interpret scripture, and that we interpret scripture not as disparate entities but as individuals and groups in various contexts. I see no way to separate the context of a reader from a reading. For me, vox populii happens whether we intend it or not, and always has, and is not necessarily a bad thing.
As for the Mundum - I think that the Church is arrayed against the powers and principalities of the world, but not the whole world and everything in it. There is wisdom, knowledge, truth, etc., in the Mundum. Is not all goodness of God? Is not all truth God's truth? At the end of Job, God says to Job "look around you at the natural world". Proverbs are just wise observations, not rooted in revelation. I think that the voice of God is also in the world. I think we can stick close to Barmen, not claiming that any of this is revelatory, while still admitting that it may very well be true nonetheless.
There are times when the vox populii reminds us of this when we forget. I think that vox imperium is still loud in the church, and still far more damaging. Where does Jesus tell us to find him post-Resurrection? One place is in the least of these - the populii.
From the Confession of Faith you linked to, something I think about a lot:
ReplyDelete"6.5 The ultimate authority of Scripture itself rests on its witness to Jesus Christ, who lived, died and rose again for the world’s salvation, and on the Spirit’s inner witness that God in person is speaking to us in the words of scripture.[113] In all revelation God is sovereign and speaks in the present."
So scripture's authority rests on it's witness to Christ and to Spirit's inner witness. What about situations where that inner witness is not present? For example: God is depicted as commanding genocide more than once in the Old Testament. I sense no inner conviction whatsoever that a good God would ever do such a thing. What then? It's in the Bible, but contradicts other parts of the Bible, and is morally abhorrent. (Part of why I can't buy infallibility)
Or what about someone who reads the Bible and decides "this is a bunch of bunk", or even "this is evil"? I did some research in seminary on de-conversion stories, from Christianity to atheism, and by far the most often-cited reason for moving from Christianity to atheism is the Bible (in the testimonies I looked at anyway - a little over a hundred). Is there no answer to this lack of inner conviction?