The Case Against Christian Marriage

I'm not the first person to say this. But let me join this pastor's voice to the small (but hopefully growing) chorus and declare:  there is no such thing as Christian marriage. Marriage is a human arrangement that transcends any religion or culture. Any attempt to make it conform to a "Christian" definition is a form of coercive violence.

This week, North Carolina (my former state: Chapel Hill, 1977-85) joined a long list of states that have banned gay marriage. They suggest that marriage is restricted to a man and a woman.

I'm for marriage. I'm for promoting strong and healthy and lasting marriages. I think marriage is an essential building-block for a healthy society. Marriage can promote strong families and stable communities. It can be emotionally rich and rewarding (as well as exhausting and difficult). It's one of the best opportunities out there for a person to practice how to love another person. I'm a marriage fan.

But why restrict it to men and women? Mostly, religion is the response. Folks reflexively say, "the Bible teaches that marriage is restricted to one man and one woman."

Except... it doesn't. The Bible offers many conflicting, often problematic depictions of marriage.

Let's take a look at what the Bible says about marriage:

1) Old Testament marriages are often polygamous. Polygamy was practiced in the Ancient Near East (though probably reserved for the wealthy). Abraham, Jacob, David--many of the major male characters in the Old Testament had multiple wives. While polygamy is neither mandated nor forbidden in Scripture, Levirate marriage--the practice of marrying and having sexual relations with your dead brother's wife--is commanded (Deut. 25:10). Most of the time, marriages were arranged for economics or convenience, only sometimes for love.

2) The Old Testament contains many stories about marital abuse, concubines (something between a wife and a prostitute), prostitution, infidelity, and extramarital sex. Song of Songs is a whole biblical book full of hot, non-marital sex. I wouldn't argue that the Bible advocates these practices, but nor does it always expressly condemn them. That is, when the Bible shows images of sex and/or marriage, they are not intended to be lessons for future generations about sex and marriage. They are part of the biblical culture and they are generously reflected in the literature that sprang from that culture. Much of the Old Testament's vision of marriage and sexuality is descriptive, not prescriptive. When it is prescriptive (as in Levirate marriage), we wouldn't necessarily want to follow its advice.

3) The Old Testament vision of gender relations says that women are the property of men (Exodus 20:17; 22:16-17). Men owned wives, like they owned goats. There are numerous examples of men exacting violence on women. Women had few protected legal rights--they could not move freely, they could not talk to people freely, they could not own property, speak in court, or request a divorce. Defend "complementarianism" if you must, but its differentiated roles lie in a historical context in which women (both wives and girls) were the powerless property of men.

4) Genesis 2:  The Biblical text often invoked in defense of male-female exclusive marriage is Genesis 2, depicting Eve emerging from Adam's rib and the "two becoming one flesh." This is a beautiful passage, but put it in proper context, it is part of a creation myth. This is no more a normative template for modern marriage than the 6 days is a scientific explanation of how the earth and its inhabitants all got here. Genesis 2 is a lovely story--but it was never written to offer us a full and nuanced understanding of gender, sex, and marriage.

5) The New Testament displays an only slightly better picture. Women in the New Testament period were generally seen as mentally and physically inferior, irrational and superstitious. The New Testament does display a preference for monogamous (as opposed to polygamous) marriage. Matthew 19 and Mark 10 both suggest that Jesus held the sanctity of marriage in high regard--perhaps so much so that he calls divorce and re-marriage "adultery." It's one of the only clear statements on marriage in the Bible (and it's from Jesus himself!)--but one not taken to heart by most contemporary Christians. How many states have banned divorce, like they've banned gay marriage? Right. These particular statements about marriage reflect a contemporary debate about divorce within Pharisaic Judaism at the time that the gospels were written. They're culturally-limited, just like much of the rest of what the Bible says about marriage.

6) The New Testament vision of gender relations within marriage is still highly patriarchal. The language is about "headship" and "submission," which identifies the male as the head of the family (Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3) and the female "under" the male. Again, this stems from a dated and distorted view of gender. There are some portions of these passages which depict a beautiful complementarity, but to offer the overall vision of marriage in these passages as a template for modern marriage is reductive. Some relationships can develop a functional peace within this template, but not all contemporary relationships should embrace provisional wisdom from 2000 years ago, especially when that wisdom is yoked to legal and social practices, customs, and mores that relegated women to lesser status than men.

7) The New Testament is ambivalent about marriage. The Apostle Paul wasn't married. Jesus wasn't married. Paul hedged his bet about marriage, recommending against it (1 Cor. 7). Paul holds singleness in high regard. Jesus suggests that marriage is not an eternal status--it's a this-world arrangement that will fade in relevance when the Kingdom of God comes in its fullness (Mt. 12 and 20). Marriage is a provisional arrangement, not yoked to salvation.

8) Is there Biblical precedent for same-sex love? Just maybe. There is enough room for doubt. The story of Ruth and Naomi (Ruth) reveals profound intimacy, as does the relationship of David and Jonathan (1 & 2 Samuel). We can't prove that either couple was sexually intimate, but the language of both stories leaves ample room to imagine that they might have been.

My point in all of this is to say that the Bible doesn't say one thing about marriage. It says a lot of different, often contradictory things about marriage. And nowhere can I find the Bible suggesting, in a convincing way, that marriage is exclusively intended for, or restricted to, a man and a woman. There is no convincing Biblical definition of a "Christian marriage."

There's no doubt that marriage is in trouble. People are having a hard time staying married. We can debate the reasons, but they are more likely to be economic than religious. The threat to marriage is not coming from gay people--it's coming from economic policies that are eroding the middle class.

Marriage is an essential social relationship that creates healthy families and communities. Our society ought to being doing everything we can to encourage couples--from all religions and backgrounds--to marry when they are good and ready and to nurture healthy marriages once a covenant is made. Banning loving same-gender couples from getting married runs counter to that goal.

It's bad enough to mis-diagnose the marriage problem and legislate a mean-spirited solution. But, as a pastor, when I hear people claim that the Bible requires such narrowness, I can only call it what it is: heretical and shameful.