Redefining marriage? Opposition to same sex marriage and the limits of the claim to ‘biblical’ orthodoxy
One of the worries of those who oppose celebration of same-sex marriage by churches is that it would change the definition of marriage. The worry seems to encompass several related things: that ‘marriage’ will lose its essential meaning if its practice and scope are extended beyond what is semantically viable; that such changes are at odds with what marriage normatively should be; and that these norms are biblical and orthodox, ipso facto to propose them is to be unbiblical and unorthodox.
These are separate but not totally distinct concerns. I cannot hope to address them in their complexity. But let’s tease out a few threads.
The semantic question need not detain us too long. Words – and the underlying practices and institutions they are part of – are never static. Meanings evolve. The same is true of marriage. While we can wonder how far we can stretch the meaning of a word before it loses any distinctive content, it is impossible to state in advance how much stretching is possible. Think of the historical and cultural evolution of what constitutes ‘music’ for example.
In a sense this is just an observation. But it does bear on the normative issue. The way marriage has changed over time involves the evolution and replacement of norms. The number of wives a man can have; what constitutes a consummated marriage; property and legal rights between men and women; the age at which one can marry – all these are not just minor variations, but entail substantive normative questions of right, justice and consent.
Consider this: in the 12th century, the seminal work of canon jurist Gratian set marriageable age at 14 for males, 12 for females. Obviously, in contemporary UK law, 12 and 14 year olds are children. So were marriages between what we now class as children ‘real’ marriages? If so, we seem to be dealing with a hugely different understanding of adulthood and consent, and therefore of marriage. If not, well – why not? On what normative grounds do you make that judgement? Where is the timeless essence of marriage you need to appeal to? Similar points could be made about legal arrangements in which the wife is treated as the property of the husband. (Of course, there is a huge related question about the changing legal and sacramental status of marriage, but let’s leave that aside for now!).
These issues also bear heavily on what is biblical (treating definitions of marriage and sexuality as litmus tests for orthodoxy is a bizarre modern invention; the real issue seems to be biblical correctness). The Bible gives us the story of Genesis 2, and so lays the foundation for a man and a woman to become one flesh – something Jesus cites in discussing divorce. However, look further and the normative status and scope of marriage is unclear.
Marrying many wives is clearly accepted in the same part of the Bible which gives us Genesis 2. So is marrying enslaved women, which of course implies that marriage does not require consent from the woman. In effect, it is a legalised protection of sexual ownership. Wives are listed in the Ten Commandments among the various things owned by men which could be coveted. In the New Testament we find an insistence on marriage to one woman only for certain ranks of church leader (though there is some ambiguity here). Paul, famously in 1 Corinthians, is sceptical about the whole institution. Other letters – whether Pauline or attributed to Paul – envisage a subservient role for wives. There are internal scriptural debates, then, about the value, scope and nature of marriage.
Such issues may be resolvable. We may give more weight to what Jesus says, for instance. But they are not resolvable without decisions being taken about interpretation, context and relative importance and value. Without taking responsibility for this work, claims about what is ‘biblical’ are often abstractions imposed on the Bible rather than serious attempts to read what it actually says.
Given all of the above, there seems no a priori semantic, normative or biblical reason to prevent us re-examining what marriage means and how it is practised. If I emphasise the equality of male and female made in God’s image, or that there is no male or female in Christ; and if I place more weight on these teachings than scriptures which say wives need to obey husbands, I am certainly making interpretative choices. But I am doing no differently from someone who reads according to different weightings. And it is perfectly possible that I am doing so prayerfully, humbly and receptively to what the Word and the Spirit is saying about what is most important.
What we cannot do – and I have heard this preached - is to claim that the Bible is just there to be obeyed without question and then say out of the side of one’s mouth that the odd passage about women staying silent in church is only cultural. No, we have to take that discrepancy seriously, openly. It tells us something about the Bible and what revelation is.
Nor can we pretend that we have an ‘all or nothing’ approach to the Bible when we have no intention of practising selected normative teachings. Of course it is actually impossible to simultaneously practise contradictory norms, so, again, let’s be honest about that.
What I have said remains at the level of principle; in itself I have not made an argument that we should expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions (though I think we should, if anyone is in doubt!).
However, I do think there is a further implication in what I have said. If marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples on normative grounds, consistency seems to demand that the other normative factors in our history and scripture are also accepted. That means: subordinate wives, forbidden to speak in church. It means accepting that men can marry many women, including enslaved women. I do not see how we can decide – on a purist ‘biblical’ account – why one thing is normative and the rest are merely cultural.
In that sense, the opposition to same sex marriage is, by its own logic, committed to supporting male dominance over women. If that conclusion is not palatable, then we have to ask whether we are being unbiblical and unorthodox in rejecting it - or whether the logic of the so-called ‘biblical’ position is itself at fault.