Ecclesial Implications of Marriage Equality

If, as I believe, the pendulum has swung in the direction of legalizing the marriages of gays and lesbians, the church will be forced to wrestle with its implications.  I've invited John, one of our frequent commentators and an attorney, to write a legal analysis of the Prop 8 decision.  From what I've been reading, its unlikely that the appellate courts will overturn the District Court ruling on legal grounds.  It is, therefore, likely that the case will go to the Supreme Court.  Should they hear it -- and generally that means that four justices agree to hear it -- then it will be interesting to see where this goes.  If things go as they generally do, the deciding vote will be Anthony Kennedy.  If this ruling stands, and it just might do so, then it has implications for the entire country.  If upheld, it could very well overturn gay marriage bans across the country.  Now there could be an effort to enshrine traditional marriage into the Constitution, but I don't think that this will fare well.  Amendments to the Constitution take a lot of time and effort, and the cultural trends are working against such an eventuality.

Therefore, I believe that the ball has been effectively placed in the court of the church (and other religious communities).  Although the legal ramifications could mean that the "state" could no longer refuse to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples, and it could lead to the overturning of the "Defense of Marriage Act," which denies recognition to same sex couples on a statutory basis, this doesn't mean that churches have to recognize such marriages.  Clergy do act as agents of the state when they perform weddings, but they're not the only possible agents. 

So the question looms -- how will the church respond?  At least initially, I expect most ecclesial bodies will continue business as usual.  With few exceptions, most Christian denominations do not recognize gay unions of any kind, including marriage.  My own denomination, the Disciples of Christ, has taken no official position, so that really leaves it up to local congregations.  As for my congregation, we are only now beginning conversations about these issues (not just gay marriage, but homosexuality and the church in general).  We've not taken a position, and it is my stated view that I will not participate in such a marriage ceremony until the congregation has come to a consensus on the issue.  At this point, I simply don't know where the congregation will come out on this issue.  I know that there is openness, but traditions and cultural mores die very slowly, if at all.  Tradition may not be a useful argument in the court of law, but it is in the church. 

So, I'd like to open up the discussion as to what the implications for the church might be.  Let me put a caveat here -- I'd rather that we not reargue the question of whether or not Scripture casts homosexuality in a negative light -- we've had this discussion.  I'd rather not have this be about the legal aspects either -- hopefully John can shed light on that question.  What I'd like for us to do is have a "civil" conversation that wrestles with the implications for the church if Prop 8 is declared unconstitutional, which might make it legal across the vastness of this nation for people to marry same sex partners and receive all the rights and benefits currently accorded to heterosexual couples.   

The March toward Marriage Equality

When Proposition 8, the amendment to the California Constitution limiting marriage to a man and a woman, passed, it did so by a rather narrow margin -- 52% to 48%.  Opponents to same sex marriage received tremendous financial support from religious groups, especially the Mormon Church.  This amendment served as a response to an earlier California Supreme Court ruling that overturned bans on same gender marriage because they were inherently discriminatory and akin to bans on interracial marriage, which had been overturned in California by the Courts.  What is interesting about California is that it's easier to amend the constitution than pass a budget, and so needing only a simple majority, the voters reversed the court ruling.  That effort led to efforts to overturn the California law by taking it to federal court and arguing that this ban stands contrary to the "Equal Protection" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Leading the challengers to the law was an interesting pair of attorneys -- two men who faced off against each other in 2000 before the Supreme Court.  The issue then was the 2000 Presidential Election, a case in which the Supreme Court stepped in and ended Florida recounts and handing the election to George W. Bush, even though Al Gore had won the popular vote.  Maybe you remember that.  Anyway, Theodore Olson, Bush's lead attorney in that case, would go on to be Solicitor General -- the position that Elena Kagan held until receiving confirmation yesterday as our next Supreme Court Justice.  Olson is a conservative, a republican, and an advocate for gay marriage!  Sometime back he wrote an important op-ed piece in which he argued for a "conservative case for same sex marriage."   In that piece he wrote:

When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.

So, earlier this week, arguing for the opponents to Prop. 8, his position was vindicated by the Court, when Federal Judge Vaughn Walker argued in his ruling that that tradition alone, including the presupposition that marriage fosters procreation,  is not sufficient to deny rights to one segment of society that is not accorded to another.  

I know that there will be much outcry about activist courts that overrule the will of the people.  Remember, however, that it was the "will of the people" that banned interracial marriage.  It wasn't the legislatures that overturned that discriminatory practice, but the Courts.   It was the will of the people that segregated buses, lunch counters, and schools.  It wasn't legislation that overturned these discriminatory practices, it was the Courts (only afterwards did the Civil Rights legislation get passed to affirm what the courts had already deemed appropriate). 

More important than the initial effects of this ruling are the longer term ones.  Remember that in that earlier election, the vote was rather close -- just a 4 point margin.   While California is considered more liberal than most states, there large swaths of the state that are fairly conservative.  In addition, the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormon Church have significant presences and they both actively backed Prop 8.  In addition, while Latinos and African Americans tend to vote Democratic, they also tend to be social conservatives.  Finally, while the trend in 2008 led to the amendment, recent polls suggest that the wind is at the back of those who support same gender marriage.  So, what's next?

Obviously this will be appealed, and expect it to go all the way to the Supreme Court.  My sense is that the Appeals Court will sustain the District Court judges ruling.  What will be interesting is whether the Supreme Court chooses to hear the case.  It may not choose to do so.  If it does choose to rule, then the question is -- where will Anthony Kennedy take his stand?  If it goes all the way and the Supreme Court rules in favor of the opponents of Prop 8, then we have a perfect storm.  If Prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional then so is every other marriage ban across the nation -- including federal ones.  I think that's what scares religious conservatives (and even many moderates and liberals -- remember that the President has expressed his own discomfort with gay marriage).     

The cultural wind is at the backs of those who support same sex marriage.  Society has become more and more accepting of gays.  In addition, it is becoming increasingly clear that homosexuality is not a chosen "persuasion," but a genetically defined orientation.  The judge in this case accepted as foundational the premise that this is not something that is either "chosen" or "changeable."  My sense is that among those under 40, the majority is not only accepting of gays, but supportive of gay marriage.  The idea that marriage is primarily designed to support procreation is no longer foundational.  We marry for love and companionship, with children as a secondary element.  Besides, with adoption and artificial insemination  there are other avenues for creating families. 

If society is moving in this direction, the religious community seems to be somewhere behind the curve.  It will be a long time coming in Roman Catholic Churches, whose teaching reinforces the principle that marriage, sex, and procreation all go together (my uniformed assumption is that the Orthodox churches would be somewhere in the mix here -- at least regarding the importance of tradition).  Most evangelical churches will stand back from it because they believe it is contrary to their reading of scripture.  Thus, that leaves more moderate to liberal Mainline Protestant churches.  We are, to this point, a mixed bag.  The United Church of Christ and the Evangelical Lutheran Church have taken the most progressive positions.  Disciples of Christ have left these issues to congregations -- with discussion at the "level" of the General Church essentially staying out of the conversation.  What is important to note in all of this is that no church will be "forced" to marry anyone they don't wish to marry.  Although clergy fill a societal role in officiating at weddings (we sign off on the licenses), we are not required to act contrary to theology or beliefs.  

So, where will this lead?  Only time will tell! 

Christianity Going South -- Sightings

There has been much talk in recent years about the movement of the center of Christianity south to Africa and Latin America, even as the numbers of Christians continues to dwindle in the north -- especially in Europe where the cathedrals and churches that have marked the region as Christian for centuries are now largely empty.  While there is much to applaud in these movements, there are also danger signals that need to be acknowledged.  You see, as Martin Marty points out in today's Sightings essay, some of the worst aspects of Christianity from the north, especially things like the prosperity gospel have migrated south as well.  So, while there is much to rejoice about, we must beware of romanticizing this reality.

*************************************

Sightings 7/5/10

Christianity Going South

-- Martin E. Marty

Sightings authors often comment on religion in the United States rather than "the rest of the world," but through the years have shown regularly how artificial or at least permeable such geographical distinctions are when it comes to religion. Philip Jenkins, Mark Noll, Lamin Sanneh, and others reveal the same, with important books on what Jenkins calls “The Next Christendom” and Noll describes as “The New Shape of World Christianity: How American Experience Reflects Global Faith.” They see the Christian population “going South.” In American slang, “going south” means going down to an inferior position. But in demographic terms, the capital “S” signals going up, as the masses of Christians are doing, while Christian power slides from Europe and North America to Africa, Latin America, and other points South.

It is impossible to quarantine the diseases of the old North’s Christendom so that they do not also spread South. So the worst of the “prosperity Gospel,” with its guarantees of material prosperity to converts, has taken over and predominates in many movements, such as in Kenya. The homophobia that leads nations like Uganda and Kenya to debate whether to condemn homosexuals to death is richly related not only to old tribal taboos, but to new-style Pentecostal churches there. And the conflicts over gay issues in the American Episcopal church are heated up by interventions on the part of Ugandan and Kenyan Anglicans. The Lutheran World Federation, meeting this month, deals with Tanzanian Lutherans (who number one-third as many Lutherans after a few decades as there are Lutherans in the United States after three centuries of presence), as they say they will not accept funds or help (or prayers?) from Lutheran bodies that have different views of homosexuality than they do.

Exuberant therefore as many northern world historians may be over aspects of Christian growth in Africa – and I’ve also paid attention to these in my 2007 The Christian World – they and their compatriots often gasp when close-ups of practices in Africa get global publicity. This week the notices come from Nairobi, in balanced reporting by writers in The Economist who, quite naturally, notice the economic side of Pentecostal growth there. Borrowing “Prosperity Gospel” techniques from American evangelists and then re-exporting them in exaggerated form, African movements manifest bull market versions of competitive “market religion.” These have to be upbeat and aspirational. They help in some reform of business practices there, but “there is also plenty of hucksterism.”

The Economist tells of Bishop Margaret Wanjiru’s “Jesus is Alive Ministries,” where Ms. Wanjiru, a governmental official, draws 100,000 worshippers to meetings, but can see that number rise to 500,000 when a visiting evangelist also comes along. The editors comment that judgment from European and American critics often overlooks the fact that gross versions of “the Protestant Ethic” were imported from the northern churches. They also assess that these Pentecostalisms do better at inspiring personal wealth-seeking than at becoming clear political movements. We’ll wait and see.

Oh, and did we mention that The Economist reminds readers that many of these Pentecostal leaders promote “clear anti-Muslim sentiment” which “scares politicians who want to win the sizable Muslim vote.” Romanticizing New Christendom movements can be as dangerous as is the sneering done by those who look on and do not discern the good effects of much of these churchly endeavors in the lives of ordinary members.

 

References:

Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (Oxford, 1999).

Jenkins also treats the subject in “The Next Christianity,” in The Atlantic Monthly, October 2002: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/10/jenkins.htm.

Martin E. Marty, The Christian World: A Global History (Modern Library, 2007).

Mark Noll, The New Shape of World Christianity (IVP Academic, 2010).

Lamin Sanneh, Disciples of All Nations: Pillars of World Christianity (Oxford, 2008).

“Slain by the Spirit: The rise of Christian fundamentalism in the Horn of Africa,” in The Economist, July 2010: http://www.economist.com/node/16488830?story_id=16488830.

For an earlier treatment of the prosperity gospel in Africa, see Isaac Phiri and Joe Maxwell, “Gospel Riches,” in The Christian Century online, July 2007:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/july/12.22.html.

Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.

----------

In this month's Religion and Culture Web Forum ("The Primacy of Rhetoric"), Marty Center Senior Fellow (2009-10) W. David Hall addresses the centrality of rhetoric in the Western humanist tradition by engaging the work of Ernesto Grassi, whose commentary on the Renaissance, especially, diverged from standard Platonic models of interpretation to include arts such as rhetoric, literature, and poetry. Of especial interest for Hall is Grassi's "retrieval of the humanist tradition" during this era and the possibilities that thorough understanding of such a retrieval opens more broadly in the fields of philosophy and religious studies. With invited responses by Jeffrey Jay (University of Chicago), Santiago Pinon (University of Chicago), Donald Phillip Verene (Emory University), and Glenn Whitehouse (Florida Gulf Coast University).

 http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/index.shtml

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Gays and the Church -- Interview with the Rev. Steve Kindle

Gay Marriage and the rights of gays and lesbians in church and society is an ongoing debate in the churches and in society, though it seems to be much less a concern for those under 40.  Several years ago I published an interview with my good friend Steve Kindle at the blog Faithfully Liberal, a blog to which I was a regular contributor, but one that is sadly no longer in existence (at least not as a functioning entity).  Knowing that the issue continues to rage on, I thought I'd reprint this to stimulate your conversation.  Since this interview was published, Steve became the pastor of a Disciples congregation in Fremont, CA.   His blog is called  Open Hearts -- Affirming Pages. 

________________________________________________________________________

The Rev. Steve Kindle has a unique ministry. He is Executive Director of Clergy United for the Equality of Homosexuals, a consulting and education organization focused on the inclusion of homosexuals and transgender persons in the church. Originally ordained in the conservative Churches of Christ, in whose colleges and seminaries he received his theological education, today he has standing in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the United Church of Christ. Before founding Clergy United, he served as pastor of two “Open and Affirming” Disciples congregations, and since then has served as consultant to congregations exploring the process of becoming open and affirming to the GLBT community, and this fall (2007) he’ll be speaking to a number of Log Cabin Republican groups.  

Q. You’re straight and happily married, so why this cause?

A. Yes, it’s true that I have no “hidden agenda” behind my interest in promoting gay equality in the churches. It comes, very simply, from my understanding of the gospel: We are to welcome one another as Christ has welcomed us—unqualifiedly, without exception.

Q. Since your background is fairly conservative, what was it that changed the way you looked at homosexuals?

A. I was raised in a very conservative home, both politically and religiously. My understanding of the gay community was formed by all the stereotypes that typically accompany such an upbringing: that they are in the main promiscuous, self-centered, lust filled, choose this “lifestyle,” and are not to be trusted around children. I happened to move from North Dakota to San Francisco and, in the course of getting to know the gay community, I discovered the startling reality that GLBTs are as normal as any other large segment of America. Also, working with many gay Christians challenged my view that “gay Christian” is an oxymoron. So, I began a lifelong pursuit of examining the scriptures used to support the antigay view and found the traditional interpretations wanting.

Q. What role does religion play in how we view homosexuality?

A: One’s religion is usually a received phenomenon. We accept what we are given with little reflection. Since most people are not familiar with gay people (at least knowingly), our religion provides us the context for understanding and relating to them. If one is raised in an environment where GLBTs are named as abominations and condemned to hell, it is difficult not to become homophobic.

Q. To take this to another level, since you teach a seminar on the Bible and Homosexuality, what is the role of biblical interpretation in forming our views?

A. Most Christians don’t form their views, they inherit them. In the case of Fundamentalist, those who teach them seldom interpret the Bible; they are content to “let the Bible speak for itself.” So the surface reading of the scriptures is left as the final meaning rather than as the starting point for understanding. It’s as though the Bible should be read the same way we read the morning paper, without taking into consideration that some 2,000-3,000 years separate us from the original documents. If you are going to take the Bible seriously, you can’t take it literally; what it says may not be what it means in the least.

Q. If religious communities have traditionally been inhospitable places for gays and lesbians, how might they become open and affirming?

A. Change can only come when people are given, or give themselves, the opportunity to meet gay Christians. That’s why “coming out” is so important. When people discover that the notions they have just don’t hold up, change can begin. That’s why I encourage gays to go back to their churches, even though they can be unwelcoming places, and be a living witness against the lies told about them. Most of the congregations I am familiar with which have become open and affirming did not make the change simply for reasons of justice (although it happens). Most discovered that the GLBTs among them deserved to be treated with gospel welcoming.

Q. Although ordination is a point of contention in most churches, it’s marriage that is the issue that seems to be a problem even for the most progressive among us. Why is this?

A. I’ve discovered that the refusal to marry same-sex couples comes more from polity than from belief. If the restriction were lifted, there would be immediate and wholesale gay marriages performed all over the country. In spite of the restrictions, many clergy do it anyway, and many others perform union blessings that are in reality marriage by another name. I find it very curious that we won’t allow gays and lesbians to marry, and then accuse them of not behaving as we straights (should) behave!

Q. With younger Americans seemingly more accepting of homosexuality, do you see a major sea change in both the church and in the broader culture occurring in the near future?

Projecting the effect of the Millennium Generation taking the power now held by the Baby Boomers is wonderful to contemplate. All the polls suggest that being gay is a non-issue for them. However, as in all the major sea changes in America, from slavery, segregation, women’s rights and now gay rights, the church always comes in last. The citizenry as a whole is much farther ahead of the church on gay rights. I’m not looking for much to change in this regard. We have much to answer for.

Q. Finally, Steve, is there anything we’ve not yet covered that you just have to get off your chest?

A. Yes, indeed, and thank you! Ultimately, the refusal of marriage to same-sex couples is a denial of their humanity. The first “not good” of creation was God’s discovery that “it is not good for the human to be alone.” When the church denies marriage to gay couples it is saying that you are not worthy of having your loneliness relieved in the only way it is possible. In other words, you are not worthy of being a human being. Imagine the anguish of a straight person not being able to marry, ever, unless he or she married someone of the same sex. God created us all in the image of God. Who are we to denigrate that which God has made?