Holy matrimony from Cana to California

June 16, 2008 By

marriage cana xlOf the many stories dealing with same-sex marriage in California, one San Francisco Chronicle story in particular deserves a look. Headlined “Bay Area churches opened door to same-sex vows,” the reporter skims the surface of the history of same-sex rites in Christian churches and managed to get the attention of more than a few GetReligion readers in the process:

The Bay Area has had a number of seminal moments in the history of gays and lesbians in organized religion. The first ordination of an openly gay minister, William Johnson, took place in San Carlos. One of two openly gay bishops in the Anglican Communion, Otis Charles, is a Bay Area resident.

But even so, the vast majority of churches in the region limit the role of gays and lesbians. Only one mainline Protestant denomination – the United Church of Christ, which ordained Johnson – marries homosexual couples with the same rite used for heterosexual couples. And the number of churches friendly to gays and lesbians is much lower than the number of Catholic, evangelical or other conservative Christian churches in the region.

So while liberal churches helped change the state, the state now has a far more liberal view of same-sex marriage. Flat-out opposition has come from evangelicals and the state’s Catholic leaders – including San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer and Oakland Bishop Allen Vigneron. Joint support for a November ballot initiative seeking a constitutional amendment that will codify marriage as between one man and one woman will probably come from them.

In case the language wasn’t clear enough, the bad people “limit,” “flat-out oppose” and aren’t “friendly” to gays. The good churches “help change” the state’s views on same-sex marriage, ordain and marry homosexuals and condone homosexuality. And that bizarre last sentence is conditional and passive why?

Reporter Matthai Kuravila goes on to say that “churches supportive of gay and lesbian rights” are in the difficult position of being in denominations with stricter rules on same-sex marriage than they might prefer:

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Episcopal Church, for example, now prohibit using the marriage rite reserved for straight couples for same-sex marriages. Separate – and, some say, unequal – rites are set aside for gays and lesbians. (That’s not true for all churches in those denominations, including some in the Bay Area, where evangelical members insist that marriage should only be between a man and woman.)

I sort of have no idea what he means by this paragraph but love that it’s “evangelicals” in these mainline churches who oppose same-sex marriage. What does that word mean in this context? That middle sentence is also fascinating. It should really form the basis for its own article. In fact, I think an article on Christian marriage rites for same-sex partners is desperately needed.

The Christian model of marriage is based on the relationship between Christ and the church. The husband is to sacrifice for his wife as Christ gave himself to the church. The wife is to respect the husband as the church obeys Christ. You can read all about it Ephesians 5. When my husband and I got married, this was the understanding of marriage that we were instructed in. This was included in our marriage rite. Such clear roles for husband and wife wouldn’t make sense for same-sex partners. Or, if the same rite is used, who represents Christ and who represents the church? Is the same model of Christ and church used for same-sex partners? How is this understood? I would love to learn more about liturgies for same-sex marriage — or just other marriage liturgies in general — rather than some throwaway line about how some people say the rites are “unequal.” I mean, really.

Anyway, the article ends with a discussion of how Bay area Episcopalians have been at the forefront of gay rights issues. Bishop Marc Andrus says that gay couples should have a purely civil ceremony at county clerks’ offices and then return to the church for a blessing. And all couples — straight and gay — should use one of the three rites approved for same-sex blessings. The article fails to mention that these “approved” rites have not been approved by the Episcopal Church itself but, rather, the local California Diocese.

This Religion News Service report appearing in the Washington Post on Saturday notes that even in California, Episcopal bishops hold different views on same-sex marriage rites.

Here’s how the article ends:

Andrus said it is part of a natural order that churches might lead the state, and that the state might lead the church.

“We seek to intently follow Christ, but we don’t contain Christ,” Andrus said. “Christ transcends the boundaries of the church. . . . It’s not a surprise to me that the culture is going to manifest Christ in a way that summons the church to new realities. I really welcome that. I think that’s the way it’s meant to be.”

I feel like this quote needs more explanation, context or a response — but maybe it’s that I moved from California so long ago that I have forgotten the language. Anyway, all that to say that the graphic that accompanies the article is in error.

The chart looks at the Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to see whether celibacy is required for gays and lesbians and whether they bless same-sex unions, perform same-sex marriages or ordain partnered gay clergy.

According to the chart, the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) do not require celibacy, do bless same-sex unions and do ordain partnered gay clery. Except that that’s not true. Practices may and do vary in both church bodies but the PCUSA does say that unmarried clergy must remain chaste and that people are not free to disobey that rule. And I think they also forbid same-sex marriage blessings. As for The Episcopal Church, 10 dioceses bless same-sex unions but the national church body has not condoned that. And the international Anglican Communion has been pressuring the Episcopal Church to crack down on those dioceses that conduct same-sex union liturgies.

It just seems that if you’re going to write a light and airy piece like this, the least you can do is get the facts right.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Anglicanism, Catholicism, Evangelicals, Godbeat, Journalism, Mainline, Politics, Pop Culture, Religion, Sex, Social Issues, Worship
  • Gerry
  • http://perpetuaofcarthage.blogspot.com/2008/06/episcopal-and-presbyterian-churches.html Perpetua

    Mollie,

    Thank you for doing this analysis. The reporter claimed that the Presbyterian and Episcopal denominations have already approved of non-celibate gays in the priesthood and same-sex blessings. That chart is blatantly false. The true story is that, while the denominations have not yet approved of these innovations, activists have violated the denominations policies when they do this on the local level. Instead this reporter ignores the national policies and blames the local “evangelicals” for not going along.

  • Dave

    I [...] love that it’s “evangelicals” in these mainline churches who oppose same-sex marriage. What does that word mean in this context?

    Isn’t is possible that the people in these mainline churches who oppose same-sex marriage, identify themselves as evangelicals? If so, is it incumbent upon the reporter to insert a phrase like “avowed” or “self-proclaimed” as they used to do when referring to homosexuals?

  • Brian Walden

    The term “gay rights” gets used a lot without much of an explanation of what it means except for making it clear that “gay marriage” is one of those rights – no questions asked. Are there also “straight rights”? Are there “black rights” and “white rights”? Or are there just human rights?

    Marriage gets the same type of treatment in the article. No one explains exactly what marriage is, yet everyone somehow still knows that it involves any two people regardless of gender. Is the complementarity of the sexes an intrinsic part of marriage? Is openness to procreation an intrinsic part of marriage? Are these questions so far behind the times that they don’t even merit a mention? If not, then what are the intrinsic elements of marriage?

  • Jay

    The good thing about the article in the Chronicle is that it makes the valid point that all religious people are not anti-gay and that not all churches oppose same-sex marriage. Too often religious conservatives speak as though all Christians agree on these issues and that only secularists disagree.

  • Dave G.

    I don’t know about that Jay. As one who spent many years within the hallowed halls of Evangelical conservatism, most I heard spent a great deal of their time criticizing other Christians and/or denominations who embraced such things. So I’m not sure who you are referring to, but my experience is there is no shortage of religious conservatives who bemoan the fact that all Christians are not in agreement over this issue. And given that the bulk of the media coverage of the issue in terms of the Faith tends to start with someone like Robinson and work its way out, or someone like Haggard and work its way in, I doubt there are many in the world who don’t know that there isn’t agreement within the Faith.

  • Jay

    Perhaps you are right, Dave. But when people learn that I am an “evangelical Christian,” they often assume that I am anti-gay and opposed to same-sex marriage. They are frequently surprised when I explain that my Church–the United Church of Canada, which is both the largest Protestant denomination in Canada and an Evangelical Church formed in a merger of Methodists, Presbyterians, and some smaller denominations–does not regard homosexuality as inherently sinful and actively campaigns in favor of gay rights, including equal marriage rights.

  • Martha

    Well, since the chart used the term “religion” instead of “denomination” (hint to editor: all those churches mentioned are Christian, and members of the same religion, Christianity), you can’t expect much more than “light and airy”, really.

  • Jay

    I disagree that the article was “light and airy.” It simply made the point that a lot of church people support same-sex marriage and the equal rights of homosexuals. I am particularly happy with what the Episcopal Bishop, who will himself be performing some civil marriages as a marriage commissioner at San Francisco City Hall, has proposed: that no one, whether same-sex or other-sex, be married in Episcopal Churches in his diocese. Rather, he thinks that everyone should be married in a civil ceremony and then have their marriages blessed in the Church. That will put everyone on an even playing field and would not discriminate against same-sex Episcopalians.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    There is another religious angle to the gay “marriage” issue the MSM hasn’t covered much, but has been discussed in many circles interested in Church History. With so many of the mainline Protestant Reformation churches slowly adopting the idea that people of the same sex can marry each other (along with other “Modernist” ideas and practices), the question arises: Is the Protestant Reformation self-destructing instead of “modernizing?” Are we in the death throes of the classic Protestant Reformation??? And for survival’s sake should other Christian churches -from Catholic to Orthodox to Evangelical Biblical–put as much space as possible between themselves and Reformation churches lest they be dragged down in what might be the Reformation’s final collapse??? The Boston Globe just ran a story about how empty most mainstream (usually “liberal” or “modern”) Protestant churches are on Sunday in our area–far worse than anything those “medieval” Catholic and other more conservative churches are experiencing.) According to the article very many local old-line Protestant churches are now only able to stay open because of trust funds salted away by past generations.

  • Martha

    Jay, that right there is the big misunderstanding between the positions.

    You present it as getting MARRIED civilly but BLESSED religiously. That is, marriage is a civil contract defined by society and culture.

    Those of us who believe marriage to be a sacrament think of it the other way round; whatever civil or legal requirements must be fulfilled to have one’s union recognised by the state, what constitutes a marriage only occurs within the religious sphere.

    In other words, the Episcopal bishop has it backwards. Or perhaps he is revealing his true belief; the fancy ceremony in the church is a pretty ritual that lets everyone play dress-up, but the real important thing happens in City Hall.

  • Jay

    Well, Martha, he (and I) would say that you are the one who has it backward. Marriage is a sacrament that should be extended to all. Until that is possible within the Episcopal Church, then it should not be extended to any. Insofar as marriages are mystical unions, God will bless them whether they are performed in churches or not. That the state of California is willing to perform *civil* marriages is of crucial importance this day, when we are a little closer to equality under the law as the result of a courageous Supreme Court ruling.

    The state has no business telling churches what marriages they can recognize (my church, thank God, does recognize same-sex marriage as fully equal in the eyes of God to opposite marriage), but by the same token churches have no right telling the state what marriages it should recognize.

  • Elaine T

    Jay in #12 catches what the question really is: what is marriage?

    Anthropolgically it existed long before any existing religions.

    Christianity made it a sacrament for heterosexuals, based on Christ’s words. ummm…. better stop there, rather than wander off into theological thickets…. sorry. Back to the coverage!

    No article I’ve read in the media has covered the question of what it is and why all cultures have privileged it throughout history. Instead they give us all fluffy loving couples stuff as if that’s all marriage is about. To a lot of people it is (including judges, apparently). I know just enough history and anthropology to know there’s more to the fence around/special treatment of marriage down the ages than that, and I wish some newspaper person would show a bit of understanding along those lines, too. We can’t really discuss the issues if the media isn’t covering them.

    One thing I”ll be watching for is fallout to the county clerk personnel who have said they are going to stop issuing all marriage licenses, rather than issue to same sex couples. Today’s local newspaper had a small mention that some were saying they’d do that. If a reason was quoted or otherwise supplied I missed it.

  • http://perpetuaofcarthage.blogspot.com/2008/06/episcopal-and-presbyterian-churches.html Perpetua

    Martha,
    Interesting catch. Although the text says “Here is a sampling of beliefs among some denominations,” the column heading says “Religion” and then actually lists the different Christian denominations. This implies that the reporter or the staff researcher who prepared the chart doesn’t understand that these are different denominations within one religion, Christianity.

  • Jay

    Elaine I think an anthropological discussion of marriage would be helpful in the media. I remember some time ago, a right-wing Christian group (Focus on the Family, perhaps) issued a press release saying that anthropologists claimed that no society ever sanctioned same-sex marriage. That claim was immediately refuted by the president of the American Anthropological Society (I think that is the name of the academic organization), who pointed out that in fact the society had itself gone on record in favor of same-sex marriage. I also remember that one factor in the original ruling in favor of same-sex marriage by the Supreme Court of Hawaii (whose state constitution requires it to privilege native Hawaiian traditions when applicable) was that before Christianity came to the Islands, same-sex marriage was permitted (one of the Hawaiian kings was apparently married to a man). However, before the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling come go into effect, the state constitution was amended to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

    From an anthropological/religious point of view, I wonder why more is not made of polygamy in various religious cultures. (I am not talking about the canard that same-sex marriage is a “slippery slope” toward recognizing polygamous marriages.) But the history of marriage certainly includes polygamy. Not only was it common during most of the Old Testament era, but Islam practices it today. It is absurd for people to say that marriage has always been between a man and a woman. That simply is not the history of the institution.

  • Dave G.

    But Anthropology, like so many of the soft sciences, is itself based on a string of presuppositions and beliefs. It isn’t as if anthropologists discovered some stone tablet dated c. 50,000 BC that says ‘yesterday Grogg came up with new idea called god.’ The idea that religion started sometime after folks were tying the knot has as much hard evidence as does the idea that God exists. So we are back to the start. Is the coverage fair or not? Depends. If it is some Newtonian law of the universe that folks should be able to marry no matter who they wish to marry, then no, there’s no problem with the coverage. As some have said, most folks don’t argue with the media’s slant that slavery is wrong. That’s because most people believe slavery is wrong, and more to the point, there appears to be no compelling evidence nowadays to refute that belief. And so it is with the current coverage of SSM. It depends on there being a compelling argument against something like SSM. If someone can argue compellingly that SSM isn’t a good thing, then why isn’t the MSM giving that view similar amount of time (and it isn’t – that can’t be argued). That’s why the discussions. If there is a compelling case against SSM (or other related issues), then it is obvious the media is discarding that. If there isn’t, then nothing to see here.

  • http://www.lowly.blogspot.com Undergroundpewster

    Just how does one get to be the “Chronicle Religion Writer?” I keep hearing the words, “Let’s give it to the new guy.”

  • http://perpetuaofcarthage.blogspot.com/ Perpetua

    Hi Underground Pewster,
    The Chronicle used to have a great reporter for religion, Don Lattin, as I recall. But then he quit to write a book about his psychedelic drug use in the 60′s.

  • Matt

    If I could return to a journalism issue for a moment:

    I sort of have no idea what he means by this paragraph but love that it’s “evangelicals” in these mainline churches who oppose same-sex marriage. What does that word mean in this context?

    My understanding is that “evangelical” is a theological orientation, while “mainline” denotes a denomination that was not created by a schism. Although it is common to see this simplified to “mainline = liberal” and “evangelical = conservative”, it can lead to confusing results. I have been a member of (what I thought at the time was) an “evangelical” church that was part of the “mainline” PCUSA denomination.

    Some time ago I objected to the Pew Survey classifying Protestant denominations as either “mainline” or “evangelical”. In that case, they clearly use the terms as code for “liberal” and “conservative” (for proof by way of example, search this document for “Southern Baptist” and “Emergent church”). But aren’t the real meanings of these words more complex than that? Can the terms really be considered direct opposites?

  • MJBubba

    Professor Mattingly,

    I became a fan of yours about fifteen years ago, I think, upon reading a cogent column in which you described the divide that was splitting up all the Protestant denominations, and explained that they were parting ways in painful processes over the issue of the Authority of the Scriptures. Could you please provide a link to that column? It would be good reading for Deacon John M. Bresnahan (#10), since he seems not to understand how Protestantism is strongly divided over the issue. There are Bible-believing Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc., and there are those who are lurching leftward, abandoning the Scriptures, and enjoying MSM cheerleading while they portray their conservative counterparts as mean old fundies (notwithstanding that very few of the conservatives are actually Fundamentalists, that in fact they are orthodox (small o), but the MSM can’t understand that either).
    The TMatt Trio is in order, especially for Jay, who has been very busy posting to this thread, and who self-identified as an “evangelical.” Most self-identified Evangelicals would disagree strongly with his assertions. So, we get back to Mollie’s question about what that word means.

  • Angie

    oooh, so good. Thank you so much for writing this piece. I was really thrown when I read the article as well and confused about the chart at the bottom. Isn’t this whole SSM thing just about wanting to feel accepted and gaining validation by the culture? I mean, really? It’s not about “marriage” for most I don’t think. It’s about establishing normalcy for something that isn’t traditionally viewed as normal.