![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/719\/2018\/06\/New-Yorker-Traditional-Marriage.jpg\")
<\/p>\nThe New Yorker shared this cartoon:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s the caption:<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m sorry, but we believe in tradition\u2014marriage should exclusively be about bringing a brief moment of calm between two warring kingdoms.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n There have been a lot of memes about \u201ctraditional marriage\u201d or \u201cbiblical marriage,\u201d many of which highlight stories such as Solomon\u2019s many wives and concubines. What most of them fail to adequately incorporate is the very different social functions of ancient marriages vs. modern ones, regardless of the gender of the parties involved. On the one hand, there was of course the production of legitimate male offspring who could not only inherit your wealth and business but take care of you when you were old, something crucial in a world without assisted living facilities.<\/p>\n But even more than that, marriage was about forging a relationship between families and clans, and on a larger scale between kingdoms.<\/p>\n The clearest way to bring into focus how different our approach to marriage is to that of ancient societies (and many still in other parts of the world) s to think about arranged marriages. Why do we not continue that practice? Because marriage is no longer primarily about forging alliances between families and clans. It has become something much more individualistic. And that is neither an inherently good thing nor an inherently bad one. It is just different \u2013 different from \u201ctraditional marriage\u201d irrespective of whether it is between people of the same gender or different.<\/p>\n There has been a lot of blogging and other commentary on the recent case regarding the baking of cakes for weddings between two people of the same gender, in light of the supreme court decision. For instance,\u00a0David Opderbeck wrote on this subject<\/a>:<\/p>\n I cannot \u201cstand up\u201d for Jack Phillips because the case is about something so central to the Gospel narratives:\u00a0\u00a0eating with \u201csinners.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0Jesus had a \u201cright\u201d to avoid contact with the sinners and outcasts of his culture.\u00a0\u00a0By exercising this right, he could have won the approval of the religious establishment.\u00a0\u00a0He did precisely the opposite.\u00a0\u00a0Maybe Jack Phillips and other bakers, florists and service providers really do have a Constitutional right to refuse any hint of association or endorsement with the LGBT people they perceive as outcast sinners.\u00a0\u00a0But I\u2019ll stand up with people who are criticized by religious pundits for eating with those sinners before I\u2019ll stand up with people who assert their legal rights to keep a pure distance from the mess of the common culture \u2014 because that\u2019s what I think Jesus\u2019 example demands.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Kaitlin Curtice wrote in Sojourners<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n What does it mean to be an\u00a0activist?\u00a0<\/em>And what does that mean as Jesus followers?<\/p>\n It means that we\u2019re unwilling to sit quiet in the face of injustice.<\/p>\n It means we call out fear-mongering in public and private places.<\/p>\n It means we sit in uncomfortable spaces and make room for shalom to blossom.<\/p>\n It means we look at our own privilege and ask what place it has in the world.<\/p>\n It means we make the tables bigger.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Of related interest:<\/p>\n http:\/\/jewishchristianintersections.com\/?p=1076<\/p>\n InterVarsity Christian Fellowship v. Wayne State University<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n