Sermon - marriage

Add in paper for motorbike:

For sale: 2006 Suzuki 1000. This bike is perfect! It has 1000 miles and has had its 500-mile dealer service. (Expensive) It's been adult ridden, all wheels have always been on the ground. I use it as a cruiser/ commuter. I'm selling it because it was purchased without proper consent of a loving wife. Apparently "Do whatever the HELL you want" Doesn't mean what I thought.

Read Mark 10:2-9
Once more the lectionary provides a fitting reflection for God’s people as we debate with each other the proposed Civil Union Bill. Tomorrow Parliamentary representatives will be visiting Woodstock Town Hall to garner community responses to the Civil Union Bill. The debate so far, both in the political and ecclesiastical spheres, has centred on the definition of “marriage” so it is fitting that we reflect on Jesus’ theology of marriage.

As always, when considering how Jesus speaks to us in the present we need to understand the original context of his teaching lest we do him the disservice of mistranslating his words into our context, so different from his own.

I found Sarah’s reflection on the background succinct. You may want to visit and see the points that she draws out from Jesus’ words.

We can see how different those times are from our own from even a cursory reading of the text. The Pharisees ask Jesus if it is permissible for a man to issue a certificate of divorce. They do not ask if a woman can do so.

There were two, not entirely mutually exclusive, theologies on marriage at the time of Jesus. The first saw marriage as a contractual arrangement between father and husband, whereby the daughter is transferred from father to husband by mutual agreement. The wife is absent from this agreement. A woman did not issue a certificate of divorce. Her father might do so, but not her, even in the case of infidelity on the husband’s part. Should a woman find herself divorced she could appeal to her father for ongoing support but she was not guaranteed this support. She forfeited her rights as a daughter once she got married. She forfeited her rights (such as they were) as a wife once she got divorced. A divorced woman without the support of her father often had to resort to prostitution as the sole means of making ends meet since the likelihood of re-marriage were poor to nil – divorced women were “used goods”. It is for this reason particularly that we see Jesus taking up the cause of prostitutes. They were above all else, the victims of a terribly brutal system.

A second view of marriage placed marriage as cornerstone of national identity. For a small nation with curious customs and beset by oppression and prejudice, the preservation of national identity was paramount. Securing and growing the next generation was considered a command of God: “go and multiply” says the Priestly story of Creation in Genesis 1, written during Israel’s exile in Babylon where they suffered a particularly harsh regime. If a marriage did not produce children, it was a worthless union – the woman carrying the blame for its infertility. Such a marriage was as good as dead by society’s standards and so the husband was obliged to seek another wife.

The Pharisees ask their question because they know that the Mosaic command was a compromise. The issuing of a divorce certificate was a practice that evolved as a result of the imperative to procreate. Everyone knew that the original design of God was something lifelong. Jesus takes to idealistic position and criticises his brother Pharisees for their compromise with expediency.

Jesus returns to the creation stories and quotes from both versions to justify a hard line on marriage. It is as important to note what Jesus leaves out as it is to see what he incorporates as his foundational texts for a theology on marriage.

He quotes Genesis 1:27 firstly. Both male and female are created in the image of God. The implications are obvious – women should enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to men in marriage. Anything less, is an affront to the image of God. Furthermore, the image of God is two unique individuals, created as equal but separate entities. It is not “marriage” that is the image of God, but the individuals who make a marriage – or who are not married for that matter. Marriage is not the cornerstone of society. A fully alive human person is – male and female. Jesus confronts his society’s obsession with marriage and calls his followers to regard all people as equally valuable whether married or single, divorced or widowed, male or female.

Then Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24. But he leaves out Genesis 1:28, which more traditionally would have been quoted in any theology of marriage. In so doing Jesus chooses to use the second creation story as the basis of his theology and specifically rejects the first.

The first story has God create the humanity as the pinnacle of creation. Humanity is created at the end but is given the same command as all the other creatures: “Be fruitful and multiply.” The first story pictures humans as special but still very much animals – multiplying like the rest of creation.

The second story focuses far more on humanity with Adam being created as God’s companion. For some reason (perhaps because God makes poor espresso) Adam wants a companion too (perhaps God is too busy making the universe). So God creates Eve as a companion for Adam.

Jesus chooses the idea of companionship as the foundational idea of marriage. He specifically rejects the idea of procreation as the basis for marriage. He also speaks against the notion that the man is the most important part of a marriage.

Then Jesus goes on to say, “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Such companionship is lifelong and not to be treated lightly.

Jesus speaks against the prejudicial notions of marriage in his own time, but also against the obsession with romance that characterises our own time. Lifelong mutual companionship cannot be based on fleeting, fickle romance; otherwise the next pretty face may cause one’s commitment to waver. While the romance may help in the beginning it is no long term foundation.

I think of comments I hear from young people these days, which remind me of the problems Jesus addresses.

“My parents think John is not intellectually my equal, that he is not up to our standard.” This smacks of marriage seen as a contractual arrangement to secure the status quo – to preserve status and economic class. Not unlike the contracts of Jesus time.

“Isn’t sad that they haven’t had children yet.”
Sometimes couples choose not to have children. Sometimes they do. One wonders if greater attention needs to be paid to the issue before marriage – questions of fertility and children resolved before making a lifelong commitment.

“She would be a lot happier if she could just find a husband.”
No doubt this is true in some cases, but singleness is not a curse and some people choose it deliberately, preferring to not make lifelong commitments.

“But Mom, I love her!”
Are we teaching our children what love really is? It seems to me most young people’s (and adults for that matter) idea of love is formed by romantic comedies. A better comparison for love in marriage would be the convent or monastery – that is the commitment not the total celibacy!

And then there is the question of gender. If Jesus’ theology of marriage is based principly on the idea of lifelong companionship, why does such companionship have to be gendered? Is not possible that such a covenantal union could be exercised by same sex couples?

Jesus challenged the definition of marriage in his day, and I believe he challenges our definitions today.