Wedding Liturgy and Christian Marriage

I sent the following to the Civil Union and Christian Marriage Committee

As I prepared to do a wedding a few weeks ago I was struck by the theology in the Statement of the Gift of Marriage and thought of your work as a committee. The Statement reads:

We gather in the presence of God to give thanks for the gift of marriage, to witness the joining together of N. and N., to surround them with our prayers, and to ask God's blessing upon them, so that they may be strengthened for their life together and nurtured in their love for God.

God created us male and female, and gave us marriage so that husband and wife may help and comfort each other, living faithfully together in plenty and in want, in joy and in sorrow, in sickness and in health, throughout all their days.

God gave us marriage for the full expression of the love between a man and a woman. In marriage a woman and a man belong to each other, and with affection and tenderness freely give themselves to each other.

God gave us marriage for the well-being of human society, for the ordering of family life, and for the birth and nurture of children.

God gave us marriage as a holy mystery in which a man and a woman are joined together, and become one, just as Christ is one with the church.

In marriage, husband and wife are called to a new way of life, created, ordered, and blessed by God. This way of life must not be entered into carelessly, or from selfish motives, but responsibly, and prayerfully.

We rejoice that marriage is given by God, blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ, and sustained by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, let marriage be held in honor by all.

Please notice the theological statements about man and woman and marriage. The Statement says that God created us male and female and relates marriage to that act of creation. The statement reflects the second creation story in Genesis. The Statement says, indirectly, that sexual expression is a gift from God to be celebrated with marriage between a man and a woman. The giving of the self to the other, the man to the woman and the woman to the man of course includes more than sexual expression.

Marriage, the statement says, is given for the ordering of human society. This includes the birth and nurture of children but also, again indirectly, speaks against the sexual disorder of society in which people live together without being married. While not a direct reference one can hear in this a passage from C-67:

The relationship between man and woman exemplifies in a basic way God’s ordering of the interpersonal life for which he created mankind. Anarchy in sexual relationships is a symptom of man’s alienation from God, his neighbor, and himself. Man’s perennial confusion about the meaning of sex has been aggravated in our day by the availability of new means for birth control and the treatment of infection, by the pressures of urbanization, by the exploitation of sexual symbols in mass communication, and by world overpopulation. The church, as the household of God, is called to lead men out of this alienation into the responsible freedom of the new life in Christ. Reconciled to God, each person has joy in and respect for his own humanity and that of other persons; a man and woman are enabled to marry, to commit themselves to a mutually shared life, and to respond to each other in sensitive and lifelong concern; parents receive the grace to care for children in love and to nurture their individuality. The church comes under the judgment of God and invites rejection by man when it fails to lead men and women into the full meaning of life together, or withholds the compassion of Christ from those caught in the moral confusion of our time.

Since 1967 this anarchy has gotten significantly worse with teenagers and young adults (and many in middle age and older) treating sexuality as only a means for pleasure and not as a commitment. Marriage, as the statement says, is intended for the ordering of family life, and I would suggest that this means with or without children.

The Statement says that marriage joins the man and the woman and they become one and points to the marriage of Christ and the Church.

Nowhere in the statement is there any suggestion that marriage can be between two people of the same sex. Nowhere does it suggest that living together, whether in a heterosexual relationship or a homosexual relationship, carries the same deep unity that God intends for a man and a woman brought together in marriage.

Of course neither the Statement on the Gift of Marriage nor the quote from C-67 is scripture. But they do pick up and point to Biblical themes. God creates humans male and female. Sexual behavior is to be expressed only within marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman points to the coming revelation of Christ’s marriage to the Church. Nowhere in Scripture or the Confessions is there any suggestion that sexual expression outside of marriage or a civil union or marriage between two persons of the same sex is acceptable to God. Instead such sexual behavior, whether long term or short, is condemned in Scripture and Confessions.

Liturgy reflects theology. The marriage liturgy says what the Church believes about marriage.

You have a very difficult task. The denomination has wrestled with the questions you study for decades. I urge you to retain the present definition of marriage as reflected in Scripture, Confessions and liturgy so that the Church may continue to stand against the sexual anarchy of our times.

Dr. Bob

Yep, Pittsburgh Seminary has promised to give me my Doctor of Ministry. That got me thinking about what people should call me. The Rev. Dr. Robert Campbell? Yeach. I still prefer Pastor Bob. After all that's what I do. Still there is another possiblity from the Muppet Show: . .

Dr. Bob!

Graduation is May 28th

Pastor Bob

Some Thoughts on Disagreement

Since we bloggers and blog commenters often disagree I thought we might need some outside instruction on how to disagree.

Or maybe I should say, And now for something completely different:



For you more serious folks out there, these were all examples of now NOT to do it.

Pastor Bob

Easter and humanity: a response to Michael Adee

Presbyweb today linked to an interesting article by Michael Adee entitled "On Being Human & Divine: Reflections & blessing at Easter." While I have disagreed with Dr. Adee in the past and don't agree with everything he says in this article I find the article food for thought and well worth reading and commenting upon. The following is an email I sent to Dr. Adee in response to the article.

Dear Michael

First in the interest of total disclosure let me say that I am one of those people that think that God does not approve of sex between people of the same sex. However I’m not going to comment on that because I think there is much in your article that is worth chewing upon. I liked much of what you said in your article and want to interact with it. Also I’m going to post this on my blog.

I read your article today with interest. I found your talk about theological tension helpful, part of what I think we all need to hold on to. I do have some comments about your dualities:

1. I will admit I don’t particularly like the word dualities or dualism as you said in one paragraph. I’m not sure paradox says it either although I like creative tension. I actually prefer dialectic as being a better word to talk about creative tension than paradox.
2. I try to hold on to the Hebrew idea that we are unitive beings, not flesh and spirit, at least that we are not created that way. If you use the terms as Paul does, flesh meaning sinful and spirit meaning obedience to God or faith I would agree with you. I think the Greek split between flesh and spirit, rejecting flesh and thus physicality as bad is a total misreading of the Bible. From you article I suspect you agree with me. God created us to in the image of God and thus our bodies, minds and spirits are all one and all reflect, or should reflect the God as God’s image.
3. I too have strong reactions against the idea that after we die we are bodiless spirits floating around. The Kingdom of God both present and future is for embodied creatures. Thus as you said, (at least in this time) we are sexual beings in relation to God and our sexuality somehow images God. How is a very interesting question.
4. God did indeed create us good. The problem is we sin. Thus our goodness is, if not broken, at the very least stained with our sinfulness. We live in a sinful world and are sinners ourselves. I suspect, given your seeking of justice, you would also agree with this.
5. I don’t know that I would put faith and reason as a duality. Following Augustine and, I think, Calvin, I would suggest that faith comes first, that is faith seeking understanding. Reason is also tinged by our sinful natures. Thus I am suspicious of Natural Theology and from other things you have written I suspect you would agree with me.
6. I am not quite sure that you are suggesting that we are human and divine as or at least in analogy to Jesus Christ being fully human and fully divine. This, as I am sure you know, is a theme in Eastern Orthodox theology that has been abandoned by the Western Church. I admit I have not examined this much at all but know it is a theme of Athanasius’ work. Are you talking out of this tradition and if so would you comment on it?
7. I really like your comments on the Jesus who interferes with everything. May he interfere with all of us the more and when we resist him may he push us and pull us until he has our attention. Or maybe in traditional Calvinist terms, may he drag us, kicking and screaming, into his ways and not our ways of being human citizens of the Kingdom!

Thank you for your article. It provides great food for thought

He is Risen!

Bob Campbell

Spiritual Violence 2

While no one commented directly on my last blog several referred to me over on John Shuck's blog. Some of the criticism is directed specifically directed to my limited definition of the word "violence." One person even quoted from an online dictionary! Seeing the definition I have to say I have indeed so limited the definition of the word that I have excluded some potential definitions.

Alan specifically invited me to come and speak at his blog. What follows, for the most part, is what I said on Alan's blog. Changes are in italics

Let's take a look at snad's list: (snad was the one who quoted from the dictionary)

Violence–noun

1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.

2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.

3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.

4. a violent act or proceeding.

5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.

6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.

#1 I HAVE defined this one out as I use the word violence only to describe human behavior. I clearly need to change my definition to include non human violence as well.

#2 Clearly what I'm talking about

#3 This one could or not be physical violence depending on what actually happens. If the taking over of a government happens without anyone being hurt but is done by force of arms it is still violence. On the other hand if someone gets hurt it is physical violence

#4 I hear violent act and someone gets hurt. As far as I can tell from definitions online a violent proceeding is a violent act against a person or a community.

#5 Here you are correct. Violent language would not physically harm someone. Clearly I need to change my definition in relation to this definition. I take this to mean one who uses immoderate or extreme language that either insults others or goes beyond the language suited for the situation. So if I tell a bad pun and someone calls me a (several explicatives deleted) idiot that person has spoken violently. There may well be one to one correspondence between violent language and spiritual violence if one is spoken to with violent language at church because of one's sexual orientation.

A serious question: is there a difference between saying or suggesting you are not welcome here because of your sexual orientation or you are going to hell because of your sexual behavior and "I think the Bible says what you are doing is wrong?" Are all spiritual violence or not?

#6 This clearly is NOT physical violence but I am not sure it applies to what we are talking about. It seems to me that this means intentionally misquoting someone or so radically editing a text that it means something different than the author intended it to mean.

So #1 may or may not result in a physical injury and is not committed by one human against another.

#2 Does result in physical injury and is committed by one human against another.

#3 May or may not result in physical injury depending on the level of force used. It also may or may not result in a restriction of human freedoms depending on the nature of the previous government and/or the nature of the resulting government. At the very least there is the threat of physical force.

#4 I think this means that someone is physically injured. Please tell me if you think I have misunderstood.

#5 Clearly I am wrong and need to change my definition. This may also include spiritual abuse. I will post this whole response as a new blog.

#6 Also not physical violence.

(Alan asked me to respond to his husband)

Brian

I am heterosexual. I suspect you would think that I don't get the gay rights issue. If you by spiritual violence you mean you have been told or treated like you don't belong in a church or that you are less than human because you are gay I would certainly agree that Christians should not talk to or treat anyone that way. All are to be welcomed with love.

Question: is it spiritual violence to simply say I think what you are doing is wrong? If that is true, Alan, you and those who agree with you should work to make sure I am removed from my privileged position.

Like I said, this will all be posted on my blog with an introduction to explain why I'm doing it.

Pastor Bob

Religious Violence

I know, long time no blog. You get out of the habit and it takes a while to get back in the habit. Anyway. Michael Adee of TAMFS wrote an article entitled:Re-Imagining Marriage, Gender & Confronting the Religious Violence of Defending Marriage. Viola Larson responded to it on her blog:Naming His Grace. This is my response. Michael Adee in his title and article uses the curious phrase: "religious violence." I suggest that Mr. Adee has used the word violence as a rhetorical device that diminishes the human emotional response to real violence.

The word violence, for most of us, has a high negative emotional content. Violence is bad, most of the time. There is self protection against the violence of others against us or others and most of us would say that self defense in the form of violence against violence is acceptable. But is there such a thing as religious violence at least outside of physical violence against others because of their beliefs?

I think the time has come for us to limit the use of the word violence. Michael Adee and others in the movement for gay rights have used the word violence to describe the actions of any who would seek to bar or block their political, (both in society and in the Church), goals. I think they overreach as do others who use the term.

I define violence as the attempt to do physical harm, or success at doing physical harm to another person or other persons. This is not to say that other things in life don't hurt. Many do and I will get to that. Rather I suggest that the use of the word violence in situations in which physical harm is neither achieved nor intended is a rhetorical device intended to heighten the emotional effect of one's argument or obscure the fact that one has less than stellar logic behind one's argument.

There are many other ways to cause harm than through physical violence. Psychological abuse is terribly harmful. Constantly telling someone that they are worthless may have broad, long term negative psychological effects. But it is not physical violence. When one loses one's job in the current economic recession, (depression? downturn?), that loss has severe negative economic and psychological effects. It also may have physical effects, like hunger and homelessness. But it is not, strictly, violence. Violence has to have the intention of physical harm or the effect of immediate physical harm.

Thus hitting someone with a fist is intentional violence. Hitting someone with your car may not be intentional but if you are at fault it is a violent act. If you are not at fault there may be physical harm to another but you have not caused the physical harm and therefore have not committed a violent act.

Michael Adee argues that the denial of marriage to gays and lesbians and the denial of ordination to self affirming, practicing homosexuals is spiritual violence. I suggest that he chose a different noun. Mr. Adee may want to argue that these denials are the result of prejudice and that they do economic and psychological harm to people. He might want to argue that the denial of ordination to those with gifts for ministry is an attempt to thwart the will of God. But when he uses the word violence he makes an emotional argument that is rhetorically strong but also a lie. The denial of ordination does not result in a physical wound. Neither does the denial of marriage.

This is not to say that there is no violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons in America. There is. These acts of violence must stop. They are the result of prejudice and the failure to see the image of God in the other. All are created in the image of God so no matter what one's sexual inclinations or lifestyle may be, (unless that one causes physical harm to others), that person should not be harmed physically. The attempt to cause physical harm to another is sin. I will go further and suggest that the use of epithets against another is also sin. But epithets are not violence.

Having said all of that I think Mr. Adee has a case when he argues that the denial of marriage to gays and lesbians causes economic and sociological disadvantages. But this is true for all who are not married. Contrary to the argument of some in the GLBT community not all single heterosexuals have the option of getting married. Certainly many do. Those who live together in a sexual relationship (if they are both adults and not closely related), without getting married certainly could get married. But there are many single heterosexuals who cannot get married for the simple reason that no one wants to marry them! I suggest that a study of gays and lesbians in exclusive relationships in comparison to heterosexual singles who do not have partners may show that there are more heterosexuals who cannot get married than gays and lesbians.

The core problem is the laws that provide benefits to those who are married. There are over one hundred benefits that accrue to those who are married that are not available to those who are not married. This must be carefully studied and end. A society should privilege the birth of children and the raising of children in a home where they are properly nurtured by their birth parents when at all possible. But many of the benefits should go to all.

A couple of examples: imagine with me a brother and sister who live together in the same house. The brother has physical, mental or emotional problems that prevent him from working. The sister goes out to work. The brother, because he is not married to his sister and is not her child cannot be carried on her insurance!

A man works his whole life and accrues Social Security and pension benefits. The wife does not work outside the home. If the man dies the wife continues to receive the pension benefits (although they might be lowered when the man dies), and Social Security benefits, although those paid to a single person are less than those paid to a married person. But if the wife remarries she loses the pension benefits and the Social Security benefits that her first husband earned. This is a clear prejudice against child rearing and caring for a household. Don't tell any stay at home mom that raising children is not work! My mother, who raised five children is likely to give you a lecture!

Thus the current system of benefits in America are skewed against those who are not married has to stop.

This discrimination against those who are not married causes great anger in the GLBT community, as it should. The proper response is to change the laws. But as GLBT's know the likelihood of these laws changing is about equal to changing the law of gravity. That is one of (but only one), of the drive behind the movement to allow marriage between two men or two women.

But let us use more precise language. Discrimination, while it certainly has economic and psychological effects, is not violence.

So Mr. Adee, please change your language. Argue against what you see as prejudice, against what we both see as discrimination, (although I will disagree with you about marriage), and please argue for the equality of benefits for all single persons.

But the rhetoric of violence when no violence has occurred has to stop.

Pastor Bob

Doctoral Project Finished!

I FINISHED MY DOCTORAL PROJECT! YEA!

The project is about moving a church from an all white church, through being a multiracial church to being a multiethnic church. And we are making some progress but it's going to take a long time.

My thesis is that God gives us gifts through our brothers and sisters from different cultures. Those gifts begin with hearing Bible stories in different ways. But then it goes on the learning different ways of worship and fellowship from different cultures until we all appreciate the gifts God gives us in each other.

The first result of this is that we are starting a second worship service so that our friends from Togo can worship in their own language. Exciting huh?

And the attendance at worship has gone from 25 to 30 to 45 to 50!

More later

Pastor Bob