Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Some movies yield many memorable lines.
Crash, Eddie: Were you killed?
Buck: Sadly, yes. — But I lived!
Sometimes I start to wonder if we even know what we’re saying anymore.
But let’s clarify.
I think Andrew meant unorthodox as in unusual or breaking with convention, rather than unorthodox as in a doctrine at variance with the officially recognized position. But I could be wrong. I do know that we’re losing our grip on the meaning of the word “marriage” — not for talk of extending it (or not) to gay and lesbian unions, but for talk of whether it represents a spiritual or a legal union and whether it’s a contract or a covenant and what technicalities facilitate their binding constitution or allowable dissolution.
Manny: Just WHEN exactly did you loose your mind?
Buck: About three months ago. I woke up married to a pineapple. An UGLY pineapple…
[sighs lovingly, looking wistful]
Buck: …but I loved her so.
Not keeping up? I can’t believe it. Or maybe I can… I’m having a hard time catching up.
Yeah. So, after
Andrew Jones posted that in his opinion, “2009 marks the year when the emerging church suddenly and decisively ceased to be a radical and controversial movement in global Christianity”, Tony Jones responded with some stuff about Karl Marx and Lonnie Frisbee and how according to the shuffling of his speaking calendar, the ECM is still pretty controversial. Andrew meant to clarify by listing ten types of emerging churches that are probably not that controversial anymore, though I think one of them is still at least a little controversial which I mentioned when I referred to this discussion in the intro to my take on where the church is headed this decade, though I kinda got distracted and still haven’t said yet. But I did say that what Andrew was describing is what I previously said would happen, right around when it did. So on the whole, I had to agree with Andrew. Though I though Tony did have a good point on the domestication of the ECM, even if I didn’t really track with him about the Vineyard. Oh, and when I said that I was “saddened that within the emerging church, people who shared a pulpit at the beginning of the decade won’t share more than the time of day at the end of the decade,” I wasn’t talking about the Joneses. But my “You know who you are” comment that followed can be used as a handy “if the shoe fits” reference. Thankfully, I don’t think the Joneses are there yet. Well, not these Joneses, anyway.
Well, it turns out that Tony struck out on a new topic before Andrew posted his response, which therefore referenced the new topic as well. On the whole, that’s probably a good thing, and here I think Andrew’s observations were valid. But let’s back up and take a running leap into the fray. What Tony said (in part) was:
Were we to separate legal and sacramental marriage, it would solve all sorts of problems, not the least of which is the growing discomfort that many of us have that legal marriage is available only to some responsible adults who are in monogamous relationships. To recapitulate in short what I’ve written in the past:
- There is no “historic” institution of marriage; it has been a fluid concept for thousands of years, changing with time and across cultures
- Our society has determined that monogamy is good, so we incentivize it in various ways
- It’s a plain reality that gay and lesbian couples are among us, and they’re not going away
- So let’s afford them similar incentives toward monogamy by allowing them to enter the binding contract that we call “legal marriage”
- This will not implicate what any congregation or denomination considers a “sacramental marriage”
He then called upon clergy to “stop performing (legal) marriages,” which Andrew saw as “unorthodox and threatening to marriages.” Andrew then suggested to Tony that “The controversy you are stirring up seems unrelated to the main emphasis of the emerging church movement.”
In the midst of this came Julie Jones’ comments on Andrew’s blog, which Andrew deleted and asked her to resubmit without the “personal stuff.” Stir into the mix a bit of rumour and innuendo with past controversies, and you get a fairly complicated and delicate concoction. If you weren’t caught up, now you are. If you were caught up, sorry for the rehash. And if I’ve gotten any of this wrong, my deepest apologies and invitation to the participants to use the comments below for the purposes of correcting the essential facts.
So. I find myself looking at Tony’s list about what he’s said on marriage (quoted above), and thinking:
- Perhaps in the legal sense, but this is what “common-law” actually means… it’s a reference to the understanding that we have taken recognized spouses for millennia, and an assent that there is a legal sense with binding obligations upon those who have represented themselves as spouses, with or without religious or legal ceremony.
- Yes, our society has determined that monogamy is good. And our Bible has determined that it should be mandated… so there you go, two good incentives. (Add common sense, and you’ve got a third.)
- It’s true that gay and lesbian couples are present, and becoming more widely accepted as such.
- And sure, they could have similar “incentives toward monogamy” through a binding contract, but it shouldn’t have to be called “marriage.” In point of fact, this is already allowed in many jurisdictions, by one term or another.
- In the minds of some, it will implicate what people consider marriage, simply through the use of language. The production of the term “sacramental marriage” introduces what it to me an odd dichotomy to the idea of marriage.
I don’t follow the logic that instituting the legal aspects of marriage concurrent with the religious (or sacramental) ones makes any clergyperson an agent of the state. It’s simply expedient for the couple to have it all done at once. If you go with sacramental vows only, the state will automatically define the legal aspect for you after the passage of a set time (with some allowance for jurisdictional variance here). If you go with legal vows only, your religious community will automatically attribute the sacramental ones. Why make any attempt to separate these any further by simply refusing to sign a bit of parchment? All this does is make it harder on the couple.
The one thing this would do is allow the taking of sacramental vows without the formal dissolution of legal ones. This is, I think, a bad precedent, but here again, some jurisdictions will automatically impose the legal disolution after a set period of separation. And for the record, I don’t think the two definitions should be equated without careful thought. It’s for this reason that the Anglian Church in Canada adopted what was called by some “The Woody Allen Amendment”, because the legal requirements and prohibitions in Canada allows a person to legally marry someone who lived previously under their roof as a step-child. I suppose that a similar confusion about who should and shouldn’t be allowed to marry occurred in a place called Corinth and was commented upon by some apostle or other. But I could be reaching.
Now, I like Tony despite the fact I disgree with him on many things. But that won’t stop me from recommending his latest book to the extent that it doesn’t promote those views with which I disagree. Will I like the next one? I don’t know yet. But because I can separate the two, I don’t mind being on the same page with people on one issue but not another. But in this mix, we ought to know that — as Andrew spake aptly — not every bit of controversy we face is directly related to our participation in the ECM. Maybe sometimes they just don’t like our hair.
And where does this leave us? Let’s try to be on the same page relationally even if we aren’t on the same page doctrinally, at least to the extent that the doctrinal differences are not threats to the essential matters of faith and practice. I wonder if that’s what the wind of the Holy Spirit might be challenging us with at the outset of this decade.
Crash: What’s that noise?
Buck: It’s the wind. It’s speaking to us.
Eddie: What’s it saying?
Buck: I don’t know. I don’t speak wind.
Disclosure: this post has been edited from its original form in order to reword a few points for clarity and to remove a couple of references that were not constructive. I’ve apologized to Tony for those, and he has graciously accepted that apology. To be clear about the comments below, I know that some of the discussion has gone toward Tony’s personal life, but here I would like to keep the discussion focused on what he has said in his post on marriage, and the pros and cons about separating the legal and sacramental aspects of marriage.
All God’s people say, Amen. It really bugged me me when people started weaving Tony’s personal life into the comments.
But as to the content of Tony’s post, I’m sort of caught in between, I get it…and I don’t get it. The marriage thing over the past couple of years, it’s been like flogging a dead horse. Every election it seems to raise the hackles of the church. It’s on a very short leash, as to it’s effectiveness. It’s barks, and tries to bite but doesn’t cover much ground. It’s a red herring, the pinnacle of morality for much of the church. Brother…maybe you can tell me as to when marriage be came a mandate for the church. Maybe if Jesus hadn’t served so much wine at that wedding in Cana, we might have a better picture of the details ( just Joking ). In my mind it might be best to let the State, licsence and take care of the legal side of it…and let the Church bless what they want. I know in my own marriage of 33 years, the legality, the paper work side has never ever been it’s focus. It has never been what keeps it together. There have been times when I’ve had my bags packed by the front door. But it has always been the profound divine covenant that my wife and I made with each other in the presence of God. There is something beyond imagination, a bond like the physics of intermolecular forces in that covenant of marriage. Let the State have law of marriage…let the church lay claim to the grace, the imagination and the bond of that covenant. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is his. But, again Bro’ this might be all hot wind. For as Buck said, ” I don’t know. I don’t speak wind.”
Ron,
I’m confused as to why Tony’s personal life would NOT have a bearing on what he’s been saying. Perhaps you could unpack this for me. (This is not an attack as I value you as a gracious brother in Christ.)
I am profoundly pissed at how easily people break the marital covenant – but still want their opinions front and centre on the topic of marriage. And when the wife of your youth and, no doubt, your children are in profound pain at your marital breakup, this might be a good time to step away from the spotlight, step off of your soapbox and submit to some wise elder counsel.
Bill, you have absolutely no idea about the details of my personal life.
To all readers: this post is unabashed gossip. Anything based on rumor and innuendo is, by definition, gossip, and therefore sinful. Indeed, it borders on bearing false witness.
I urge you to take whatever action you deem appropriate when you ate confronted by sinful behavior. I have.
I’m sorry Tony but your story is splashed across a million pixels in the Twitter, blog and interwebbed universe. Predominantly by you.
Removed an ad hominem bit here — Bro.M.
Just a reminder that I’d like to refocus the discussion onto the pros and cons of what Tony suggested in his post rather than aspects of his personal life. If there’s a time and place for that kind of discussion, this isn’t it.
For clarity, I’ve tried to remove references to the rumour and criticism *in the post* that Tony refers to in the comment above. I don’t think he means to say that my interaction about the refusal to perform legal marriages is gossip, since that’s the point of his post. The same may not apply to the comments.
And again, the topic of the conversation following will be the point of Tony’s post on performing legal vs. sacramental marriages.
Ron,
As long as the church gets the wine in the deal, eh? ;^)
I agree that it’s rarely the legal aspect that weighs in on making a marriage “work”, but the sacramental one… though I’ve seen people apply a legalistic approach too often to a sacramental bond. (Still think the difference between an annulment and a divorce is pretty thin.)
I’m thinking the merger of the two was simply expedience, but I don’t know for certain. Somebody has to witness for legality, so it turns out to be the clergy. Or the JP. Or the captain of a ship, maybe?
Wish I could speak “wind.”
Bill,
The way someone’s personal life would / would not have a bearing is probably that it may reflect on why they said something or how they might have experienced it, but that isn’t always directly related to whether or not what they’re saying is valid.
Just a thought.
I think Bill Kinnon knows EXACTLY what he is talking about. Bill would you like to see my irrefutable proof that an adulterous affair commenced prior to a divorce date of November 16, 2009?
Call me old fashioned but that is adultery and I would say that a minister is not fit to preach to a gnat let alone impressionable youth while his life is a train wreck.
But, I am not E “cult” and truth is NOT relative for me and mine, and I was told I am the spiritual wife but not the legal wife but not one but TWO of these sharlatons.
Well … I’ll give my two cents on Tony’s list as well. I’d hate to put something on his blog for fear of being (virtually) shot by his followers. And that is the thing I find most disturbing about this whole controversy. It’s not who said what or when or to whom, but it’s the lines in the sand being drawn in the comments by people who appear to be claiming sides. I’m not interested in sides or, who is following Tony and who claims Andrew, and who claims Apollo … I’m interested in reading that which will assist me in following Christ. I thought the ECM was about finding a third way, not defending one’s turf. But I could be wrong.
* There is no “historic” institution of marriage; it has been a fluid concept for thousands of years, changing with time and across cultures
Well … it depends on how one defines marriage. If one is defining marriage by current Western standards, then … this would be a true statement. However, every culture currently and in the past has some form of ceremony which solemnizes and creates a unity between two people; most generally speaking, a man and a woman. Most of us wouldn’t recognize the “marriage” ceremonies of other cultures, but they are no less binding within that culture.
* Our society has determined that monogamy is good, so we incentivize it in various ways
I’d disagree with this. As a part of the animal kingdom (mammals) human beings are (again, generally) monogamous and mate for life. Yes, there are (sub)cultures which allow polygamy, but those are not generally well accepted amongst the mainstream of the larger world population. Yes, I do remember Muslims in this. Some few Muslims continue to practice this, however, there are very stark restrictions on a husband’s ability to marry and keep a second wife and they are limited to four. The majority of Muslim husbands have only one wife. It is becoming less and less acceptable.
* It’s a plain reality that gay and lesbian couples are among us, and they’re not going away
True dat … but it’s also true that alcoholics are among us and they’re not going away either. So do we allow them to continue to kill themselves and create untold emotional havoc on the lives of their families without doing something? I’m not drawing parallels between alcoholics and homosexual couples, I’m just saying that this reasoning is specious. Just because something exists amongst us, it does not necessarily follow that we we need to promote, encourage or otherwise do anything to make things easier for it to occur.
* So let’s afford them similar incentives toward monogamy by allowing them to enter the binding contract that we call “legal marriage”
I actually agree with this, except for the slightly distasteful insinuation that homosexuals somehow **need** an incentive to remain monogamous. I know several homosexual couples who have been monogamous for years and years without the incentives that Tony speaks of here. Many of them would be satisfied with being allowed to have civil unions.
FTR, I agree with this because I see it as a step which will help strengthen the marriage bonds because it will negate the need to give benefits to non-married couples who have been living together. This way, the state can again promote the state of matrimony without discriminating against homosexual couples. So can large (global) companies such as Disney and the like.
* This will not implicate what any congregation or denomination considers a “sacramental marriage”
The civil unions that some states currently perform (e.g. Vermont) do NOT currently implicate what any congregation or denomination considers a marriage. There is not one church in Vermont which has been forced to perform civil unions because of the law. Really, the whole hoopla over marriage is a tempest in a teapot which is encouraged by people (politicians) with less than pristine interests at heart.
I don’t have anything to add to the comments on any side, I just have a question.
What makes a marriage in the eyes of God? Does it need to adhere to the culture in which it exists? Does some ‘set-apart’ priest need to perform some ritual? Or can a man and a woman [or same sexed – not getting into that debate] just decide to consummate themselves to each other?
As the ‘un-churched’ Christianity continues to grow, with the emphasis on the equality and the priest hood of all believers, is there a possibility that this is being raised or will be raise?
Just some thoughts that were raised as I read these blogs.