The Church and Covenant Relationships
by Rev. David Belt
In recent years there has been considerable discussion in the public forum concerning "family values." This phrase has served to claim an assumed moral high ground for those who express conservative views, a focal point for those espousing centrist views, and a battle cry for extremists. For many such persons, family values are centered around heterosexual marriage. This may explain why this standard has emerged in recent months as the raison d' etre for those who have fought against same-sex marriages and the legalization of rights for persons in committed same-sex relationships. Under the banner of family values the public discussion has been shifted from one of "rights" and "the nature of covenants or commitments" to the gender of the individuals in such relationships. While this shift is regrettable, the ongoing discussion does open the possibility of examining the meaning of family, marriage, and covenantal relationships.
One need not be conservative politically or religiously to argue that heterosexual marriage is in serious trouble. The conclusion, though, that heterosexual marriage is in trouble because of same-sex covenantal relationships, or that heterosexual marriage would be in deeper trouble through the recognition of same-sex marriages, is fallacious. Heterosexual marriage is in trouble as a result of a complex series of sociological and cultural circumstances and is not under attack by same-sex marriages. In fact, the examination of what it means for one person to be in covenant with another person, regardless of gender, may be a helpful tool in repairing heterosexual marriage. One of the first steps in such an examination is to take a closer look at the image of "family" in our society, and to ask the question: "Is this image realistic, adequate, and sustainable?"
Family Image: A Look Back
An old cliche describes a traditional family as a man, a woman - married of course - 1.8 children, a dog, a cat, and a Dodge mini-van in the garage. While stereotypic, this image is instructive. What becomes immediately obvious is that this description is of an idealized, white, middle-class family - a modern day version of the 1950s sitcoms "Ozzie and Harriet" or "Leave It To Beaver." In the haze of familiarity few seem to remember, perhaps even to know, that this stereotypic family of the 1950s was a new model for the family. Prior to the Second World War as the pre-dominant model was one of an extended family, with multiple generations present in the same household, all struggling together to make ends meet. Such a family setting was portrayed in the popular television program "The Waltons." Following the war the economy boomed. With the increase in financial opportunities, newly forming families were encouraged to move out of the multi-generational setting and to establish independent homesteads. Such changes were encouraged by generous financial support from a federal government deeply appreciative of the efforts of those who went to war and those who supported the war efforts.
Along with the rise of independent households came a new set of values. No longer were persons satisfied with merely getting along. Stephanie Coontz suggests that there was interest in "producing a whole world of satisfaction, amusement, and inventiveness within the nuclear family..."1 The radio or newspaper was being replaced by television, and the traveling amusement show was replaced by a trip to Disneyland. The automobile moved from luxury, to necessity, to means of expression. The suburbs emerged in response to a new-found freedom and as a result of sociological changes in the cities. The values which were developing from changing economic and sociological realities had no precedent in our history and made significant impact on the development of the family.
Many of the characteristics of the idealized family can be traced into the nineteenth century. As Coontz described in "The Way We Never Were," the model Victorian middle-class family included the role of the woman as a pampered keeper of the household. Status was determined by the ability to have servants doing the household chores while the man worked outside the home. In the 1950s the gender roles remained basically the same, with the man working outside the home, and the woman, not without servants, serving as the functionary for completing the household chores. Middle-class white families were understood to be centers of domestic tranquility and familial stability, while ethnic or working class families were thought to be chaotic and unstable.2 The images of tranquil middle-class white families are nostalgically and tenaciously held on to by many of those espousing "family values." For many perons, though, reality was not as kind as the image. Many of the problems facing families, including violence, divorce, poverty, and abandonment were to be found lurking just below the tranquil surface.
Church Image: A Look Back
While the 1950s may not have been as idyllic a time as memory paints them, they were a time in which the middle class invested its time and money in the church. Established congregations flourished with middle-class families serving as willing workers and as the economic engines. Peak membership often occurred in established churches in the 1950s and early 1960s. New churches began to be built in the suburbs as families left their parental homes and struck out on their own. Church leaders were drawn from these ranks, and have only recently, and often reluctantly, begun to pass on the baton of leadership. Even though this leadership change is now well underway, the values by which these persons lived, and the images of church and family which predominated in their midst, are found to be deeply embedded in the collective memory and structure of congregations. However, the world in which this generation flourished no longer predominates and likely will not be re-created. A new generation of church leadership is left with the task of establishing its own leadership priorities, which includes examination of these images and values for their usefulness in response to today's reality. This is a process which may well trigger fear of abandoning ethical and moral standards understood as traditional and/or eternal. It is important that new leadership define values and describe models which are relevant to today, and which represent a more complete view of family and covenant.
Marriage Re-examined
In addition to re-evaluating family models, marriage, as an institution is in need of re-examination. Seldom has there been a monolithic view of the relationship of the church to marriage. Early church eschatological thinking went so far as to suggest that marriage was not particularly helpful, perhaps even dangerous, to the faith of the individuals involved (see 1 Corinthians 7). For many centuries in western Europe, marriage was understood as a civil arrangement in which the church played a minimal role. Marriage "services" were the province of the local secular authorities and involved contractual relationships between families dealing primarily with property. Roman secular authorities conducted marriage services for Christians in the first centuries of the Common Era. Such services had little impact on the faith communities. Even after the church became more involved in marriage services, they continued to reflect the practices of the Roman state.3
The reliance on secular practices for marriage services has resulted in a "curious amalgam of Christian and pagan elements" even to this day.4 According to James F. White, the pagan elements include some of the more familiar elements of modern marriage ceremonies, including" the joining of hands and giving of rings' the wedding banquet with a wedding cake; throwing of rice - a fertility symbol; giving the bride away; bridesmaids dressed alike to confuse evil spirits; the use of a wedding veil to confuse evil spirits; and the offering of money.5
Only slowly did the church take over the primary responsibility for the performance of wedding ceremonies. This change occurred because of a need in the developing legal systems for written documents authenticating the marriage. In many localities one of the few persons who could read and write was the priest. In order for the marriage to be authenticated, the priest had to be present to witness the ceremony and compose the necessary documentation. At first these ceremonies took place in secular places, eventually moving to the steps of the church in order that they might be in the sight of God. The move inside the church resulted from the priest beginning to offer a mass for the couple following the wedding, with the service outside the church and the mass inside.6
During the English Reformation of the sixteenth century, the entire wedding was finally moved into the church. During this time the marriage rite was explicit about the intent of marriage as an institution. For example, the rite of the Church of England, still in use, has the line, "with this ring I thee wed." The next time, "with my body I thee worship," clearly indicates the sexual nature of the intent for marriage.7 The Reformation was clear that marriage involved sex and was to result in children. The purposes of marriage, according to Reformation leaders, was to: (1) produce children; (2) prevent fornication; and (3) provide mutual help and comfort. English Puritans reversed the order, placing mutual help and comfort first.8 To this day there are persons who would argue the order of these purposes.
Ethicist James B. Nelson notes that "...there is little doubt that the present confusion about marriage (and sexual morality in general) is intimately linked with the changing functions and perceptions of the family in our society.9 Some segments of society have begun to realize the efficacy of broadening the definitions of family, and hence the nature of marriage, to include non-traditional family units. The broadening of the definitions has led to an acknowledgment of the importance and legitimacy of persons choosing to remain single. Families are now beginning to be accepted as including single adults with children, same-sex families, and same-sex families with children. If Nelson is correct, though, such changes will be more than enough to create confusion and consternation for the traditionalist.
Changing definitions have also caused a re-evaluation of the meaning and content of marriage rituals. Many clergy have begun to question the nature of the relationship which exists between the state and the church as regards marriage. The state clearly has an interest in establishing the lines of legal and contractual relationships. However, with the decline in numbers of secular officials with the authority or the interest in conducting marriages, it could be argued that clergy have become functionaries of the state. In most localities, the county provides legal documentation to heterosexual couples seeking to be married and clergy are required to sign these documents for the marriage to be declared "legal." (Of course, a couple may still go to a civil "justice of the peace" if one is to be found.) Without these signed documents a couple is not understood to be "legally" married, regardless of what has transpired in sacred ritual. When pressed, persons may acknowledge the validity of being married in the eyes of the church, though seldom would that be understood as "enough." This has enabled secular authorities to examine the credentials of clergy in order to authorize his or her performance of "legal" marriages, and has blurred the relationship between church and state.
The powers of the state to declare legality, to legislate who may legally marry, and to control the clergy in their participation in marriages, along with the continued use of pagan rituals in marriage, indicates that the state of marriage is more secular than sacred. Serving as an exclamation point is the fact that most clergy have had the experience of persons requesting to be married in the church who have never crossed the threshold of a sanctuary, and are likely only to do so again when they are in need of funeral service. The church, by participating in this current, tangled arrangement, not only perpetuates the confusion, but functions as an unpaid agent of the state in property matters. I believe it is clearly time to re-establish the priority of the sacred understanding of marriage as covenantal relationship, regardless of the desires of the state.
Covenantal Relationship Explored
Holy Scripture is clear in its understanding of the importance of covenantal relationships. In scripture such relationships were first established between God and humans, and then between humans. Covenants are central to Judaism, with those established between God and Noah; God and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and God and Israel as paradigmatic examples. Christianity also honors covenants, both by the extension of the covenants between God and Israel, and with the establishment of covenant through Jesus Christ.
The word covenant comes from a Hebrew word which primarily means "a binding pact," the parties of the pact binding themselves to one another.10 Covenants made between humans are understood to be bound by the terms accepted at the time of ratification. When the covenant is made between God and humans, the terms are those stipulated by God, with humans having the option of accepting or rejecting those terms, though not of changing the terms. Acceptance of the terms stipulated by God will result in being blessed, so long as the covenantal terms are kept, while non-acceptance or breaking of the terms will result in being cursed.11 A similar understanding, that of being blessed by covenant adherence and cursed by non-adherence, exists in covenants between humans. The centrality of covenant to the Christian faith community is exemplified by the use of covenantal language in its liturgical resources. The services of Holy Eucharist contained in The United Methodist Hymnal all use covenantal language, both implicit and explicit, in the Great Thanksgiving, the central part of the service. Similarly, the services of baptism are found under the title, "The Baptismal Covenant," and make several references to covenant.
Particularly relevant to this article, the current Service of Christian Marriage of the United Methodist Church includes rubrics indicating Christian marriage is to be understood as a "...sacred covenant reflecting Christ's covenant within the church."12 In its introduction to marriage services, The United Methodist Book of Worship indicates the "Christian marraige is proclaimed as a sacred covenant reflecting the Baptismal Covenant."13 Informing this use of covenantal language is a theological understanding of mutually affirming, loving relationships in which the participants bind themselves to one another in a manner which reflects the ideal relationship between God and humans. In essence, such affirming, supportive, loving relationships are the visible manifestation of God's love toward us and serve as a harbinger of the eschatological consummation of that relationship.
Covenant is established between two or more parties; in the case of marriage, between two persons. The presence of clergy in covenant/marriage services is to provide the church's formal liturgical blessing over the public proclamation of the established covenant, and to represent the community of faith in this sacred moment. For the past several years I have told the persons establishing covenant, and those gathered to witness the vows of covenant, that I do not unite the covenant members, they unite themselves. My function is to join in their celebration and to offer the church's blessings and admonitions to faithfulness. I am not able to bind them in a unique manner. No waving of my hands or speaking of certain words will establish a covenant that does not exist or prolong a covenant that has ended. Only the constant work of both parties will be able to accomplish the work of covenant. While I believe covenants are intended to be established for life, when one or both persons no longer uphold the covenant by being faithful, supportive, affirming, and loving, that covenant no longer exists. The presence of a signed, secular document does not alter that reality. Neither does the fact that the service of covenant took place in the presence of, or at the direction of, clergy. There are many examples of covenant relationships which have become destructive relationships, and whose covenantal relationships are clearly broken, even though the legal entity continues to exist. As such, these relationships no longer adequately represent God's covenant with humanity, though they may quite adequately represent the broken nature of humanity.
For these reasons, there appears no justification for denying persons of the same gender the opportunity to be united in a holy union. A covenant established between persons of the same gender can be just as fulfilling as those established by heterosexual persons. They should be recognized as being just as valid. It seems inappropriate for the church to be engaged in supporting the state in denying the right of persons to establish covenants. If more attention were paid to developing a greater appreciation for the significance of covenant and its relationship tot he covenant between God and humanity, both holy unions and heterosexual marriages would benefit.
As of the time of this writing, David Belt was pastor of Trinity United Methodist Church, a reconciling congregation in Kansas City, Missouri.
