A plea for love

The passage of Proposition 8 was a low point not just for Californians, but for Americans. I was so moved by this video. Please listen. Please consider your response. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27652443#27652443

Christians, Marriage, and Sexuality

The following was written in 2006 when a marriage ammendment was on the ballot in Virginia. It remains timely in light of similar measures this year in California and elsewhere.

There are many good legal and political reasons for Virginians to vote against the marriage amendment on the upcoming ballot. Despite the dangers of such language to the rights of all Virginians regardless of their sexual orientation, arguments based on religious convictions and traditional values remain quite persuasive to many. As we all know proponents of the amendment claim that it will preserve “traditional Christian marriage,” which they believe is enshrined in the New Testament. A careful reading of the New Testament shows, however, that the early Christians were deeply divided on the importance of marriage and sexuality; this lack of consensus among them and within the New Testament itself should lead modern believers to question the absolute value placed upon heterosexual marriage and procreation by this amendment.

The fact that neither of the two most prominent figures in the New Testament—Jesus and Paul—was married is well known, although few take the time to consider carefully their attitudes toward sexuality. For both Jesus and Paul, celibacy was not simply a personal choice, but a religious choice based upon the religious conviction that expressions of their sexuality, resulting in conventional married life and procreation, did not represent full and appropriate obedience to God. Jesus taught his disciples to value their calling to preach the kingdom of God more highly than marriage, and he ordered them to leave their families behind, without stipulating that they provide any support for their wives and children (Matthew 10; Luke 18). In his strongest statement about sexuality, Jesus promoted celibacy as the highest command from God (this is the famous “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” passage; Matt 19:10-12) and informed his followers that the resurrection would be a marriage-less state of being (Matt 22:29-30). Paul as well deemed marriage and sexual activity for the weak, those who could not control their libido; the better path was to abstain from marriage, as long as one could do so without falling prey to sexual temptation (1 Corinthians 7). Yes, Paul did say that it is better to marry than to burn (1 Cor 7:9), but we can not ignore that “burning” with sexual desire is not a good thing in Paul’s mind and that marriage is a concession to the weak and not something to be encouraged in its own right. Thus what we see in parts of the New Testament is a strong ascetic strain, an understanding that sexuality and the obligations of marriage hinders obedience to God and, in light of the revelation of Christ and the world to come, can and should be re-evaluated.

Other New Testament authors support marriage in a way that very much echoes and assimilates the cultural values of the ancient world; we can think of the oft quoted commands to husbands and wives found in Colossians and Ephesians. But given our current debates, we must ask what kind of marriage these texts support. Although some would like to soften their message, these authors conceived of marriage as a hierarchical relationship in which the wife owed obedience to the husband; the husband’s command to be kind in no way diminished the fact that husbands were the ruler of their households. Women, by contrast, found their fulfillment (i.e., the fulfillment of their purpose in marriage) through submission and the act of childbearing (1 Tim 2:15). Women widowed at an early age were therefore encouraged to marry again as quickly as possible and to bear children rather than to dedicate themselves to the service of the church (1 Tim 5:14). These attitudes represent an accommodation to the prevailing cultural mores of the ancient world and a movement away from the more socially challenging teachings of Jesus and Paul.

So what does the Bible say about marriage? The answer is that the Bible does not give us a single, uniform opinion about marriage. Instead, the Bible bears witness to a debate among the first few generations of Christians as to whether heterosexual sexuality and conventional social relationships (marriage resulting in procreation) should be a part of the newly formed Christian community. Some strains of New Testament Christianity reinforced the mores of the ancient world, while others dethroned traditional marriage by claiming that sexuality and procreation were of lesser value than obedience to the gospel. Since this debate is not resolved in the pages of the New Testament, we can not turn to the Bible for a simple, straightforward answer to our current discussions about marriage. This reality should serve as a caution against claiming that heterosexual marriage is the only expression of God’s will. For Jesus and Paul, their deep commitment to the gospel demanded a reassessment of the conventions of their day. Those very conventions are the ones this amendment will further enshrine. Christians today do not have a religious duty to vote “yes” on this amendment; they may choose to follow Jesus and Paul in the task of rethinking accepted customs in light of the gospel.

Faith and Politics

The relationship between faith and politics is of great interest to people across America.  While John McCain offers positions on certain issues that are amenable to religious conservatives, Barack Obama has directly addressed this question and pointed toward a solution to the growing political divisions in this country.  Obama’s vision is to achieve a respectful integration of religiously motivated people into the fabric of the American political system. This fundamental change in the way religion is handled in American public life is more important to our future than a candidate’s position on any particular issue. 

 

In a speech entitled “Call to Renewal,” (June 28, 2006), Obama laid out his vision of how religious conservatives and progressives can and must achieve mutual respect to solve the difficult issues facing us today.  (For those still wondering about Obama’s religious commitments, take the time to watch this speech at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/.)  Obama takes both religious progressives and conservatives to task for the ways each have marginalized the other and thereby exacerbated the deepening religious chasm in this country.  Democrats have ignored the conservatives or simply dismissed religion as “irrational or intolerant,” while conservative leaders have fueled this division, identifying some as “true believers” and “true Americans” and others as not.

 

Obama has strong words for Democrats.  Religion can not, he says, be ignored as a force in public life, and Democrats “are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door.”  They should not deride literalist readings of the Bible; they should not expect conservatives to give up their convictions. Government policies, in fact, are not enough to secure genuine and thoroughgoing changes in American life. People need more than laws; they need, as Obama put it, “a transformation of conscience” and “changes in hearts.” 

 

While Obama does not expect conservative Christians to change their religious views, he does call upon them to change the way they have approached politics. First, he asks conservatives to acknowledge the necessity of the separation of church and state, highlighting evangelicals’ historic support for this principle.  Second, conservatives who wish to engage in politics need to develop a commitment to articulating universal values—values that can win the day in open discussion without resort to biblical proof texting or theological foundations. Lastly, he asks conservatives to prioritize the core moral commitments of their faith so that compromise—without which politics can not function—can become a possibility.

 

What is clear from Obama’s vision is that he refuses to reduce people of faith to caricatures, and he treats faith respectfully.  Is this not precisely what all Americans of faith truly want?  His patience also runs thin in just the same place as those of faith.  Obama taps into broad sentiments in America religion when he identifies religious rhetoric that is used merely as tool to gain votes or to divide Americans as “inauthentic expressions of faith” and concludes that “people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don’t want faith used to belittle or to divide.”   

 

But since McCain espouses support for religiously conservative issues, why shouldn’t conservative Christians vote for him?  Because McCain has not demonstrated the same kind of respect for the religious enterprise as Obama.  Let’s be honest.  Even thoughtful conservatives now publicly acknowledge that Sarah Palin was chosen not for her political acumen, but in a thinly veiled attempt to re-energize McCain’s campaign by portraying his ticket as supportive of conservative Christian values.  And let’s not forget David Kuo (Tempting Faith, 2006), who exposed the way senior Bush advisors privately ridiculed evangelicals while courting their votes.  It’s time for all of us to just say no to this kind of disingenuous politics.

 

So conservatives have a choice:  to be satisfied with a token gesture toward the religious right or to opt for a president who will genuinely welcome you as a person of faith to the political table and will not dismiss you when convenient.  If I were a conservative Christian—and I once was—I would take the latter option in a heartbeat since transforming the way in which religion functions in the public sphere opens the door to new possibilities for the future, while “winning” on one or two issues only perpetuates the public manipulation of religion. 

 

Barack Obama has offered a thoughtful, honest, and respectful vision of how faith and politics can productively intersect.  He challenges us to reject the use of religion to divide us from our neighbors and appeals to us to embrace a future in which religious faith and faithful people can emerge from the margins and contribute to public life in an atmosphere of mutual respect.  I, for one, am up for that challenge.

Who is Berenson?

This is my first blog, so I’m not sure what to write here. No doubt I’ll add more later. For now, you can know me as an over-educated, reasonably stressed academic with two terrific kids. 

If you’re dying for more info, see my website at www.roanoke.edu/religion/berenson.html.