Really, these “Marriage = One Man One Woman” people need a lesson in cultural anthropology.
Much of the evangelical church today is obsessed with ethics. The basic strategy usually used in creating such is simply a searching of the writings of Paul and then a subsequent codification of his statements into a law seen as, “The way it always was.”
The irony is that, as this blogger so clearly points out, it really never was. In fact, usually what was is stunningly different from what Paul had to say for himself.
So, should we punt any sort of ethical standard and rush off into a three-some, a gay marriage or maybe a sexually open relationship? No. But, we do have to pull our non-thinking heads out of the sand and start to engage our worlds instead of our simplistic presuppositions. In case it isn’t already clear, the rest of the world responds to a line of logic that starts with, “Well the Bible says…” with a well deserved sneer. While it may be a mental starting point, if that’s all we got, we are already dead in the water.
There is a place in Christianity for ethics — but it is not the starting point nor is it ever a self contained entity. Ethics must always start from the solid foundation of Grace and total freedom to, for example, engage in that three-some and know that God’s heart has not changed towards you (for we are totally free from the law) though tears are running down His face. Not tears of rage — but tears of love for your heart has been smashed by the decision to engage in such.
In other words, ethics must always start from our anthropology. Anthropology is the study of what it means to be human. It is an assessment of our hearts, minds, souls and bodies that determines how we function — or don’t function as the case may be. It is the core of an assessment of what is good for us or for a society.
Yes, it almost goes without saying that Paul’s writings are a study in great wisdom in this area — but they are, at least to some degree, culturally specific and require generalization to present day life. That generalization is, by it’s very nature anthropological.
A marriage between one man and one woman is the best idea — but not just because the Bible (Or for that matter the Koran) says so. It is a good idea because there is clear evidence of design (Or, if addressing a secular audience, evolutionary programming) present in the hearts of men and women that enables each to meet the needs of the other and offers critical developmental resources to any children present in ways that no other combination (Say two men) allows.
We have further found that a high degree of security and intimacy is required for such to occur and this is why most cultures have instituted the rite (and thus the standard definition) of marriage. While other combinations may have varying degrees of success, they are less then optimal and are less worthy of protection/promotion then that which is optimal.
Once we have actually thought out why we would state that marriage between one man and one woman is the best idea, we can then go back to Paul as a credible voice of historical thought who arrived at the same conclusion.
Otherwise, we just end up looking like idiots…
(Just for the record, I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution…)
