Church of the Redeemer, Lexington, Massachusetts The Rev. Nancy E. Gossling
At the end of August, my husband Paul and I spent two
weeks in Spain to celebrate our 50th wedding anniversary, which had occurred in
June, but because of previous commitments, we could not plan this special trip
until the end of the summer. Finishing my commitment to Church of the Redeemer
in Chestnut Hill, and wanting to return to being a supply priest throughout our
diocese, I had also committed to officiating at a wedding in upper state New
York on August 10.
Ask most clergy these days about whether they prefer
to officiate at a wedding or a funeral, most will respond that they prefer
funerals. You might wonder why. Well, there are a lot of reasons, some of which
can be found in today’s gospel lesson from Mark. “Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife?” the Pharisees had asked Jesus. And to his disciples he said
that whoever divorces and remarries commits adultery.
Talk about sticky
situations. Some Pharisees, like today’s media, were testing Jesus on some
critical moral issues. If we’re going to follow you, Jesus, then we need to
know where you stand. And apparently divorce, like abortion today, was one of
the burning issues that was at the crux of rabbinic debate at that time and in
their culture.
Perhaps the Pharisees had multiple reasons for asking
Jesus that question. Maybe they truly wanted to know what he thought? Or was
this just a “gotcha question? Were they trying to get him into political
trouble with King Herod, who had recently divorced his wife and then remarried
another? Or did they wish to hear Jesus contradict the law of Moses so that
they could charge Him with religious heresy? (Barclay’s p237)
As a rabbi and Jew, Jesus replied that Moses had
allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and divorce his wife because
of their hardness of hearts. In those days, one school of rabbinic thought
claimed that divorce was permissible only in cases of adultery. Indeed today,
in many states, adultery is still a crime.
The other rabbinic school interpreted the law much
more broadly. Divorce was permissible for many reasons: if the wife “spoiled a
dish of food, if she talked to a strange man, if she spoke disrespectfully of
her husband’s family, if she was a woman whose voice could be heard in the next
house, or just because he found another woman” more appealing. (p239) Let’s
just say, given those guidelines, I wouldn’t still be married today!
Apparently this broader interpretation of the law had
become tragically common, exceedingly easy, and dangerous for women, which is
why Jesus was seeking to restore the sanctity of marriage for the benefit of
women. Referring back to their creation story in Genesis, Jesus reminded the
Pharisees how God had created men and women for a purpose. Marriage was not
just a physical union but also a spiritual one, which should not be separated
by human beings, whose hearts had become hardened over time. Joined together by
God, they should not be broken apart by human beings. According to William Barclay, “The real
essence of this passage is that Jesus insisted that the loose sexuality of his
day must be mended.” (p240)
As you can imagine,
Jesus’ words about divorce are not easily tolerated in our culture today. In
most cases, men and women divorce their partners with frequency and ease, and
for a variety of reasons, both honorable and dishonorable. When money or children
or abuse or adultery is involved in the divorce, the situation can become
downright ugly. Untangling previous commitments, even when prenuptial
agreements are involved, become matters of the courts. Religious laws become
stumbling blocks or ignored altogether.
Now, as priests
in the Episcopal Church, we are able to marry a couple both as legal agents of
the state and as religious leaders in our Church. In preparation for the
marriage, presumably we cover all the necessary topics that are important in a
relationship. We talk about a lifelong commitment, responsibilities to each
other, the hard work of love, and how marriage is intended to be a one and done
kind of affair. Forsaking all others, the individuals promise fidelity to one
person and are reminded that God is part of their covenant. Forgiving each
other regularly, the individuals promise to soften their hearts when they
become hardened by human sin.
Weddings involve a lot
of high drama, strong feelings, complicated relationships, religious diversity,
and oftentimes some very difficult conversations. No wonder people no longer
want to engage in premarital counseling. No wonder clergy prefer the simplicity
of mourning the dead, burying the body or the ashes as well as the family
hatchets, while proclaiming the promise of resurrection and eternal life. Let’s
just say that God has a bigger and more explicit role at memorial services than
they do at weddings.
When our church was
wrestling with the issue of gay marriages, I heard many of our clergy
encouraging the Episcopal Church to uncouple the ministry of our priests as
legal agents of the state from their religious authority in the Church. “Go get
married by a justice of the peace,” these clergy will argue, “and then, if you
want, come back to the Church for God’s blessing.” This policy would take away
the sticky situations and the hard questions about love and divorce, about
money and children, about fidelity and adultery, about sin and reconciliation.
“Let the state take care of that unpleasant business and let the clergy be all
about offering God’s love and blessings,” they will argue.
It is typical that our culture, for better or worse,
is often showing us where the Church is headed. When individuals, whether
clergy or people wanting to get married, bump up against religious
requirements, or the policies and permissions given by our Church hierarchy,
when it comes to deciding what is morally OK or not, what is lawful in the eyes
of God or not, many couples and clergy just want to avoid the issues all
together.
I read with interest an opinion article in the Boston
Globe printed on September 27 of this year. The headline stated “Polyamorous
relationships are a good thing.” The summary lines below it said, “Expanding
our understanding of what kinds of committed relationships are possible and
desirable will strengthen American society, not weaken it, particularly given
that Americans are delaying and avoiding marriage like never before.” I’ll let
you find the article and read more, and make up your own minds, only saying
that these authors are encouraging our Commonwealth to be at “the vanguard of
necessary social change.”
If a couple can just get a justice of the peace to put a stamp of legality on a relationship or relationships, with no questions asked, then isn’t that better for everyone? And who needs a blessing from God in the Church when you can have it offered by anyone and anywhere? Who needs clergy and the potential of religious judgment, when you can have a friend or family member do the nuptials and make it a party to remember? And how about those readings? Who needs an outdated scripture lesson that limits gender identity and eschews divorce? I wonder, what would Jesus say to us today?
There are many reasons in
today’s culture for skipping a church wedding officiated by clergy. In this
sermon, I do not intend to offer any concrete answers for you today but rather
raise many questions about our human relationships and offer some observations
about marriage and divorce. I’m happy to hear your thoughts.
The good news for me is that despite our rebellious
spirits and hardened hearts, God remains faithful to us even when we are not
faithful to God or to others. And so the celebration of God’s covenant with us
is remembered in our Church at every Eucharistic feast, where Jesus is the
groom and the Church is His bride. God welcomes everyone to the table in this
sacred ceremony of love, and blessed are
we who are called to the wedding supper of the lamb.
No comments:
Post a Comment