2/24/2004
RIPPLES OF THE REFORMATION
I promised in the comments on this post that I would eventually get around to writing the article I originally intended to write about the church and gay marriage.
I have a thesis: The separation of civil and religious understandings of marriage was a necessary consequence of the Reformation.
One of the most profound effects of the Protestant Reformation was the severing of the tie between secular and religious authority. When Frederick elected to give the Lutherans safe harbor, he in effect told the Pope that Rome had no right to sovereignty in his region. This profound challenge to Roman authority had far-reaching effects, if only because the Vatican was not in a position to wage wars–even ideological ones–on all the fronts where such wars were breaking out.
The spillover was incredible–with the concept of religious sovereignty broken (mostly), revolution became more than an idle fantasy for many of the oppressed and/or dissenting of Europe. Indeed, if not for Martin Luther’s bold Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders, even the American Revolution might never have happened.
But the long-term consequence of this separation of power was a separation of hegemony as well. Over the course of time, the church not only lost its ability to rule, but its ability to influence rulers as well. People grew profoundly comfortable with the division of power into secular and religious realms. Certainly it was a boon to atheists and other religious dissenters, whose consciences were no longer bound to support that with which they could not assent. (Never mind that “state churches” still exist in Europe; if what I hear is true, such churches are worse than toothless wherever they still exist.) But even believers began to grow comfortable with the disconnect between what their religion demanded and what their society needed. (Sort of–as recently as 44 years ago, JFK’s religion was a factor in his perceived electability, and this year, there are those who are trying to make a factor of the president’s evangelical beliefs.)
So there’s at least one way in which a conflict over whether the traditional religious definition of marriage should be the only permissible definition was probably inevitable. But there is another.
Among the things the earliest Protestant reformers did away with was the proliferation of sacraments. The Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans recognize seven sacraments: Baptism, penance, communion, confirmation, matrimony, ordination, and anointing. Luther recognized only two: Baptism and communion.
Notice what’s missing from the latter list?
It is not that Martin Luther ever believed that marriage had no spiritual significance, and it’s certainly not the case that Lutherans think that way now. Luther, in fact, accused Rome of being excessively afraid of marriage, by denying its benefits to anyone who received Holy Orders (i.e., was ordained a priest or consecrated as a nun or monk):
“Whoever is ashamed of marriage is also ashamed of being and being called human, tries to improve on what God has made. Adam’s children are and will remain human; that is why they should and must beget more men. Dear God, we see daily the effort it costs to live in a marriage, and to keep the marital vows. And we try to promise chastity as if we were not human, had neither flesh nor blood. But it is the God of the world, the Devil, who so slanders the marital state and has made it shameful�and yet allows adulterers, whores, and dissolute knaves to survive in high esteem all the same�that it would be fair to marry in order to spite him and his world and to accept his ignominy and bear it for God’s sake.” Martin Luther, March 1525
Still, for all his esteem of marriage (and his enthusiasm at being married himself), Luther just didn’t see marriage as a sacrament. He didn’t see God’s grace being extended in any special way to those who married. And it is this disentanglement of God from the process which now makes it difficult for the Protestant church to say much of anything credible about society’s decision to offer marriage or marital equivalence to same-sex couples.
Again, this is not the same as saying that the church is not entitled to an opinion on this matter. But it is to say that Protestantism has ceded its seat on the high horse. Just as we have grown comfortable with the concept of the church and the state living in parallel, so too are we now willing to entertain the difference between how we feel about something religiously and how we feel about it politically. And that, too, is a consequence of the Reformation; specifically, of the decision to de-sacramentalize marriage. This decision, along with American embracing of English common law, has led us to the point where the church can decide to refuse to allow a marriage within its parameters, but cannot ultimately deny marriage to any particular couple–only the state can do that. And that also goes for Roman Catholics, even though they never gave up their sacramental view of marriage. If Father says no, you can go to the judge–you just can’t be Catholic anymore.
(Of course, all the above only applies to legal marriages; in theory, you could go before the altar without a marriage license, though I am not sure what the legal consequences of such would be.)
So, all things considered, it should be amazing that it took nearly 500 years for the issue of same-sex marriage to come to a head in societies where it was possible to get married without the church’s consent. A lot of that is due to lingering, ingrained prejudice against homosexuals, of course–it’s only been in the last 30-50 years that gays and lesbians have felt safe being open about their sexual orientations. And it’s certainly still not 100% safe.
That, really, is why I think the gay marriage battle isn’t worth fighting. Society isn’t going to listen to the church anyway. People have grown too comfortable with the division between earthly and spiritual power, between political and theological ethics. Likewise, the church has no chips left to call in–we’ve spent them all on televangelists, sexually predatory clergy, and the like. This battle’s over–but it was lost a long time before any of us were born.
16 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Your essay was interesting, Mark, but I confess you lost me at the end.
Your last paragraph seems to assume that “the church” will feel a certain way about gay marriage, but has long ago “ceded its seat on the high horse.” Why do you assume that “the church” (which one, by the way? The one holy small-c catholic and apostolic church? The Lutheran chuch? Protestantism in general? The big-C Catholic church?) opposes gay marriage?
When you declare the battle “lost”, what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that homosexuals shouldn’t marry, due to church teachings, but will probably eventually end up with that right because the church has lost its standing in civil affairs?
Comment by Vidiot — 2/25/2004 @ 12:24 am
No, I think homosexuals should have the right to marry. There are a great many Christians who do not not agree with me, and probably never will; the point I am trying to make to them is that the outcome of this debate is not in doubt, and their energy would be better spent on other things. I have grown very tired of the assumption in many Christian circles that ours (OK, “theirs”) is the only possible morality in what appears to me to be an officially non-sectarian society.
By “the church” I always mean the small-’c’ catholic church. Of course there are many in the “the church” who feel the way I do; I am not assuming that all Christians are (or have to be) against gay marriage, at least in a civil sense. I am less optimistic about the prospects for acceptance of gay marriages in church; some will embrace this concept right away, some never will, and many will need some time to figure out how they feel about it. Count me in that latter camp.
But in the meantime, I see no reason to deny the legal benefits and protections of marriage to same-sex couples.
Comment by Mark Hasty — 2/25/2004 @ 7:51 am
The Reformation, church/state, and gay marriage
The Bemusement Park has an excellent post examining the gay marriage issue from a historical perspective. More specifically, how the rejection of church sovereignty over the state brought about by the Reformation led to the separation of power into s…
Trackback by beastofsound — 2/25/2004 @ 8:33 am
I have grown very tired of the assumption in many Christian circles that ours (OK, “theirs”) is the only possible morality in what appears to me to be an officially non-sectarian society.
Hear, hear.
And I think you are correct (but I wish you weren’t) about the prospects for the acceptance of gay marriage in the church.
You’d think that if marriage needed defending so badly, they’d enact waiting periods when you get a marriage license. And get rid of no-fault divorce.
And I was utterly floored when the president threw the full weight of his office behind a Constitutional amendment that will divide the country and write discrimination into the Constitution.
Comment by Vidiot — 2/25/2004 @ 9:01 am
And I was utterly floored when the president threw the full weight of his office behind a Constitutional amendment that will divide the country and write discrimination into the Constitution.
Why, Vidiot? Are you that naive? Did you not hear Bush’s state of the union? Do you really think the constitutional amendment is going to “divide the country” any more than the issue is already dividing the country? Considering that a state supreme court and a city mayor have already thrown the issue to the front burner, I’m not surprised at all.
Comment by bryan — 2/25/2004 @ 9:15 am
I was floored not because it was some radical change in Bush’s worldview. I was floored because it’s like using a nuclear weapon to go fishing. Amending the Constitution is such a big deal that it requires real thought and consensus, not knee-jerk reactions to a fiercely divisive issue. And yes, I think writing an explicitly discriminatory amendment into the supreme law of the land is much more divisive than squabbling over California state laws.
To quote Josh Marshall:
The Congressional passage of the proposed amendment is anything but certain. Even a GOP attack dog like Tom DeLay is sounding more measured than the President regarding this. That should tell you something.
Proposing to go to Mars was the same sort of thing — a big splashy headline-grabbing proposal that would deflect attention from Bush’s other problems. I don’t doubt that Bush’s sinking approval ratings (the lowest since the week he took office, according to a Fox News poll) had something to do with this.
To quote Josh Marshall again (he’s just en fuego with this stuff lately):
Comment by Vidiot — 2/25/2004 @ 11:58 am
Whoops — one amendment to my above post. The parenthetical comment immediately following the first blockquoted graf should have been blockquoted itself; it’s Joshua Marshall’s and not mine.
Comment by Vidiot — 2/25/2004 @ 12:00 pm
No, I think homosexuals should have the right to marry. There are a great many Christians who do not not agree with me, and probably never will; the point I am trying to make to them is that the outcome of this debate is not in doubt, and their energy would be better spent on other things.
This is one of those places where we disagree on a contention but agree on a point. I believe, as a Christian, that gay marriage runs counter to the whole of Scriptural authority, and I cannot support a church that condones such actions. However, you’re mostly right on the debate being over — I tend to think it’s the fourth quarter and the pro gay marriage side is sending in the walk-ons — and I think the church needs to move on and change tack.
I have grown very tired of the assumption in many Christian circles that ours (OK, “theirs”) is the only possible morality in what appears to me to be an officially non-sectarian society.
I think this comes from a confusion between Truth (with a capital T) and morality. As a Christian, moral authority lies in Jesus Christ through the New Testament. This moral authority is Truth — “I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Light. None can come to the Father except through me.” Capital T Truth is a constant by definition. Morality is not a constant, but a variable, and this is because each person’s definition of what a moral good is varies based on nature and nuture. There is a communal sense of morality, but it has more loopholes than tax law. “Do not kill,” but it’s OK to shoot innocents in war because that’s just a consequence of battle. “Do not commit adultery,” but hey, everyone cheats.
One word that keeps popping up whenever I read Paul is “transform.” I keep seeing a Christian church that wants to rule, not transform, and that (of course) worries me greatly.
Comment by dw — 2/25/2004 @ 12:47 pm
It’s a Domino’s Pizza culture, DW; we want it all delivered right to our door in 30 minutes or less. Transformation means change over time, and who’s got the patience for that anymore?
There’s a difference between being the church being a giant morality clearinghouse (a la the NCAA) and the church being one of many voices in the cultural discourse. The latter guarantees us a place at the table; the former inevitably leads to society telling us, “Get bent.”
Comment by Mark Hasty — 2/25/2004 @ 1:11 pm
I think it was Peter Gomes (perhaps he quoted someone else) who said that one should not use the Bible to enforce any sort of human privilege. If we try to forbid gay marriage on some sort of Scriptural authority, is that not creating a sort of privilege?
Also, Paul had relatively little use for marriage (he was big on virginity, IIRC), but he thought it better than being a fornicator, and said it was better to marry if you absolutely had to. Even if we think of gay sex as a form of fornication (I don’t) wouldn’t Paul’s example be an argument in marriage’s favor?
Of course, Paul also thought the world was going to be ending pretty soon, so we know he didn’t get everything right…
Comment by Jammer — 2/25/2004 @ 1:25 pm
I don’t think you want to be using Paul on this issue.
Comment by bryan — 2/25/2004 @ 1:56 pm
I don’t think you want to be using Paul on this issue.
You don’t, eh? That’s pretty much exactly why I brought him up.
Comment by Jim Roberts-Miller — 2/25/2004 @ 2:49 pm
See, the problem with the argument you’re making is that Paul is saying “it is better to be married, something that God approves of, and getting hot lovin’ regular, than it is to be single and always in a position where you COULD be led to stray; however, I think it’s better to be single if you’re an apostle, because then you don’t have a family fighting God for your attention.” What you’re arguing is “if you’re doing something that is beyond the pale of the definition of what God approves of, it’s better to be doing it while married.”
I don’t trust Gomes’ theology, although not as much as I despise Spong’s. Both have a very clear agenda, and they’re both trying to hammer the square peg of orthodoxy into their round hole. Gomes is different from Spong in that Gomes is using a rubber mallet while Spong is using a sledgehammer.
(I’m not saying that there isn’t bias in theological writings. Far from it. I, however, have yet to see a solid, balanced, and fully exegeted (sp?) text on why the church should strike homosexuality from its list of sins. If anyone’s seen one, please recommend one….)
Comment by dw — 2/25/2004 @ 3:46 pm
See, the problem with the argument you’re making is that Paul is saying “it is better to be married, something that God approves of, and getting hot lovin’ regular, than it is to be single and always in a position where you COULD be led to stray; however, I think it’s better to be single if you’re an apostle, because then you don’t have a family fighting God for your attention.” What you’re arguing is “if you’re doing something that is beyond the pale of the definition of what God approves of, it’s better to be doing it while married.”
I don’t trust Gomes’ theology, although not as much as I despise Spong’s. Both have a very clear agenda, and they’re both trying to hammer the square peg of orthodoxy into their round hole. Gomes is different from Spong in that Gomes is using a rubber mallet while Spong is using a sledgehammer.
(I’m not saying that there isn’t bias in theological writings. Far from it. I, however, have yet to see a solid, balanced, and fully exegeted (sp?) text on why the church should strike homosexuality from its list of sins. If anyone’s seen one, please recommend one….)
Comment by dw — 2/25/2004 @ 3:56 pm
I hate half-eaten SQL inserts.
And Jim, when you adding me to your blogroll? You have M13K and Bellomy already for chrissakes!
Comment by dw — 2/25/2004 @ 3:58 pm
Sorry dude, you should be on there, but last time I tried to mess with my template, it fried my connection, and the change didn’t take. I plan to try again, since I’m about ready to take Bellomy off my blogroll. I hate to do it, but I think they are going around the bend over there.
Comment by Jim Roberts-Miller — 2/25/2004 @ 4:40 pm