Faithful confusion

So the US branch of World Vision, one of the planet's biggest charities, decides that they are going to hire gay people in a committed, legally recognized relationship, aka marriage. Two days later, they reverse that decision, caving in to the fury of those who rule airwaves and cash flow with their particular understanding of Scripture. Apparently, heterosexual marriage is now at the "core of the Christian faith" (Jesus might beg to differ on that one). In all the hubbub, I came across an argument that was new to me, namely, that the case rests on "Jesus' definition of marriage" as being between a man and a woman.

Except that Jesus never defined marriage.

The argument is based on a misunderstanding. The passage in question isn't about the definition of marriage at all. It's about divorce. It's about commitment. It's about severing human relations for frivolous reasons. Jesus gave an answer to a question, and neither question nor answer touched on a gender-based definition of marriage.

Let's look at the question first. The Pharisees come up to Jesus and ask him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" Note that this is not about who can marry whom. In fact, that bit is presupposed, i.e. understood: marriage, in the ancient world, was necessarily between a man and a woman, for it was a socioeconomic arrangement, not a romantic encounter of hearts. It was meant to provide economic security and offspring. Love may have been a welcome additive but wasn't a prerequisite. 

The question wasn't about gender issues in commitments born out of love. It was about breaching a contract. The idea of committed homosexual relationship didn't exist, just as the idea of love marriage didn't exist.

And just as the question isn't about who can marry whom, the answer isn't either. "At the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'", Jesus says, quoting Genesis. "And [He] said, 'For this reason, a man will (...) be united to his wife (...)'. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate". In other words, the Pharisees ask a question about a contract, but Jesus makes a deeper point. He talks about taking marriage seriously. About living up to one’s promises. About the sanctity of commitment. And to drive that point home, he puts it into a faith perspective, using Scripture as he often does: to provide spiritual substance to his message. Marriage is sanctified by the Lord, and has been from the beginning of times, he says. Human relations are part of the holy, the natural order of things. Don’t break them up for frivolous reasons.

Today we know that homosexuality is also in the natural order of things, but I guess that was overlooked by those who wrote down Scripture. And the Lord in His mercy didn't press the point.

No argument regarding gay marriage can be crafted from this dialog, for Jesus is not talking about gender. He’s talking about the sacredness of human relations. In the process, he is expanding his culture's conventional notion of marriage so that the custodians of convention may see a profound, brilliant reality behind their fixed ideas. 

Sounds familiar?

And that's it. A question was asked, a point was made. A point that pushed cultural preconceptions aside. A point that had nothing to do with gender in marriage. Those who wish to use this passage to justify their dislike of gay marriage are missing that point. They react like someone who reads a passage about, say, the health benefits of dark chocolate, and concludes that a healthy diet consists of dark chocolate. But the passage wasn't about what constitutes a healthy diet. It was about dark chocolate. Sorry, your conclusion is off, because you missed the point.

We all use the Bible to find ourselves in it, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But we need to let each other know how we get to our conclusions. Otherwise, we come across as confused. For example, if you take Jesus' sayings about hell literally, but those about 'leaving your family' and 'giving away your riches' metaphorically, then it would be interesting to know why, for I would argue it's actually the other way round. If you believe that the Bible talks about gay love relationships at all, give me a reason why I should believe that.

If you think that Jesus was surreptitiously defining marriage as he was answering a question on divorce, that he was taking an implicit position on an issue that didn't exist in his time, then give me some pointers as to how that belief is justified. Otherwise, I have to conclude that your argument is based on a confusion of cultural with biblical values. At some point, both become unrecognizable.