For conservatives, "redefining marriage" has become a term of abuse, shorthand in their view, for the trouble with marriage equality. For many others, and that includes many people of faith, it's a simple statement of a necessary and inevitable part of the institution. Marriage has constantly been redefined throughout Christian history, and needs to be continually redefined, to keep its relevance for changing times and conditions.
Part of this process includes extending marriage to same - sex couples, but there's more to it than that. The process of thinking through the implications of extending marriage have led to some useful thoughts on this wider project in redefining marriage - for the better, and for the benefit of all. This was the theme of the 2014 conference of the British Centre for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality, just completed.
"Redefining Marriage" was also the title of the keynote address by the theologian Adrian Thatcher. (This lecture, a superb exposition on just how the historical understanding of Christian marriage has been constantly re-defined throughout the centuries may be read in full at Thatcher's website, Applied Theology). For the afternoon session, we had a panel discussion on our own perspectives on marriage, in which I participated. Starting off, I said I would be sharing some thoughts and perspectives drawn from my own experience of both heterosexual marriage and fatherhood, and long - term same - sex partnership / informal marriage, and in three parts: thoughts on weddings, marriage, and sex.
This is the gist of what I said in the first part, about weddings (reconstructed from memory, and incorporating some of the responses I received)
In common speech and in media reports, "marriage" is too easily confused with "wedding". This is dangerous, as the modern supposedly "traditional" church wedding has about as much to do with Christian marriage as the modern "traditional" family Christmas has with the Christian feast of the Incarnation of Christ. In his book "Blessing Same - Sex Unions", Mark Jordan notes that in most modern "church" weddings, the primary presider over ritual is no longer the pastor, but the wedding planner (closely followed by the caterer, the florist and the photographer). If any serious thought is given to the choice of a particular church, it's more likely to be on the basis of its photogenic appeal than its spiritual significance for the couple. Just as Christmas (or more accurately, Xmas) has become dominated by commercial considerations, so too has "marriage" morphed into big business - the wedding business, extending far beyond the wedding day itself, but also including an exploding set of preparatory events. For example, I recently came across an example of one man who had just returned from not a stag night, but a stag week in Las Vegas. In what possible way can a week in Sin City be considered a suitable preparation for the Christian sacrament of marriage?
A notable feature of the customary wedding ritual, is that of the bride's father, accompanying her down the aisle, and "giving her away" to the groom. In circumstances where the bride's father is not available, considerable thought usually goes into finding a suitable stand-in (usually another male relative, or close family friend). I remember experiencing great joy when I did this at my daughter's wedding, as do so many fathers of the bride, but when I look back now, and reflect on the symbolism, I cringe with embarrassment. This little ritual harks back to a much older period, when this was literally true: women in Biblical times and much later, were treated in law as simply the property of their menfolk, first of their fathers, or brothers after the father's death, and later their husbands. In those circumstances, marriage was always a contract concluded between two men: the groom, and the bride's father.
Dominating popular images of marriage and weddings, especially for young girls, is the magnicent bridal dress - always in white, supposedly symbolizing the bride's virginal status. But if that is truly a representation of her state, what are we to make of the groom's black suit? The symbolism is a polite fiction of course, but it does disclose a genuine double standard, widely held for much of the twentieth century: women were expected to "save themselves for best" on their wedding night, but it was assumed that men would inevitably "sow their wild oats".
Responses from other panellists and from the floor to my thoughts on weddings, produced some useful thoughts on this problem of the bride being given by her father to the groom. Several people noted that while we want to get away from the unfortunate elements of the symbolism, nevertheless there is value in the visual representation of the bride passing from one family to the other. One person pointed out that in the guidelines by the Church of England, the ritual need not be just the father of the bride walking down the aisle with her, but several possibilities exist - including for example, both parents of the groom and of the bride, passing on their offspring to their respective spouses. Another observation described a lesbian wedding, in which both brides valued the tradition of being given away by their fathers - and so both fathers gave away the two brides to each other. In a gay male wedding, it's unlikely that either groom would be given away by anyone, but in principle, they could each be given away by both parents (which would be a valuable demonstration that the families valued and accepted the same - sex spouses). A particularly poignant reminder of the nasty side of the symbolism in the standard procedure, was an observation contrasting the usual, visible delight and pride of the fathers as they process down the aisle with their daughters - while the mothers are left weeping in the pews, with no formal part in the process except to look decorative.
A more light-hearted, but relevant objection was that it's not really the bridal dress that symbolized virginity. That's the job of the bridal bouquet. The point of the wide dress, is to ensure the bride will match the rest of the kitchen appliances.
The point is, that commercialization, social pressures to keep up with bridal fashion, and unthinking compliance with traditions that are no longer appropriate, have created an urgent need to rethink our approach(es) to wedding celebrations. Gay and lesbian couples have been forced by their circumstances to bring some fresh creativity to their weddings. Some of their ideas and experience could usefully be applied more broadly, helping the Christian community as a whole, to redefine weddings - for the better.
Recommended Book:
Jordan, Mark D: Blessing Same-Sex Unions: The Perils of Queer Romance and the Confusions of Christian Marriage
Related posts:
How Gay Marriage Can "Redefine" Marriage - for the Better [VIDEO]
The Distorted Christian Tradition on Marriage
Cathedral Dean: "Same-sex marriage gives us another image of what marriage can be."
(Cross - posted, and adapted, from Queering the Church)