There is a lot of talk around these days about "marriage" and about "family values." Which seems to mean valuing the "traditional" family, even to the point of feeling the need to protect it. To protect it from what? I suppose from other models of family. This is at a high now on the national political scene, but more so in Michigan with an amendment on the ballot that would constitutionally define what is already clearly defined in law, that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The point of this sermon is not to speak specifically for gay marriage or against the amendment. Let me be clear, however, I am unequivocal in my opposition to the amendment for several reasons, including because it would likely disallow existing and future domestic partnership benefits, but also, because I am completely in favor of same-sex marriage.

This sermon is prompted by one of the arguments you hear so often against any familial arrangement other than the so-called traditional "pop, mom, and the kids" arrangement. That is that this "traditional" model is commanded in the Bible, ordained by God, blessed and reinforced by Jesus. On many occasions I have actually had people use that argument on me.

The problem is that I read my Bible! But even if we don’t use this argument, most of us assume it is true. In fact, one of the characteristics of Protestantism is that marriage and family are elevated to such a high and holy level that we are led to suppose that the Bible, especially Jesus and the New Testament, is unambiguous in its affirmation of "Holy Matrimony."

Well, it is not! You have already seen that from the texts read this morning. As well, it certainly cannot be denied that Jesus, in his adult life, had anything but a "traditional family!" The truth is that the Jesus tradition is unrelenting in its criticism of "the family." It is suspicious as well, but somewhat less critical of marriage (except for Luke, he’ll have none of it). We will see why.

Let us be clear, the Jesus tradition is, quite frankly, against the structure and values of the first century family. That is not to say that it is against ours, except to the extent to which ours perpetuates the problems Jesus had with the first century family structure and values.

I am indebted in this sermon to a number of fine scholars, particularly the writings of Dr. Ted Jennings of The Chicago Theological Seminary. I also want to say that I am not against the family or marriage. I have two sons and have been married for 28 years. And if you are not against marriage after 28 years, that is saying something! But as a white, economically well off, married, heterosexual male, I particularly need to listen carefully to Jesus critique of the "traditional" family.

There are three passages in Mark that deal with the family, these are duplicated with some variation in Matthew and Luke, and there are a couple of additional passages common to Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. The gospel of John completely ignores the family, except for a brief, very interesting scene from the cross where Jesus addresses his mother.

Let’s look first at a passage I did not include for reading this morning, which is found in Mark 3:20 ff. This is very early in the gospel. Jesus had just appointed the 12 apostles and he had been teaching a huge crowd of followers. He went home, (clearly not a home shared by his biological family) but the crowd followed him, so that he couldn’t even eat. The text says this: "So when his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, ‘He has gone out of his mind.’" The scribes, interestingly, are also mentioned here. They said that he had a demon. "Then his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside, they sent to him and called him. A crowd was sitting around him; and they said to him, ‘Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside, asking for you.’ And he replied, ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’ And looking at those who sat around him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.’"

The next time we see reference to his biological, or family of origin is when he has returned to his hometown in Mark 6. He preaches in their synagogue, and they know that he is the one who used to be a carpenter there, they name his mother and brothers and admit that his sisters are with them. And they take offense at him. Jesus "at home" is known as an ordinary member of an ordinary family. How can something so extraordinary come out of someone so familiar? His own family regards him as crazy; he has given them up for untouchables, lunatics, and assorted persons of ill repute. In the face of their resistance, he cannot do his deeds of power. (Remember in Luke, they try to kill him.)

Next in Mark 10, we have Peter talking about leaving everything to follow Jesus. Truly they have. Mentioned in the call of some of the disciples is leaving their father on the spot to follow Jesus. Jesus response is that none who have left their family of origin, and their other possessions (fields), will not receive a hundred fold, mothers, (not fathers) brothers, and sisters.

Luke is even more extreme in his use of this material: "Whoever comes to me and does not ‘hate’ father and mother, wife and children (Luke is the only one that includes wife), brothers, and sisters, yes, even life itself, cannot be my disciple."

What is going on here? The Jesus movement sets up a clear opposition to the claims of family of origin. "This opposition appears first as the leaving of home to follow Jesus. It then becomes the theme of explicit teaching when Jesus not only renounces the claims of his own family of origin but points to the establishment of a new family constituted by all who identify themselves with the coming of the divine reign.

The old family that "domesticates" life is represented in Jesus encounter in his home town as making impossible participation in the coming divine reign. A break with this powerful institution is called for on the part of Jesus and his followers. It is not that there is no family, rather, family is not those who have a claim on one by heredity and social structure, but rather, those who embrace the new reality of justice, generosity, and joy. Blood ties are irrelevant. Those who are family are those who embrace what God is doing. Jesus is brother, along with others. God is father.

Jesus is opposed to all structures that enforce the status quo (old values) and that thus oppose what God is bringing into being.

How did the family institution prevent one from following Jesus and embracing the new age? It is telling that in the first encounter with family in Mark, where they come to get him because they think he is crazy, the "scribes from Jerusalem" are also present. They both think he is crazy because he stands outside the only accepted order and meaning of the day. The only accepted order was represented on the one hand by the family of origin and on the other by religious authorities.

As Jennings puts it, "the stability of familial institutions is directly linked to the stability of religious and social institutions. Indeed we may say that the family is the base, and religion the ideology of the basic social structures of life: cultural, social, political, and economic. The family is the place where these values are inculcated, and religion is the manner of validating and sanctioning them. Jesus enactment of a new social order of open friendship, of solidarity and generosity, shatters the social world that both family and religion serve to protect. From the standpoint of both, Jesus is impious; Jesus is "crazy."

In family systems theory today, this reality is very well known. If a member of a dysfunctional family tries to break out, the whole family bans together to rein them in. The family calls them crazy, and will go to extreme lengths to "fix" them. That way the family doesn’t have to recognize itself as crazy and in need of change.

Jesus is saying that the structure and institution of the first century family is dysfunctional for the new age.

What is the social order that the first century family was basic to upholding? It was the patriarchy. The family structure was the basis of ownership and power— male ownership and control. It determined who were the haves and have nots, the insiders and the outsiders. It was the way wealth was maintained and concentrated in families. The power of the father was inordinate, women, children, slaves were property. They were a way of securing one’s future.

The hold that the family had on all its members, both in the legal/social structure and psychologically, particularly that of fathers was immense. It is telling that in Matthew’s gospel, though the disciples give up possessions, sisters and brothers, mothers and fathers. There, what they are promised 100 fold, leaves out fathers. Elsewhere Matthew states that no one on earth is to be called father only the Father in heaven. But he goes on to say that those who exalt themselves will be humbled and all who humble themselves will be exalted.

Jesus New World entails tearing down the hierarchical relationships. To prohibit calling one "father" prohibits the recognition of the claims of paternity, the authority of any human being, including that most powerful and authoritative—father. Perhaps that is part of the reason Jesus’ earthly father, Joseph, plays such a small role. And the role he does play is not paterfamilias, but the one who does the will of God.

Luke is particularly adamant in his opposition to the family structure. As I said, in his gospel Jesus says, those who do not hate father and mother, sister and brother… cannot be my disciples. That seems awfully extreme, yet, given what is at stake, and the power of family, particularly in that day, perhaps an emotion that strong is necessary. Many teenagers go through a stage that seems much like "hate" toward parents and family. Is it not for the same reason, to gain the power and distance to break away? Multiply that many fold and you begin to see the enormous task Jesus had.

We are not talking here of enmity toward human beings, individuals, but rather toward the roles as father andmother with their special rights, expectations, and demands. Individuals are invited to take their place in the new community not with any special claim, but with loyalty to the new reality.

This is consistent what we see Jesus do in relation to his mother from the cross in the Gospel of John. Though Jesus’ mother had other biological sons, It is not them, but rather another disciple, the one Jesus loved, not a blood relative, of whom Jesus said, "Woman, here is your son." And to the disciple, "Here is your mother." "And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home."

The special claims of the family system that is enmeshed in upholding a hierarchical, unjust, unneighborly society is diametrically opposed to the claims of the new reign.

This can be seen in relation to children. Jesus clearly loved children as children. His care, tenderness and inclusion are unprecedented. But in the patriarchy, children become possessions. It is "my child" which allows me to ignore other children, as if they have nothing to do with me. If I am a person of means, I can lavish all upon "mine" and suppose that others have no claim on me. (Does that not describe our age as well.)? As well, seeing this as "my child," I can easily fall into making unreasonable demands. This child can be an extension of me, an instrument of my ambition. Those kinds of families can be dangerous places for children.

Let’s turn briefly to a couple of passages that mention marriage.

We read that text from Luke that is contained in Matthew and Mark as well which shows Jesus in a dispute with the Sadducees. This is the last in a line of disputes with Jerusalem authorities. The first two confrontations are with people who represent religious and secular authority. We could call them, Temple and Throne. Jesus abolishes their authority. There is one center of authority left, the Sadducees. They are the traditionalists, the party of the aristocracy, the family. Inheritance is of fundamental importance, for that is the way a family maintains its position through the passing generations. One way to do that was the custom of Levirate marriage: marriage to the widow of the elder brother in order to have children for him, to maintain the property and influence of the family.

The question here is not about marriage, but about resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in resurrection. They thought they could trap Jesus in this ridiculous problem brought about by seven marriages. Whose wife she would be in heaven? More precisely, to whom would she belong? Marriage was about ownership. Through her, sons are acquired who will inherit and perpetuate this particular family. If marriage is an indissoluble contract, then it too must be raised (if there were a heaven).

The answer, when you think about it, is extremely radical. It is that the institution of marriage and the family has no future in the reign of God. It is abolished in the resurrection. God abolishes the most fundamental institution in society! God abolishes this "ownership," this claim on another, altogether. The inbreaking of the reign of God means the abolition of every structure of domination: Temple, Throne, and Family.

But this should not be seen as only future. Luke goes on to state that the age of the resurrection already characterizes Jesus’ followers. They neither marry (males), nor are given in marriage (females). "This renounces a way of being in the world that seeks to secure one’s life by power ownership and domination, in order to rely on a divine reality that is as uncontrollable as resurrection from the dead." (Jennings)

The last text we will deal with from Jesus is one you may be familiar with. That is Jesus on divorce and remarriage. Ultimately this is quite consistent with what we have been saying.

This is in Mark 10:1-12 and also slightly different in Matthew 19:1-12. The story is set up by telling us that the Pharisees seek to test Jesus by asking him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus responds by saying that Moses allowed a man to divorce a woman (women had no power to divorce men). He says that Moses did this because of your "hardness of heart." Then he quotes both the first and second creation stories.

What it appears he really wants to do is quote the second creation story. A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one. But the second creation story has Eve in creation less than, and subservient to man. Whereas the first story he quotes, "God made them male and female." Who leaves the parents, and sets up a new union based on loyalty, desire, and delight? The man. Unlike marriage in Jesus day, when the man did not leave his parents and affect a new loyalty to his wife, his equal, based on affection, desire and delight but rather brought her into his parents’ home, continuing his obligation to his family of origin. She was not partner, equal, but property, under his father’s rule.

This saying on divorce is then a protection of the woman as much as anything, against a man putting her out when he gets tired of her, or when things are not going well. Though this text seems to go against Jesus repudiation of family elsewhere, here too the family of origin is left in favor of a relationship chosen in love and loyalty. That relationship describes the disciple’s relationship with Jesus, who is called, after all, the "bridegroom."

Some people use the Genesis passage to say that God ordained "one man and one woman" in marriage. Nothing in Genesis speaks of the formal union of marriage. We are talking conjugal relations here, with no negative notions of sexual desire and delight. God has created us with a natural desire to be together. Does that mean that only male/female can be "natural desire?" Not to me.

Even so, if this were to be taken as the inviolable model for the marriage relationship, then you would think that it would have been reflected in the Old Testament practice of marriage, or at least held up as the ideal. It is not! Men in the Old Testament could have many wives, in addition to concubines. As you have seen, in fact, it was law to take one’s brother’s widow as a wife, not divorcing the one(s) you have, but adding her as well.

This is certainly no basis upon which to base law in the 21^st Century. Neither is the New Testament model of marriage and family— the bastion of the patriarchy.

Lastly, we can very quickly see Paul’s view from 1 Corinthians 7 that was read this morning. He too is not so gung ho on the idea of marriage and the family. Why? For very much for the same reason as Jesus, though it appears less directly related to the abolition of patriarchy, but that one needs to be concerned with the things of God, of the new world, and marriage distracts one.

In general he believes it is better not to marry but that marriage is permissible and in some situations advisable. Not exactly an uncritical endorsement of marriage!

Notice two things. Paul assumes and respects sexuality. That is the reason for being married. Equally, the partners are to please each other. It is better not to be married, so that you can devote yourself fully to the new realm, but if your passions are aflame thus getting in your way, by all means marry.

What we need to be absolutely clear about is that the reason to get married is not in order to have children. It is to mutually satisfy one’s sexual needs. Sexuality here is not related to procreation. That may surprise you, given what the tradition has done with sexuality and the role of women. But there is only one place in all the New Testament where marriage, particularly the woman’s role, is to reproduce! That is in 1 Timothy 2. Most scholars agree that this is a non-Pauline letter. This passage is savagely misogynous— women cannot speak, teach, have authority, and are blamed entirely for the fall. So having children redeems them.

The notion of the sinfulness of sex, and that sex and marriage are only for procreation is in no way a New Testament idea! Rather, it comes with Aquinas. It became the basis of Catholic social teaching. One was either to be celibate, or have sex in marriage for the purpose of making babies.

This notion was never a part of Protestant teaching or understanding—until recently!

How often have you heard the argument that two people of the same gender should not be married, because only male and female could follow the model of a reproductive union?

For some, that may be a legitimate argument. But it is not a Biblical one.

It makes sense that Jesus was against the traditional family and family values of his day. It was the upholder, protector, of an unjust, unequal society where power was located in privileged male power groups of religion and government. The patriarchy was powerful and would do almost anything to preserve itself. It was also antithetical to the reign of heaven that Jesus was bringing and in which his disciples were participating.

You can make your own judgement about your marriage, partner, and family relationships. To what extend do they participate in the upholding of the old reign? Where do they support you in embracing Jesus and the world he intends?

I think the so-called "traditional family," family values, and what I see of the world view of many who are desperate to keep or return to it, does not embrace the world of justice, generosity and love to which Jesus calls us.

At any rate, they cannot use the Scriptures. They cannot use Jesus as their whipping boy. It appears, however, that like the patriarchy in any age, they will do almost anything to preserve their way.

Plymouth Home

Contact Doug Van Doren