The Liturgical Background(to same sex marriages)

Excerpted from "Lawfully Joined" -- M.Div. Honors Thesis by Tobias Stanislas Haller, BSG

Copyright © 1997 Tobias S. Haller, BSG

Any attempt to craft a Blessing of Same-Sex Unions must engage a review of the history of the rite of marriage and the history of Same-Sex Blessings. We must look for a structural "shape" of marriage: some more or less constant pattern in the rite that can show us by contrast the unessential aspects present... (Oliver 216)

This section follows Juan Oliver's suggestion and begins with an examination of the marriage rites of the Episcopal Church, including key Scriptural allusions and citations embodied in them, with an eye to determine how closely the Scripture which informs the marriage rites relates to heterosexual marriage. A critique of the structure of the current Episcopal rite is offered. Finally, some of the classical rites for "blessing" same-sex relationships and the proliferating modern versions of "gay marriage" are reviewed. Out of this mix some signposts towards a liturgical theology of marriage will begin to emerge.

Changing structures and meanings in Episcopal marriage rites

Comparison of the Rites from 1662 through 1785/6 to 1979

Beginning on page 54 is an extensive and detailed "harmony" of the authorized marriage rites of the Episcopal Church (1789, 1892, 1928 and 1979), with the rootstock (the 1662 English rite), several branches (the 1785 King's Chapel version, and "Franklin's Prayer Book") and a few intermediate stems (the 1785/6, 1958, and 1970 proposals). NOTE: This appendix is not included as part of this excerpt.

The first thing to strike one in these rites is the great variation in language: scarcely a clause or a paragraph has remained untouched in the course of revision. What has remained constant may be taken to represent either "core" language, or totemic incantations (where the significance lies not in what is said but in that it is said) -- liturgical history provides examples of both. Second, one is struck by the massive ritual pruning between 1662 and 1785. About eighty percent of the Anglican rite was removed from the Episcopal, only a tiny fraction of which was replaced in the 1789 edition. Over the years since bits of the older rite have crept back in (and back out again) but the current rite has restored much of what was removed at the Revolution, and added some features -- with mixed results.

The formal movement towards the drastic 1785-1789 revision can be traced to the instigation of New England deputies whose Boston meeting of September 1785 proposed

That the Introduction to the Marriage Service, containing the reasons why matrimony was ordained, be omitted, from the words, "holy matrimony," to " therefore if any man can shew any just cause," &c... [and] that the words, "with my body I thee worship [...]" in giving the ring, be omitted. (McGarvey 57*)

These suggestions were included in the proposal at the first General Convention in 1785; the Convention moved deleting plighting and pledging troths, and the long exhortation after the blessing. (McGarvey 63*). Between 1785/6 and formal adoption in 1789/90 the only significant changes were the restoration of this short section of the opening charge:

which is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God. Into this holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.

and the reappearance of the betrothal language.

The changes proposed in 1785/86 are far more radical than the kinds of alterations made in other venues. Two examples are given for comparison: the King's Chapel rite, which made some quite progressive alterations -- and appears to be the only marriage liturgy to include Jesus' teaching that marriage is not a part of the world to come -- and "Franklin's" Prayerbook, which made some significant abridgments (the authors priding themselves, as the Preface states, on making no additions.)⁽¹⁾

The removal of the "ends" or "causes why marriage was instituted" is a striking change in 1785, and their reappearance, even in altered sequence, in 1979 is unfortunate, for reasons to be discussed at greater length on page 47 in connection with the concept of covenant.

Scriptural allusions and readings

More astounding than the 1785 changes in the opening exhortation is the fact that every Scriptural reference save that to Isaac and Rebecca, and the declaration from Matthew 19.6, was removed from the marriage rite: gone is any reference (even obliquely) to Genesis, to Cana, to Ephesians. Over the course of revision, various Scriptural passages or allusions were woven back into the text, which will be examined below. The wedding at Cana hardly needs comment: it is difficult to see what relevance this passage has to marriage in the Western tradition.⁽²⁾ The standard allusions to Genesis and Ephesians deserve greater attention, however.

"Instituted by God"

The commonplace that God "instituted" marriage is not born out by the narratives of Genesis. The most that can be said for Genesis 1 is that God instituted sex. It is not possible to read matrimony into the command "be fruitful and multiply" which God addresses to humankind unless one is willing to give the same weight to the same command addressed a few verses earlier to the birds and the fish. Similarly, Genesis 2 does not portray marriage, but a parable of the human need for companionship. While God appears in this passage in part as matchmaker (an observation made by Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof), there is hardly any consistent marriage doctrine to be derived from this passage except that human companionship is necessary, lasting, and brings about a change in the relationships a spouse has with their family of origin. We have already established (page 20) the multivalency of this passage in Jewish tradition. Westermann notes that while some have claimed the Genesis 2 passage to be about the establishment of monogamy, "it is not concerned with the foundation of any sort of institution, but with primeval event." (Westermann 232) Von Rad points out that men did not in fact, in ancient Israel, forsake their fathers and mothers to cleave to their wives: quite the contrary -- as a rule wives were taken into the husband's family.⁽³⁾ This story is about sexual union, not monogamy. (von Rad 85)

"A great mystery" of Ephesians 5

The marriage that Paul applied as a metaphor for the relation between Christ and the church was a marriage few would want to see reproduced today. It was based on inequality of the partners, submission of one, dominion of the other. This harked back to imagery from the Hebrew Scriptures in which God was husband (= Lord) and Israel his bride (or one of his brides -- God as a Middle Eastern potentate could have many brides, while the brides could only have one husband; see Ezekiel 23, for example. This is the root of the metaphorical connection between idolatry and sexual license that runs through so much of Hebrew legal, prophetic, and poetic literature: those who go after other gods are "adulterers" or fornicators.)

In our day, this model of marriage has been rejected, and a new one is beginning to emerge, based more on equal partnership. One of the positive contributions of same-sex marriage has been to help break down the notion of stereotyped sex-based roles of dominance and submission -- indeed, this may be what some who are invested in the old system of male privilege find most distressing and threatening. It may also be the case that the gradual equalization of marriage roles in contemporary society forms part of the underlying pressure towards same-sex marriage: there may be a synergy at work towards a new model of marriage that is, if anything, a better model for the relationship between Christ and the Church than the one advanced by Paul. This will be addressed at greater length in the discussion of covenant on page 47.

Marriage in the other passages from the current rite

Of the remaining passages in the current rite, only two deal directly with marriage: Tobit 8.5b-8, and Mark 10.6-9,13-16. All of the rest deal generically with love or fidelity, but are neither sexual in content, nor limited to heterosexuals. The readings from 1 Cor 13 and John 15.17 were commonly used in the same-sex rites documented by John Boswell (Boswell 1994:216) and occur in a number of the same-sex rites outlined below.

The reading from Song of Songs (8.6-7) is interesting chiefly in light of Rabbinic tradition: The Song of Songs Rabbah (Midrash) states (translation, Neusner 223)

"For love is as strong as death" -- as strong as death is the love with which Jonathan loved David: "And Jonathan loved him as his own soul." (1 Sam 18.1) "Jealousy is as cruel as the grave" -- the jealousy of Saul against David: "And Saul eyed David." (1 Sam 18.9) Another explanation: "Love is as strong as death" -- as strong as death is the love with which a man loves his wife: "Enjoy life with the wife whom you love" (Qoh 9.9) "Jealousy is as cruel as the grave" -- the jealousy that she causes in him and leads him to say to her, "Do no speak with such-and-so." If she goes and speaks with that man, forthwith: "The spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he is jealous on account of his wife." (Num 5.14)

It is ironic that one of the few uses of Song of Songs in the Episcopal liturgy should be a passage as suitable to a same-sex couple as to a heterosexual one. Indeed, the only other use in the BCP is in the proper Of a Monastic I. It is fascinating to see how a given text can be applied to marriage, a covenant relationship between two people of the same sex,⁽⁴⁾ and the memorial of a celibate.

This brief review of the language and scriptural allusions in the rites has not revealed the basic underlying structure of those rites. What has been revealed is that the scriptural passages are multivalent, and with very few exceptions as capable of application to same-sex marriage as to different-sex marriage (or to celibate commitment, for that matter). It is significant that the texts which most clearly address marriage in earlier rites (Ephesians, 1 Peter) have been dropped as no longer culturally adequate for use in marriage rites today. Given the fluidity of the surface language, an examination of the deeper structure of the marriage rites is in order.

The structure of the rites

Certain key elements have been part of the marriage rite since the Renaissance--the time at which the West⁽⁵⁾ finalized the church's control over marriage -- rendered definitive for Roman Catholics at Trent, and for the Church of England through Lord Hardwicke's Act of 1763. (Ervin 58,59) Both declared that the church made a marriage valid not by means of blessing but by witnessing the consent of the parties. Hardwicke's Act did not govern the church in the American colonies; and the provision added to the 1789 rite to allow marriage in a private house would not have been possible under Hardwicke. Moreover, Hardwicke was reversed even in England in 1836, when marriage at the registry office gained legal status, "thus in effect restoring the true and ancient principle that the consent of the parties, and not the purely disciplinary requirement of the nuptial blessing, determines the validity of the marriage." (Ervin 59)

An outline of the structure of the authorized rites from 1662 through to the present reveals a core structure, which has remained far more consistent than the verbal particulars until the latest revision.

Structures of the rites

The structure of the rite remained relatively unchanged until 1928, with the exception of the deletion of all following the 1662 solemn blessing. The 1979 rite, in addition to (optionally) restoring an extensive liturgical section to the post-blessing position, makes a number of other changes that effectively transform a relatively focused rite, in which actions follow close upon each other, into a sort of layer-cake. Whether this is seen as enrichment will depend on one's point of view. The basic pre-1979 order is

1) welcome, exhort

2) establish right to consent

3) ask passive consent of couple

4) present the bride

5) couple give active consent (vows) with liturgical act of hand-joining and ring-giving

6) pray for blessing

7) pronounce indissolubility

8) declare marriage, and finally

9) bless the marriage.

The 1979 rite makes these changes

3b) asks if the assembly if they will support the couple

4) makes giving of bride optional, or adds giving of groom

4b) adds Ministry of the Word

4c) adds optional blessing of ring before the vows (introduced in 1928)

5b) moves and reverses the declaration of marriage and pronouncement of indissolubility

5) adds long sequence of prayers, without particular reference to blessing

10) provides for optional eucharist after the peace

Several of these features seriously detract from the unity of the rite, and two of them are of questionable value, though it is possible to discern thoughtful and valuable intentions at work in their inclusion.

Asking the will of the assembly to support the couple comes at a point in the service at which analogous questions are asked in the Baptismal, Ordination, and Institution liturgies. Though the question and response simply promise support of the couple, the placement immediately after the consents of the couple is symbolically misleading, and highlights an ecclesial aspect of the service at the wrong point. Marriage is not ecclesial in its initiation, but in its ongoing life. At its beginning marriage is only between the couple. They are not becoming part of the congregation (Baptism) nor entering into a special relationship with it (Institution) nor is the active consent of the congregation required beyond the absence of impediments (Ordination). The essential character of marriage is the free consent of the individuals being married: anything that clouds that clarity at this or any other point in the service is out of place.

It is for this reason that the option to omit the "giving of the bride" is a positive development. The addition of the possible giving of the groom, which suggests sponsorship, is utterly out of place at this point. The spouses are, and must be seen as, speaking only and freely for themselves, sponsoring themselves (as the root of the word shows) and making a personal commitment to each other in God's presence.

If there is a desire for a note of "sponsorship" it is best established in a separate rite some time prior to marriage, as the 1996 CSSU rite suggests (see below). This restores the ancient separation of betrothal from marriage which has been conflated in our rite since the middle ages -- rather like the truncated catechumenate of the medieval and modern baptismal rites. In short, the congregation should be most involved in the period of discernment leading up to marriage and in support of the marriage after the wedding has taken place -- but the marriage itself deserves the liturgical clarity of an act of interpersonal commitment, thereby held, as it were, as a jewel in its setting.

If the note of sponsorship is moved (with the declaration of consent) to an earlier rite, the note of ongoing support from the congregation for the married life is still welcome. This is, admittedly, the purport of the text at hand; but its brevity and its structural placement taken together mitigate against the text conveying that meaning most effectively. A better means of establishing this support emerges in connection with the placement of the prayers in the 1979 rite.

The position of the Ministry of the Word in that rite mirrors the structure of the ordination rites, leading, as the ordination rites lead to consecration, directly to the solemnization of the vows, followed immediately and appropriately by the declaration of marriage. However, the solemn blessing is then unaccountably delayed by the insertion of a long sequence of prayers. These prayers would better be placed, as in the ordination rite, prior to the Ministry of the Word, at the position now occupied by the question concerning the support of the assembly. Ideally, these prayers could then be recast in litany form, and the congregation's participation would then convey their support far more eloquently than the current short question and answer, and could be phrased so as to remove any suggestion of "sponsorship" instead of ongoing support.⁽⁶⁾ This also would close the unaccountable gap between declaration of marriage and blessing upon marriage.

Finally, the blessing of the ring, which made its appearance in 1928, seems extraneous, rather like the "blessing" of the water used at the eucharist. It obscures the point that the "sign" of marriage is the couple themselves; it gives undue prominence to the Celebrant exactly at the point at which, liturgically speaking, she is completely unnecessary.⁽⁷⁾

This brief review of the structure of the Episcopal rites has already made some suggestions towards adaptation. An even greater adaptation, of course, would be to produce a rite capable of use by same-sex as well as different-sex couples, such as that suggested in the CSSU rite. We have already seen that much of the scriptural language is sex-neutral. The structure of the rite itself seems open to the possibility. What, if any, adaptations can be found in the tradition, or in the experiments at parallel rites now coming into existence, is the subject of the next section.

Same-sex rites: Purported and adopted

Having examined the marriage rites of the Episcopal Church, with a few anticipatory glances at current same-sex rites, I now will examine some of these rites in greater detail. As noted, the difficulty of laying out parallel texts is great even in rites as directly derivative as those used in the Episcopal Church's marriage liturgy; how much more difficult to do such a comparison of the various rites for "blessing unions" or same-sex marriage. Nonetheless, I will attempt to highlight similarities in structure and content, and certain key elements will be seen to emerge.

The case for "ancient rites" -- assessment of Boswell

First, note must be taken of the work John Boswell has done in bringing the "brother-making" rites of the Eastern church to wider attention. Boswell's work remains controversial, in part because careless reading (and his own admittedly ill-advised pre-publication talks) led many to assume he was making greater claims than he actually did. His primary claim was that, whatever the hierarchs may have intended, the "brother-making" rites came to be seen as, and were used as, "same-sex union" ceremonies, at least in some cases. Boswell was hardly the first to make this observation. Martin Smith, SSJE, noted in an Advent 1982 sermon (the year Boswell was beginning his work),

In the Orthodox Church there is a rich sacramental rite of blessing friends called bratotvornenie. An expert tells me it is admitted ruefully that devout homosexual partners have used this service to covenant their relationship. (Cowley 12)

Boswell documented as well the suppression of these rites, which only became necessary, from the church's perspective, because they were being "misunderstood." Whatever the intent of the framers of the rites, or the precise nature of the "misunderstandings" surrounding them, same-sex couples who took part in them, and the congregations who witnessed them, sometimes saw them as the equivalent of marriage, and there is no doubt that a sexual component "was a dimension of the relationship in many cases." (Stuhlman 89)

This is where a crucial concept in liturgical studies comes in: reception. Ultimately it does not matter what the theologians say a rite "means," they can only try to be as clear as possible about what they intend -- the "meaning" of the rite will take form in the minds of the assembly, and only there. The intention of the liturgist/theologian will always translate to meaning in the minds of the worshipers. This basic rule of communication theory has long been overlooked in the church, in spite of its experience and knowledge that the law of worship constitutes and establishes the law of belief.⁽⁸⁾

Boswell's strongest point along these lines involves the visual symbolism of the rites, where the greatest similarity with marriage rites lies.

The sight of a couple standing hand-in-hand at the altar, being joined and blessed by the priest, would last longer in imagination and memory than the precise wording of any ceremony, heard every now and then by congregants but not available in premodern societies with much lower rates of literacy and no printed books. The principle structural similarities between the ceremony of same-sex union and heterosexual nuptial offices were binding with a stole or veil, the imposition of crowns, the holding of a feast after the ceremony for family and friends, the making of circles around the altar, the use of a cross, occasionally the use of swords, and--virtually always--the joining of right hands. (Boswell 1994:206)

If the liturgists who crafted these rites did not want them to be seen as marriages, they were not counting on the power of symbols at their disposal.

Whatever flaws Boswell's work has,⁽⁹⁾ he is owed a debt for bringing much of this material to light, and providing original texts and translations for further study, adaptation, and use -- even if the use does not match the intent of the original authors.

Rites used for same-sex marriage

The following are outlines of some of the same-sex rites either in use or proposed. Scriptural citations are included, and a brief commentary on specific issues raised by the structures, prayers, and scriptures used follows each rite. General observations appear at the end of this section.

Early 14th century Serbian Slavonic (Boswell 1994:317)

- Entrance

- Joining of right hands on Gospel Book, cross in left hands

- Trisagion, Lord's Prayer, Hymn of the day

- Litany including prayers for couple

- Prayer for couple

- Prayer with reference to God who "fashioned humankind after thine image" and naming of paired saints

- Switching crosses and candles

- Psalm 68.26

- 1 Cor 12.27-31, 13.1-8

- Alleluia (Ps 112.1, 80.1)

- Gospel: John 17.1,18-26

- Peace and prayer

- Couple kiss Gospel book and each other

- Reception of communion by couple

- Couple led, hand in hand, around the sanctuary, singing Ps 80.14-15, 112.1, 133.1, Gloria patri

- Invocation of martyrs, Gloria patri

- Marian hymn

- Departure

Perhaps the most striking thing in this rite is the reference to Gen 1.27. The tendency of secondary theology to coopt this verse for heterosexual marriage makes its appearance in a same-sex rite (whether a marriage ceremony or not) welcome.

1980s Metropolitan Community Church "Service of Holy Union" (Eskridge 194ff)

- Welcome and exhortation

- Inquiry to assembly for impediments

- Charge to couple for impediments

- Consents ("so long as there is love")

- Hymn

- Exhortation with citation of Ruth 1.16-17

- Homily

- Exchange of vows written by couple

- Blessing and exchange of rings

- Declaration of union

- Solemn blessing

This rite closely follows the Episcopal rite of 1789 -- probably too closely. It even declares "holy union" to be "an honorable estate, instituted of God..." The close parallel renders the alteration of "as long as you both shall live" to "so long as there is love" all the more startling. This rewrite falls short the inherent unconditional quality of covenant (see below, page 47). The use of Ruth 1.16-17 becomes problematical in this light -- contrasting a pledge of permanent loyalty until death ("where you die, I die, there will I be buried") with what appears a subjective criterion.

These verses present another problem. Unlike the story of David and Jonathan, there is no hint in the story of Ruth and Naomi of anything other than personal devotion of a daughter-in-law to her mother-in-law. However, these verses represent one of the most beautiful statements of personal fidelity in Scripture.⁽¹⁰⁾ This may well be a case where knowledge of context will have to be set aside in favor of the words actually cited. Certainly other passages used at weddings (e.g., 1 Cor 13) are similarly "stretched."

1996 Celebration and Blessing of a Covenant in Love, Episcopal⁽¹¹⁾

- Introductory declaration of purpose to celebrate relationship

- Welcome to the couple

- Prayer for couple and congregation

- Declarations of consent

- Affirmation by the community

- Ministry of the Word: Song of Songs 3.1-4, John 15:9-17

- Exchange of vows with joined hands

- Blessing and exchange of symbols⁽¹²⁾

- Declaration of unity, prayer for light and love

- Prayers for the couple

- Blessing of couple

The pattern followed here is standard. The reading from Song 3.1-4 is suitable for this service for two men (even in a non-inclusive translation) since the gender of the one seeking "the beloved" is not identified. This passage was used by John of the Cross as an allegory for his own personal search for Christ.

1994 Honoring an Abiding Relationship and giving thanks, Episcopal

- Acclamation and hymn

- Welcome to congregation

- Litany, ending with prayer for blessing of couple

- Proclamation of the Word: Zephaniah 3.14-20; Psalm 23; 2 Cor 5.17-20; Luke 10:21-24

- Hymn (Love divine, all loves excelling)

- Prayer of thanksgiving

- Renewal of vows of commitment, love and trust, with joined hands

- Couple asks congregation for support in three-part litany

- Peace

- Holy Communion

- Postcommunion

- Blessing of whole congregation with couple standing in the midst

This rite (for two women) represents the single most interesting of the "handmade" rites collected here, and shows a remarkable liturgical sensitivity to a number of the deficiencies in the current marriage service described above. Passive consents are omitted -- though perhaps because this was an anniversary thanksgiving service. The placement of the litany at the beginning (as in the ordination rites) provides a prayerful entry into the ceremony, and sets a thanksgiving tone. The innovation of having the couple themselves ask the congregation for support after the renewal of vows, is so obvious and effective one wonders why it hasn't appeared more frequently. It seems quite natural to allow adults capable of making commitment to each other to ask the support of their extended family. Similarly, having the couple process to the midst of the congregation to receive and share in the solemn blessing is inspired.

The choice of readings shows considerable originality and careful thought as well. The 2 Cor 5 reading captures the theological import of marriage as sign of Christ's redemptive work making all things new.

1995 Celebration of 15th Anniversary and Blessing of Covenant, Episcopal

- Procession

- Opening exhortation

- Consent of couple

- Consent of congregation

- Ministry of the Word: Collect, Micah 4.1-3,6-8; 1 Cor 13.1-7,13; Anthem; Matt. 5:14-16

- Homily

- Exchange of vows

- Blessing and exchange of rings

- Declaration of unity and covenant; Matt 19.6

- Anthem

- Prayers for the couple

- Blessing of couple

- Peace

- Holy Communion

- Postcommunion

- Solemn blessing of couple

- Retiring procession

This rite is closely modeled on the BCP 1979. The opening exhortation states "the union of two persons in heart, body and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy, for the help and comfort given one another in adversity, and that their love may be a blessing to all whom they encounter." This variation is welcome. The note of justice and witness in the readings from Micah and Matthew provide a note of "the couple as inspiration to the community." This is welcome in light of the fact that many marriage prayers seem to look towards weakness and need for support rather than leadership and overflowing joy.

1995 Celebration and Blessing of Commitment, Episcopal

- Entrance hymn

- Welcome and explanation grounded in the Mandatum commandment

- Consents

- Question to congregation: will you pray and work for the honoring of all committed relationships?

- Ministry of the Word: Collect; reading from Maya Angelou; 1 Cor 13.1-13; John 17.1,18-26

- Homily

- Exchange of vows, hands joined

- Blessing or rings

- Exchange of rings

- Declaration of covenant; Matt 19.6

- Prayers (litany) for couple and the world

- Blessing of the couple

- Kiss of peace

- Holy Communion

- Postcommunion, Blessing, Dismissal

Again a standard structural form. The reference to the Mandatum in the opening welcome, and the question to the congregation placing the focus not on the specific couple but on all relationships enhance a communitarian theme.

1996 Celebration of Holy Eucharist with Blessing of Covenant of Holy Union, Episcopal

- Entrance, acclamation; Collect for Purity, Collect of Easter 7

- Reading: Luke 6.32-38

- Hymn (Ode to Joy)

- Gospel: Mark 12.28-34

- Homily

- Consent of couple

- Consent of congregation (double)

- Exchange of covenant with joined hands

- Blessing of rings

- Exchange of rings

- Prayers of the People (standard form), but beginning with petition for couple

- Blessing in berakhah form, with laying on of hands

- Peace

- Holy Communion

This form follows the 1979 standard closely, and was celebrated as part of a Sunday liturgy. Thus the prayers of the people were Form 1 with an added petition. This unfortunately highlights the gap between making of vows / blessing of couple. However, the use of a classic berakhah form of blessing, and the use of laying on of hands for the blessing is simple and eloquent (far more than some of the exotic imports suggested in the CSSU rite, which while having Eastern precedent bear less relevance in a Western church; see below.)

1996 Rite for the Celebration of Commitment to a Life Together, Episcopal (CSSU)

First part: Declaration of Intent (during Sunday Eucharist)

- Welcome, explanation

- Song of Praise, Collect, Readings of the day appointed

- Further explanation

- Couple states their intent to seek support and prayers

- Couple make passive consent in response to president

- President asks sponsors if they support the couple; they respond, "We will. Blessed be God who appears to us in their love."

- The president similarly queries the congregation, who respond as above.

- Prayers over the couple

- Peace, Offertory, Communion

Second part: Celebration of Commitment (During Sunday Eucharist)

- Welcome

- Song of Praise

- [Short form of Declaration of Consent only if long form not used earlier -- no consent of the congregation]

- Prayer for couple

- Readings (if not on Sunday)

- Song of Solomon 2.10-13,8.6-7; 1 Sam 18.1b,3, 20.16-17,42a; Ruth 1.16-17, Ecclesiastes 4.9-12

- Psalms 67, 85, 111, 127, 133.1-3, 149

- Rom 12.9-21; 1 Cor 3.1-13; Col 3.12b-16a, 1 John 4.7-12

- Matt 7.24-27; Luke 6.20-23; John 2.1-12a; John 15.9-17; John 17.1, 18-26

- Vows, with hands joined, expressed mutually (I give; I take) with response elicited from people: Blessed by God who appears to us in their love.

- Blessing and exchange of rings, with response of people

- Prayers of the people: litany covering standard petitions, including, but not ending with prayer for couple

- Optional ritual acts (joining hands on Gospel, crowning, anointing, procession around the altar, draping in veil or tying with cord) during which an anthem extolling famous couples and models of God's preservation

- Elaborate blessing of couple in form of a litany with president, deacon and people, with tripartite praises of God as source of life, Liberator of the world, and Renewer of the earth, ending with a blessing in the name of the living God, the Source, the Word, and the Spirit

- Peace, during which Ps 85.10,22 is sung

This rite is a frustrating mix of good ideas and wrong turns. Already noted is the wise separation of the declaration of consent and its placement in a separate service. The mutual expression of the vows is a thoughtful innovation, emphasizing the mutuality of gift and reception. The problem of the position of the prayers of the people has been noted -- it is exacerbated here because the service is intended for use on a Sunday.

A major weakness of this rite, perhaps overcompensating for the era in which marriages were family rather than church affairs -- much like Baptism before the current Prayer Book revision -- is the emphasis on the congregation at inappropriate moments in the rite, and to an inappropriate extent. Marriage, unlike Baptism, does not admit one to the ecclesial community, so the role of the community is different in marriage than in Baptism. I have noted above the elements of sponsorship and support, and these are adequately expressed at other points in the rite without the repeated exclamations during the vows and at the solemn blessing -- these are moments that belong to the couple, and the most appropriate liturgical mode of participation by the assembly at these points would be silent attention.⁽¹³⁾ The constant interruption by the deacon and the congregation might well be perceived as annoying.

Moreover, the form of the exclamation, "Blessed be God who appears to us in their love," appears to stem, per the theological rationale in the Consultation report, from the desire to ground the rite in the doctrine of the Trinity. This is simply a mistake. Marriage isn't about the Trinity.⁽¹⁴⁾ It is about the Incarnation: it is an image of the primal gift of the self-above-all to the other who becomes the body of that self -- kenosis and pleroma all in one.

One advantage of same-sex marriage over different-sex marriage is that there is no "natural" role assignment based on stereotypes of male = Christ and female = "the church." Each partner can represent the kenotic Lord to the other, bearing each others burdens, sharing each others joys. More will be said on this in the section on covenant, page 47.

Concluding comments

The outlines of rites collected here show that the essential elements of marriage have remained fairly constant. The major issue becomes how to place the elements in such a way as to focus attention on what the couple are doing in the midst of the church gathered in prayer and thanksgiving. As I have noted, it is the added role for the congregation (beginning in 1979) that creates the greatest difficulties and opportunities for breaking the pattern or rhythm of the rite. Several suggestions have emerged in the discussion of rites proposed and performed over the last few years. The next years may bring refinement and clarity, and ultimately, blessing upon the church and those who are nourished in her.

"Blessing" as a pointer towards a theology of marriage

On the other hand, the church can continue on its way as if nothing has happened. It did this with Galileo and Darwin with unhappy results. It appears that the church has several options (in addition to doing nothing):

The church could decide that it has erred in getting involved with marriage at all. Marriage existed as social institution long before the church

became rather reluctantly involved as a stabilizing witness. There is nothing to prevent the church desacramentalizing marriage in the same way it did the subdiaconate -- or, in the Reformation churches, ceased to recognize religious vows, and dispensed with clerical celibacy.

The church could simply add same-sex marriage (or blessing of same-sex unions) with appropriately crafted rites of no greater theological depth than the ones currently used for different-sex marriage.

Or the church could seize this opportunity to reevaluate and redeem a struggling institution, seek new forms, images, and vitality for marriage, and focus on what it as church brings to the marriage: blessing and ecclesial community.

In this final portion of my study I will seek to chart out a course for carrying the third option forward -- an option already well under way through the work of the CSSU. Since the church's only unique faculty in marriage is in conferring its blessing, this is the fulcrum point with which I will attempt to leverage a model of marriage that is both flexible and inclusive for both same- and different-sex couples, though perhaps celebrated less often, and with a greater degree of commitment.

What is blessing?

The question of what blessing is is open; it is a liturgical phenomenon for which the church has yet to develop a clear theology. However, the following can be observed:

There are three basic types of blessing, which I will call benediction, purification, and sanctification. These three forms of blessing have roots in Jewish worship, under the root-forms of brkh, kpr or hr, and kdš, commonly expressed in such rites and prayers as the many berakhoth, the ritual of Yom Kippur, and the marriage agreement kiddushin. In many of the church's "blessings" these types are mixed,⁽¹⁵⁾ though a careful analysis of the rites can tease the strands apart.

Benediction is the common form of blessing in Jewish prayers from the Rabbinic period on, and it is God, rather than the person or the gift, that is most often blessed; "Blessed art thou O Lord, etc., who givest us X so that we may Y." The primary note is thanksgiving. The Eucharist may well derive its characteristic shape from this type of blessing, in particular the birkat hammazon that ended meals. (Talley 1976)

Purification is a very ancient form of blessing, with deep psychological roots. It is tied up with taboo and notions of ritual cleanness. It is also related to exorcism. This kind of blessing has a long association with sexuality. (Oliver 221) Many of the cleansing rituals of the Hebrew law revolve around seminal and menstrual emissions (Lev 15.32-33), and a rite of purification was required after sexual intercourse (Lev 15.18). The primary notes are cleansing and atonement. Baptism, even today, retains clear elements of this ancient blessing-mode in language of cleansing from sin. (BCP 307)

Sanctification "makes the common holy" and sets it apart (a primary note in the Jewish kiddushin or betrothal -- see Bokser 166). Sanctification imparts a special condition to some object, place, or person. Unlike purification, which removes a negative, sanctification adds a positive, with a sense of dedication to some particular holy end. In Gen 2.3 the Sabbath is both blessed (brk) and hallowed (kdš) by God. The primary note in sanctification is holiness. Various rites contain elements of sanctification of things (baptismal water, eucharistic elements, altars and fonts), places (dedication of a church), or people (Baptism, ordination).

This closer look at blessing can help articulate (and some day perhaps solve) two of the knotty problems with which the current Episcopal marriage rite, and several of the proposed same-sex or unified rites present us.

The minister of blessing has traditionally been a priest -- at least in the blessing of persons.⁽¹⁶⁾ This is emphasized in the current marriage rite in the permission for a deacon to officiate at a marriage and omit the nuptial blessing. However, this provision can only create confusion -- is such a marriage a "church marriage" or a civil marriage?

Another major problem with which our current rite faces us is the provision for marriage in which one of the parties is not a Christian. Is such a marriage a "Christian marriage?" We have already noted the canonical difficulties above, on page 25. But this option also creates liturgical/theological difficulties. If marriage signifies the union of Christ and the church, how can it do so if one of the parties in the marriage is not a member of that church? Carol Benedict†, in his presentation on Same-Sex Unions (20-22), appears to lose sight of this fact in his enthusiasm to push for a more ecclesial understanding of marriage. One possible way out of this dilemma is to suggest that the baptized party "sanctifies" the unbaptized -- an idea that Paul suggested in 1 Cor 7.14 (though referring to persons married before baptism). This may also help answer the question of the deacon just considered: if a lay baptized person can baptize, and a lay baptized person can sanctify a spouse, why should the sanctification of the couple by a deacon be impermissible? Who, in fact, is doing the sanctifying?

This takes us to a very basic question: who blesses, the priest, or God? And when a priest bids the blessing (for the language of the blessing makes it clear that is what is happening) is the priest doing so in se or as the president of the assembly? Eucharistic theology has in recent years shifted focus from the priestly celebrant to the priestly people with the priest as president. Given the long tradition that it is the couple who are the ministers of the rite, and that by Western tradition the nuptial blessing (originating in a blessing of the bride alone, Roman Catholic practice until Vatican II) is optional, it seems that the specific reliance upon sacerdotal rather than presidential blessing may represent a hangover of a totem/taboo modality that is more connected with purification than sanctification.

The decriminalization of sex

The connection of impurity with sex -- going back to prehistoric times, and linked (in the West) with original sin through the controversy between Saint Augustine and the Pelagians -- has deformed human society and individual human lives ever since. It is time for the church resolutely to put behind it all suggestion of some inherent impurity in sex that needs to be exorcised before sanctification can take place.

The traditional myth of marriage makes the claim that the church's blessing of marriage renders licit something (sex) that without the church's blessing would be sinful. However, this fails to meet the evidence of human experience and the biblical witness.

Long before the church blessed marriage, the inappropriateness of "fornication"⁽¹⁷⁾ was established; but the marriage of which Saint Paul speaks when he says (1 Cor 7.9) "it is better to marry than to burn" is not church marriage; there was no "church marriage" in the New Testament period; all marriage at that period was civil or cultural (i.e., what we would call "common law") marriage. Full appreciation of the fact that the church's blessing need not be required to "render sex licit" offers a number of possibilities. The church could get out of the "marrying business" as agent of the state in witnessing civil marriage. The church would reserve that which it alone bestows -- benediction and the forum for sanctification -- to those for whom ecclesial marriage is a vocation. Moreover, the church could begin to develop, as Christopher Webber has suggested, a formational approach towards marriage. (Webber 207-222) Marriage would then have its own novitiate (equivalent to the baptismal catechumenate) in which a couple could grow before deciding to make the sacramental commitment to a life together.

This is not so radical as it might at first appear. The distinction between civil and church marriage has existed for centuries in this country, and since the nineteenth century in England. For those uncomfortable with a common-law novitiate, civil marriage could always be undertaken and experienced for a period of time before seeking the church's benediction and sanctification in the sacramental rite. This raises the question of what a sacrament is, and how marriage as a way of life relates to it.

Is marriage a sacrament or a way of life--or both?

We have already established that, following the classic Roman pattern, consent, not consummation (the Northern European view) or the church's blessing, makes the marriage. However, the church's blessing in some sense makes a marriage Christian. I suggest that the debate over whether (or in what way) marriage is a sacrament, and at what point the marriage is "made" is misplaced, and resembles the debates over the "moment of consecration" in the Eucharistic rite.

What are sacraments?

The Book of Common Prayer (857f) defines sacraments narrowly: "The sacraments are outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace, given by Christ as sure and certain means by which we receive that grace." Grace is further defined as "God's favor towards us, unearned and undeserved; by grace God forgives our sins, enlightens our minds, stirs our hearts, and strengthens our wills."

Under these definitions marriage hardly appears at first glance to be a sacrament:

the outward and visible signs (joining of hands, exchange of rings as symbolic of consent and vows) are not universally observed or "ordained by God," as Article XXV puts it;

there is no indication of marriage having been "given by Christ" -- it could hardly be so given if it was also "instituted by God in the time of man's innocency...";

while the marriage service includes prayers for God's favor, it does not appear that marriage in itself is a means of that favor's transmission. Marriage, as Peter Lombard (whom the Reformers followed on this) saw it, was a sign of grace rather than a cause or means of grace. (Lawler 61) "The reluctance of the BCP to entitle it a Sacrament (though it is so called in the Homilies...) arises from the same hesitation of theologians to recognize as such a rite which did not appear to be manifestly productive of grace." (Cross 873)

Rite and estate

These criticisms reflect the concerns and controversies of the Reformation. The Reformers wished to give the name "sacrament" only to those rites that were productive, and focused on the performance of the rite as a grace-producing appliance. Paradoxically, at the same time they also emphasized the semiotic aspect even of the dominical sacraments, and renewed the understanding that the importance of the sacraments does not lie in the sacraments themselves, but in that towards which they point -- this was the heart of the debate over transubstantiation and eucharistic devotions. The third element in sacraments or sacramental rites lay in the sense in which they marked an entry into an estate as well as serving as the act by which that estate was entered. Baptism displays this liminal / transitional quality most clearly: it is a one-time rite that marks the entry into the baptized life. Ordination also bears this quality.

Granting the deficiency of marriage as "grace-producing," the two remaining elements that can be termed "sacramental" if not "sacraments" (except in Lombard's significatory sense) remain true of marriage. Marriage is both a one-time rite and a processional "state of life" (Article XXV) -- it is not so much a means of grace as an opportunity for grace, or, to use Byron Stuhlman's felicitous phrase, an occasion of grace -- and it is the entry to a life that can be filled with grace by God's free gift, not simply as a one-time response to a specific act of piety. In this sense, Christian marriage is both a sacramental sign and a way of life. But what is it a sacramental sign of?

Of what is marriage sacramental?

The reluctance of Christian authors writing on the subject of marriage to cite Jesus' only specific comment on marriage (as opposed to divorce) has been noted (see page 22). This reticence is tragic: for it is in Jesus' teaching in Luke 20.34 ("those who attain to the resurrection do not marry") that a better understanding of what marriage -- and all the sacraments -- signify can be found.

There is, Jesus assures us, no marriage in the life of the resurrection. But neither is there Baptism or the Eucharist. What we are to experience in the resurrection is that towards which Baptism and the Eucharist and Marriage all point: freedom, union, fidelity, and participation in the divine life. In this sense the church itself is a sacrament of the kingdom of God, a bride in the process of preparing for her wedding.

In a time of betrayal, marriage can be a sacramental sign of commitment. Just as Jesus' celibacy was an eschatological sign in an era when marriage was the norm, so faithful marriage can be an eschatological sign in an era when transient and casual relationships (that falsely usurp the name of marriage) are the norm. Same-sex marriage offers a way for all marriage to discover its power as such a sign, to be more than the blessing of a cultural norm, by shattering the last taboo, by tearing down the last of the three dualities Paul promised would be destroyed in Christ: the racist dualism of Jew and Gentile, the social dualism of slave and free, and the sexual dualism of male and female.

For marriage to take on the function of eschatological sign will mean some considerable reevaluation of marriage practice in the church, some of it difficult, much of it painful. Same-sex marriage will call the church to place even higher standards on what is expected of those who marry with the church's blessing. For the traditional "ends" or "purposes" of marriage will no longer be adequate, in whatever order they are placed. As long as the marital relationship is seen in terms of a "marriage debt" or the jus ad corpus, "the right to the use of the body of the spouse" (Webber 100) -- standard concepts of the essence of marriage in the middle ages and not uncommon today, though going by different names -- marriage will be a matter of commerce rather than a sign of the kenotic self-giving of Christ. So long as marriage is seen in terms of ends, as a means achieve to those ends; so long as marriage is seen as something with a purpose, marriage will be cursed with the nature of contract, rather than blessed with the freedom of covenant.

The role of "covenant" in a marriage theology

If love depends on some thing, and the thing passes away, the love passes away too; but if it does not depend on some thing it will never pass away. Which love depended on some thing? This was the love of Amnon and Tamar. And which did not depend on some thing? This was the love of David and Jonathan. (Mishnah Avot 5.16)

Covenant is -- at its purest⁽¹⁸⁾ -- exactly that sort of living and loving that we would hope marriage to be: it is not based on any thing except the gift of the self to "the other." Covenant, unlike contract, is not based on a quid pro quo that looks for goods, results, ends, intentions or purposes, but on a promise to be faithful -- to love, honor and cherish, for better, for worse, until death. It is not enough to prioritize or rejuggle the order of goods, ends, or purposes, as does the current Episcopal rite -- following the momentous reevaluation of the ends of marriage begun by Pius XI and continued (not without controversy) by Vatican II, and the Lambeth pronouncements of the mid-century and later.⁽¹⁹⁾ The problem isn't with the order of the ends but in having ends at all: the supralapsarian bliss of Adam and Eve (in Genesis 2, as opposed to Genesis 1) lies simply and solely in their unity, not their productivity: they find their fulfillment in each other. For this reason, all reference to ends or purposes of marriage should be removed from the rite (as the Episcopal Church did until 1970).

The question of complementarity

It will be asked at this point if a person of the same sex can be an appropriate "other." Some who oppose same-sex marriage lay great store on the supposed "complementarity" of the sexes (e.g. Stott 14). But such a view "fails to recognize persons of the same gender as distinct other persons" and is

based on a truncated human development for both men and women in which both must remain "half" people who need the other "half" in order to be "whole." (Ruether 24)

As I have shown in my response to Bishop Fairfield's dissent from the Righter trial decision, such a notion is both illusory and potentially (and actually) dehumanizing, especially to women. People are not "incomplete" if unmarried, and each individual fully represents the image of God (Haller 1996:17).⁽²⁰⁾ Ultimately "complementarity" is based on a theology of deficiency rather than abundance.

The lesson of Genesis 2 is not that the union of spouses makes them "human," but that it fulfills the human need for companionship. God allows Adam a subjective response in providing the gift of a "suitable" mate -- and Adam finds the human rather than the animal to be suitable: it is Eve's likeness to him (bone and flesh of his bones and flesh) not her alleged "complementarity" that makes her his suitable companion. This same subjective reception of a suitable partner is necessary in order for consent -- and marriage -- to be fully realized.⁽²¹⁾

Who is my neighbor?

It is forbidden for a person to betroth a woman until he sees her, lest he find something repulsive in her and she will become loathsome to him, whereas the All Merciful One ordained: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Lev 19.18) bKiddushin 41a

It might seem odd that the rabbis applied this Levitical command to marriage. However, the Hebrew word rea often has erotic and amatory overtones, though its range covers everything from simply "other" through neighbor, friend, "mate" (in every sense of the word) and love-partner. This word and its derivative form rayah are used throughout the Song of Songs for the most intimate and explicitly sexual relationships; moreover, the latter form is the modern Hebrew word for "wife." (Bokser 171) The lovers in the Song of Songs find their ends and reasons to exist in each other ("my beloved is mine and I am his," 2.16, 6.3) -- and this mutual self-giving is not dependent on their sexual dimorphism.

Discomfort with the overlap of friendship and erotic love is common. Some have denied the possibility or the wisdom of such an overlap. For example, one of the most glaring flaws in the English Bishops' statement on sexuality lies in their refusal to recognize or account for the overlap except to dismiss it dogmatically. While acknowledging the wide range of friend and neighbor in former times, they specifically omit the relevant biblical witness to the erotic element in the Song of Songs, and see sex as simply having "no place in friendship." (IHS §3.12-3.14) While it might well be true that sex has no place in a causal friendship, doesn't friendship have a place in a marital relationship? The effort to divorce these elements of human companionship and togetherness into discrete categories fails to recognize the complexity of human relationships, and may lead to an impoverishment of conjugal life.

One other couple in Hebrew Scripture, in addition to the bride and bridegroom of the Song of Songs, are described as having loved with complete selflessness and self-giving: Jonathan loved David⁽²²⁾ "as his very self," (1 Sam 18.1-4) his nepheš -- another word with a wide range of meanings, translated as soul, self or body, the latter in its complete range of meanings from physical body (= corpse) to person as in "somebody."

Boswell is incorrect in his statement that this text has "no parallel" except in the most limited sense of verbal equivalence. (Boswell 1994:137n) The soul (nepheš) is used elsewhere in connection with amatory and erotic affection (Gen 34.3,8). For our purposes the most significant parallel is the Pauline language in Ephesians -- the classic text for marriage as sacrament -- describing the intimate self-giving and self-sacrifice of Christ and the church, and husband and wife, echoing Lev 19.18 and prefiguring the passage from bKiddushin cited above:

In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church. (Eph 5.28-29)

It is this partnership of self with other to such a degree that selfhood and otherness is overcome for which marriage is a sacrament and sign. And the sex of the partners is irrelevant to its achievement.

Concluding reflection

There is no doubt that changing the shape of marriage to accommodate persons of the same sex will change the shape of the church. Changing the symbols of our worship can make powerful changes in our lives -- what kind of shifts in theology and ecclesiology took place in concert with the return of the chalice to the laity, or the movement from eucharistic loaf to individualized hosts and back again? What is the difference between the dramatic immersion of adults in ancient baptismal rites compared with the parsimonious dripping across the brow of an infant held over a teacup on a stick?

Same-sex marriage will drive the church to reconsider all of the mixed messages its current marriage rite has been communicating: women (or men) still "given away"; a list of "purposes" laid on as duties where there should be only gift; a bundle of proof-texts barely relevant to the rite at hand -- all of this will find itself crumbling as the true foundation of marriage emerges: the consent of two human beings to present themselves to each other in perfect freedom and devotion, as perfect gift; the promise to remain in that relationship unconditionally; and the blessing of the church bestowed in, with, and through all its members. All of this may help to restore the primal reality towards which this sacrament, and all sacraments ultimately point: the love of God in Christ.

We have come very far from the notion of marriage as a "remedy for fornication." We are on the boundaries of a new country, a strange country, where unexpected things are likely to happen. But, in the words of W.H. Auden, now enshrined in Hymn 463 of the Episcopal Church's Hymnal 1979: "at your marriage all its occasions shall dance for joy." (For the Time Being, 1941-2)

1. Franklin stated in correspondence that he worked only on the Catechism and the Psalter at Francis Dashwood, Lord Le Despencer's request, when he was unable to complete the work. (Hatchett 35) Only three extant copies of this volume appear to survive. The copy in the Morgan Library, which I consulted, and from which the rite is transcribed, contains a note in the flyleaf stating Franklin to have been the author of the Preface as well. The Preface states, "The form of solemnization of Matrimony is often abbreviated by the officiating Minister at his discretion. We have selected what appear to us the material parts, and which, we humbly hope, will be deemed sufficient." The Morgan Library copy bears the following note in Bishop William White's hand:

This Book was presented to me in y^e year 1785, while y^e Liturgy was under Review by M^rs Sarah Bache, by Direction of her Father, D^r Benj.ⁿ Franklin; who with Lord Le De Spenser, she said, were y^e Framers of it. WW.

2. It should be noted, however, that in the Eastern tradition this gospel is used to link marriage to the sacraments of baptism and eucharist, symbolized by the water an wine. This sort of typology is not likely to resonate with a contemporary congregation.

3. The earliest concept of Hebrew marriage lies in this definitive act of a man "taking" a woman to his home. It is interesting to note in passing: "Saul took him [David] that day and would not let him return to his father's house." 1 Sam 18.2.

4. This much at least can be said of David and Jonathan.

5. For reasons explained in the Appendix (page 53) this paper focuses on the Western marriage tradition.

6. See also, below, the 1994 Honoring an Abiding Relationship, in which the couple themselves ask for the congregation's support in a short three-part litany following the exchange of vows, leading into the peace.

7. It is amusing to note that this is the point at which the "accustomed duty" for the Priest and Clerk was laid "upon the book" with the ring in the 1559 and 1662 rites.

8. This principle, enunciated by Prosper of Aquitaine in the fifth century has received renewed attention in recent years in the work of Odo Casel and Aidan Kavanagh. See Kavanagh 90ff for a carefully reasoned and balanced discussion.

9. Boswell's greatest weakness lies in the fact that he is working in an area outside his primary specialty. He is an historian, not a liturgist. He also is not fully familiar with Old Testament criticism. For example, he appears to be unaware that the composition of Leviticus and Deuteronomy postdates the folkloric material in 1 Samuel. (Boswell 1994:136n)

10. I disagree with Boswell's contention that the Hebrew original is "less memorable and dramatic" than the KJV. (Boswell 1994:138) I find the power of the Hebrew verse at this point, with its incredible economy of language, almost unbearably poignant.

11. This rite was loosely adapted from the New Zealand Prayer Book.

12. The diocesan bishop allowed the service to proceed on the grounds that the rings were not referred to as such in the rite.

13. Word-oriented liturgists tend to forget silent attention.

14. Augustine explicitly rejected this connection in De Trinitate XII.5-6. See also Haller 1996:17.

15. In both Jewish and Christian blessing-modes there is considerable overlap. See TDOT on brk for the full range of meanings, for example. All four of these roots occur with considerable frequency in the Hebrew Scripture.

It will also be noticed that while Christians normally bless in the name of the Trinity, in the prayer language of various blessings there is a certain "economic attraction" of benediction to the Father, purification to the Son, and sanctification to the Spirit.

16. The BCP has provision for a lay person to perform the blessing of palms on Passion Sunday. The Jewish berakhoth are used by the laity, with the exception of the Aaronic Blessing, no doubt due to its specific connection with the Name of God. (Num 6.27) The berakhoth inform and infuse all of life in giving thanks for it.

17. It is not always clear whether (and if ever, when) porneia refers to "sex outside of marriage" instead of "resort to prostitutes." Given the prevailing common law view of marriage, most biblical "fornication" probably refers to prostitution, which is certainly sex outside of marriage. However, Paul implies that by sleeping with a prostitute a man has to some extent "married" her -- that is, some form of union is created as the man and prostitute become "one flesh." (1 Cor 6.16)

18. Covenant can, naturally, blur into contract. As with blessing, I am overstating the distinction to some extent in order to develop a more precise meaning.

19. See Lawler 65-72. Pius, in Casti Connubi of 1930 for the first time since Augustine articulated that mutual love between the partners could be "the chief reason and purpose of marriage, if marriage be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof." Nonetheless, Pius remained firm on the question of birth control as frustrating the natural end of marriage. The most significant Vatican II statement is in Gaudium et Spes, where marriage is "a conjugal covenant of irrevocable personal consent" which, even in the absence of procreation "retains its character of being a whole manner and communion of life." (48, 50)

20. It must be acknowledged that there is a rabbinic tradition which holds that a single man is "incomplete" -- this constitutes part of the opposition to celibacy described above (page 20). In this aspect of Jewish teaching, "the telos of marriage is a return to the condition of completeness or even of imago dei in the act of marriage that reconstructs the Divine Image in which the original androgyne was created." (Boyarin 46) This echoes a tradition also articulated in Aristophanes' address in Plato's Symposium. However, it is not consistently applied even within Genesis (9.6): one need not kill a married couple to deface the image of God. From a Christian perspective, the dignity of each human being in the image of Christ (who is the image of God) is more important. Marriage is a union of two in a community of fellowship. Moreover, this notion of the "man's" incompleteness (this is the usual phraseology) reduces the woman to an accessory or stopgap to "complete" the male: an altogether unsatisfactory anthropology.

21. According to a 1970 decision of the Roman Rota, highest marriage tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church, "Where marital love was lacking, either the consent is not free, or it is not internal, or it excludes or limits the object which must be integral to have a valid marriage... Lack of marital love is the same as lack of consent." (Lawler 20) This decision was reached in order to provide a broader basis for issuing annulments.

22. It is beyond the scope of this paper to explore in depth the quality of this relationship beyond noting, as the rabbis did, its exemplary quality. The question of whether it contained an erotic component is open. That many say introducing a sexual component somehow trivializes the relationship is indicative of the problems some have with sexuality. I have already noted a number of the features that suggest a sexual component in the relationship(Haller 1994): the bowdlerization of David's lament over Jonathan in the Old Latin and Vulgate versions; the "love-at-first-sight" quality of the initial meeting; the nuptial imagery of 1 Sam 18:1-4. Other points include the verbatim parallel between Song of Songs 7.11 and 1 Sam 20.11; and the fact that the Hebrew becomes "corrupt" precisely at the point where a sexual incident might most likely have occurred. (1 Sam 20.41) "Every time the reader seems to get too close to understanding the more intimate details of David and Jonathan's relationship, or the contents of their mysterious 'Lord's covenant,' the text becomes suddenly unintelligible." (Culbertson 86)