2 minute read
For years I invested an obscene amount of time studying the biblical texts on marriage and sex. I sincerely hoped to emerge with a novel insight, crisp perspective, or strong conviction. No such luck, I’m afraid. To be clear, I didn’t deconstruct these biblical texts into progressive oblivion. It’s not that there’s nothing there, it’s just not there in the way we might wish. These diverse texts are mostly historical narratives, law codes, poetry, wisdom literature, and situationally specific letters. The Bible offers us no systematic theology of marriage and sex that’s monolithic and timeless.
What we’ve got is more like a flowing river than solid rock. The river never contains the same water twice. The water level rises and falls. Sometimes it overflows the banks, and occasionally the rivers overflows so much that its carves out a new course. To try another metaphor, the Bible’s eclectic portrayal of marriage and sex, which are not always related by the way, is like a song where the chorus (pretty much) remains the same-ish but the verses… and even the genre… keep changing while everyone wants to pretend it’s the same ol’ song they’ve been singing all along.
Polygamy is a fine example of this ambiguity. Deuteronomy contains Levirate marriage where the brother of a deceased man must marry his brother’s widow. It was intended as a social safety net to prevent family from becoming destitute, but there’s no exemption for current marriages. In other words, we’ve got a divinely-inspired code of law that, in certain cases, prescribes–not just describes–polygamy. This isn’t to deny a trajectory towards monogamy as the ethical ideal, but polygamy can’t be innately detrimental to human flourishing if God required it, right?
I’ve found cultural anthropology‘s insights about marriage to be exceedingly helpful in framing my demythologized theology. This field suggests that across cultures the institution exists to 1) express and regulate sexual behavior, 2) fulfill economic need for basic necessities, 3) create and perpetuate kinship groups, and 4) provide a stable familial structure in which to care for and enculturate children. To my mind, that minimalist schema checks out. It also aligns well with the evolving portrayal I see in Scripture. I’d speculate this is close to God’s original intention.
The original beatniks were a mixed bag when it came to marriage. Some had longtime marriages and others practiced serial monogamy through cycles of marriage and divorce. Some had long-term homosexual relationships decades before same-sex marriage was legalized and others enjoyed the perpetual single life. It’s hard to generalize about any beliefs or trends there. When it came to sex, however, it’s fair to say the Beat Generation was living the sexual revolution back in the ’50s. I wonder is if they explored the fascinating interaction of sexuality and spirituality.
