At Zolder50, we've recently been studying Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matthew, chapters 5-7) -- and in particular, over the last month, we've been studying Jesus' directives on sexuality, marriage, and divorce. If that wasn't enough information on the topic, our home group has been studying -- in a separate study -- the book of 1 Corinthians, and it just so happened that yesterday evening was a discussion about marriage and sexuality, from the 7th chapter of the book. Earlier this year, on this blog, I also spent some time studying out the issue of Sexuality and Spirituality... and I've definitely been challenged to closely consider some of the complex issues relating to sexuality and relationships in our culture today. Over the last couple of weeks, I've been chewing on one question in particular:

Is there room in the community of Christ for (non-sexual) same-sex covenant relationships?

I still haven't completely settled my own mind on these issues, but I guess I'm just asking: Do we as Christians need to be opposed to same-sex civil unions -- perhaps as a means of protecting ourselves from treading into dangerous regions of the slippery slope leading to unabashed worldliness? Or do we need to get creative when it comes to making allowances for our Christian brothers and sisters desiring to strive for lives of celibacy? I've been wondering about this a lot lately...

Now, I'm not naive. I realize that the vast majority (if not the entirety) of those choosing for civil unions in the Netherlands (or advocating for acceptance of civil unions or "gay marriage" in the USA or other parts of the world) are (homo-)sexually active. And I honestly don't know how successfully we could ever divorce the idea of sex from covenant relationships (particularly those originally instituted to mimic marriage). But could it be worthwhile to try to walk this fine line?

The rise of homosexuality in Western culture is truly remarkable. And while I believe that this certainly has something to do with our culture's idolization of Eros -- I also happen to believe that it's about much more than sex (I might even dare to say that the sexual aspect of homosexuality is a relatively small part of the equation). From my experience, it seems like some of the biggest felt needs of the homosexual community are belonging, acceptance, companionship, and family (I should also note that this likely holds true for all people who don't fit into the "standard" mold of the "married-with-children" crowd)... I suspect that a lot of it comes down to questions like, "Who will I spend Christmas with? Or New Year's Eve? Or Valentine's Day?" "Who will take care of me in my old age?" "How am I ever going to travel to see the Great Wall of China or the grasslands of Africa or the quays of Paris -- if I don't have a traveling companion?" Or perhaps a bit more macabre: "Who will organize my funeral?" "To whom will I pass along my family heirlooms?" Maybe it's offensive for me (one of the "married-with-children" crowd) to speculate so broadly about this, but I genuinely wonder...

And while I certainly believe that we need to encourage each other to cast down our idols and find hope from its True Source, I wonder if we could still benefit from considering ways to care for the practical needs of people within our community who choose to embrace a life of singleness.

My thinking here is not so dissimilar to the way that the Catholic church has historically taken care of those who have taken vows of celibacy (i.e. priests and nuns). Certain orders of sisters or brothers have had group living arrangements, group activities, group missions (i.e. taking care of orphans, feeding the poor)... Perhaps such a concept needs to be revisited for post-"Church-Era," post-modern, Western society... Yes, maybe establishing new "orders" of brothers and/or sisters is, in fact, the way to go. Adapt the antiquated, not-so-cool ways of dressing, naming, and stereotyping these groups of people (the idea of "becoming a nun" or "becoming a priest" may just have too much accumulated cultural baggage)... And voila! A lot of those most urgent felt needs and most pressing questions about life as a single person have answers! But then again, maybe -- in a more post-modern, decentralized, "organic," anti-institutional, missional ministry- (and life-) context -- maybe it makes sense to think about covenant friendships and civil unions...

There is some biblical precedent for this. 1 Samuel 18 and 20 talk about the covenant friendship between David and Jonathan, which was solemnly and repeatedly sworn in the presence of God and each other. (Some have suggested that David and Jonathan were, in fact, homosexual -- though the Hebrew verbs chosen for their "love" and other factors surrounding their relationship make this highly unlikely, in my mind). The closest biblical parallel to David and Jonathan's relationship (at least, etymologically-speaking, according to the commentaries I've referenced) would be the relationship between Jacob and his son Benjamin (Genesis 44:30 uses some of the same terminology to describe how Jacob's "life is closely bound up with (Benjamin's) life") -- but my mind also wanders to relationships like Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1:15-22) and Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego's less formal partnership to support each other through times of testing (Daniel 1:6-20). Even so, I'll admit that the idea of covenant friendships / "life partnerships" for celibate believers is a bit of a leap for contemporary contexts. Especially considering the fact that we don't want to set up stumbling blocks for people who may struggle with feelings of attraction toward people of the same sex, I realize that we need to be sensitive and perhaps build in some protections for people in these situations (like choosing to establish a covenant between a group of three people, instead of just two). In any event, this idea of a covenant friendship is an interesting point of consideration...

Now, I'm going a little bit further out on a limb here (again, remember that I'm still more or less thinking out loud) -- but coupled with the current cultural allowances for (or aims toward allowances for) same-sex civil unions, doesn't it seem that such an idea could have some extra practicability? Why not take advantage of the opportunities presented by the current political system and allow those individuals who are committed to God and to lives of purity and celibacy to have the same tax benefits, immigration benefits, health benefits, and death-and-disability benefits that married couples enjoy?

Now, I have long been (and will long continue to be) an ardent supporter of God's definitions for marriage, family, and sexuality -- but I see a clear distinction between these things and the concept of "civil unions." God joins man and woman together in marriage and blesses their physical, emotional, and spiritual union; the government chooses how it will recognize this union and work out the economic and political implications for society. The Dutch system of marriage and civil unions has helped me to understand this. In the Netherlands, any two people wishing to formally join their lives together (Christians, Hindus, secular humanists, homosexual couples, heterosexual couples) must first report to City Hall and make their solemn pledges and process their paperwork for the government. Then, after the civil ceremonies are completed, the spiritual significance may (or may not) be independently observed. A Christian couple, then, will typically get all dressed up, go to City Hall and do the civil thing, then go get some pictures in the park, then go to the church and say their wedding vows betfore God and each other, then have a big party (or a series of parties) with their friends and family, and then consummate the marriage in the privacy of their bedroom that night. A secular couple, though, will get dressed up, go to City Hall and do the civil thing (if they're the sentimental / romantic / traditional type, they may even do this with the long white dress and pick the script that calls it all a "marriage"), then go get some pictures in the park and follow it all up with a big party (or series of parties) with their friends and family (the "consumation" part of their relationship has probably already happened much earlier -- though, again, if they're the sentimental / romantic / traditional type of couple, they may maintain all the trappings of a special wedding night and a honeymoon... on a more "optional" basis, of course). So you see how it works? The spiritual part of things is skipped or substituted based on the desires of the couple. From the secular government's point of view, it doesn't matter! They just want to have it on file that "Person A" and "Person B" now apply for exclusive status as a recognized couple -- and that's it. It actually makes a lot of sense to me (though it's certainly different from the traditional American way of doing things, which also makes sense to me).

So if we have Christian brothers and sisters who want to formally commit themselves to a life of celibacy and sexual purity -- but who would be aided and supported by having someone else (or a couple of other friends) in the same situation to do life together with them -- then why wouldn't we want to consider the advantages of covenant friendships (on the spiritual level) and civil unions (on the societal level)? Think about it: How cool would it be to celebrate a day with two spiritual siblings (I suppose it could be a brother and sister, just as much as a brother/brother and sister/sister) as they formally commit to a life of serving God wholeheartedly, without the distractions of marriage (like Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 7)?!? I mean, we could do the big party and the special pictures and special clothes and all that -- with all the practical benefits besides -- and it could be a cultural statement to deepen the respect for love and marriage and sexuality and family...

I don't know... Am I talking crazy here?!?! Have I become too influenced by the liberal Amsterdam way of thinking? Would something like this compromise the image of the church or the sanctity of marriage and family? Would anyone actually choose to make such a statement with his or her life? I guess I'm externally processing more than anything... but it is interesting to wonder...