Sermons & Pastoral Resources

Holy Book, Holy Vows

Champlain Valley Unitarian Universalist Society
Middlebury, Vermont
March 28, 2004

by Rev. Johanna Nichols

To write and to title a book Understanding the Bible is a rather far-reaching claim, yet that is just what John Buehrens has done. John received his M.Div from Harvard in 1973 and went on to serve several congregations before he was elected President of the UUA in 1993. If he was bold enough to attempt to explain the Bible to skeptics, seekers and religious liberals, I wanted to read it. I invited members of the congregation along for company. Several folks joined me to read John's book and its companion Biblical references in hopes that it would shed some light on a source of much comfort and consternation in our culture.

We concluded our reading and discussion last Thursday. We each gained our individual insights. I have thought of the Bible metaphorically as a mirror. But, I came away with a new metaphor of the Bible as an archeological site. One can dig through layers of history and story, written and rewritten for various communities that formed over thousands of years through the first century CE. Each book carries multiple voices, each with their own purpose.

While we were reading and hoping to understand the drama in the Bible, a national debate was unfolding in our culture. The trial of an openly gay United Methodist minister, the arrests of Unitarian Universalist ministers for marrying gay couples, and a civil union ceremony for Jeremy and James in our sanctuary.

Excerpted from CNN.com:
"The Rev. Karen Dammann is charged with 'practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible to Christian teachings.' Church law prohibits ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals, although the church's social principles support rights and liberties for homosexuals. Last week she married her partner of nine years, Meredith Savage, in Portland, Oregon, where officials began allowing gay marriages earlier this month. The couple has a 5-year-old son. Dammann has pleaded not guilty.

"One of her witnesses at the trial was Mary Ann Tolbert, a professor of biblical studies at Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California, and executive director of its Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies. Tolbert said the church is inconsistent in how it applies its Book of Discipline. At one time, for example, divorce was not allowed, but the church has since changed its stance. Tolbert reminded the jurors that Jesus was killed because he disagreed with the religious norms of his time.

"But the Rev. James Finkbeiner, representing the church, called on the jury to find Dammann guilty of the charge of being a self-avowed, practicing homosexual. He told jurors that because Dammann disclosed her homosexuality to the bishop as well as to the entire church, that is all the proof needed to find her guilty. 'It is not the law of the church that is on trial here,' Finkbeiner said.

"Dammann has said she hopes her trial will help move society and the church toward greater acceptance of gay clergy. 'We accept the gift of sexuality as God-given and holy,' she said in defense papers."

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, in New Paltz, New York, two Unitarian Universalist ministers were charged with criminal offenses for marrying 13 gay couples—apparently the first time in U.S. history that clergy members have been prosecuted for performing same-sex ceremonies, according to an Associated Press report.

"There have been clergy throughout the country for years and years who have solemnized marriages between same-sex couples, and only the Ulster County D.A. feels compelled to haul them into a court and brand them a criminal defendant.

"Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey were charged with solemnizing a marriage without a license, the same charges leveled against New Paltz Mayor Jason West. Each charge carries a fine of $25 to $500 or up to a year in jail. The ministers will plead not guilty at their arraignment March 22 and are prepared to go to trial, said their lawyer."

Kay, 'who acknowledged performing the ceremonies in New Paltz knowing the couples did not have licenses, said she signed an affidavit for the couples and considers the ceremonies civil.' Kay and her partner Pat Sullivan were among the couples married by Dawn Sangrey.

"The District Attorney said 'It is not our intention to interfere with anyone's right to express their religious beliefs, including the right of members of the clergy to perform ceremonies where couples are united solely in the eyes of the church or any other faith.' He decided to press charges because the marriages were 'drastically different' from religious ceremonies because Kay and Dawn publicly said they considered them civil."

They were joined by a third Unitarian Universalist minister, the Rev. Marion Visel, in performing 25 more ceremonies, which went off without protests or arrests. I do not know if more charges will be brought.

At the General Assembly in 1984, delegates from Unitarian Universalist congregations passed a resolution affirming the growing practice of some of its ministers of conducting services of union of gay and lesbian couples and urging member societies to support their ministers in this important aspect of our movement's ministry to the gay and lesbian community. In 1996, GA delegates passed a resolution calling for the legalization of same-sex marriage.

The country seems to be heading in a different direction. A majority of individual states and congress have passed the Defense of Marriage Act. President Bush, seeking to legally codify the definition of marriage, has introduced a constitutional amendment. But what biblical principles will be the basis for this amendment?

A group called Protestants for the Common Good, using passages from the Bible, speculates on language for an amendment:

"A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)"

Of course, this points out the hypocrisy of basing a constitutional amendment on biblical principles. And it calls the bluff of the proponents for a such an amendment.

The Rev. Bill Sinkford, President of the UUA, made this statement: "Amending the United States constitution to deny same-gender couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage would be to enshrine discrimination into the document that provides the foundation for our democracy. While the constitution has been amended in the past, it has never been altered with the express intent to deny equal protection to an entire class of citizens, and now is no time to start. Instead, successive generations of Americans have found new ways to honor the spirit of the constitution by extending its promise to an ever-widening circle of American citizens. The document that granted freedom and full citizenship to African Americans and gave women the right to vote must not be used as a weapon with which to attack the families of our country's gay and lesbian citizens."

More personally, the Rev. Meg Riley, who directs the UUA Faith in Action office in Washington, DC, wrote and open letter to President Bush:

"Dear President Bush, This morning you felt compelled to introduce an amendment to the Constitution of the United States defining marriage as existing only between one man and one woman.

You say that this will create 'clarity.' I would like you to share this clarity with my first grade daughter on her school playground, when the children, imitating their role models as they always do, will take up the issue. Because I dread those conversations with every fiber of my being. Challenged by another child, my daughter will declare forthrightly that of course her two moms are married. After all, we have wedding photos in our home, as any couple does. They show her two moms, fifteen years ago, in front of our Unitarian Universalist Congregation. Smiling, with many of our friends and family members around us.

You see, we have not yet discussed with this seven year old, precocious as she is, the distinction between civil and religious marriage. She knows only that we are her parents, the only ones she's known. She knows that we got married in our church, as her aunts and uncles did, and that our neighborhood and church, her school and social circle, involves a significant number of kids with two moms and a few with two dads. She knows that we provide the only stability, the only bedrock, that she has ever known.

Of course she knows that there are people who say that two men or two women cannot be married. She knows that, not very long ago, some people said that no one could marry someone of a different race, but now of course we no longer believe that. But I haven't yet been able to break it to her that some people want to change our Constitution to say that our family isn't part of 'We the people'. I just haven't found a way to fit it in between soccer and karate and church.

Tonight I will sit her down, after we've done her homework, and have the conversation that I hoped I could avoid. I will tell her that you, the President of the United States, have decided that only a man and a woman can be married, and that you want to make that part of our Constitution. Yes, the document she adores from watching Liberty's Kids and reading Magic Treehouse books. I will tell her that I don't believe this change in the Constitution will happen, not enough people will vote for it. But it does mean that people may say very mean things to her at school about our family. She will be afraid. I will project confidence and good humor, but I will be afraid, too.

I do not want to teach my daughter that the President of the United States does not include our family in the people he serves and protects. I do not want to say to her that the very flag she loves will be waved by people who believe that it does not belong to our family.

Please, Mr. Bush, tell me how I should conduct myself 'without bitterness or anger' at this time, as you instructed me today. Come over to my house tonight: you look at my daughter's eyes as they absorb the fact that you, the first President she has ever known, thinks she can no longer be included in the very Constitution of this land. You tell me how to 'conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country.' Because I am at a loss."

As an agent of the state, I have a role in this national debate. And, my conscience is troubled as I sign separate and unequal licenses. I would prefer that all couples register with the town clerk who would sign their license. Then, I would conduct a religious ceremony for anyone with or without a license. But, unlike some of my colleagues, I have not refused to sign a license, yet.

One minister, by the name of Tex Samples, likes to take the license from the couple in his final meeting with them and hurl it into a corner, yelling, "Render unto God what is God's, and unto Caesar what is Caesar's." If Kate and Dawn and Marion go to jail, we Unitarian Universalist ministers may all refuse to sign licenses in protest.

Last week, I called the Town Clerk to ask her about my legal rights in performing religious ceremonies for couples with civil union licenses. Over the years, I have developed a packet of materials for couples, gay and straight, to help them in creating their wedding ceremony. The packet does not have separate sections for marriage and civil union ceremonies. It does have sample ceremonies, one is a marriage, two are holy unions. Couples, gay and straight, choose their own language. They know how to define their relationship—they are entering into a covenant of marriage.

The Town Clerk said that I am not held to any language by law though it would be clearer to state that, by the authority given to me by the State of Vermont, I pronounce you married, or joined in civil union. What I say is, by the authority given to me by the people of the State of Vermont, I pronounce you. . . what comes next depends upon the language chosen by the couple.

Last Sunday, a couple came from Modena, New York, just south of New Paltz, to hold their civil union ceremony in our sanctuary. The florists arrived at 1 p.m. with gorgeous arrangements for the worship table and the candelabras. We arranged the chairs for a center aisle and tied white satin bows to the end of each row. The white carpet was placed at the front of the sanctuary to roll out. Bouquets and boutonnieres waited in the long white wedding box.

The wedding party arrived—five attendants (male and female) and five ushers, two flower girls and a ring bearer—and headed downstairs to change into pale pink and blue dresses and black tuxedos. Jeremy and James, handsome in their tuxes, arrived. The video camera was set up. The photographer was ready. Kate was at the piano to play the wedding march. Time to rehearse!

The second ring bearer, Mark, an autistic student of Jeremy's, was lost with his mother on Route 30. Connecting by cell phone, we got them headed north and in minutes they found us.

On with the ceremony! Jim's parents, his mother smiling nervously, his father relaxed, accompanied him down the aisle. Jeremy's grandmother walked down the aisle with him. His mother would not attend. Kisses all around. And there we were.

Standing before a handful of family and friends, starry-eyed with young love, Jeremy and James vowed to trust each other and to deserve each other's trust, to support each other to become all they can be, to cherish each other with their minds, their bodies, and their spirits, all the days of their lives.

Tell me: was I not to pronounce them married? And yet, for the first time ever, I hesitated. Could I be charged with false witness if I use false language? I pronounced them joined in holy union and used the words they requested--not partners, but husbands. Forever. Amen.

After the ceremony, James and Jeremy were off to a local restaurant for a reception and flying away on a honeymoon. It was snowing when they left, so we didn't blow the bridal bubbles. After that, they will return to New York and try to absorb the weeks of preparation, the day, and the years to come.

I do not understand the Bible—as I have studied it and continue to study it—as a barrier that keeps people from the love they know in their minds and bodies and spirits to be real and inner between them. Why would we want to deny people the rights and responsibilities of marriage?

The Bible. It is complex. Its layers and layers of history and story, written and rewritten, sift down to this: Faith requires justice, mercy and loving kindness. And the greatest of these is loving kindness.

I'd like to share with you the words I use to close a wedding ceremony:

Go now in peace.
Deeply regard each other;
Truly listen to each other;
Speak what each must speak;
Be ready to disarm your own heart;
Rejoice in this love you have begun.
Amen.

Sources:

• Article on the Charges against Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey, CNN.com
• Associated Press article on the Rev. Karen Dammann, in the Christian Science Monitor
• Protestants for the Common Good 200 North Michigan Avenue #502 Chicago, IL 60601
• Rev. Meg Riley, An Open Letter to President Bush, February 24, 2004, UUA web site
• Rev. William Sinkford, Statement on Amending the Constitution, UUA web site

back to top