Different Christians have different understandings of and policies governing marriage and divorce, and these have evolved. The Roman Catholic view, for example, is predicated on the belief that marriage is a sacrament that cannot be undone. Divorce in this tradition is, therefore, wholly unacceptable and never recognised.
The Protestant and Reformed traditions hold marriage in equally high esteem – but in some situations reluctantly permit divorce as the lesser of two evils. Some churches see men and women as equally responsible for household decisions, while others uphold a tradition in which the male is the head of the household, and women are encouraged to play a supportive and ultimately subservient role. In both cases, the church's concern would see those positions as grounded in scriptural principles.
Currently, most churches uphold the union of one man and one woman as the only valid model for a Christian marriage. At the same time, there is a growing number of dissenting voices in the communities – people who see equal validation of homosexual and heterosexual unions as consistent with their understanding of the inclusiveness expressed through the unconditional love referred to as God’s grace.
Christians hold equally diverse views on homosexuality. Today, most churches accept the overwhelming evidence that sexual orientation (as distinct from sexual behaviour) is a component of identity in which individuals exercise little or no conscious choice.
Typically, they oppose discrimination against homosexuals. However, this acceptance is sometimes conditional on celibacy. Some Christians have difficulty recognising such conditionality with an understanding of sexuality as a gift from God that has the potential to strengthen and enrich intimate human relationships.
Just as there is not one view on marriage, there is also no single authoritative interpretation of scripture. We view the Bible as God’s living word. As much, it is capable of speaking afresh to humanity at different times and in different places and different circumstances. The handful of passages must commonly read as condemnations of homosexuality were informed by the dominant understanding of human nature at the time they were written.
They must be read and interpreted in their historical and cultural context. They should not be simplistically applied to contemporary society and any more than ancient ways of explaining the natural world, also evident scripture, should be used to dismiss the conclusions of centuries of scientific inquiry.
More importantly, our interpretations of these texts must be “checked” against the central messages that emerge clearly and powerfully from the Gospel. Christ’s admonition to love God and to love one’s neighbours, as well as his participation in compassion for the poor, the marginalised and the oppressed.
Therefore, the church must continue to wrestle with scripture to discern God’s will with regard to the moral and theological questions associated with same-sex relationships, particularly as they affect questions of ordination and religious marriage. But the fact that most Christian denominations are not currently prepared to bless same-sex unions should not necessarily be a rationale for inaction by government.
Government’s responsibility, in a secular democracy, is not to interpret the Bible but the Constitution. It has a duty to test legislation against Constitutional principles and to protect the rights of all citizens equally irrespective of their gender, the faith or cultural tradition in which their partnership is recognised or validated.
At the same time, the state must defend religious freedom by ensuring that churches retain control over decisions regarding religious rites and sacraments, including the religious aspects of marriage.