On Matrimony

On a Christian, but not Christianized, Eastern Matrimony

The LGBTQ+ community presents a highly visible example of the institutional sins of the Church for which we must, institutionally, repent. As a pastoral matter as to ministry towards peoples for whom discrimination comes broadly from Christian sources, for whom, regardless of personal religious belief, exposure to Christian wording, imagery, and dressing is itself a cause of harm and an impetus for forceful separation from love of neighbour and a type of both institutional and personal sin on the part of the Church and its members, yet counterposing that matrimony as much of the world understands it is itself a culturally Christianized affair and that often a Christian liturgical structure (Eastern or Western) for matrimony is desired by a couple regardless of particular religious belief, the following considerations are presented as a path on which for clergy to theologically and faithfully carry the Cross with appropriate pastoral concern, yet distinctly Christian and sacramental, for a broad, non-Christian or Christian-harmed audience, somewhat including the couple themselves, for the purpose of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, using the example of the matrimony of the friends of the author.

Context

A friend of 15 years of this author approached this author with a request to officiate his gay and gender nonconforming wedding, with the specific request that it reflect his faith practice, i.e., an Eastern Orthodox wedding. One bridegroom is estranged from Eastern Orthodoxy from a half Ukrainian Orthodox family (whose family’s estrangement from Orthodoxy is for reasons of personal harm from the Church). The other bridegroom comes from a largely secular Turkish Muslim family. Their mutual friends are almost entirely queer and nonreligious or pagan, many of whom have mercifully turned from the Church for reasons of being personally harmed by it, and who may rightfully avoid its presence and “set dressings”.
Meetings were held with both bridegrooms regarding the form of this ceremony, with discussions covering pastoral considerations, time considerations, legal concerns, and international travel concerns of this author, as he too is a gay transgender man living in the United States of America during a time of transgender repression. These discussions, in conjunction with prayer, interreligious queer dialogue, research into the historical shape and content of Eastern Orthodox ceremony of Holy Matrimony, biblical exegesis, and consultation with the writings of the Church Fathers and contemporary theologians, guided the considerations set forth below.

God, The Lord Christ Jesus, and the Word

Many participants in this particular ceremony, including all parents involved, are either not active in the Church, have been expressly harmed by the Church, or are expressly not Christian, including parents of both grooms, who have either been harmed by the Church or were never a part of it. This author notes here that use of and exposure to Christian terms is itself considered a covert and purposeful signal of non-support or opposition to homosexuality and diverse gender experiences and oppressed people by a large audience1, but especially interpreted as such by a broader audience of many younger people starting with the Millenial generation2. It is a pastoral concern that clergy, then, may not "cause these to sin" per the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:

4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a [ c ]stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

(1 Corinthians 8:4-13, NKJV)

The liberty in question, here, would apply to something that Paul himself did not experience, which is Christian alignment with public, propertied, and State-owned or State-empowered expressions of an international Church with deeply held imperial connections, which has been the case at least since Emperor Constantine. Being propertied, this implies a financially oppressive relationship upon the lay and even, to a lesser extent, the clergy themselves. The liberty of Christians to publicly signal Christian identity, as an implied (intentional or unintentional) semiotic signal of bigoted and harmful political belief set forth above, can be and often is a cause of direct institutional harm upon oppressed communities, including LGBTQ+ people, poor people (who often rely on sometimes predatory services offered by the broader Church), religious minorities, et cetera.

While the couple in question specifically requested that this author write and perform a ceremony true to his own Orthodox faith and in honor of the groom’s family’s Eastern Orthodox lineage, the pastoral concern for the LGBTQ+, non-Christian friends in attendance, as well as the specific beliefs of the couple and their families themselves (one being Orthodox lineage but not in a relationship with a parish for a long time, and the other not at all), is readily apparent. With this in mind, it is worth, in order to honour the specific requests of the couple, finding a biblical, theologically accurate term for what we understand as God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Most Holy Theotokos.

John 1 and 4 presents an immediate solution in the Word and in Love, which ties in with the couples’ choice of final, central reading, and Orthodox matrimonial themes of embodying the coming Kingdom of Heaven:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [a]comprehend it.

(John 1:1-5, NKJV)

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

(John 4:7-8, NKJV)

While this choice has improved upon the “gut reaction” problem of the semiotic baggage of Christian terms for God, there remains further address required in the typical service of Holy Matrimony.

The Inclusion and Consideration of Non-Christian Faith

Much has been written on the topic of universal salvation, but here this author points specifically to St. Isaac the Syrian. As was best summarized in the words of +Bp. Hilarion Alfeyev:

"All living creatures existed in God’s mind before their creation. And before they have been brought into being, they received their place in the hierarchical structure of t"he universe. This place is not taken away from anyone even if one falls away from God: ‘Everyone has a single place in His purpose in the ranking of love, corresponding to the form He beheld in them before He created them and all the rest of created beings, that is, at the time before the eternal purpose for the delineation of the world was put into effect... He has a single ranking of complete and impassible love towards everyone, and He has a single caring concern for those who have fallen, just as much as for those who have not fallen’ (II/40,3).

"The providential care of God and His love extends to angels, who were the first product of God’s creative act, including those who had fallen away from God and had turned into demons. According to Isaac, the love of the Creator towards fallen angels does not diminish as a result of their fall, and it is not less than the fullness of love which He has towards other angels (II/40,2). ‘It would be most odious and utterly blasphemous’, Isaac claims, ‘to think that hate and resentment exists with God, even against demonic beings; or to imagine any other weakness, or passibility, or whatever else might be involved in the course of retribution of good or bad as applying, in a retributive way, to that glorious Nature. Rather, He acts towards us in ways He knows will be advantageous to us, whether by way of things that cause suffering, or by way of things that cause relief, whether they cause joy or grief, whether they are insignificant or glorious: all are directed towards the single eternal good’ (II/39,3).

"To say that the love of God diminishes or vanishes because of a created being’s fall means ‘to reduce the glorious Nature of the Creator to weakness and change’ (II/38,4). For we know that ‘there is no change or any earlier or later intentions, with the Creator: there is no hatred or resentment in His nature, no greater or lesser place in His love, no before or after in His knowledge’ (II/38,5). Nothing that happens in creation may affect the nature of the Creator, Who is ‘exalted, lofty and glorious, perfect and complete in His knowledge, and complete in His love’ (II/10,23).

"This is why God loves equally the righteous and sinners, making no distinction between them. God knew man’s future sinful life before the latter’s creation, yet He created him (II/5,11). God knew all people before their becoming righteous or sinners, and in His love He did not change because of the fact that they underwent change (II/38,3). Even many blameworthy deeds are accepted by God with mercy, ‘and are forgiven their authors, without any blame, by the omniscient God to whom all things are revealed before they happen, and who was aware of the constraints of our nature before He created us. For God, who is good and compassionate, is not in the habit of judging the infirmities of human nature or actions brought about by necessity, even though they may be reprehensible’ (II/14,15).

"Even when God chastises one, He does this out of love and for the sake of one’s salvation rather than for the sake of retribution. God respects human free will and does not want to do anything against it: ‘God chastises with love, not for the sake of revenge… Far be it that vengeance could ever be found in that Fountain of love and Ocean brimming with goodness!’ (I/48, 230).

"Thus the image of God as Judge is completely overshadowed in Isaac by the image of God as Love (hubba) and Mercy (rahme). According to him, mercifulness (mrahmanuta) is incompatible with justice (k’inuta): ‘Mercy is opposed to justice. Justice is equality of the even scale, for it gives to each as he deserves... Mercy, on the other hand, is a sorrow and pity stirred up by goodness, and it compassionately inclines a man in the direction of all; it does not requite a man who is deserving of evil, and to him who is deserving of good it gives a double portion. If, therefore, it is evident that mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, then justice belongs to the portion of wickedness. As grass and fire cannot coexist in one place, so justice and mercy cannot abide in one soul’. Thus one cannot speak at all of God’s justice, but rather of mercy that surpasses all justice: ‘As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison God’s use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy. As a handful of sand thrown into the great sea, so are the sins of the flesh in comparison with the mind of God. And just as a strongly flowing spring is not obscured by a handful of dust, so the mercy of the Creator is not stemmed by the vices of His creatures’ (I/51, 244)."

Here, we shall ignore the concept of non-belief in the Trinity as a sin and the concept of homosexuality as a sin (neither of which, in the author’s conviction, constitutes a sin) but instead as an example of the diversity of that which, too, is saved. Further, ample evidence of universalism (regardless of religious status) among the Church Fathers has been explicated upon by St. Maximus the Confessor, Oecumenius, St. Jerome, St. Clement of Alexandria, and, of course, as espoused by Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart, especially so among the writings of St. Gregory of Nyssa.

While taken as a given that this is the case, it is moreso important to perform sacramental services to liturgically and choreographically communicate and embody this concept as a collective ascent to the Kingdom of Heaven even with and among a diverse – and diverse-believing – group of participants in a “non-Christianized” yet distinctly Christian matrimonial ceremony, many of whom have a radically different view of what it is to call forth and embody perfect love, to which many Orthodox clergy, certainly Fr. Alexander Schmemann, would attest as part and parcel of a sacramental service.

The Trinity: A Problem with Disidentification

While it is not necessarily difficult to affect “Eastern trappings” by use of its major physical choreographic movements and the visual presence of Eastern vestments upon the presiding clergy, we understand that symbol both communicates and is a greater truth or actuality, which is to say, in this case, concerned clergy should not throw out the baby (theological content) with the bathwater (liturgical form) if faithfully presiding on an expressly clerical basis. As Fr. Schmemann writes in For the Life of the World, “a sacrament necessarily implies a transformation”, and it is important to reflect this transformation in both an interior faith and an exterior embodiment as set forth in the previous section – a liturgical act “identifies itself with and becomes the very form of that Gift”. Without liturgically addressing at length the theological particulars of the type and antitype of marriage and the Kingdom to come, it is imperative we as clergy identify and honor these transformative parts of our faith, namely the function of the Trinity, in a way that considers the above.

The term referenced (but not replicated) in the composed draft liturgy, “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier”, is popular enough now so as to immediately signal Christianity, albeit explicitly progressive Mainline Protestant Christianity, which, being itself part of a lineage of institutional harm upon oppressed peoples, presents a specific problem. Terms adopted by the institutional Church will, with time, come to identify with the institutional Church. If identity with the Church as a propertied and inherently oppressive power institution is a cause of harm, regardless of semiotic significance of the presence of ordained clergy, this would necessitate continual transformation and re-transformation of sacramental terminology with rolling identification with Churchliness, which is problematic and presents itself as a possibility that this would then radically transform, relatively quickly, the form, and therefore with time, theological content. Hence, this author is hesitant to personally, habitually, replace the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with the above term in regular use. However, this may be presented as a temporary, one-time-use solution while clergy work tirelessly in the Biblical theme of reversal to make the Church smaller, humbler, and less of a power structure than it is today, which (being an arm of empire and a tool of Caesar) is a particular cause of historic institutional sin.

The Sanctification of Time Among Diverse Groups

Eastern Orthodox matrimony is known for taking several hours. To best honor the loved ones of the grooms, and recognizing that there will be no choir present, and further recognizing that time in community is a type of sacred time, certain Eastern repetitions and litanies were removed or drastically shortened, as one half of the sacramental work for this particular group will be in the communal gathering to follow with a limited time allotted in the celebratory wedding space. For lack of authority of this author to consecrate the Blessed Sacrament, and due to the pastoral consideration of offering the same to this religiously diverse group, the loved ones as gathered over dinner in celebration of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and the enduring power of love, gains an additional importance: therefore, the service of the matrimony has been shortened so as to take up about 20-30 minutes.

Readings

In this case, one family is (at least culturally) Christian and one family is (at least culturally) Muslim. Neither family is particularly religious. However, the couple requested that the families both be honoured, and, in a way, that a type of healing which can only be religious in nature be a small but important part of how the sacrament is celebrated. The couple have overtly expressed that the Church has hurt the Christian family by its rejection of their marriage and enforced re-do under the patriarchal supervision of the parish priest, and that the other side is just not Christian at all (and, without it needing to be said, has of course experienced some level of discrimination in the West, in this case, Canada).

That being said, neither couple was against readings from the Bible or Quran, and liked the idea that readings be pulled from both. They also selected a reading of deep personal significance to both of them. Orthodoxy, of course, traditionally reads the prokeimenon in the 8th tone, the letter from St. Paul to the Ephesians 5:20-33, and the Holy Gospel according to Saint John, specifically the Wedding at Cana. Due to the gendering inherent in these verses and somewhat nomenclature-unidentified nature of this ceremony, it was necessary to research alternatives, namely: a Bible reading, a Quran reading, and a reading chosen by the couple in lieu of the gospel.

At least according to the wording in the Septuagint, there is some consideration that, in First Samuel, David and Jonathan share a romantic type of relationship, so there is a degree of identification among gay Christians with this reading. As for the Quran reading, there are a plethora of nongendered beautiful and moving messages and poetry regarding the sacrament of love from which to choose. The couple have chosen a surprisingly thematically fitting reading of personal significance to both of them (despite these first and second readings having been researched and selected prior to the initial meeting), which is honored and symbolically referenced and sublimated in other traditional parts of the service, forming a unified whole which forms a window through which to view the Holy Spirit within the Gospel with depth and clarity, and without as much semiotic baggage of harm and institutional oppression.

Considerations Summarised

In brief, knowing that the presider would inevitably, in presiding over explicitly an Eastern Rite marital service, be a visible icon of the Church and of our Lord Jesus Christ, there is some sense that a bit of pastoral comforting could be enacted by choice of words used. Knowing that Christian-identified terms for our Lord are semiotically loaded with undue baggage and signals of intense bigotry for many in attendance, which would run counter to the embodiment of the world to come in the sacrament of marriage and counter to the spirit of love and mercy (and perhaps “cause a brother to sin” by a harsh dampening of the inner light on what is supposed to be a joyful day), and knowing that part of the service is, in its own way, a type of religious healing for the families, there is both a need to present the Gospel promise of the Kingdom of Heaven as exemplified in Holy Matrimony and a need to, both personally, professionally, and situationally, preserve an intact Orthodox, Catholic, and Christian interior core.

Regardless of reworkings of necessity due to lack of a professional choir and ordained priests in this instance, this does mean that there must be an equally biblical, traditional substitute for any otherwise traditional yet signalling or triggering “alarm words”, a broad structural and internal adherence to tradition regardless of “set dressing” changes, creative yet exegetically centered choice of readings in line with the Gospel and the spirit of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and a pastoral and communicative relationship with the couple themselves, whose wishes ultimately determine the “set dressings” hung upon the armature of the service.

The further consideration is that the task of “filing off the Jesus serial numbers” from an otherwise unquestionably Eastern Christian sacramental ceremony runs the risk of the form affecting the content and a watering down or inalienable altering of the theology of the sacrament itself, which could, in some circumstances if left unchecked, present as severe as a breach of clerical ethics and a public proclamation of heterodox belief, should one follow this particular rabbithole too far. All the same, the risk is worth the endeavour.

For clergy, we cannot and should not shy away from the fact that we are Christian, with every ounce of the dialectic of shame and celebration this term deserves. However, it is our clerical duty in our lives to present these truths, which we hold sacrosanct, in a way that does not cause a brother harm and force painful separation from what we know of as God, That-Which-We-Cannot-Know, love of neighbour, and so forth. Shedding semiotic baggage, or at least attempting to avoid it, is an important pastoral and ecumenical task as we minister to Christian-oppressed communities, including those who themselves identify as Christian; as this pastoral care and love of neighbour is an intrinsic part of our theological conviction, this shedding of harm-signal and semiotic baggage must remain centered in the Gospel.

Final Thoughts

This is a worthwhile experiment for matrimonial service for this and any other couple who desires a “Christian” wedding but desires not to harm a largely non-Christian or Christian-oppressed attendance. However, the “filing off of the serial numbers” ought to be strictly observed and on a pastoral, case-by-case basis, and ought not to be a block on which to build future terminology or liturgical translation but a series of pastoral, theological, and interpersonal considerations through which clergy must judge, in their own Christian consciousness and vocations, how to most mercifully and most truthfully celebrate the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

Works Referenced

Alfeyev, Hilarion. Bp. (2008). St. Isaac the Syrian: A Theologian of Love and Mercy.

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/144.aspx#2

Department of Religious Education. (2009). Holy Matrimony. The Orthodox Church in America.

New King James Version Bible. (1982). Thomas Nelson.

Schmemann, A. Fr. (1998). For the Life of the World. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Schmemann, A. Fr. (2002). The Eucharist. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

A contemporary example of this is the 2026 San Francisco Giants Pride Night controversy, in which homophobic Major League Baseball players wrote verses of the Bible on their Pride Night baseball uniform caps, which was widely (and correctly) inferred by the public at large, specifically the San Franscisco community, to be a covert signal of religion-based homophobic belief, as later confirmed by the players themselves. The verses were verses referencing the rainbow in Genesis, which is not itself a verse regarding homosexuality or queerness, but is an example of the intentional use and public interpretation of Christian imagery and words as a signal of homophobia and bigotry. As of writing, this just happened this week.