quote:

---

Originally posted by honorman

Nor should every woman get married. Woman are not defined by their husband, father, nor should these be the sole reason they do something. We are in the 21th century, I believe. Women should not be defined by the cultural norms of long ago.
I truly believe that until women have more say in this dialogue (thanks so much for your honesty Tigress and for your courage in standing up and voicing an honest opinion), dialogues such as these lack any value. Women should be feel to voice their opinion on these matters instead of having to listen to men voice theirs...

---

quote:

---

Dear Rev. __________

Thank you for sharing your e-mail address with me at after-Church coffee on Sunday.

First, let me introduce myself as the father both of one of the CLUB members who prayed for the offering, and of one of the boys who read scripture in Church two Sundays ago. I'll ride on their coat-tails. : )

Second, let me say that I seem to be a person who likes ideas (more accurately: loves ideas). And it in both of these capacities (parent and idea-phile) that I want to share an observation with you. I hope that is OK.

Your two sermons ("The Christian Husband" and "The Christian Wife") share a book-end like connection - husband and wife - you can't have one without the other. But where Christ is mentioned there is another connection too. For some, "Christian" means merely a moral code. But particularly with marriage, which was instituted by God, -- more is involved. So, I want to suggest that your two sermons are actually conditioned by the content of a third sermon. One undelivered: "Christ and the Christian Church.". And it is THAT sermon that I want to discuss with you.

This is not out of place. And I'm certain that you will agree, as your own sermon Sunday pointed out that "marriage needs three partners: the man, the woman, and God." And having listened carefully I notice that most central and important aspects of the topics of husband and wife entirely hinge on this presence of God in marriage, and the example of Christ. Yet, there is something that is very important that needs to be re-examined in this 'phantom' sermon. I think it needs to be carefully 'revisited' and considered. That third sermon - which is in reality the first - is the foundation of all that follows, affecting the details of everything else.

It's a tall order; but a vital one.

This undelivered sermon I'm speaking of, on "Christ and the Christian Church" defines "Christ." Both your "Husband" and "Wife " sermons used Christ as their point of reference. So what one makes of "Christ" relative to the Church plays a major role in everything else.

During the "Husband" sermon I noticed the man was contemplated as being 'outside' of the marriage looking in, and acting 'toward' the marriage or wife. That is a problem. I dare say that a man exists as a husband ONLY within marriage. And a man is only a husband when he is acting within the communion of marriage (which also must be considered in its three-ness). The salient preposition for marriage would have to be "WITHIN."

Not necessarily unique to American culture, the idea of an "individual" falls far short of the Biblical idea of the "person" who exists in communion with others. Pointedly, there is no such thing as an individual Christian (Matt. 18:20). And no husband or wife exists outside of the ontological state of the marriage communion (Gen. 2:24). Something similar is also true of Christ and the Church And the framework within which we consider Christ can lead us well or badly..

Augustine of Hippo had something to say of Christ. And it s worth pausing to consider: "The whole Christ" is "head and body." (The Latin in the book I found this in goes: "Totus Christus, caput et corpus.") Thomas Hopko says something of this that when applied to marriage needs to be referred back to the three-ness of marriage. (Which I'll come back to.) This is a comment with regarding "Christ" and the Church; not the Eternal Son of God. And it requires our attention. Again, Augustine says: "The whole Christ" is "head and body."

John Zizioulas goes so far to say that there is no "Christ" without the Church. (Zizioulas writes: The person of Christ is automatically linked...with a community. This community is the eschatological company of the "Saints" which surround Christ in [the] kingdom. The Church is part of the definition of Christ. (Being as Communion [Crestwood: St. Vladimir's].) At first, that statement might sound mighty un-pious; but it is true that "Christ" does not exist without His Church. The Eternal Son was not eternally The Christ. And I think that I'm correct that in Paul's writing "Christ" designates the "chosen-ness" connected with Jesus salvific work. In Galatians "Christ" (in contrast to "Lord") bears the shame of the Cross. "Christ" is the Savior. Pre-Cross there was not Christ; and I think that goes for pre-resurrected too. This is different than merely calling Him the Eternal Son or even "Jesus." With Zizioulas, "The Church is part of the definition of Christ." And with Augustine, "The whole Christ "is head and body."

What does that have to do with the Husband and the Wife in your two sermons? You said plenty Lets see.

In your "Husband" sermon, during the application part of your sermon, you touched upon the contingency of how in a bad situation the husband might have to lead even if awkward. It seemed like useful pastoral advice, for certain occasions. But it did seems to follow the 'outside' and acting 'toward' type that I'm trying to avoid.

But in the "Wife" sermon I think that you made a point that can be related well to the example of Christ. Personally, I thought that it was the best part of the sermon. You said: "DEMONSTRATE to the husband the relationship of Christ to the Church." Perhaps part of what drew me to that comment was that it is equally applicable in good relationship as in troubled relationships. It fits the Pauline model of the wife who is a witness to an unbelieving husband. It models Christ's suffering. It is being "Christ" to the other. And, as you correctly pointed out, there is freedom in the role of a servant. You spoke correctly of the "voluntary-ness" of such "submission." Yet Paul's example is not really submission to that husband; it is to the Lord.

Other applications you mentioned seemed to slip back into the external framework that I'm on the lookout for. And I think that much of what made it seem that way is the habits of speech that America offers us. We are faced with quite a challenge. But think about it. When you delivered this sermon on the Wife you spent time talking about how the husband would "manage," "discover," "help," "encourage," etc., ALL focusing on the husband as if it was he himself doing this on his own - outside and toward his wife. I'm sure that your life experience is not one of your husband-ness as being autonomous from your marriage. But this American-situation certainly does take its toll. And It can't help but affect our thinking too.

After church I heard a good challenge to your comment that no car has two steering wheels. The question was asked, rhetorically, "Ever hear of a person with two legs?" And they were right!

But before I get to that, I want to come back to this three-ness of marriage. We can't talk about marriage as only being two persons. Nor can we consider the Church without Christ (any more than Augustine would consider Christ without the Church). Following up on Augustine's comment, Thomas Hopko says that, "we may also conclude that if Jesus alone is not the whole Christ, so the people alone are not the whole Church. The Whole Christ, and so too, the whole church, is Jesus the head in communion with those who belong to him, and even "become him" by faith and grace in union with God the Father through the Holy Spirit." (Women and the Priesthood, [Crestwood: St. Vladimir's]) Just as the Church is not whole without Christ - or at least in a way that is analogous - a marriage is not whole without Christ. That's the three-ness.

Biblically there is ONE head of the marriage. And that is Christ. One steering wheel. His.

We would do well to pitch all the ideas, and all the rutted language that surrounds us. More than "Reformed," in John VanderStelt's (Dordt College) words the Church is supposed to be about being "Re-form(ul)ation-al." Paul uses stronger words yet - "Transformed" (Rom. 12:2). And we do that by being, in Paul's words "renewed."

To speak of either "Husband" or "Wife" in our debate-riddled landscape is to discover the need for a good Road-Grader. Let me take a different tack. And an old one.

The Orthodox of my brother-in-law's communion speak of "Charisms" and "modes." They strictly avoid suggesting that traits such as aggressiveness or gentleness belong to one gender or the other. In their traditions is recognition that men and women all share to some degree of what is supposedly (but only supposedly) "masculinity" and "femininity." (Belonick) Men and women are equal in "honor" and "humanity." In fact BOTH are necessary - together - in order for us to achieve our full humanity.

There you have the "two legs" analogy. A right leg is always a right leg. It can - as soccer players know - substitute creatively for the left, but it cannot replace the left, nor ever "be" a left. But they are both necessary and "honorable." And without BOTH of them full, true humanity is not present or possible. (Man by himself didn't even warrant a "good" rating!)

Genesis teaches that man and female are a unity. Together we are not just "good." Together we are, in fact, "created in God's image" (Gen 1:26).

ANY talk of or thinking about "Wife" must be done within the compass of the communion of marriage. If you want to relate wonderful examples like how together a wife can discover and grow in talents and roles. . . then this must be conceived within this circle. The gold circle on my left hand has an inscription placed there by my wise wife: "A CHORD OF THREE STRANDS."

You were absolutely correct to call marriage a "divine pattern and formula" (I took notes.). What you said contained many good things.

But I feel that some of the foundation for your two sermons needs careful reexamination. Otherwise I highly doubt that you would have lead off, "out of the blocks" with words like "roles" and "duties" and "job." Those speak of the atomistic, fragmented, un-reformed world around us. (And as a guest you can probably not even begin to guess what ruts you begin to drive into in a new congregational setting.)

What other terms-of-mind can we use instead? You spoke of "submit" and "defer." I'm not "buying" those. The Orthodox have a wonderful icon called a "Deisis." The Deisis icon has three persons - fittingly. Christ enthroned is in the center. On the left is Mary worshiping the God-man who is our Savior. On the right is John the Baptist.

http://www.fr-d-serfes.org/orthodox/images/deisis.gif

Both Mary and John have their arms upraised in the manner seen in worshiping figures ("oranans") in Christian catacombs. The particualar "Charisms" the Orthodox have traditionally ascribed to the example of Mary and John are these: For John that he "must decrease that He (Christ) may increase. Mary is, as the orans figure http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/art/orans.jpg and "bearing." in Paul Evdokimov's words: "to give birth to Christ in other people. We may be called to physical motherhood, to pass on our faith to our children: or we may be called to spiritual motherhood, to show forth the image of Christ to all men and call them to Him." (Woman and the Salvation of the World, [St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. 1994])

Particulary as the Church is the "Bride of Christ," Mary is an example to ALL of us. We must all be Christ-bearers ("Christians". And it is in this respect that the Church came to be called Christians. But when Mary said "yes"; to the Angel ("Be it unto me according to thy word.") I don't see THAT in terms of "defer-ing. " or resigned "submitting." Two thousand years of Christian tradition seem to reject those images of the Charism of Woman.

Rather, "bearing" and "interceding" and "calling" are ACTIVE, DYNAMIC Charisms.

Early Church writers spoke of the absolute *necessity* that Bishops and Elders minister in conjuction with female Deaconesses. Without both genders it is just not "very good."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul5388

The two of you are expressing a lot of opinions without any biblical backing.

Tigress,

Nothing is ever fair. It's not fair that I got the brains and good looks and my sister didn't. (That was just a joke to lighten up things a little!) It's not fair that you are out making your own way and your brother is at home mooching on your parents. However, there isn't a thing you can do about it. It's out of your hands, except for prayer. Maybe that's what you need to do for your brother. Pray for him, live as Christ would expect you to and let him find his own way. As a watchman, who has already sounded the warning, you have done what is expected of you. It's up to him now. Then, you need to cut it loose! Evidently this situation is eating on you and it will eat you up if you don't cast your cares upon him, for he cares for you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul5388

Springs,

Hopefully your comments originate from recognizing that I do have a heart and I do care for the welfare of my children. Thank you for your input.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel



-----------------------------------------------------
"We are slaves of Christ, not advisors." - ModesofThought

---

quote:

---

that calls for laying down your life. Doesn't sound like a position of authority to me.

nuff said,

-S

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel



-----------------------------------------------------
"We are slaves of Christ, not advisors." - ModesofThought

---

quote:

---

that calls for laying down your life. Doesn't sound like a position of authority to me.

nuff said,

-S

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul5388

Tigress,

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you are so fulfilled and happy living your liberated life, why is it necessary to try to keep your co-workers from seeing your tears? Could it be that you have bought the Devil's lie, Yea, hath God said? You keep wrestling with what the world (Honorman) says is right, but contradicts what God says and it is making you feel miserable. You need to read the scripture you quoted just a little more carefully and concentrate on the do justly part. Part of justice or judgement is discernment, or as Heb 5.14 says, have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. That which agrees with what God says is good and that which contradicts what He says is evil. How many times does God have to tell you the man is head over the woman (I Cor 11.3) and he will rule over you before you agree with Him?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laika

I just want to know, which one of you women is going to make the coffee?



What? What'd I say?

---