secure.svspress.com/product_info.php?products_id=242&osCsid=27ce77d27f91cccbb4855af62e424109

quote:

---

For Paul Evdokimov, the conjugal union of man and woman in marriage is an image of God in Trinity — a relationship of persons united in love, thus realizing their one nature. But, since the Fall, only Christ can truly reconcile man and woman and bring about the harmony of Eros and the person. The sacrament of marriage regulates the communion between man and wife in all its sacramental fullness. True love is fruitful, but this fruitfulness is not only expressed through children; in can also be manifested through hospitality, through service, and sometimes through a common creation.

The Sacrament of Love is a unique reflection on marriage, as well as on monastic and non-monastic celibacy. It places the relationship of man and woman within the context of the most perfect relationship of persons: the Trinitarian communion of the Divine Persons.

ISBN 0-88141-042-X

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

I've never made a poll, so I couldn't resist. Due to my relatively recent appearance on this forum, I'm probably rehashing old ground, but here it goes. What's the difference between marriage and the closest of friends? Only three things are obvious to me. They are necessarily opposite genders. They can have sex. They commit to each other for life. There's also that thing about being one flesh, but for the life of me I can't figure out what that means. If it's just some emotion that I wouldn't understand because I'm not married, I'm going to be very disappointed. Maybe "one flesh" has to do with the commitment, or maybe it has to do with the sex.

So is it...

---

quote:

---

Jo-Anne: It should represent - as closely as possible - the intimacy that we have with the Father; the oneness of spirit, an intimacy that involves body, soul and spirit

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moon_river_j
I heard a saying twenty-some odd years ago: "Love is an offering of roots and wings."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jefscott

POW and Moon,

[quote]But marriage should be MORE than just being one flesh. For example, being parents is MORE than just being one flesh with a spouse, and will typically be part of the marriage relationship.

---

quote:

---

THIS WAS SENT TO A SHORT TERM VISITING PASTOR WHO WAS TRYING TO USE SOMEONE ELSE'S PULPIT AND CONGREGATION TO FURTHER HIS OWN DENOMINATIONAL POLITICS AGENDA; AND WAS INSENSITIVE-TO/IGNORANT-OF THE ABUSED WOMEN IN THE CONGREGATION. I WROTE THIS AT THE REQUEST OF SEVERAL LEADING WOMEN IN THE CONGREGATION.

--------------------------------------------------------

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 of both the Cadet 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 is 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 bookend 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.

Lets see what you think. OK?

---------------------------------------------------

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 seem 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 Eastern Orthodox of my brother-in-law's communion speak of "Charisms" and "modes." The 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 -I’m switching back to speaking of man and woman now - 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 CORD 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 ("ornans") in Christian catacombs. The particular "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 "interceding" 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])

Particularly 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 conjunction with female Deaconesses. Without both genders it is just not "very good."


I’d like to thank you for preaching those sermons. I do feel that what I’ve said above needs saying. But let me close with quoting my notes from some of your closing remarks. I thought they were good:

“Blessing under the umbrella over our lives, showers and grace and mercy.”

May it be unto us all.

Amen!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jefscott

POW,

I agree with your point in principle, of course. But I'm still stuck with the fact, as are you, that Paul says committing fornication makes you "one flesh." What then does "one flesh" mean to you that could be applicable to both marriage AND fornication?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

Just an idea that I've heard. If marriage is real and not just something we've made, then is premarital sex even possible? If (this is the thing) one flesh = marriage, then sex is the consumation of marriage regardless of a legal piece of paper. What do you guys think? Is marrage promise or a reality or maybe both?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

What is sexual immorality? Is it defined in the Bible or was that just a common phrase they threw around back then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

Just an idea that I've heard. If marriage is real and not just something we've made, then is premarital sex even possible? If (this is the thing) one flesh = marriage, then sex is the consumation of marriage regardless of a legal piece of paper. What do you guys think? Is marrage promise or a reality or maybe both?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Earp

it seems that there is an assumed distinction between coitus and marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

Just an idea that I've heard. If marriage is real and not just something we've made, then is premarital sex even possible? If (this is the thing) one flesh = marriage, then sex is the consumation of marriage regardless of a legal piece of paper. What do you guys think? Is marrage promise or a reality or maybe both?

---

If you define "civilization" as gathering in cities, then marriage predates civilization.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

What if there is no courthouse or Las Vegas? What if it is just sex between two consenting adult virgins? Why is that not marriage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quest for truth
Are you saying that for you the wedding ritual (commiting yourself for life) will happen when you find the ONE person who you want to be with for the rest of your life and then the two of you decide to consumate that with sexual intercourse as an act before God? When this occurs will you then say that you are officially united and commited to this person for "as long as you both shall live"? Is this how you define becoming married?

You can save yourself a lot of expense of a big wedding by doing this!

---