 |
| 
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/24/2005 10:04 AM (GMT -6) |   |
MephEternal said...
Remember, all that I'm saying is that public declarations of covenants/commitments mades ARE NOT DIVINELY INSTITUTED or SANCTIONED as such. There were ceremonies dealing with covenants WAAAAAY before Abraham even hit the scene. One CAN argue that they are beneficial, especially in the context of a community. I don't believe one CAN argue that they are DIVINELY INSTITUTED or SANCTIONED by God. OK, I think I see yer point. Your point, covenants aren't necessarily DIVINELY INSTITUTED or SANCTIONED by God. Some are, some aren't.
My point, covenants, whether sanctioned by God or not, are publically made.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/24/2005 10:08 AM (GMT -6) | |
BBBCanada said...
I like the practical ending there Meph Man. As a matter of fact if some were to do what you say in taking practical steps in considering this level of a relationship, they may find out (even after years of being with each other prior to the formal ceremony) that they should-just-not-be and consider ending the relationship. Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen talks about this.
Hey, have you heard the rumors floating around on the streets of heaven? The Holy Spirit is uncomfortable in his skin. He wants freedom to become captain of his own ship. He wants to grow as an individual, claiming a need for a “broader social context”. He feels the other two characters are holding him back from reaching his true potential as an individual. The bottom line is, he wants the role of the father and wants out of the Trinity relationship.
If the Console was to get some counseling, I’m sure he would be diagnosed with suffering from some rare form of mid-life crisis. Heck, eternity is a long time. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 1/24/2005 9:18:30 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/24/2005 11:24 AM (GMT -6) | |
Laika said...
Someone sent me a piccie of sparknheart, taken at that conference:
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/24/2005 12:08 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
First, I would say that the link that you JUST made (the public declaration of a personal covenant) is about as far as the continuities go. There's a LOT more going on, though. We can't just say that however we view the baptism ceremony should apply to the marriage ceremony JUST because your conception of both has a line of continuity. For that to take place, we'd have to see where the line of continuity is.
The idea of baptism, of course, antedated Jesus. It was already had a known religious understanding and importance in the Jewish community of faith...but was given a new meaning BY Jesus. Same thing with Communion, which is a reinterpretation of the Passover. Instead of just the purfication of sins, baptism is thought to be an IDENTIFICATION WITH CHRIST and Christ's Body (the Church) in a true sense. And thus an initiation into the Christian life. (Different churches take this identification with Christ in different ways) So, we can easily see how this is INEXTRICABLY linked to the Judeo-Christian faith and divinely sanctioned, INSOFAR AS Jesus explicitly told us to do it. (This is a BIGGIE!) And it was obviously practiced in the early Church. This isn't grounded on anything problematic Pretty unamibiguous.
With FORMAL marriage, however, ALL of the sacramental hoopla is made over Jesus's discourse against divorce using the Creation story. It is there that Jesus says that in the beginning, the two were to be one flesh, as GOD placed them together. Jesus seems to base the authority of his statement off of a LITERAL belief in the Creation story and "cleaving" reality that implied. In other words, the idea of marriage as divine institution comes ULTIMATELY from the Creation story of Adam and Eve. The reason why marriage CEREMONIES are so big in churches is to the extent that people believe that GOD is putting them together...just like God put Adam and Eve together. Jesus never explicitly told us that marital ceremonies HAD to be done...but insofar as we think that it is GOD who places marital couples together, it would make sense that it should happen AMONG the people of God. Formal marriage would be something that God supposedly INTIATES and SUSTAINS among His people.
That's why to the extent that one disagrees with the historicity of the Adamic couple, they would also disagree with the notion that marriage is a divinely ordained affair. I would say that marriage is a FORMAL DECLARATION of a private covenant...and not ANY type of initiation into anything. The only thing that would link marriage as an INSTITUTION to ANYTHING divine would be 1)Jesus's declaration and 2)a literal account of the Adamic couple.
All this is saying this: To make the point that BOTH baptism and marriage are divine institutions, you'd have to believe that the line of continuity is divine authority sanctioning both things...God and Jesus with marriage (via the actual Adamic couple), and Jesus with baptism. If you take that continuity, then I would say it makes sense for one to say that marriage is a divinely instituted and sanctioned affair. Though baptism can be interpreted as a SIGN and SEAL of the covenant one makes with God...at least their is a DEFINITE link to God implicit in the act of it. This wouldn't necessarily be so with marriage.
HOpe this helps.
I've taken some time now to reflect on this. (I want to be quick to listen, slow to speak.) Here's how I'm thinking about this now. (I have a lot of thoughts here, but as a Kinesthetic, it's sometimes difficult for me to unpack, so please bear with me. Nobody's ever accused me of being too verbose! I tend err to the other extreme. You're usually only getting the condensed tip-of-the iceberg from me.... it would take me a week to write what you whip out in 15 minutes. And I'm okay with that!  )
I understand that of course there are differences between a wedding and baptism, but here I'm looking for sameness.
First, I think we're still not discussing why Jesus ordained a ritual (baptism) as part of becoming identified with him. I think there is something quite significant here, a principle that could be/should be applied more generally: there is something special about doing a physical, tangible act that goes beyond what happens in merely arriving at a certain state of mind. I think it's intrinsic to our design as humans (with our holographic brain and all that TNT stuff)... literal, tangible, physical ceremonies and rituals make it "real" to us. It also mitigates the bifurcation between the spiritual and the physical that has been a perennial temptation to the church throughout history. In short, this is a more holistic view. It shouldn't be dismissed as "sacramental hoopla" or "just frills".
Second, I want to be more distinct about the word "marriage" and the word "wedding". I'm trying to establish that a wedding, a formal ritual, is related to marriage as baptism is to being a Christian. To be clear, I DON'T hold to a Church of Christ view that baptism is REQUIRED for salvation. But I do think it was intended to be typical.
Third, in my thinking at least, I've not been drawing primarily on my understanding of the creation story; I'm drawing foremost on my understanding of the quintessential Bride and Groom, Christ and the Church. So those criticisms based on whether or not it was a literal Adamic couple don't hold much water for me.
Post Edited (Corey) : 1/24/2005 12:01:40 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/24/2005 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | | Sometime I'd like to play around with this idea: if a wedding is to a marriage what baptism is to being a Christian, then what about the other ordinances? Communion in particular... what would be the marital equivalent? Sex?
Sounds like the setup for some sort of punchline: "What's difference between communion and sex?" or "What do communion and sex have in common?"
Post Edited (Corey) : 1/24/2005 11:44:16 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/24/2005 12:40 PM (GMT -6) | |
sparknheart said...
Laika said...
Someone sent me a piccie of sparknheart, taken at that conference:
Minnie Pearl called, she wants her hat back.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/24/2005 1:14 PM (GMT -6) | | |
You are what you eat – so beware of what you’re fed, and suspicious looking chefs.... especially the skinny ones.
In other words, be careful who you choose as mentors, try and take advice from couples with a proven track record, ones with successful marriages.
Unfortunately, Christians and pagans have a similar divorce rate. The success is slightly higher amongst Orthodox and Catholics; they both receive marriage as a Holy Sacrament. Couples that pray together stay together. Yes indeed, only 1 out every thousand marriages ends in divorce when the couple regularly prays together. 
P.S.
Hey Lakia,
Tell Minnie I love the hat and I'll be keeping it. I'll send her the price tag. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 1/24/2005 12:36:31 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 1/24/2005 3:17 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Coupla things.
First, I think that Roman Catholic and particularly, Orthodox people would agree with you. Very much. Not for the pedagogical reasons, but for ecclesial ones. It would be argued that one cannot represent the Trinity OUTSIDE of the Church. That's why it is pretty much mandatory that IF people within the Roman catholic or Orthodox churches, 1) it HAS to be done by the Church and 2) both people have to be Christians. Now, once you postulate INTERFAITH intermarriage, now you have issues. They won't do those unless there are some VERY particular stipulations involved. But by and large, they just don't do them. My view ALLOWS for interfaith marriage because the love received from God may NOT necessarily be explicitly in the Christian context. The relationality and love of the Trinity can be internalized and reflected by couples...even if it is COGNITIVELY KNOWN as "Triune" love. (See the vague link to a vague form of inclusivism)
Is there a problem with this for what I’m saying? Yes. Amongst those groups you mentioned for the reasons you give. But I agree that Trinitarian love can be reflected in the lives of unbelievers though they don‘t know or are not cognitively aware of it. Kinda like the atheist who lives a morally upright life. They are simply living better than they believe. So I don’t have a problem with that Meph Man. When I speak of the “backing of the church” I am talking about this within the context of the ideal of Trinitarian love and it’s implications for our lives both personally and corporately. If you want to have that sort of love for your marriage? For your family? It can’t be found on its own. It can’t be found in that sphere we call the family. We will need to generate that from being connected to those broader social contexts. So in one sense IT DOES take a village to have a marriage, raise a child, have a “healthy” family. This is the problem that I have with movies like, “The Incredibles.” What’s incredible? The family. They can do it on their own without the help of others. Why? Because they have the superhuman love and flexibility and strenght and yada, yada, yada (Trinitarian love) within themselves corporately. Sorry Dobson.
Digression: My problem with “village” speak though is the cautionary fear that the individual can be swallowed up by the corporate. End Digression.
At our church, every time we have a baby dedication the pastor stands up on the platform and says to the family and toward the congregation, “We will stand with you in raising this child up in the Lord.” I LOVE that. Now, I agree that those broader social contexts don’t exist simply in the Church, but with our interaction with the broader world. However, not just any broader social context will do, especially for the Christian who believes in the Trinitarian love. For the Christian who seeks to reflect THAT KINDA love in their relationships they will invariably need the Church which seeks this specific kinda love on that level.
Regardless, the basis for “sticking it out” in our relationships is Trinitarian as well eschatological. Our “becoming out.” Not a social contract of any kind. Even here, this can be found among non-Christians to a degree.
Brandon:
I don’t know if I would say that God is IN the relationship as much as I would say that the relationship REFLECTS the sociality of God and therefore the ideal. You could, of course, have non-Christians who attempt to love (and do love) in this way but God isn’t in the relationship at all can’t you?
Hmmm...I would argue that the Spirit of God is EVERYWHERE to some extent or another, working in all things. And to the extent that Christ-like love is being exhibited towards self and the neighbor, I would say that God is INDEED working. Is this to say that God is working in exactly the same way as God is in the Church? Nope. But to say that God is ONLY working in the Church is to be unnecessarily parochial. On the implications of omnipresence and continual working of the Holy Spirit, see Amos Yong's "Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions"
Yes. I can accept that. I've even said that before. Pinnock teaches this in "Flame of Love." But I DON’T believe that God is ONLY working in the Church. Thanks for the reference. Will definitely read that as well.
Brandon:
By the way, I forgot something here. Growth to become like Christ? Let's not get into packaging our evil intentions with this kinda talk either. As if "becoming like Christ" and "self-fulfillment" are synonymous.
Hmmmm...you wouldn't say that living in Christ-like love is NOT human self-fulfilment in the true sense? That Christ-like loving is NOT only good in and of itself, but also that it LEADS towards self-transcendence (loving one's fellow human beings)and self-fulfilment through this? Hmmm...
Yes. In the truest sense. Just as we can have “Christian hedonism.” But can you see where there is a difference too? In which people will acknowledge that they want to serve God and that someone is hindering their relationship with Christ but in reality they are seeking to get out of a commitment or away from hard times or a “sick marriage?” This is not to say that marriages should never end Meph Man. Obviously, Jesus allows for the dissolution of marriage. One can end a relationship because of the eschatological implications (growth in Christ). I’m simply pointing out that evil intentions underlying self-fulfillment can be packaged in Christianeze. Ironically, one may find true self-transcendence and self-fulfillment in “hashing it out” process--“in the village” so to speak. Though there is no definite line of demarcation as to where we could say, “This is the end” for a marriage relationship.
Brandon
"Theology is doxology"--John G. Stackhouse quoting J.I. Packer in "Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method" | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/24/2005 7:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
I'm going one more step in saying that since Christ instructed/expected that we would in fact be baptized, not just "say a prayer" or whatever and leave it at that, that likewise we should expect that a marriage ceremony ought to be normative, but not "essential" in the strict sense.
What is the BASIS of this practice being normative? This is the important question. Laika is saying that the very notion of covenant ITSELF requires a public declaration...thus the normativity is grounded in what covenant IS. (I disagree with this, but that's what I hear him saying.) Other people look at Jesus's affirmation of the Creation narrative's take of
Adam and Eve as creating the normativity. What, in your opinion, is the source of the normativity? I would say that the marriage ceremony is made normative by SOCIAL CUSTOMS, not by divine or even ecclesial sanction. We cannot minimize the idea of how marriage ceremonies are actually POWERFUL TOOLS of transferrence of belief, cultural identity, and social cohesion. It is that power, I believe, that has made marriage ceremonies a lasting thing in human history.
So, Corey, what is the source of normativity for wedding ceremonies, in YOUR view?
What I've wanted to do with this conversation is to separate some of the categories and ascertain, simply, WHAT is it that makes relationships (and the sexuality within those relationships) between persons acceptable and pleasing to God? Is it the actual covenant being made? Is it the ritual by WHICH the covenant relationship is being initiated? I have come to the conviction that it is the LOVING RELATIONALITY that reflects the Triune God which grounds BOTH of those things that is the the source.
Modes got my thinking RIGHT ON. My belief is that healthy intimate relationships and sexuality are ULTIMATELY grounded in sources from whence COVENANT faithfulness arises: Trinitarian-type love.
In other words, if two people were to get together with each other and NEVER have a wedding, or papers, or a ceremony (for whatever reason)...but were demonstrably embodying the "ideal" as I've described it, I don't know if I could say that this couple was unacceptable to God. On what basis could I? I could give positive PRAGMATIC reasons why it might be a cool thing to do for one's social context. But, if they decided against this, it's not like this relationship wouldn't be lived out in the public sphere. Or that they wouldn't let people know that they were together. It would only be SOCIAL CONVENTION that would condemn such a couple for not "following the rules"...and say that they must have a wedding for it to be real. Think about it. How ludicrous would it be for a person to find out that a couple that had been together for 20 years in the Trinitarian-type love of the ideal without being "officially married"..and then tell them they HAVE to have a ceremony for it to be "real" or "honorable before God." That would be completely silly. So, what does this indicate?
Think about it.
************************************
Brandon,
1) I think that we are in agreement that it's most helpful that there be SOME type of supportive community that couples are a part of. And I think we are in agreement that that community need NOT necessarily be the Church in a strict sense.
2) I think we'd agree that if BOTH PERSONS are of the same faith context, that it would be gravy for them to have that faith community be an serious element of their community.
3) I think that we'd agree that PURSUIT of self-fulfillment is not necessarily that same thing as self-fulfillment. All too often, it is the hurried search for self-fulfillment that leads directly to it's loss. Herein is the profound wisdom of losing one's life to truly find it.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/24/2005 6:52:32 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/25/2005 2:34 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
So, Corey, what is the source of normativity for wedding ceremonies, in YOUR view?
I'm attempting to follow Jesus' example in how he established his relationship with his bride. Since Jesus wanted us to go through a ritual as part of our uniting with him (for his own reasons, unknown to me. I assume it's more than just complying with social customs of the time) so also I expect there is a similar value to be found in going through a ritual as part of my uniting with my wife.
Secondly, and understandably not compelling to anyone else, I've sought God in sincerity of prayer asking if I should abandon my view on this, and so far I have not been convicted that I need to. "And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you." I don't see that it's a harmful view to hold; on the contrary, I think it has beauty and draws us to contemplate his love.
MephEternal said...
What I've wanted to do with this conversation is to separate some of the categories and ascertain, simply, WHAT is it that makes relationships (and the sexuality within those relationships) between persons acceptable and pleasing to God? Is it the actual covenant being made? Is it the ritual by WHICH the covenant relationship is being initiated? I have come to the conviction that it is the LOVING RELATIONALITY that reflects the Triune God which grounds BOTH of those things that is the the source.
Modes got my thinking RIGHT ON. My belief is that healthy intimate relationships and sexuality are ULTIMATELY grounded in sources from whence COVENANT faithfulness arises: Trinitarian-type love.
In other words, if two people were to get together with each other and NEVER have a wedding, or papers, or a ceremony (for whatever reason)...but were demonstrably embodying the "ideal" as I've described it, I don't know if I could say that this couple was unacceptable to God. On what basis could I? I could give positive PRAGMATIC reasons why it might be a cool thing to do for one's social context. But, if they decided against this, it's not like this relationship wouldn't be lived out in the public sphere. Or that they wouldn't let people know that they were together. It would only be SOCIAL CONVENTION that would condemn such a couple for not "following the rules"...and say that they must have a wedding for it to be real. Think about it. How ludicrous would it be for a person to find out that a couple that had been together for 20 years in the Trinitarian-type love of the ideal without being "officially married"..and then tell them they HAVE to have a ceremony for it to be "real" or "honorable before God." That would be completely silly. So, what does this indicate?
You may be surprised, but I agree with you. I just think you're pointing out the exception to the general rule though. I grant that a legit marriage can exist without a wedding, just as a legit Christian can exist without baptism. But barring some exceptional circumstances, we should go through the ritual. I think there's a blessing to be had.
Conversely it follows that just as going through a baptism doesn't make one a true Christian, so too going through a wedding does not guarantee a true marriage. Hmmm. That could be controversial.
Post Edited (Corey) : 1/25/2005 2:14:40 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/25/2005 5:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Conversely it follows that just as going through a baptism doesn't make one a true Christian, so too going through a wedding does not guarantee a true marriage. Hmmm. That could be controversial.
Very...well...said. That's my point. Marriage, just like true idenfication with Christ, is at base a conscription OF THE HEART. Throughout scripture, God sets up and allows rituals only to RELATIVIZE them later by what's truly important: the inward person's relationship to God! From the prophets to Jesus himself. All of them talk about what truly sanctifies or defiles a person in the eyes of God.
___________________________________
Now, what I'm understanding from you is the following:
Jesus ordered us to do baptism, something that initiates us into being his Bride. And I assume that this is for an NON-ARBITRARY reason and not merely an accomodation of social custom OR some humanly idea...even though I don't know what that reason is. Obviously, this reason was very important to Jesus. Therefore, in following Jesus's model of interaction with HIS bride, (an initiating ritual) I expect there is a similar value to be found in going through a ritual as part of my uniting with my wife. Therefore, Jesus's decided model of initial interaction with HIS Bride is my source of normativity.
Is this your thought? I want to make sure I'm understanding you. If it's not right, I'll make it up to you. 
Here's a question for you. Why think of marriage as YOU uniting with your wife? Why not think of this in terms of your future WIFE uniting with you? Why not think of this as you and your wife MUTUALLY uniting? I'm not just dancing around with semantics here. I'm really trying to make what I believe to be an important point. Check out this scripture...
-------------------------
Ephesians 5:22-6:9
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church– for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery–but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother”–which is the first commandment with a promise– “that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.” Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
---------------------
Notice the how the author uses Genesis 2:24...again going back to the Creation story, possibly to give more authority to his claims about how a man is ONE with his wife and Christ is one with the Church. In some commentaries, it's suggested that the "mystery" to which the author refers is a way of saying that the Adam/Eve relationship (Eve coming FROM Adam and to help Adam) was actually a PROTOTYPE for the true revelation: Christ's relationship to the Church. In other words, the Gen 2:4 event was a "mystery" that had it's FULLER revelation revealed with the coming of Christ. This was possibly the author's belief.
Now, one of the things about the Christ/Church to Groom/Bride relationship that we can clearly see is how it is SIGNIFICANTLY built upon the Adam and Eve story. The "mystery" that the Ephesians author talks about. The parallels that are made with this are fairly obvious.
1) It is the BRIDEGROOM that sanctifies the bride...and wants her without spot or wrinkle. This goes along with the idea of the cleansing bath and dressing rituals that a bride had to go through before being presented to her husband.
2) As Eve came from Adam, Eve is subject to Adam's headship and is there as a help for Adam. So also the Church came from Christ and is subject to Christ as "head"
3) As Eve and Adam are one flesh, BECAUSE Eve came from Adam...so it the Church one with Christ because it came from Christ.
Most important to YOUR situation, Corey...
4) It is CHRIST HIMSELF (in the Gospels) who is said to have ordained baptism as a means of initiation for his bride. He defines the means by which his Bride shall be related to him...and defines how his Bride shall be initiated into "bridedom" (not a word, I know)
Ok. Now here's the thing...
Is the marital relationship AS WE ARE UNDERSTANDING IT really comparable with Christ's initial and continued interaction with the Church? Are you able to define the way that your Bride shall be related to you? Would you consider yourself equal in stature with your wife UNLIKE the way Christ is NOT equal with the Church. Are we understanding the husband to be the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of those baptized into the Church? Are we understanding the wife to be "submissive" to the husband, too, as the Church should be subject to Christ? Are we understanding the need for the wife to be UNBLEMISHED, through as she is presented to us (This is linked to vs 25-27, which alludes to BAPTISM)
(Digression: Funny when you think about our wedding traditions, eh? How the bride isn't supposed to see the groom until the wedding time? How the bride has to be in all-white? How the father of the bride brings to bride TO the groom? [See 2 Cor. 11:2-3] Doesn't it ALL make sense, when you think about it?)
In short, doesn't this represent a very patriarchal understanding of marriage? Yes, it does...but it's CONSISTENT with the entire view. It originates with the Creation narrative (Adam and Eve), has it's incorporation into the already patriarchal culture, and it ultimately VALIDATED by a biblical author citing his analogous formation as the revelation of a "mystery"
What I'm getting at here is this, Corey. Given all of this, I don't see how a person would want to follow the "Christ as Church's groom" model consistently...and NOT be a complimentarian person who believes in male headship.
(See http://www.cbmw.org) It seems to me to go in one big package. Why? Because of the authorizing ties to the Adamic story AND the patriarchal rituals that the author refers to in even setting up the analogy. (ie washing of the bride, presenting of the bride, bride being subject to the groom, etc) Even granting the "mutual submission" text of Eph 5:21 (which complimentarians will happily accept), this does not negate the inherent separations that the author makes between husbands and wives...AND children and fathers (more patriarchy)...AND slaves and masters.
So, Corey, if you really want to align yourself most fully to embody the Christ/Church relationship to Groom/Bride, it would seem to me that you'd have to take the whole kit and kaboodle on this one. Unless you are just going to say that Jesus is ONLY validating the binding power of ritual...and not HIS RELATIONSHIP to the church, I don't see how you can say otherwise
I could be wrong, but that's how I'm seeing it. Thoughts?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/25/2005 4:04:18 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/25/2005 6:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Wow. I sincerely think you're one of the brightest people I've ever talked to. You've done a great job of modelling my thoughts and playing them out to their logical conclusion. I hadn't gone as far as you did!
I'm going to have to take some time to reflect on this once again. The whole egalitarian/complementarian debate is murky water for me. You should know (probably do already) that I'm coming out of a complementarian background, and I assume it's not your intention to reinforce me back into that.
Wow. Thanks for the kudos, man. Really. Wow. I'm having great times interacting with you, too! You're super tight! 
As far as the egalitarian/complementarian debate. Funny story. In seminary, I took a class, Women in Ministry. I was the ONLY MALE in the class...and boy could I feel it sometimes! Not only that, but even though I was a solid egalitarian, I felt it necessary to take up argumentation for the COMPLEMENTARIAN side...because I felt that things were a little one-sided in the class. Got the class to read "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" and all that. (See, I've ALWAYS been a "devil's advocate" since the beginning.) Anyways, long story short, by the time things were done, largely egalitarian, VERBAL PLENARY class ended up being half and half (much to the chagrin of my Pro-CBE professor!) All this said...NAAAAH! I don't wanna push ya back. I feel bad already about all those fellow students I "converted" Sheesh! LOLOL!!  Mad love, man. 
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/25/2005 5:11:06 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/25/2005 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Had to put this...just wanted to double check. Wow. I THOUGHT that they'd say something about it...See how it all links?
http://www.cbmw.org/questions/
17. Since the New Testament teaching on the submission of wives in marriage is found in the part of scripture known as the "household codes" (Haustafeln), which were taken over in part from first-century culture, shouldn't we recognize that what scripture is teaching us is not to offend against current culture but to fit in with it up to a point and thus be willing to change our practices of how men and women relate, rather than hold fast to a temporary first-century pattern?
This is a more sophisticated form of the kind of questions already asked in question 15 and question 16. A few additional comments may be helpful. First of all, by way of explanation, the "household codes" refer to Ephesians 5:22-6:9, Colossians 3:18-4:1, and less exactly 1 Peter 2:13-3:7, which include instructions for pairs of household members: wives/husbands, children/parents, and slaves/masters.
Our first problem with this argument is that the parallels to these "household codes" in the surrounding world are not very close to what we have in the New Testament. It is not at all as though Paul simply took over either content or form from his culture. Both are very different from the nonbiblical "parallels" that we know of.
Our second problem with this argument is that it maximizes what is incidental (the little that Paul's teaching has in common with the surrounding world) and minimizes what is utterly crucial (the radically Christian nature and foundation of what Paul teaches concerning marriage in the "household codes" . We have shown in question 15 and question 16 that Paul is hardly unreflective in saying some things that are superficially similar to the surrounding culture. He bases his teaching of headship on the nature of Christ's relation to the church, which he sees "mysteriously" revealed in Genesis 2:24 and, thus, in creation itself.
We do not think that it honors the integrity of Paul or the inspiration of scripture to claim that Paul resorted to arguing that his exhortations were rooted in the very order of creation and in the work of Christ in order to justify his sanctioning temporary accommodations to his culture. It is far more likely that the theological depth and divine inspiration of the apostle led him not only to be very discriminating in what he took over from the world but also to sanction his ethical commands with creation only where they had abiding validity. Thus we believe that there is good reason to affirm the enduring validity of Paul's pattern for marriage: Let the husband, as head of the home, love and lead as Christ does the church, and let the wife affirm that loving leadership as the church honors Christ.
________________
Can you IMAGINE how these people would take a person saying they didn't believe in the historicity of the Adamic couple? It'd be equivalent to saying that Paul was wrong...and we know where THAT leads...
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/25/2005 6:18:48 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 1/25/2005 9:01 PM (GMT -6) | |
Brandon,
1) I think that we are in agreement that it's most helpful that there be SOME type of supportive community that couples are a part of. And I think we are in agreement that that community need NOT necessarily be the Church in a strict sense.
2) I think we'd agree that if BOTH PERSONS are of the same faith context, that it would be gravy for them to have that faith community be an serious element of their community.
3) I think that we'd agree that PURSUIT of self-fulfillment is not necessarily that same thing as self-fulfillment. All too often, it is the hurried search for self-fulfillment that leads directly to it's loss. Herein is the profound wisdom of losing one's life to truly find it.
Yes. But can we agree that trinitarian type love and the eschatological "becoming" are a grounding for "sticking with it" and not the "contract?" The point at which to end it is when "community" has not been reflected in the relationship?
Brandon
"Theology is doxology"--John G. Stackhouse quoting J.I. Packer in "Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/26/2005 2:40 AM (GMT -6) | | | Meph,
You sent me spinning, reeling in search of personal clarity in regards to "what do I really believe about my 'husbandness'?" And I thank you for that.
In my search, I came across a new term, one that I think best describes where I am today: non-hierarchical complementarian. The term comes from an article on Christians for Biblical Equality's website: I believe in Male Headship. It's all about power-under, not power-over. The idea that I'm the head for our family is NOT about authority (in that regard I hold that my wife and I share this equally). It is about my servanthood.
What do you think about this? Does this give me a consistent, coherent theology in regards to my views of Christ:Church as Groom:Bride as Baptism:Wedding.
Relieved (for the moment)
Corey
Post Edited (Corey) : 1/26/2005 1:56:00 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/26/2005 6:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
You sent me spinning, reeling in search of personal clarity in regards to "what do I really believe about my 'husbandness'?" And I thank you for that.
In my search, I came across a new term, one that I think best describes where I am today: non-hierarchical complementarian. The term comes from an article on Christians for Biblical Equality's website: I believe in Male Headship. It's all about power-under, not power-over. The idea that I'm the head for our family is NOT about authority (in that regard I hold that my wife and I share this equally). It is about my servanthood.
What do you think about this? Does this give me a consistent, coherent theology in regards to my views of Christ:Church as Groom:Bride as Baptism:Wedding
Good thought. Here's the thing though. Not to keep your head spinnin' or anything...but here's something that I've thought about for quite some time. Let's look at what Bilzekian says...
"I believe in male headship unabashedly and unreservedly. I cannot evade the issue or rationalize my way around it. The headship of husbands is clearly and unassailably taught in the New Testament. Moreover, the Bible clearly declares that the response of wives to their husbands' headship is submission in everything. Indeed, the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. As the church is subject to Christ, so wives must be subject in everything to their husbands (Eph. 5:23-24). This precept is not given in scripture as a recommendation, a suggestion or a piece of advice that may be optionally followed. It is an absolute mandate that requires the same level of adherence as any of its commandments.
Coming from an advocate of the reform movement called egalitarian or, more accurately, non-hierarchical complementarian, the above statement sounds regressive. For this reason, I also caution against citing it without referencing what follows."
VERY important terms he's using. Non-hierarchical complemetarian. I don't know exactly what he means by it, but I can take a stab. The statement may mean that even though he believes in male headship, he doesn't believe in lording the power over others. Hey, that's cool...
BUT...
I have the same problem here that I have with some of Doc's oversimplification of the "power-under/power-over" false dichotomy. Bottom line: it is completely possible for a person BECAUSE OF THEIR POSITION to have legitimate hierarchical authority over another...and use THAT power in loving service of the other! We can't forget that Jesus, even though he called us friend, also understood himself as our MASTER and LORD! These terms did not just magically go just because he identified intensely with us and called us into friendship. Just like with God. Even though we believe that there is a mutually influential relationship between us and God...we realize this to be essentially ASSYMETRICAL. Why? Because God is the supreme authority over Creation...and we are not. We are, at best, viceroys who are DELEGATED authority by God and use our gifts to HELP God do what God wants done. With respect to Christ and the Church, both mutually influence each other but the MAIN AUTHORITY is Christ...partly BECAUSE we can do nothing without him, as John's Gospel says. See the point I'm making?
You can rule out the "English" sense of totalitarianism in leadership in the NT meaning of "head"...but it seems impossible to negate the sense of INNATE PRIMACY given to the term "head"...and the AUTHORITY that the biblical authors see flowing from that. In other words, Christ being the "source" of our life implies the INNATE PRIMACY that Christ has to the church...and FOR THIS REASON, submission should be the natural response. The SAME IDEA is used for the relationship between a man and a woman. Because, from Creation, woman CAME FROM a man, there is INNATE PRIMACY of man. And this has implications for authority. scriptures like 1 Cor. 11 support this. I personally think Bilzekian is wrong to attempt to separate the idea of creation chronology from implied authority. It's not necessary from the text itself and possibly reveals an ideological bias.
Look at all the texts...PARTICULARLY, the Ephesians text that I cite. In the "household codes", the theme is HUGELY obvious. Look at the relationship between Husband/Wife, Father/Child, and Master/Servant. Even though, in some sense, both of equal worth to God, the INNATE PRIMACY of the former categories are ASSUMED and AFFIRMED. The author does not obliterate the roles or the IMPLIED AUTHORITY assumed by those roles. He affirmed the mutual influence that each should have on the other. This is IMPORTANT!
In short, the "power-over"/"power-under" ideas need not be so radically distinct. To be sure, we can say that there is no totalitarian, "I'm everything-You're crap" idea behind the assignment of authority. But this is NOT to say that there isn't a SET HIERARCHY OF AUTHORITY in place. It is to say that WHATEVER POWER ONE HAS, it should be used in a servant leadership role!
So, no, Corey. This doesn't really get away from the problem. As Bilzekian says...the scriptures are VERY clear about headship..insofar as the authority for it's normativity LIES in the reliance to the Creation story, according to the author. But the role separation and INNATE PRIMACY of men to women is NOT abolished...and THAT'S the problem. With this view, there will ALWAYS necessarily be a system of inequality in place, because the two are not ESSENTIALLY EQUAL in authority by divine ordination.
Just like Christ will NEVER be innately equal to the Church, even though Christ feeds and serves the needs of the Church.
See the issue?
______________
Brandon:
But can we agree that trinitarian type love and the eschatological "becoming" are a grounding for "sticking with it" and not the "contract?" The point at which to end it is when "community" has not been reflected in the relationship?
Sure.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/26/2005 5:19:16 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/26/2005 10:19 AM (GMT -6) | | | It seems to me that it could be entirely possible that Paul was simply giving culturally relevant instructions as to how to live out the faith in that day and age. We have to keep in mind how very different the culture of today is from that of the Roman Empire in Paul's day.
This doesn't mean we just dismiss Paul's statements, or say he wasn't inspired of God to write them, any more than we are saying Paul's statements about women's head coverings in 1 Cor. 11 weren't inspired of God, or that the Book of Revelation isn't inspired scripture simply because it was originally intended as encouragement for those believers who were suffering under persecution in John's day and not as a "road map" to the end times.
 
So in my view we can consistently hold both things in tension--that male headship is plainly taught in the New Testament, while at the same time keeping in mind that such teachings were culturally conditional rather than universally applicable. The crucial issue for us is to find what principle of universally applicable truth we can glean from the text. This hermeneutical approach is as old as the patristic writers. It doesn't invalidate Paul's argument at all, it just seeks to place it in its proper cultural context (like, for instance, the issue of women's head coverings).
The fact that Paul argues from the story of Adam & Eve or from the relationship of Christ to the Church doesn't make the applications of those truths universally applicable necessarily, for, as can be clearly seen in 1 Cor. 11, Paul often uses such divine/human arguments in an attempt to establish practices that are quite obviously cultural; i.e., in the New Testament period, the issue of women's head coverings, the relationship of slaves to their masters, etc., were culturally very important issues, and as such, Paul felt constrained (and indeed was inspired) to address these issues.
Further, the fact that the NT never comes right out and condemns slavery outright is problematic for those who would argue that all of Paul's statements concerning social relationships are universally valid truths.
(By the way, check out Elaine Pagels' Adam, Eve, & the Serpent for some very thought provoking information about cultural mores in the early church period vis a vis male and female roles in society. Not saying I agree with all her points, but I have found this book to be very eye-opening and challenging).
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 1/26/2005 9:26:46 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/26/2005 10:37 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
VERY important terms he's using. Non-hierarchical complemetarian. I don't know exactly what he means by it, but I can take a stab. The statement may mean that even though he believes in male headship, he doesn't believe in lording the power over others. Hey, that's cool...
Hmmm. I think in this case you haven't modelled out what he's actually saying in the rest of the article. He goes on to build a case that the term "head" in all NT usages does not entail power/authority (if I'm modelling him correctly!) So it's different than simply choosing to not lord power over, it's that there is nothing to "lord" in the first place. The way you've modelled him, I'd still call it a hierarchical complementarian.
My own $0.02 is that perhaps this is related to the paradox of Jesus being fully God, fully man. In his God-ness, of course he's ontologically superior, and clearly has authority over us. But in his humanity he emptied himself of that and in the truest sense of the word became our peer. So since of course I can't model his divinity, all I can model is his humanity. Since he made himself in his humanity our equal, so too my wife and I are true equals.
I must admit to having a strong intuition that my wife and I really do bring different things to the table... she's strong in many areas I'm weak, and vice-versa. So in that sense we are complementarian. But I suspect this is a different usage of the word than we're discussing here. I'd describe our marriage as complementary equals.
Post Edited (Corey) : 1/26/2005 11:09:08 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 1/26/2005 6:08 PM (GMT -6) | |
OK. Not going in order on this. These are the easier one's to respond to. The whole gender issue is probably the most complex. Anyhoo...
Brandon:
But can we agree that trinitarian type love and the eschatological "becoming" are a grounding for "sticking with it" and not the "contract?" The point at which to end it is when "community" has not been reflected in the relationship?
Sure.
Cool. So we agree on this.
1. Trinitarian love forms the basis or foundation for the marriage. Without it, you don’t have a marriage.
2. Trinitarian love and eschatology form the basis for “sticking with it” in a marriage. Not a “contract” or a “principle” (i.e. holding the marriage together at ALL costs as some members here and much of Christendom have assumed). When “growth in Christ” is no longer possible then the marriage can be ended. The point at which this occurs is when the COMMUNITY of male/female is either no longer reflected in the relationship or the point at which it is no longer possible of being achieved.
Good golly. We are SUCH children of the Enlightenment. We want measurements. When do I end this? When does this start? We need EXACT POINTS of reference. Ugh…anyhoo…You up wit dat? K…Some other things.
Just as a sidebar, the implication is, GENERALLY SPEAKING, the Christian should not seek divorce. That is, if Trinitarian love is our basis? Then THE PRIMARY GOAL OF ALL ACTION should be reconciliation. We need to adopt a “hermeneutic of charity” first and foremost. That means patience with our respective spouses (and relationship) and seeing the ogre become a beautiful prince and/or princess. Awww...isn't that sweeeet???
3) What is the ideal for sexual union? What is it supposed to represent, if anything? What should be the CONTEXT for sexual union? Explain your reasoning.
I believe that the sexual union should be the physical consummation of the relationship spelled out in the "marriage" section. I don't feel this has to be explained to much further. Does this say that a couple has to be "married" to experience this? Well...read on.
*********************************************
4) Is sex within marriage ALWAYS holy before God? If so, why? If not, why not?
HELL, no, sex within marriage is not always holy before God. Unfortunately, there are lots of marriages where the sexual relations between the spouses have more objectification, self-serving intention, and opacity that many of them would like to admit. If the holiness of the Kingdom of God is the PERFECT LOVE of God and it's replication, how could anyone say that ANY sexual interaction without Trinity-like love is glorifying to God??
But if what I'm saying is true, then that would mean that merely being "married" (legally, contractually, or by covenant) does NOT ipso facto make sexual interaction holy before God. It is the Christ-like love that permeates it that does it.
*****************************************
5) Is sex outside of marriage wrong in every possible context? If so, why? If not, why not?
Given the theological distinctives I would hold, I believe that the relationship (and the accomapanying sexual culmination of that relationship) described in the sections above CAN exist outside of a formal "marriage" relationship...within the context of a committed, monogamous relationship. Why? Because if the sanctity of marriage lies NOT in the fact that of some divine edict (via Adamic couple as "marriage") or God using marriage as descriptor of God's relationship with his people (YWHH/Israel; Christ/Church)...but on the Christ-like love and intentionality that permeates and grounds the partnership!
Now, here is where I begin to part company with ya Meph Man. We both start from a Trinitarian basis, but end up with opposite conclusions. I end up saying that sex should still remain within the context of marriage, along with the rest of Church history.
First, the Trinity forms the basis for the sex act itself. And the act itself forms the REPEATED ENACTMENT OF THE CONVENANT BETWEEN THE TWO PARTNERS AS FORMALIZED IN THE WEDDING CEREMONY. That is, if the Trinity implies relationship, that relationship, in the human realm, is characterized by bonding. That bonding occurs through the sex act. The sex act POINTS BACK TO the formalized wedding ceremony. That is, just as MARRIAGE is significant as a CENTRAL EXPRESSION of the drive toward bonding? So also, WITHIN marriage the sex act serves as the primary means of expressing not only our fundamental sexuality as male and female but ALSO the MUTUAL COMMITMENT of the marriage partners.
As a side bar? It should be noted that one doesn’t establish or continue a marriage because of sex. In other words, one can have a marriage without it, i.e. medical reasons. On the other hand, one could invite others into the bedroom (i.e. monogamously committed threesomes) but this would not make a marriage. In other words, simply having a committed monogamous relationship is not enough.
Brandon
"Theology is doxology"--John G. Stackhouse quoting J.I. Packer in "Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method" | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/27/2005 1:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Hmmm. I think in this case you haven't modelled out what he's actually saying in the rest of the article. He goes on to build a case that the term "head" in all NT usages does not entail power/authority (if I'm modelling him correctly!) So it's different than simply choosing to not lord power over, it's that there is nothing to "lord" in the first place. The way you've modelled him, I'd still call it a hierarchical complementarian.
I understand that Bilzekian thinks that "head" would be more adequately translated "source" and the implications that he draws from that. When I took that "stab", I was being quite reductionistic...moving on quickly. where I disagree with Bilzekian, and others like that, is what I've argued before. The greek term used for "head" DOES imply authority by way of INNATE PRIMACY. To attempt to separate the order of chronology (time of appearance on the scene of history) from the order of primacy (Who came from whom and/or who supports whom) appears completely arbitrary and slightly indicative of a interpretational bias. And the order of primacy carries ideas about AUTHORITY with it. The way "head" is used of God, Christ, or Adam in the New Testament ALWAYS seems to have this order of primacy thought to it. Do a cursory look at the scriptures that Bilzekian cites and you'll see.
What I don't like about Bilzekian's idea is that it doesn't allow for the concept of SERVANT LEADERSHIP, where authority which is genuinely owned is used in SERVICE of the people "under" them. Apply the idea of servant leadership to all of the passages Bilzekian cites. It ALL works. Christ is the servant leader par excellence who even though he is LORD OF ALL serves all. Bilzekian make this big ado about something...
Two additional considerations must be taken into account in order to get at the real meaning of head in the New Testament. There are scores of references in the documents of the New Testament to leaders from all walks of life: religious leaders, community leaders, military leaders, governmental leaders, patriarchal leaders and church leaders. Never is anyone of them designated as head. A profusion of other titles is used, but head is conspicuously absent from the list. The obvious explanation for this singularity is that head did not mean "leader" in the language of the New Testament.
Perhaps is because only the concept of "head" could adequately portray the idea of a being who BECAUSE of their action as supplier/provider of life is fit to be submitted to. In other words, the authority rests not on mere declaration or assertion of such, but on the FACTICITY of one's dependence on the other for their existence. Eve wouldn't BE HERE if it weren't for Adam's rib...and Adam's need.
See what I'm getting at, Corey. There IS authority that goes along with the idea of "source"...and there is a SEPARATION between men and women that is assumed BECAUSE of that.
We do not have complete egalitarianism here.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/27/2005 1:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
1. Trinitarian love forms the basis or foundation for the marriage. Without it, you don’t have a marriage.
Trinitarian-LIKE love...yep.
___________
Brandon:
2. Trinitarian love and eschatology form the basis for “sticking with it” in a marriage. Not a “contract” or a “principle” (i.e. holding the marriage together at ALL costs as some members here and much of Christendom have assumed). When “growth in Christ” is no longer possible then the marriage can be ended. The point at which this occurs is when the COMMUNITY of male/female is either no longer reflected in the relationship or the point at which it is no longer possible of being achieved.
I would agree with this, more or less...but take it outside of an explicitly Christian context. And I would say that what you've just mentioned can be a PART OF THE COVENANT between two people. I said:
6) Is marriage meant to be a LIFELONG commitment?
I believe that marriage is to have 1) Christ-like love, 2) mutual influence and 3)covenantal commitment. This does NOT mean that the covenant AS CREATED has to be stipulated to ONLY be lifelong. It may be agreed between the perspective spouses that certain things will be reasons for mutually acceptable, amicable dissolution of the relationship. [The notion of covenant ALLOWS for this!] This, I believe, would be distinct from a BROKEN COVENANT from broken trust, which is the essence of adultery. This would be an ASPECT of the covenant. Again, if one doens't presuppose that God is the main determinative agent that "seals" the marriage, then there is no problem. Notice, this doesn't say that the INTENT of the married couple isn't to stay together forever. It IS. This just says that people getting married DO have some say in the covenant that they are making with one another.
I agree that the more perfect exhibition of love is that which is LASTING union unto death. and it's my idea that if mutual submission/exaltation and Christ-like love permeates the relationship, it WILL last until death. But it's not necessary to say that the marriage relationship MUST be lifelong for it to be authentic.
In short, the two people can AGREE to that if the relationship, despite their efforts, deteriorates to a point where growth in love as individuals-in-community for both people is NO longer possible, that they will dissolve the relationship.
__________________________
Brandon:
Just as a sidebar, the implication is, GENERALLY SPEAKING, the Christian should not seek divorce. That is, if Trinitarian love is our basis? Then THE PRIMARY GOAL OF ALL ACTION should be reconciliation. We need to adopt a “hermeneutic of charity” first and foremost. That means patience with our respective spouses (and relationship) and seeing the ogre become a beautiful prince and/or princess.
Agreed.
_________________________________
Brandon:
First, the Trinity forms the basis for the sex act itself. And the act itself forms the REPEATED ENACTMENT OF THE CONVENANT BETWEEN THE TWO PARTNERS AS FORMALIZED IN THE WEDDING CEREMONY. That is, if the Trinity implies relationship, that relationship, in the human realm, is characterized by bonding. That bonding occurs through the sex act. The sex act POINTS BACK TO the formalized wedding ceremony. That is, just as MARRIAGE is significant as a CENTRAL EXPRESSION of the drive toward bonding? So also, WITHIN marriage the sex act serves as the primary means of expressing not only our fundamental sexuality as male and female but ALSO the MUTUAL COMMITMENT of the marriage partners.
I would fundamentally agree with your concept, but not with the particulars. Whereas you say that sex act should be seen as a repeatable ENACTMENT or SIGN of the mutual commitment entered into by the covenant as formalized in the wedding cermony, I'd just say that sex is the repeatable sign of the COVENANT...period. There's no need to add the ceremony on their because it's extraneous to the covenant ITSELF. (That is, unless you want to argue like Laika that public, initiating ceremonies are necessarily INTEGRAL to covenants...which I'd find VERY hard to argue).
Bottom line: A covenant does NOT have to have an initiating public ceremony in order to be a covenant as such.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/27/2005 8:12 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
I would fundamentally agree with your concept, but not with the particulars. Whereas you say that sex act should be seen as a repeatable ENACTMENT or SIGN of the mutual commitment entered into by the covenant as formalized in the wedding cermony, I'd just say that sex is the repeatable sign of the COVENANT...period. There's no need to add the ceremony on their because it's extraneous to the covenant ITSELF. (That is, unless you want to argue like Laika that public, initiating ceremonies are necessarily INTEGRAL to covenants...which I'd find VERY hard to argue).
So if a guy keeps requesting the same hooker, it's a marriage of some kind?
| | Back to Top | | |
| 119 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:37 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|