 |
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/21/2005 1:38 AM (GMT -6) |   | I want to talk about male/female relationships. (We'll leave out same-sex relationships for this).
Here's are some questions:
1) In your opinion, what is the ideal for "marriage"? Explain your reasoning.
2) What is the ideal of male/female relationships? Is there a "head of the house"? If so, who is it and why? Explain your reasoning.
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.
4) Is sex within marriage ALWAYS holy before God? If so, why? If not, why not?
5) Is sex outside of marriage wrong in every possible context? If so, why? If not, why not?
I anticipate we'll see some significant reference to the Creation narrative...but we'll see...
Hopefully, we're gonna get into some deep waters here.
scripture for thought:
1 Corinthians 11:3-16
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head–it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.
Let's think about how CULTURAL our ideas about male/female relationships are.
Oh, we're gonna have FUN...
"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) : 1/21/2005 4:04:26 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/21/2005 1:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmmm... I feel like this is a pretty cool thing to read. See what you think...
An Orthodox take on Marriage
http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Worship/Marriage.html
http://www.oca.org/pages/ocaadmin/documents/holysynod/marriage.html
Part of it...
Marriage was not invented or instituted by Christ. The Lord, however, gave a very specific meaning and significance to human marriage. Following the Old Testament Law, but going beyond its formal precepts in his messianic perfection, Jesus taught the uniqueness of human marriage as the most perfect natural expression of God's love for men, and of his own love for the Church.
According to Christ, in order for the love of a man and woman to be that which God has perfectly created it to be, it must be unique, indestructible, unending and divine. The Lord himself has not only given this teaching, but he also gives the power to fulfill it in the sacrament of Christian marriage in the Church.
In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman are given the possibility to become one spirit and one flesh in a way which no human love can provide by itself. In Christian marriage the Holy Spirit is given so that what is begun on earth does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God.
For centuries there was no particular ritual for marriage in the Church. The two Christians expressed their mutual love in the Church and received the blessing of God upon their union which was sealed in the holy eucharist of Christ. Through the Church's formal recognition of the couple's unity, and its incorporation into the Body of Christ, the marriage became Christian; that is, it became the created image of the divine love of God which is eternal, unique, indivisible and unending.
"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) : 1/21/2005 2:07:38 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/21/2005 4:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Allow me to answer:
1) In your opinion, what is the ideal for "marriage"? Explain your reasoning.
The ideal for "marriage", IMO, is to internalize and reflect the loving relationality (in all of its dimensions) of the Truine God in a mutually-edifying partnership that exemplifies that relationality. In other words, a married couple is to live in the loving, passionate, trusting, committed, mutually-influential, self-giving, other-oriented transparency that comes to them from the Trinity...and replicate that to each other and everyone else. From their partnership with one another, each person is built up into a relationship that is more than the sum of its parts in all ways. This partnership would be something entered into VERY, VERY conscientiously and carefully.
To the extent that one believes that God IS love, and loving intentionality as described above permeates the partnership, God IS in the relationship.
Personally, I wouldn't base this off of the Adamic couple. And I wouldn't base this off of the Christ/Church relationship. And I wouldn't say that marriage exists explicitly within the context of the Church. (Though I could understand and respect a Christian doing all of those things. )
[Note: I notice how different this is from other views of marriage. But those views are based on the idea of GOD being the main agent to place married couples together...based on the Genesis 2 passage and Jesus's restatement of the same. This ultimately leads the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches to have people married IN the Church. I can really respect the Orthodox and Catholic positions of Marriage as Sacrament. Their conceptions are quite consistent within their theological perspectives. However, I disagree with some of the premises...so...I actually BELIEVE in "until DEATH do us part."]
****************************************
2) What is the ideal of male/female relationships? Is there a "head of the house"? If so, who is it and why? Explain your reasoning.
Again, I'd go with the idea of the Trinity...along with the idea of a possible theme of the Creation narratives. Genesis seems to attest to the inherent social, interdependent nature of human beings and the mutuality that should exist between males and females. How these combine would be like this: though separate roles in the human experience may exist, both genders have the same level of worth. Women do NOT have derivative worth with respect to men in the LEAST. Just like Jesus is FULLY God just as the Father is FULLY God...though they definitely have different roles in salvation history. Neither has derivative worth with respect to the other, though mutual subordination and mutual exaltation DO take place! So, who's the head? Ultimately, both.
(Digression: Please understand, people, that to the extent that you believe the Pauline stance on this, you HAVE to say that women have AT BEST derivative worth with respect to men! Yes, Paul says that affirms their interdependence...but he still affirms strongly that women were created FOR men. And that means something. See that??)
*********************************************
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!
From this perspective, the formal marriage process is just that...formal. This isn't to say that the marriage process doesn't have it's benefits. Of course it does. But that's not what puts God in the relationship. Again, if God IS love...Christ-like, self-sacrificial love...then living IN this love, receiving this love FROM God places God in the relationship.
One last question:
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.
Thoughts? Totally open to correction and criticism. Just kicking around some controversial issues here. 
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/21/2005 3:58:15 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/21/2005 8:05 AM (GMT -6) | | (Digression: Please understand, people, that to the extent that you believe the Pauline stance on this, you HAVE to say that women have AT BEST derivative worth with respect to men! Yes, Paul says that affirms their interdependence...but he still affirms strongly that women were created FOR men. And that means something. See that??)
and to the extent that you DON'T affirm Paul's teaching, at least within the cultural context, you are saying that he is wrong. which means you're sliding down that slippery slope. Also, I don't know if I would agree he's saying women's "worth" is derived from men.
As for me...
warning self disclosure coming...
I don't really have a problem with the headship thing...though I understand paul in a cultural context in this case. As you know, I have some pretty traditional leanings anyway. If it were true, all places and all times, I'd think of it like this: If a man exemplifies the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness, etc of the Holy spirit, I'm not going to argue with his headship.
I do think we have socially constructed ideas about male/female relationships....some for good, some not so good.
For your steadfast love is higher than the heavens, and your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.
psalm 108:4Post Edited (Selah) : 2/17/2005 5:18:40 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/21/2005 8:50 AM (GMT -6) | | 1) In your opinion, what is the ideal for "marriage"? Explain your reasoning.
Mutual loving servanthood, submission to each other in love. If true, godly love reigns, no one will be used or abused, and each partner will seek to please the other. Even if we use the "as Christ loved the church" reference in Eph. 5 as a paradigm, it seems rather obvious that Christ never lorded his authority over his followers, but rather had the heart of a servant.
2) What is the ideal of male/female relationships? Is there a "head of the house"? If so, who is it and why? Explain your reasoning.
I think it depends on the personality types and synergism within each relationship. For instance, in many ways, my wife is the one who runs things, mainly because her personality tends to be more "take charge" while mine tends to be much more laid back. (Believe it or not). Things that she sees as high priorities don't generally appeal to me in the same way, and vice versa.
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.
In 1 Cor. 7, Paul seems to hold to a rather pragmatic approach, basically saying that if people can't control themselves sexually, they ought to marry and have regular sexual relations with their spouse. The context for marriage (and the sexual union that implies) should be that of a lifetime commitment to each other. (The whole "one flesh" thing).
4) Is sex within marriage ALWAYS holy before God? If so, why? If not, why not?
Depends on whether the individuals are truly acting benevolently. Even within a legally recognized marriage, it kind of goes without saying that people can just be using one another and not truly acting from a motive of godly love. (Please note, I'm definitely NOT saying that unbridled lust shouldn't be a part of a healthy, godly marriage. I'm only saying that if the heart of each partner is not truly loving towards the other, then the actions that flow from that unloving state of heart and mind are by definition unbenevolent/unholy.
5) Is sex outside of marriage wrong in every possible context? If so, why? If not, why not?
I guess that begs the definition of marriage. I don't find much scriptural support for our modern concept of marriage as basically a legal contract. In my view, it is a mutual covenant based on godly love, that requires no ceremony to ratify it. As such, "sex outside of marriage" is a bit of a misnomer to me. In 1 Cor. 6, Paul uses the Genesis concept of "one flesh" to describe what happens when a believer has sex with a prostitute.
It seems to me that what Paul is teaching in 1 Cor 6 & 7 concerning sexual relationships is that lifelong sexual monogamy is the ideal (second only to celibacy, if one has the self-control to pursue that).
scripture for thought:
1 Corinthians 11:3-16...
As far as I can see, the passage is heavily cultural. For example, a major point in the passage is about women's head coverings in worship. about the only churches that require head coverings for the ladies today would be Amish/Mennonites and Eastern European churches.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 1/21/2005 9:35:01 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/21/2005 10:08 AM (GMT -6) | | | I'm generally on board with these points (that marriage ought to be modelled after the trinity relationship). But I would caution that we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater in regards to ceremonial rituals. Americans are pretty anti-formality, but I'm not sure this is warranted. Sex should be saved until after the ceremony.
As an aside related to another thread, I think this ties in to why there is no marriage in heaven. ALL relationships will be maxed out in terms of love; it wouldn't be possible to love one person more than another.
Post Edited (Corey) : 1/21/2005 9:15:25 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/21/2005 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
As an aside related to another thread, I think this ties in to why there is no marriage in heaven. ALL relationships will be maxed out in terms of love; it wouldn't be possible to love one person more than another.
An Orthodox take on Marriage:
"In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman are given the possibility to become one spirit and one flesh in a way which no human love can provide by itself. In Christian marriage the Holy Spirit is given so that what is begun on earth does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God."
Matthew 11:28-30 (NRSV)
"Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/21/2005 10:53 AM (GMT -6) | |
6) Is marriage meant to be a LIFELONG commitment?
This ties in to the assurance of salvation topic. It's no small analogy that the church is the bride of Christ. Anyway, whatever you think about the one ought to be consistent with how you think about the other.
My answer is "yes" it was meant to be lifelong.
Post Edited (Corey) : 1/21/2005 9:58:14 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/21/2005 11:01 AM (GMT -6) | | |
I don't see why we can't affirm the ideal (God's will) as being lifelong/perseverance, while also realizing that the ideal is not always accomplished, due to human unfaithfulness. Just because I believe a believer can choose to reject Christ and ultimately be lost doesn't mean I believe that such a falling short of the goal/ideal would be God's will. This analogy seems to directly relate to both salvation and marriage.
P.S.: My earlier comments above were not intended to indicate that I completely discount any redeeming value in the concept of weddings as we have them today. In fact, I have absolutely no doubt my wife would never have married me any other way than with a fairly traditional ceremony. But that's just American and Western culture primarily. The main point I was trying to make was that if the spirit of marriage (steadfast, unselfish love) isn't there, a ceremony won't amount to much (well, it may amount to much in dollars, but you know what I mean).
Post Edited (JEE) : 1/21/2005 10:14:07 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/21/2005 11:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, y'all. Thanks for all the wonderful engagement (no pun intended  ) with my material. This is great!
Selah:
SO for all the couples out there that say "I just fell out of love with him/her" around the seven year itch ... hey, it was good (and authentic)while it lasted. Afterall, if you fell out of LOVE.. that pretty much kills meph's 1) 2) and 3) above. deals off. move on.
Alright! I figured this would come up. The essence of the concern, as I see it:
What if married couples just use this view of marital sanctity (and the "loopholes" within) for their OWN particular individual self-centered conveniences, such that separation happens more over whimsy than true, contemplated, irreconcilable difference?"
Are you saying that marriage covenents that only say "till death do us part" play a role in stopping people who really catch the 7 year itch by "falling out of love" (which is NOT the type of "love" I'm talking about!)...and decide to separate because of that? If so, what role? How about the "well, we made our bed so now we have to lay in it." or the "well, let's stick this out and make the best of it" ideas. This would seem to be more of a CONTRACTUAL reason to stay in the relationship more than anything else. Yes, this works for SOME couples, but it works by compulsion of the GRAVITY of the contract rather than the loving intentionality of the "covenant" they have with one another.
I guess what I'm ultimately saying is that if the type of love I have been describing way earlier is being exemplified in the relationship, I don't see how some 7 year itch could get to the level of dissolving the relationship. I honestly don't. If emotional situations were such that such whimsy COULD be there, then I would seriously question if Christ-like love were even there in the first place.
I believe that I would rather people be motivated by their loving intentions and mutually understood commitments to one another...than being afraid of breaking a vow made to God. In my mind, there is a huge difference. Taking a stab at some of the Baptists. Instead of prescribing that NO ONE ingest or sell alcohol at ANY time, I would rather their temperance arise from their heart-felt desire to live in self-control and dedication to God and the fellow human beings. In the same way, instead of making cohesion of the relationship sure by some IMPOSED sense of contractual obligation, I'd rather it be sure by the loving willingness to enjoy one another and their covenantal relationship THEY both conscientiously decided to enter.
Just me.
**************************************
Corey:
I'm generally on board with these points (that marriage ought to be modelled after the trinity relationship). But I would caution that we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater in regards to ceremonial rituals. Americans are pretty anti-formality, but I'm not sure this is warranted. Sex should be saved until after the ceremony.
I'm not saying that people cannot have ceremonial rituals. I believe that they can. I'm not saying eliminate them. But I would argue that the ceremony itself is NOT what makes marriage a "holy" thing. And this should be taken into serious account. If it is not the CEREMONY that makes the relationship holy, then on what grounds would one wait until "after the ceremony." See what I'm saying? One would wait until after the conditions were met, relationship wise. (And let's be honest, folx. Those conditions are PRETTY DARN steep.)
****************************************
Corey: (emphasis mine)
As an aside related to another thread, I think this ties in to why there is no marriage in heaven. ALL relationships will be maxed out in terms of love; it wouldn't be possible to love one person more than another.
YES, YES, YES, sir! This is what I found QUITE contradictory in looking at the Orthodox view of marriage. It seems that their ceremony was to seal their marital love and relationship into the eternality of God's Kingdom. But, given what the Consummation would entail why would this be even necessary? In the end, there will be NO distinctions in my love for persons. I will love all people as passionately, transparently, as I do my spouse. Therefore, why the need THEOLOGICALLY to seal this BEYOND death? Didn't quite get that.
********************************************
Selah:
Why wouldn't two people as committed as you describe just get married, have sex like crazy WITHIN the marriage context, and be done with it. Why would they WANT to have sex outside of marriage?
What specifically (do you suppose) would be going on in the mind of someone who didn't want to cross the marriage bridge, but still wanted to have a sexual relationship? Seems to me like they would be holding some part of themselves back.
Marriage is beautiful precisely because two people give themselves FULLY/exclusively/forever to each other. Why have any loopholes in that? Ever see old married couples who still love each other? You can bet they've seen life...the thick and thin of it. part of the reason it's precious to see is that they went through life together. not easy. If we agree to loopholes in the covenant, who knows how many marriages would stick together.
What if people think the marriage process is archaic and outdated? What if the people think that the marriage process is a social convention more than a holy bestowing of a grace (a sacrament)? What if people think that the marriage process is little more than a symbol of what is REALLY meaningful...and decides it's unnecessary? There are plenty of reasons why people wouldn't want to get "married" at all. But what about in the context of BEING ENGAGED? Are we saying that the loving relationship ONLY OCCURS after one has "signed on the dotted line" as it were? I've already argued that it's NOT the ceremony the instates OR sanctions the relationship as holy. So, outside of SOCIAL CONVENTION within the conservative evangelical context, what's up?
As far as the loopholes. If you look at ALL the stuff you can on marriage, you will see all kinds of consessions made for the dissolution of marriage. "LOOPHOLES", if you will. So, don't think they're not there...even when one sees marriage as a sacrament. Again, I'd rather place things in the hands of the persons joining together and their reliance on their loving relationship...than on some contractual obligation to keep them together.
"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 | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/21/2005 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
YES, YES, YES, sir! This is what I found QUITE contradictory in looking at the Orthodox view of marriage. It seems that their ceremony was to seal their marital love and relationship into the eternality of God's Kingdom. But, given what the Consummation would entail why would this be even necessary? In the end, there will be NO distinctions in my love for persons. I will love all people as passionately, transparently, as I do my spouse. Therefore, why the need THEOLOGICALLY to seal this BEYOND death? Didn't quite get that.
So, do you not believe in differing rewards in heaven, rewards that vary in richness? Do you believe all love relationships will be equivalent?
That view sounds rather boring to me.
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 1/21/2005 10:21:22 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/21/2005 11:20 AM (GMT -6) | | John:
In my view, it is a mutual covenant based on godly love, that requires no ceremony to ratify it.
As Emeril, the expert chef would say..."BAM!!!" :wink:
*********************************
John:
I guess that begs the definition of marriage. I don't find much scriptural support for our modern concept of marriage as basically a legal contract. In my view, it is a mutual covenant based on godly love, that requires no ceremony to ratify it. As such, "sex outside of marriage" is a bit of a misnomer to me. In 1 Cor. 6, Paul uses the Genesis concept of "one flesh" to describe what happens when a believer has sex with a prostitute.
It seems to me that what Paul is teaching in 1 Cor 6 & 7 concerning sexual relationships is that lifelong sexual monogamy is the ideal (second only to celibacy, if one has the self-control to pursue that).
Follow ya.
************************************
John:
As far as I can see, the passage is heavily cultural. For example, a major point in the passage is about women's head coverings in worship. about the only churches that require head coverings for the ladies today would be Amish/Mennonites and Eastern European churches.
I would agree that the point of head covering ends up being cultural...but...remember the argument about divine authority being conveyed by the CREATIONAL ORDER. Paul uses that again in 1 Cor. He spefically says that...(emphases mine)
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head–it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
Paul is using the same type of argument used in 1 Tim. about women being silent in the churches. But he is going for the gusto using the CREATION NARRATIVE as his basis. Just like many people (including Paul) use the Creation narrative as their basis for God's ideal for marriage, Paul uses it here. It's hard to get around that.
Paul makes it clear that women have DERIVATIVE worth with respect to men, BECAUSE they came from men. He tries to bring in the mutual interdependence later in the passage, but the point is STILL made. (One could argue that Paul himself was having theological development with this. Reconciling the egalitarian ideas of the Kingdom with the patriarchal system he was reared in.)
"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 | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/21/2005 11:26 AM (GMT -6) | |
"...and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."
I'd like some help understanding this clause. What does this have to do with angels? And so... maybe it's a non-cultural principle?
Post Edited (Corey) : 1/21/2005 10:29:07 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/21/2005 11:31 AM (GMT -6) | | | Quick followup note:
The question might arise, that based on what I've said about marriage above, what is the real difference between marriage and sex? And what makes married sex okay, but unmarried sex "fornication?"
My response to this is that what we today call "casual sex" fits the biblical definition of forncaition, while sex within the context of a committed, loving relationship, with the intention that it be "til death do us part" (as Jesus said it should be) is really what the spirit of marriage is. Anything additional to this basic essence of marriage would be cultural constraints, which would not necessarily be wrong, but also would not guarantee real love, either.
JohnPost Edited (JEE) : 1/21/2005 10:58:13 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/21/2005 11:35 AM (GMT -6) | | On this:
mephi:I guess what I'm ultimately saying is that if the type of love I have been describing way earlier is being exemplified in the relationship, I don't see how some 7 year itch could get to the level of dissolving the relationship. I honestly don't. If emotional situations were such that such whimsy COULD be there, then I would seriously question if Christ-like love were even there in the first place.
wanna spend a day with me at the office?
come on. Are you telling me that emotions don't cause people to do things on whimsy...even if those things were never their original intention? can you imagine how many times people emotionally threaten divorce or say "they've already got the papers?"
Marriage counseling can work for these people simply because it bring them OUT of emotional whimsy and back IN to their original intention.
2 years, 7 years, 20, 40 years...doesn't matter. The desire to satisfy self is strong. If someone doesn't "feel" happy anymore (they fall out of love, their partner isn't the same as when they married them, temptation down the street, whatever) it's easy to throw everything out the window based on emotion. We're talking about people who really believe they had a Christ like love when they got married. It really isn't for us to question. They will tell you they did. In fact, many will also tell you that ending a marriage where people aren't "happy" is the MOST Christ-like-loving thing to do. This happens especially if they live in a context where marriage is devalued or seen as outdated etc.
For your steadfast love is higher than the heavens, and your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.
psalm 108:4 | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/21/2005 11:47 AM (GMT -6) | | | Meph,
It seems to me that the MAIN point of the 1 Cor. 11 passage you cited IS head coverings. Paul brings in the creational order concept in to support his argument for women wearing head coverings. He is not primarily discussing the marriage relationship/home in the passage.
Dr. Craig Keener's IVP Bible Background Commentary - NT really seems convincing to me, that in 1 Tim 2, Paul was dealing with a cultural situation, and was not intending to make univerally applicable truth statements concerning men and women.
Additionally, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates (an evangelical Bible scholar of Greek Cypriot extraction), in his Complete Word Study New Testament footnotes on 1 Tim. 2, argues that in context what Paul is saying is essentially, "I do not permit a wife to dictate to her husband," not, "I do not permit women preachers/teachers in the church."
In either case, I personally think Keener's argument that this was a culturally conditional statement, and not a universally applicable one, is solid.
John | | Back to Top | | |
| 119 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:24 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 |
|
|