Christian sexual ethics is best advised to keep to the quite simple outline of the New Testament. For this is as unchangeable as the nature of divine love which is become flesh in Christ. This is unalterable because a “greater love” than the one shown to men in Christ is not conceivable, not in any phase of our evolving world. So long as the Christian’s heart and mind are spellbound by this humble and totally selfless love, he has in his possession the best possible compass for finding his way in the fog of sexual matters. With the image of this love before him he will not be able to maintain that the ideal of self-giving—of true self-giving, not of throwing oneself in front of people—is unrealistic in our world and impracticable. It demands a very great deal: namely, to subordinate everything to the love which does not seek its own; but it gives a great deal more: namely, the only true happiness. One can use sex, like drugs and alcohol, to maneuver oneself into a state of excited, illusory happiness, but one is merely transporting oneself into momentary states which do not alter one’s nature or one’s heart. The states fade and disappear, and the heart finds itself emptier and more loveless than before. It is only when the innermost heart of man is opened that the sun of love can penetrate into it. “Fili, praebe mihi cor tuum, Son, give me your heart” (Prov 23:26).
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Only When the Innermost Heart of Man is Opened...
Hans Urs von Balthasar writes about Christian sexual ethics in the book Elucidations, but his description of the self-giving nature of true love is accurate for people of all faiths, or none:
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
The Ancient Problem of Divorce
The challenges of matrimony are obviously nothing new.
Babylonian Talmudic texts (fourth century?) talk about divorce, saying:
"There are four minds in the bed of a divorced man who marries a divorced woman."
Monday, July 30, 2012
Oscar Wilde on Divorce
"One divorce may be regarded as a misfortune, but two begins to smack of carelessness."
--Oscar Wilde
(Note: This is not intended as a judgement of divorcees, I'm simply collecting marriage and divorce quotes and found this one interesting. I ran across it in Elizabeth Gilbert's book "Committed", where she explains her reluctance to remarry after divorcing. Considering the assessments of others at a second wedding ceremony was one of the discouragements.)
--Oscar Wilde
(Note: This is not intended as a judgement of divorcees, I'm simply collecting marriage and divorce quotes and found this one interesting. I ran across it in Elizabeth Gilbert's book "Committed", where she explains her reluctance to remarry after divorcing. Considering the assessments of others at a second wedding ceremony was one of the discouragements.)
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Book Recommendation: Committed
The book is a follow on to Eat, Pray, Love, and was prompted by the threat that her Brazilian lover (who was introduced in that book) might not be able to enter the United States unless he becomes her husband. Both of them were marriage averse, having survived ugly divorces. Gilbert therefore jumps into a study of marriage both through history and current research.
I have to get my own copy (this one is from the library) so that I can reread it, mark it up, and pull extracts for this blog.
The current same-sex marriage legal debate gains interesting context from the book, which I'll be unfolding in future posts.
Meanwhile, check out the book yourself. It's an entertaining read as well as being useful.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
More on Adam and Steve
A few more thoughts on Adam and Eve as a central argument against same sex marriage, begun in this post.
Adam and Eve are regularly brought up in the debate despite the fact that they didn't actually have what is currently being legally debated. Like the first humans, same sex couples can have a non-governmentally sanctioned union. They can live together and love each other despite an outward appearance of "wrongness" (in this case the problematic duplicate DNA issue). What they can't have in many places is the wedding at Cana, the legal protections of Hebrew marriages etc.
None of which Adam and Eve had.
My point? It's complicated. When it comes to legalization and rights related to same sex marriage, the Biblical arguments which are most frequently paraded need refining. God's model for procreation is clear, and his esteem for fidelity is obvious.
But the Biblical model for marriage itself? Not so simple.
Adam and Eve are regularly brought up in the debate despite the fact that they didn't actually have what is currently being legally debated. Like the first humans, same sex couples can have a non-governmentally sanctioned union. They can live together and love each other despite an outward appearance of "wrongness" (in this case the problematic duplicate DNA issue). What they can't have in many places is the wedding at Cana, the legal protections of Hebrew marriages etc.
None of which Adam and Eve had.
My point? It's complicated. When it comes to legalization and rights related to same sex marriage, the Biblical arguments which are most frequently paraded need refining. God's model for procreation is clear, and his esteem for fidelity is obvious.
But the Biblical model for marriage itself? Not so simple.
Monday, July 16, 2012
The "Adam and Steve" argument
One of the primary Christian arguments against same sex marriage is the Genesis creation account. You may have heard phrases along the lines of "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"
But while I'm a Christian, and a fairly conservative one at that, I find a number of problems with this bit of scripture as a defense of traditional marriage.
Adam and Eve were not "married" as far as Biblical accounts are concerned. Their bond was something that is not really comparable, or comprehensible, to what we have now. For one thing, it reads like the first instance of successful human cloning, which appears to go completely against a properly ordered procreative union. Plus they were the only humans available, which meant there wasn't any aspect of choice. So it seems to me that we can't really use them as the model for marriage.
As a procreation model yes, but not as a marriage model.
In contrast, the Bible as a whole is the model. It concentrates on fidelity. Trust. Love. Covenant. Forgiveness. Generosity.
But back to marriage. Given that Adam and Eve can't really be the model we have to look at later scriptures. And unfortunately, marriages are rarely healthy and whole in the Bible. Most of the accounts show a lot of brokenness. The exceptions are few; the Song of Songs being one of them, and a beaut at that. Mary and Joseph being another one, but that relationship was chaste and therefore also not really comparable.
I think that God uses the broken accounts to contrast His own marriage with us, as described in the Song and in Revelation. The fullness of relationship. The true wedding supper fulfilled. True fidelity, in all ways.
Adam and Eve? Not so much. The first couple is immediately dysfunctional. They don't communicate, they blame each other for joint mistakes, they are homeless, and just look at what happens to their kids.
Not exactly a great model for marriage.
As Christian's we'll have too look harder.
But while I'm a Christian, and a fairly conservative one at that, I find a number of problems with this bit of scripture as a defense of traditional marriage.
Adam and Eve were not "married" as far as Biblical accounts are concerned. Their bond was something that is not really comparable, or comprehensible, to what we have now. For one thing, it reads like the first instance of successful human cloning, which appears to go completely against a properly ordered procreative union. Plus they were the only humans available, which meant there wasn't any aspect of choice. So it seems to me that we can't really use them as the model for marriage.
As a procreation model yes, but not as a marriage model.
In contrast, the Bible as a whole is the model. It concentrates on fidelity. Trust. Love. Covenant. Forgiveness. Generosity.
But back to marriage. Given that Adam and Eve can't really be the model we have to look at later scriptures. And unfortunately, marriages are rarely healthy and whole in the Bible. Most of the accounts show a lot of brokenness. The exceptions are few; the Song of Songs being one of them, and a beaut at that. Mary and Joseph being another one, but that relationship was chaste and therefore also not really comparable.
I think that God uses the broken accounts to contrast His own marriage with us, as described in the Song and in Revelation. The fullness of relationship. The true wedding supper fulfilled. True fidelity, in all ways.
Adam and Eve? Not so much. The first couple is immediately dysfunctional. They don't communicate, they blame each other for joint mistakes, they are homeless, and just look at what happens to their kids.
Not exactly a great model for marriage.
As Christian's we'll have too look harder.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Slow waaaayyyy down.
A friend posted this on Facebook today. I think it is accurate, but doesn't convey the impact of what this reality means.
Slow down girls. Slow waaaaayyyyy down.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Men are from... where???
Yesterday DiDi mentioned to the real estate agent who is helping us find a B&B property that we've been talking about the institution of marriage. I said that we've been seeing marriages disintegrate all around us. The agent responded very seriously. She said "I know exactly why it's happening. It's because men are assholes." She's considering writing a book on the subject.
We laughed because it was such an unexpected answer. And having both been through ugly marital situations ourselves, DiDi and I sympathized with the emotion of the statement.
But of course it isn't true, any more than "all women are bitches" is true.
(Or perhaps they are both true.)
The agent is on her third marriage, and this one isn't going terribly well. Because of her history, she's given up on the idea of men. And she's not alone. Many women who come out of difficult relationships draw the same conclusion, which is very sad.
Masculinity itself is not the problem. Nor is femininity. The two are meant to be complementary and compatible. The particular matches themselves are the problem.
People marry the wrong people. In some cases they do it over and over again.
It's time to refocus. Talk to the young people in your life as soon as you can about this. Tell them that there are few decisions more important than the selection of a mate. Tell them that they are worth much. Teach the young ladies that they are treasures, and the young men that they are noble princes.
Help turn the whole situation around, one person at a time.
We can do this. You and I.
We laughed because it was such an unexpected answer. And having both been through ugly marital situations ourselves, DiDi and I sympathized with the emotion of the statement.
But of course it isn't true, any more than "all women are bitches" is true.
(Or perhaps they are both true.)
The agent is on her third marriage, and this one isn't going terribly well. Because of her history, she's given up on the idea of men. And she's not alone. Many women who come out of difficult relationships draw the same conclusion, which is very sad.
Masculinity itself is not the problem. Nor is femininity. The two are meant to be complementary and compatible. The particular matches themselves are the problem.
People marry the wrong people. In some cases they do it over and over again.
It's time to refocus. Talk to the young people in your life as soon as you can about this. Tell them that there are few decisions more important than the selection of a mate. Tell them that they are worth much. Teach the young ladies that they are treasures, and the young men that they are noble princes.
Help turn the whole situation around, one person at a time.
We can do this. You and I.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)