Question of the day: Paul's view of the physical

Here's a question from Facebook:

I'm a bit confused... I thought the early Church took it's lead from St Paul, and i can't see him agreeing with gay anything - let alone marriage. He didn't even seem to think much about straight marriage come to that. I admit I have an issue with Paul - he always seemed so utterly down on any kind of physical love, and i find it hard to reconcile his teachings with those of Jesus.

The church was built on Peter, the Rock, the fisherman. Rural, uneducated Peter. Paul was erudite and voluble. Because we have so many of his (and his followers) letters it -might- give a false impression of his actual role.

Paul wrote to cities that were in horrendous idolatrous sinfulness. The homosexuality he mentions is in the context of those idolatrous behaviors. Because of that, we really don't know what he thought about the concept of committed, monogamous same-sex relationships. He didn't discuss them.

But Paul's instructions on marriage are a wonderful example of how we have to take the scriptures in their entirety, rather than pulling out snippets to prove our point. I could quote Paul and "prove" that Christians aren't supposed to marry at all. I wouldn't be adding anything to his words, simply restating them. But the common Christian understanding is that marriage is a good thing, despite Paul's telling us that marriage pulls us away from Christ, and that we should only marry if we are weak.

So take Paul in context. He was a bit of a fire brand and self appointed micro-pharisee (it's hard to break old habits), trying to keep the young church as clean as possible. Trying to make followers who strove for holiness. Trying to make up for his past hate crimes against Christians.

The Holy Spirit inspired Paul's words. But they were -Paul's- words, spoken to a time and place, for that time and place. The Spirit still speaks, and it sounds to me like He is whispering to you.

Consistency in interpretation: Is slavery God's mandate?

 

Here's a follow on to a previous post about Ephesians 5:21-33.

The section in which this passage is contained has been referred to as "Instructions for Christian Households". It opens with counsel for married couples, continues with discussion of children, and concludes with treatment of slaves.

Here is the section on slavery:

Eph. 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. 9 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.

The marriage section (5:21-33) is often used to support the "One man, one woman" argument, under the premise that God is clearly showing us that this institution, as described in these verses, are not merely His design but also His mandate.

But if that is the case, how do the same set of Christians deal with Eph. 6:5-9? If we apply the same logic, then God clearly approves of slavery, and it is his part of His design and His mandate.

Right?

The Epistles were written for situations within the cultural context of the day. Slavery existed, but we can't believe that God's wish for us today is that it be perpetuated. Similarly, the marriage customs of the time had particular gender ramifications (monetary and societal) which no longer exist today.

Of course there is much richness in the text for us to apply here and now. Christians make use of the slavery passages in the context of jobs and other situations requiring subordination, for example. And we can learn much about marriage in verses 5:21-33, no matter what gender God brings together.

But I'd love it if we could all strive for intellectual and spiritual honesty, which in part involves consistency. It boils down to this: either God's intent through these passages is to mandate and approve of both institutions (marriage and slavery) or of neither.

It isn't honest to claim it for one institution but not for the other.

God Himself Violated the Law

While reading through some of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy recently I came across the passage below:

Deut 22:23 If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, 24 you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.

I wasn't hunting for marriage related laws, this one just happened to jump out at me. Why did it grab my attention? Because according to this passage, God Himself violated the law.

Luke chapter 1 describes the occurrence.

Mary the mother of Jesus was in a city; the town of Nazareth. She was betrothed to Joseph. The Holy Spirit came upon her, overshadowed her, and planted a child in her womb. She did not cry out for help because she didn't want or need it. Joseph initially believed himself to have been wronged and planned to divorce her.

All of these facts line up to show a clear violation of the law laid out in Deuteronomy 22.

At the very moment the New Covenant was initiated, God Himself broke an Old Covenant law related to marriage. Perhaps it was a sign of it's passing, a shattering of a clay tablet inscribed by a Pharisee.

The Spirit must have whispered to Mary "Don't think about what you've been taught. Simply love Me with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." Mary responded by opening to His request, despite knowing that she could be stoned.

I'm still pondering what this could mean. I don't have an answer. But since God Himself begins the very life of Christ through a violation of marital law, it certainly points out that the Biblical "view" of marriage is far from straight forward.

What God has joined together...

The gospel reading for yesterday was Mark 10:2-16. The priest focused part of her sermon on verses 2 through 12, which read:

And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." 5 But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." 

Two things struck me about the passage, in relation to Marriage Revolution.

The first comes in verse 9, and in particular, the phrase about what God has joined together. 

In the past, I'd thought this referred to anyone who was married; if you ended up marrying, surely it was God's will, because marriage is a God-thing and a church thing.

But I realized that this thinking isn't quite right. Sure, He permits us to marry whoever we want. We have free will, and free choice. When you marry, it definitely falls within his permissive will. But then again, so does sin. He permits many things. Not all marriages fall under his ordained will however. Not all matches are made (literally) in heaven. Many, many marriages come as a result of us not listening to the voice of reason, whether it be spoken directly by the Spirit, or indirectly through friends, families, and our own logic.

So that's the first part of my realization; that just because you are married doesn't mean God directed it to happen.

The second part is a bit more nuanced. I'm a lover of the sacramental, and hold the sacraments in high esteem, so the idea of undoing a sacrament is difficult for me. I thought that all Christian traditions considered marriage a sacrament. Turns out that in Protestant denominations (including Anglicanism) it is not. 

Strike two against my fundamental thinking.

Even within the Catholic and Eastern traditions, which hold marriage as sacrament, there is an issue which shakes my thinking. Unlike the other sacraments, which have an ordained clergy member officiating, the spouses themselves are the ministers of the sacrament of marriage. They officiate. And this seems to pull it even further out of the realm of what I'd viewed it to be.

Is it any surprise that half of our marriages end in divorce? We are not uniting as couples that God chose from His heavenly throne, we are most often not married sacramentally, and even in a sacramental union we are being our own ministers rather than joining with a priest in persona Christi to knit a chord of three.

My notions about the sacramental quality of marriage have fallen by the wayside. 

That doesn't mean that I don't believe what He says in verse 9: "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." 

Woe be it to any who would do so. 

What has shifted is in my understanding of what God's joining together means. I think there are very, very few couples for which this description fits.

And that's the crux of the problem.

Book Recommendation: Committed

I'm in the middle of reading a great book, picked up with no idea how well it fit into Marriage Revolution ponderings. It is Committed: A Skeptic Makes Peace with Marriage, by Elizabeth Gilbert.

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.

You say we need a revolution...

Re-posted from A Theology of Desire:

Marriages are imploding all around me. In some cases I could see it coming for years ahead of time. In a few cases, it has been a surprise.

Simultaneously, the airways are filled with chatter and clamor about gay marriage. As a result, I've come to a conclusion.

I want to start a marriage revolution.

The revolution would focus on three essential tenets:

1. Choosing the right person.
2. For the right reason.
3. At the right time.

How much better off would our nation be as a whole, and each of our families individually, if we truly focused on these three things?

What if we started training our children from toddlerhood right up until they are launched?

What if our high schools offered classes in relationship preparedness instead of "sex education"?

What if our churches helped people understand God's plan for spousal union from the pulpit and through formation classes, rather than in a few counseling sessions before the marriage service takes place?

It seems so simple.

Tell me; am I missing something?