Be Mine
A few weeks ago my husband and I were treated to an event sponsored by several local churches called “Laugh Your Way to a Better Marriage!”. This is not usually the type of thing we are interested in, but our son thought we could use it. It was very well attended, and actually much better than we anticipated. It may have even helped smooth out some rough spots in our own road to marital bliss?
So along came Valentines day, an occasion we have pretty much ignored for the 26 years of our marriage, and it was no big deal, only this year Valentines day coincided with a message I received from my little sister about our Aunt Gertrude - aka Sr. Theresa Clair, and another message from a friend which included the “prayer of St. Theresa”.
And I found myself posting on Saints, which led to a comment about St. Valentine performing marriages that had been forbidden by the Roman Government, which rung a bell about some modern day issues, concerning marriage. And I am wondering, is it possible, in February 2006, to talk about marriage without bringing up the concept of Homosexuality? I’d rather not get into that subject here.
But yesterday, I went to the Episcopal Church again, and a Bishop was visiting, and between services there was a forum about the future of the local church where the priest - Father Carl, disagrees with the appointment of a practicing homosexual as Bishop (not the one that was visiting). Fr. Carl and many other Episcopalian priests, and many split congregations are in danger of being defrocked and loosing their church facilities because of the Biblical stand they are taking against Homosexuality. If an Episcopalian priest commits adultery he is defrocked. Fornication is considered reason for removal from the priesthood, yet having a live-in lover of the same sex is tolerated and the right to such a relationship is protected. This particular bishop, which made the headlines a few years back, would marry his partner if it were allowed. So why not allow same-sex marriage? Why are Christians butting in to the personal life of these people? What is marriage anyway?
Genesis 2:24 - Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh. And these words of the Torah were confirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6 “And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh, so then they are no longer two but one flesh therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
That’s pretty clear isn’t it?
Marriage doesn’t always work out that way. Evangelical Christians have about the same rate of divorce as non-Christians. The Catholic rate is a little lower, because Divorce is considered grounds for excommunication. But even though divorce is a sad fact of life, it is clear that that isn’t what God intended from the beginning. And anyone who has been involved in divorce should be able to understand why the Bible says that God hates divorce. I will not go further into the subject of same sex relationships. Even people who try to say it isn’t really a sin, have to admit that there are many, many verses in the old and new testaments of the Bible that speak against it. They can argue that those verses were written for another time and another culture. They can argue that those verses mean something else. But they can not argue the fact that they appear in the Bible.
So have you heard the argument that if we allow same sex marriage, we will have to ultimately allow all types of marriages, including polygamy, the marriage of brother - sister etc. Hey, those marriages are actually Biblical. I did a little skimming of Genesis yesterday. The first case of polygamy was the great grandson of Cane who took two wives. He was a murderer like his grandfather, sounds like a case of involuntary manslaughter. It just matter of factly states that he married two women. Of course, he’s not one whose example we are called to follow. Seems like monogamy is the norm until Sarah (the half sister of her husband) talks Abram to have a child with Hagar. Now, she was a slave, and Abram didn’t marry her, but that incident created a multitude of problems which the world is still plagued with…the off spring of Ishmael. The next case of Polygamy I found was Jacob, Leah, and Rachel. A result of deceit on the side of the first wife and the father in law, which resulted in jealousy, sibling rivalry, and crisis through which the chosen people of God were brought into Egypt and suffered 400+ years of slavery. When you read the whole story, you can see where God was working out the plan of Salvation through all these events, and confirmation that all things work for the good for those who ultimately trust the LORD. But what does that have to do with marriage.
Yeah it seems that polygamy was tolerated Biblically. Consider David and Solomon. And there is Biblical proof also, that even when a severe sin is committed, ie David’s lust which led to adultery, which led to murder…God can forgive and redeem and turn things around. The woman ended up being in the Family Tree of Jesus after all. But it is obvious that this isn’t the way God intended marriage to be. The two shall become one. Not the three shall become one.
Paul, who thought it was better not to get married at all, told Titus that elders must be the husband of one wife. And since then, Christians have taught against polygamy. Which allegedly caused quite a problem in some African villages where chiefs had many wives and were told they couldn’t continue living that way if they accepted Jesus as their savior.
So send those extra wives packing…
One more thought about Christianity and marriage. Culturally speaking, many people groups considered (still consider) women to be the property of their husbands. Men are oppressive and women are the oppressed. With Christian missionaries came the idea that women are every bit as much children of God has men, that women should be treated with dignity and respect. Young girls sold into prostitution were rescued and educated.
Some people consider the Bible to be sexist. Yet historically, the Christians did more for the plight of women then any other group. Some Christians have missed the point, some groups have been oppressive toward women, forcing women to be subject to their husbands with out going one verse further and compelling men to honor, cherish, and respect their wives. But that isn’t God’s fault. That isn’t Jesus’ fault. A lot of what the Bible says has been used in wrong ways.
Should Christians fight to keep marriage between one man and one woman? Is it really any of our business what the government decides? Should Christians fight against abortion or homosexuality? It seems we should, as followers of Jesus, take a stand for Truth. We are not living in a godly nation. We are not living in a godly world. Yet we are told to be in the World - lights shining on the hill top. Salt. When we pray, Thy Kingdom Come, thy will be done…should we not choose to take a stand for Kingdom principles?
I’m not even sure myself, for myself, what action to take. Let the world go to hell in a hand basket. Love the sinner hate the sin. Stay safely within the walls of the church and worship the KING of kings, and LORD of lords, and let the plan unfold as it is meant to, without me…Some fine day, Soon and Very Soon, Pie in the Sky…
My prayer Journal, Guide Post planner says I should include the LORD in my plans today. Everyday. And now it is time to continue my day…LORD let your light shine through me. Blessings and Amen!
18 comments:
Good post but I must clear something up. Catholics are allowed for a very serious reason to divorce but they must NEVER remarry. We have several men in our parish whose wives initiated a divorce for one reason or another and they have been single for a good many years. They are in good standing but "until death do us part" applies.
A Catholic would be guilty of serious sin if they remarried and would not be allowed to receive the sacraments until they left the person that they remarried and confessed their sins.
My husband and I have been married for almost 32 years and I try to impress on the children that it's not all roses. But that by hanging in there through thick and thin you become closer. I wouldn't trade him for the world today. I know if I get sick, he will be there and visa versa. It's a really good feeling.
We stand for the truth by our example and by speaking out when there is an opportunity.
Good thoughts.........
I grew up in a reformed episcopal church. The local episcopal congregation that used to meet down the road now meets in the basement of my old church because they took a stand against homosexual leaders in the Episcopal church and were thrown out.
It is a sad, sad time in the episcopal church, and the church in general.
Not gonna get into the homosexual argument with you. Suffice it to say we would disagree strongly and that conversation could get heated.
I will address one argument you brought up, though. Not yours, I know, I have heard it before. Homosexual marriage would open the door to polygamy and incest. There is no actual sense to this argument if you even scrape just a hint below the surface. Not morally, spiritually or practically. Trust me, I've had the debate, many times. I will simply leave that as it is unless you want to tackle it. It's your house.
Bridget, what about anullments? When my first marriage ended I was told by the parish priest, that due to the abuse and perversion of that relationship - long story - I would have no problem getting the marriage annulled.
Wanderer, no - I really choose not to get into the homosexuality debate. That topic could turn real nasty real quick and I rather not go there. And actually I do not think the "if you allow same sex marriage, polygomy is next" is a valid arguement. For those of us who hold true to the Bible, the Truth is simple. Genesis 2:24 and Matt. 19:5. I really think if people want to define marriage differently, that is their choice, but Bible believeing Christians should stand firm on Biblical principals, or else not identify themselves as Bible Believeing Christians. Then arrises an interesting question, can one follow the teachings of Jesus and not be a Bible Believing Christian?
Maryellen: I'd have to know all of the details. Were you married in the church, was he baptized etc... I don't really agree with annulments except for the four reasons that the church has given for them. If you were granted an annulment, then you could have qualified under one of the four reasons.
good post Marryellen.
Shalom
Wes
Of course, your post brings to mind one of the primary questions I have had all along. Even allowing for the biblical interpretation in regards to marriage, is it the church's business to involve itself in the passing (or not) of man's laws? Man's law vs. God's law and What belongs to Caesar and whatnot?
Wanderer: I think I understand your question and to some extent, even agree. I do not look toward government to solve much of anything. But what if the vast majority of people professing to believe in God, actually did truly believe in him, and decided it was a good idea to pass certain laws, wouldn't that be ok in a democracy even though a minority disagreed with the law? Those people would constitute "the church" wouldn't they? "Caesar" was an outside, imposed government at the time and also an outside imposed religious system so I don't see that as an applicable quote. I also don't think the founders were quite as frightened of the church in the separation issue but more of government imposing itself on the church.
Apparently, although the idea was basically new to me, the Jews have a concept of the 8 (?) laws of Noah. basic moral laws that are common to most cultures and in most times...
laws against stealing, killing, adultry, that sort of thing.
And there is no denying that the 10 commandments used to be the set standard for law making for thousands of years and many cultures, countries.
How does any culture or government decide on laws...on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Safety? Economics? Greed? Power? what is the basis of law? Do churches have the right to impose their morals on a government. No. In our country the citizens have a right to address laws that they feel are unjust, and orchastrate change. Christians are citizens, and their faith in Christ should affect their vote. The trend in our country has lately been that it doesn't matter what the people decide, or how they vote, the ultimate decision is up to the judges. That isn't the way the system is supposed to work.
The problem I pose is this: In some areas the church is attempting to influence laws, the effect of which have no direct bearing on those people's lives. In short, if your faith is against something, others have a faith that isn't, and the practice you are trying to outlaw doesn't effect your personal life in anyway, do you still try to impose your religious views and morals on these other people through law? Is God calling us to do this? And if so, where did he do so?
"But what if the vast majority of people professing to believe in God, actually did truly believe in him, and decided it was a good idea to pass certain laws, wouldn't that be ok in a democracy even though a minority disagreed with the law?"
Perhaps in some cases, but there are some extenuating circumstances at times. For example, depending on the law, the majority agreeing can not be an acceptible standard. (I.E. Slavery, Segregation and other human rights issues) In these cases one must stand for human rights over majority prejudice. Second, one must note the numbers versus the power. One might say the majority feels a certain way because that is what you hear people saying. This would negate the reality that many of these issues involve small groups of people with particular political power that steer the questions. In this manner the polling of people's opinion becomes difficult in the face of the various lobbies and political forces.
In this area, I must therefore disagree with the condemnation MaryEllen gives of the courts. Sometimes you need somebody to stand there and say, okay, many of you are bigots, but based on our constitution, this still can't stand.
Wanderer, without taking time during my work day to dig into the WORD, let me just note that I believe Christians are called to protect the innocent. We are called to care for widows and orphans and the sick and the oppressed. I think that would include the unborn innocent. I think that would include the minds and welfare of little kids. I think that would include women being oppressed sexually by porn and prostitution. Therefore I think that Christians should take a stand and be a voice for the voiceless and a watchman against corruption or immorality that might hurt the innocent. This is not a well thought out reply. I may readdress the subject later when i have more time
"I think that would include the minds and welfare of little kids."
Dangerous ground there, MaryEllen. Recently a judge in a divorce case between two Wiccans decided to "protect" their child but declaring they were forbidden from exposing the child to their religion.
This is asinine and was overturned on appeal and the judge made to give an apology. Still, it brings the danger of whose perspective we use on the risk to these kids. In short, are you raising my child?
Pastor Art - This is shaky ground. You must remember that our constitution actually forbids passing laws on a purely biblical basis. That would be the same as a government established religion. While many people take the separation clause beyond its bounds, this is precisely what it is about.
Which is why, despite a desire for a moral society, laws must be kept in tune with whether or not that which is being regulated in my life has a bearing on the stability of our socio-economic model, whether or not the law provides for equality, and whether or not that which is being regulated negatively impacts others in our society. Some areas that people are clamoring about now have none of these impacts. They only impact the individuals involved. As such I don't think the church calls for this meddling. Quite frankly, even if it does, in our government model it is still unacceptable.
"In short, are you raising my child?"
MaryEllen - Just to clarify, this wasn't intended to sound like an attack at you personally. The you in question was meant to be generic.
Don't you think you folks should finish that reconciling before you start pushing laws that you claim God demands of us? The Bible and the constitution are not meant to be reconciled. Nowhere does the Bible state that scripture is to be made the law of the land. The scriptures are supposed to teach you how to live, regardless. The constitution, as a human governmental model can't possibly take the same approach. It can only be practical. It's design is the safety of the state, not of our souls. Why? Because this is not a singularly Christian nation, and you would join in the protest against using the Quran, Torah or the Charge of the Goddess as basis for our government. The constitution deals with all of us, now. Regardless of our beliefs. It cannot impose your beliefs on me. If it tries and the courts finally fail the protests that they haven't yet, the government will collapse. Even if you think these laws would be right, you must acknowledge that this would be the result. There are too many of us that couldn't stand for it.
Our government is of the people (all of them) for the people (all of them) and by the people (yeah, you get the idea.) It is not of, for or by the Bible, and the Bible doesn't ask that you make it so.
it has been said to never discuss religion and politics...who said that? who knows?
I'll let Pastor Art and Wanderer sort these things out,
but I was thinking this morning,
that marriage used to be about making a committment, a covenant between a man, a woman, and God.
it wasn't meant to be about insurance and taxes and divorce.
So let the government deal with insurance and tax laws, and let the churches deal with marriage.
And I was also thinking about sex.
not even 30 years ago it was against the law for unmarried couples to live together, adultry and homosexuality were crimes. Now legally, in most states, anything goes between consenting adults, unless one of those adults gets paid for her services, and the age of consent is in question. In some states it is 16, in other states it's 21. So maybe the government should just forget about sex crimes too, except against children. Murder is a given, unless ofcourse we are talking about abortion and euthinasia. Stealing is wrong. Anything eles goes as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. Can a legal system define degrees of hurt? Do we just consider physical pain, and ignor mental anguish. The old law used to be eye for eye and tooth for tooth...Kill someone and you die, maim someone and you get equally maimed. I don't know. I wish I was in Rochester, NY this morning. We would go to Bethal Church and then visit our good friends and Pastor Art and Wanderer could continue their debate face to face, and I could hold baby emily, and after a nice afternoon with friends I would go visit my mom and smoke a cigerette and drink coffee while Art watched TV in the living room.
"but I was thinking this morning, that marriage used to be about making a committment, a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. it wasn't meant to be about insurance and taxes and divorce. So let the government deal with insurance and tax laws, and let the churches deal with marriage."
You have to bear in mind that their is a sociological and practical purpose for marriage, original intent or not. This is what I have been pointing out. Even now, there are marriages between men and women that the government recognizes and the church doesn't. This is fine. As long as the church doesn't try and change the laws to make their version of acceptable marriages the only one available to the secular community.
Besides, your "used to be" is only a romantic view. There was never a time when marriage didn't have certain political ramifications. It may not be what the stated purpose was supposed to be, but those ramifications were there.
On a side note, I do like the sounds of the outline you gave for being in Rochester. Maybe we will be able to work something like that out sometime in the near future.
Post a Comment