Marriage and the Bible - Part 50 - Final Thoughts

This series started with a series of questions and a simple idea to go through the Bible and find out what is actually said about marriage.  With 50 posts it stands as probably the most lengthy thing I have done to date and I am sure some of those questions weer answered, but not always in the way one would have thought.  

1. Is there a difference between being married and being husband and wife?

I would say yes.  At least there is a great deal of difference between a couple that seeks to have a spiritual covenant and those who engage in a cultural contract type of obligation.  It seems that God has always desired man and woman to have what the original couple had before the fall of man.  A triune relationship with Him, man and woman together.  Sin entered the world and over time culture and law began to seek to define marriage as forms of obligation and give it in many ways a mechanical and practical view away from the idea of 'one flesh', naked and unashamed.

In our world Christians find themselves where the ultimate desire for their married lives is to return to this covenant relationship but still there are cultural and legal obligations that define marriage.  God seems to let mankind define this but presses each couple 'back to the garden'  as it were.  Mankind can indeed present difficulties in this as sometimes marriage contracts are not written with this in mind.  In some forms cultural contract marriage is actually a deterrent to achieving spiritual covenant.  The spiritual covenant marriage is about God; the cultural contract is about man.  God seems to respect or at least allow both, but His desire is to bring mankind back to the garden at least in spirit.

2. Does the Bible give a actual moment of marriage that is definable?

This greatly depends on what you are talking about.  When it comes to culture and law, marriage is definable when all requirements are met and agreed on.  Those requirements are different for each culture and nation so it is difficult to say anything other than God honors that man makes some choices here.  Even here, because of the nature of humanity, this can be a clear as mud.  In a spiritual covenants I see that is this union is only possible with one man, one woman and God at a moment when all three parties come together in spirit, mind, heart and for the couple flesh. 

I think it is very possible to have one without the other but often what happens is a conjunction of both.  Some marriages start out as covenants without cultural obligations such as Adam and Eve's being husband and wife.  Others start off as a cultural and legal obligation and can change into a spiritual covenant.  The best marriages in our fallen world try to live up to both with an understanding that, if push comes to shove, what God desires in a spiritual covenant takes precedent over the cultural contract.

3. Are other types marriage bonds acceptable?

What can be said about this is that the Bible allows for the fact that humans are going to be humans and we are going to enter into less than perfect relationships because of it.  The Bible presents many forms of marriage in its contract form: polygamy and concubinage for the most part with marriages that are purely procreative or pleasure oriented.  God accepts that human being will want to control sexual expression to maintain certain cultural and legal obligations.

What the Bible takes the dimmest view on is anything that involves sin in the relationship or a mixing of faith (believers with unbelievers).  In our modern context, that means open marriages and homosexual marriages are out, but polygamy and even group marriage (minus homosexual and open elements) are real possibilities.  The problem with all of these though is that outside the simplest arrangement for marriage (one man, one woman for life) there becomes a diminished capacity to live up to or even attain a marriage that is a true spiritual covenant. 

4. Can a marriage end?

The unfortunate answer is yes.

The real truth is that spiritual covenants require a great deal of effort to both attain and maintain and this means that there are a lot of opportunities for it to become the lesser form of marriage -- the cultural contract. 

In the cultural contract form, marriage can be broken and ended when one side or the other decides the obligations are not being kept.  Christians probably should take note that Jesus defines adultery as the only thing that should end any marriage but allowance is also made for mixed marriages by Paul and the fact Jesus even seems to indicate that 'hardness of heart' can still cause a marriage end, it just may not justify it.

The other unfortunate end to marriage is death and this in effect ends both kinds of marriage.  This can make the end of a spiritual covenant marriage particularly difficult when a couple is truly one flesh.

In the end marriage is both an action involving both God and man and thus it gets complicated even in the Bible as it greatly is affected by what what a person or culture is seeking to produce with marriage.  Marriage involves a lot of choices but God's desire remains the same.  That desire being to see a man and woman one flesh, naked and unashamed working for His purposes.

Finis

Previous: Modern Challenges: Is Traditional Marriage a Failure? 

Marriage and the Bible - Part 49 - Modern Challenges: Is Traditional Marriage a Failure?

The question keeps getting raised by people who challenge traditional marriage:Is it a failure?  There are even people who suggest that we should do away with legal marriages all together and just let people do what they want.  Given some of the Recent headlines with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Anthony Weiner as well as the 50% divorce rate, there seems to be ammo with this.  Why not just call traditional marriage a wash and let people live in any arrangement they want?

Firstly, I reject the notion that the institute of traditional marriage is a failure. Things may fail but there is always a human reason why they fail.  When a building collapses, we don't sue the building but the people who designed it, built it and said it was OK.  In traditional marriage, the idea is sound, in fact it really stands at the only true way to have the highest form of intimacy between a man and a woman.  The issue is not the institution of traditional marriage but the people who say "I do".

Secondly, as much as we want to show marriage failures as evidence there are also couples who succeed.  I have been to 60 year, 50 year, 40 year and 25 year anniversary celebrations.  I myself just celebrated 22 years with the same woman just yesterday.  The truth is that for every failure there is a success.

Ultimately, I would conclude that those who want to talk about the failure of traditional marriage are people who have an unfortunate wrong understanding about what traditional marriage is supposed to be about.  It is supposed to be about a spiritual covenant with God and a member of the opposite sex that runs as an example of what the relationship between Christ and the Church is supposed to be.  Traditional Marriage then ultimately fails because people fail to understand this.  This is reflected in many thing I have seen over the years:

1. People going into marriage purely for selfish self interest.  If all you talk about before you get married is what the marriage is going to do for you and you never think about what your responsibilities are toward the other person are and how you can make them a better person, you have a problem.

2. Failure to understand God's role in the covenant.  Going into a marriage without God automatically reduces marriage to a contract.  Contracts break.

3. Viewing marriage as a manipulative tool to get what you want done from your spouse.  The main thing to remember about marriage vows is to make sure your fulfilling your end of them.  I see so many people who complain about their spouse's not fulfilling what they expect, but are completely oblivious to their own failures.

4. Failing to be your spouse's best friend.  Viewing a spouse as an attachment and not a friend is the first step to divorce.

5. Failing to engage in the things that bring intimacy.  Worshiping, communicating, loving and sexual expression all have their place to do this when done a a couple.

In short, when a person starts viewing their spouse as a thing that should just do what they want without concern for their person hood or what they are needing, you are viewing your marriage as a contract.

In a sense, I too believe traditional marriage should go.  It should go, if all people are going to use it for is a contract to keep the other person obligated.  It should be returned to its real role of a covenant expression of love between to people and God.  That is probably the difference in most marriages as far as success or failure.

Next: Final Thoughts

Previous: Modern Challenges: Homosexual Marriage

Marriage and the Bible - Part 48 - Modern Challenges: Homosexual Marriage

If there is a topic of conversation that everyone has an opinion on, it's homosexual marriage.  In our modern western culture, this topic probably generates more heat than light as the emotions run very high all the way around.  Christians and homosexual advocates are particularly vocal and at times very hostile toward each other.

Biblically, there is no doubt as to the stand on homosexual practice - it is a sin.  Most notably is the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 where he calls the act 'unnatural' and 'degrading'.  This along with many other verses makes the Bible's position clear.  Homosexuality is a sin.

One thing though that needs to be cleared up about homosexuality is how big a sin it really is.  The way you hear the TV preachers talk it is the most terrible sin ever.  The fact is that it is in many ways equal to other sexual sins.  In the Law, homosexuality and adultery have the same penalty - death.  This indicates that while homosexuality isn't exactly high on God's hit parade, neither is adultery which the Bible equates as equally despicable in God's sight.  This sheds a whole new light on the issue to me because many Christians will decry the homosexual and then turn around and slightly shrug their shoulders when it comes to adultery saying: 'well these things happen'.  No wonder the charge of hypocrisy sticks.

The rhetoric that is thrown both ways is not helpful.  I find the term 'homophobic' not only to be a bogus term, but to be an emotionally laced term as well that has no value; it simply is used against the opponents of homosexuality so they will shut up and then no real debate or discussion takes place on the value of homosexuality.  On the flip side, the expression "Hate the sin, but love the homosexual" does not have much effect either.  It in fact creates more barriers.

The real issue from a marriage standpoint for me is that any such union will never be more than a contract arrangement, the only question that remains for American society is: will such a contract be culturally accepted?  The reason I say this is that the Bible offers no possibility for a same-sex couple to truly achieve spiritual covenant.  By design, God has created male and female and only presents that this arrangement has  a possibility of achieving such a union.  In simplest terms, it is not possible.

My basic contention is that homosexuals cannot actually achieve sexual intercourse, therefore the idea they can be truly 'one flesh' is not possible.  The reality is that while a homosexual couple can draw close to each other emotionally, mentally and even spiritually, they can never truly be physically one.  In all cases of homosexuality, sexual expression can only be achieved by everything else but actual sexual intercourse. 

The other place where  a homosexual union fails is that to have a covenant is that God must be in it.  The only relationship that can draw close in homosexuality is the between the two humans,  Because God declares that a homosexual union is sin, there is no way He could draw close to either party unless they give up their homosexuality.  Sorry, No spiritual covenant.

My counsel to homosexuals is the same though as I would to a couple in open marriage.  You are settling for a lesser form of marriage than the one form that is presented as the ideal.  That ideal, one man / one woman in covenant with each other and God stands as the biblically highest form of marriage.

Even if laws were changed to allow such unions, I simply do not see a Biblical acceptance of the idea of homosexual marriage.  Culture may accept it, and Christians will indeed have to accept it if that happens.  The fact remains that culture changes and over the centuries Christianity has had to adapt and change to maintain 'love and truth'.

Next: Modern Challenge: Is Traditional Marriage a Failure?

Previous: Modern Challenge: Line or Group Marriage

Marriage and the Bible- Part 47 - Modern Challenges: Line or Group Marriage

I have to admit this one is a tough one.  It is very difficult to say this is truly unbiblical.  The reason is that polygamy is most certainly in the Bible, the difference here is that the polygamy is both ways at the same time.

One could say there is no example of a woman married to many men in the Bible, but that could be a cultural thing as the importance of knowing both the father and mother of a child was very important to them.  It is also an argument from silence which does not do us much good.  A woman with many husbands would have a problem identifying the father in that culture.  In our modern day, paternity tests could determine this, but the proponents of group marriage point out that all the men take legal responsibility for every child in a group marriage regardless of who the father actually is.  The issue for them is that all adults are responsible for all children produced by the group.

The difference between this and open marriage is that sexual fidelity is expected in most group marriages.  The person must keep there sexual relationships inside the group.  Some of the more liberal ones allow for homosexual relationships and openness, but that is not always the case.  The Biblical problem with open marriage is fornication, but in group marriage where openness is not allowed and coupling must be male-female, the charge of homosexual sin and fornication disappears.  That leaves us with only the charge that multiple men with a single woman is not seen in the Bible.  That does not leave us much to cling to, if we are going to say this marital arrangement is unbiblical.

This type of marriage actually also does allow for the possibility of a covenant relationship but much in the same manner as polygamy has that possibility.  The difference being that with more men more such covenant couples are possible.  Ultimately though this becomes at best a mixed contracts type marriage with covenant relationships possible, but more and more unlikely as more people are added to the group.

In many ways group marriage is about creating a line (thus line marriage) of marriage that can last for a long time.  As members die, they can be replaced and a legacy created that can last as long as people want to stay in it and keep it going.  It also, in many ways is about getting some of the benefits of open marriage (multiple partners to avoid boredom, which is by the way the third leading cause of divorce in the United States for both men and women) and yet the legal protection of a marriage contract.

Another thing could be said about divorce here, that if one member of the group decides to divorce the rest, it does not end the group marriage, just that person's involvement in it.  It still means the kids would be taken care of by more than one parent, although custody issues are going to get really complex with this type of marriage should that person getting the divorce decided to sue for custody.

This is ultimately a tough one to say - "this is sin, it should be not be done".  What could be said is that it does not reflect the ideal of what God, Jesus and the Apostles present as a marriage.  It is much more of a contract than a covenant relationship.

Next: Modern Challenges: Homosexual Marriage
Previous: Modern Challenges: Open Marriages

Marriage and the Bible - Part 46 - Modern Challenges: Open Marriage

Open marriage is defined as a marriage where both spouses agree that they may each engage in extramarital sexual relationships without those relationships being regarded as infidelity.  In short both sides say that cheating isn't cheating.  Looking above at a copy from a page from a book advocating open marriage you can see the general perspective as one that allows freedom of the individual and a value on honesty and truth in a relationship.  Or so it is stated and believed by those who practice and promote open marriage.  Historically, in the United States open marriage has been popular at two times: the 1970s during the sexual revolution and right now.  From a biblical point of view is this an allowable form of marriage?  Is the swinger cry of: "It ain't adultery if my spouse says its OK." true? 

There are some Biblical passages to consider here.  The most direct teaching is 1 Corinthians 7:4 where it is stated plainly that a wife does not have power over her own body, but her husband does and visa versa.  So if a man wilfully says to his wife that it is OK for her to go out and engage in extramarital sexual activity is he in a sense exercising this power?  Another thing to consider is at certain points in polygamist relationships the marriage is partially open.  If a man is married to a wife and seeking a second, some behaviours could be seen as extramarital activity until the second woman agrees to marriage.  If this is OK why would the idea of open marriage be not OK?

Firstly, I would like to say that open marriage must be classified as purely a cultural contract marriage.  Covenant marriage requires wilful sexual faithfulness and so once a couple is talking open marriage they are dickering about the terms of the marriage contract.  In particular the line that says: "Forsaking all others, keep you only unto her/him".  That stated, is such a contract allowable by the Bible?

The Bible in cultural context is trying to protect a few things with its view of marriage and one of them is children.  When a child is born, the main protection of the child knowing who its parents are is that no one else has been with mommy but daddy.  Modern proponents of open marriage however argue that with modern birth control this could be curbed.

The other thing the Biblical views of marriage try to protect is health.  If the Biblical pattern for marriage were followed worldwide, even including the various forms of polygamy, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) would disappear in a couple generations.  Once again Open marriage advocates argue that condoms could stop this too.

The problem with both things is that no birth control is perfect and no condom is fail safe.  Human gadgets are always prone to error and defect.  No matter what happens this is true because both also require that humans use them correctly.  Sorry, this is simply true to the point that even the manufacturers of said instruments say "99.9% effective if used correctly" to save against lawsuits.

These objections however do not deal with the biblical issue, I simply want to state for the record that this seems culturally OK, but it has its practical problems that could become huge monsters. 

The biblical problem is 1 Corinthians 7:4 does not directly say that the giving of the power of your spouses body for sexual gratification of another is wrong.  Paul in the same book; however, has a very dim view of fornication and that is where open marriage fails biblically.  Fornication would still be taking place from a biblical point of view as any sex outside any type of marriage contract is considered fornication.  Fornication is declared to be a sin so the extra martial sexual encounters become a biblical no-no.

Next: Modern Challenges: Line or Group Marriage
Previous: Women's Equality in Marriage  

Marriage and the Bible - Part 45 - Women's Equality in Marriage

Probably the most significant thing that Jesus and the Apostles do to the understanding of marriage is they very much elevate the status of women in it.  The fact is that one Jesus starts talking about divorce in Matthew 19 and other places the fact is seen that the bride is not to be treated with contempt but respect.  Paul's Jesus/Church equals Bride/Groom also puts woman at a far higher level that much of the Old Testament does.  By restoring the idea of spiritual covenant, Jesus and the other apostles actually put women back at equal levels with their husbands in most cases.  

This has an impact on how men are to treat their wives.  Namely looking at one's wife like Adam first looked at Eve.  Not as some thing attached to my life to help my ego, but as a fellow traveller on the road of life and bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh - part of himself.  It means to love her no matter what.  I know this can be frustrating at times but you have a good counselor.  Jesus I am sure relates to husbands with difficult wives seeing His wife is the church and she can be difficult at times.

It also impacts how women should view themselves in there marriage.  Viewing themselves as responsible to be images of what the church should be toward Christ is a great responsibility and equal to that of their husbands.  In many ways this idea puts women on equal footing in ever area except one and it is the most significant - authority.

The one thing that neither Jesus nor the apostles change is the issue of authority in a marriage.  Man is still the head of woman.  Paul's explanation of this in First Timothy chapter 2 is basically that woman was created for the man, not the other way around.  Man ultimately was created to fulfil God's purpose and woman is there to help man achieve that purpose.  Men thus have the final say in what happens.  That being said, the one thing that is also clear is that submission cannot be forced.  A woman must willfully and freely choose to be under her husbands authority.  For a husband to force his authority on his wife would be an act without love.  At the same time, for a woman not to submit to her husband would be a sin both against her husband and God.  The choice is however the wife's to make, just like it is a choice for a husband to be under the authority of God and love his wife.

Next: Modern Challenges: Open Marriage
Previous: How Spiritual Covenants Fail and Cultural Contracts Break  

Marriage and the Bible - Part 44 - How Spiritual Covenants Fail and Cultural Contracts Break.

There are a lot of things that are required to build and maintain a spiritual covenant marriage as well as a cultural contract marriage for that matter.  It is these things that also are what give both a fragile nature that has to be maintained by both parties to keep them strong. 

The Requirements of Spiritual Covenant Marriage:

1. Dedication to God - if both the husband and wife are not also dedicated to God the covenant will fall apart.  The thing with covenant marriage it involves three parties and three relationships. If a husband or a wife is not also concerned and gives time for their spouse to build and grow their relationship with God, then the covenant will start to break down.  One mistake people make about marriage is they think that the only thing that matters is their relationship to their spouse.  If that is the case then your not really engaged in a spiritual covenant, you have crossed the line to cultural contract.

2. Dedication to Intimate Friendship on All Levels: This intimacy must be marked all the elements of true intimacy: one flesh, naked and unashamed.  It covers all aspects of  the relationship: spiritual, mental, emotional and physical.  most of the time the crack in the armor of marriage starts when one of these areas or more begins to have a 'seperateness' lack of unity, or lack of openness or some shame because of past action.  The healing elements of  forgiveness, kindness and of course love (the real stuff) must always be there.

Given all the things that need to be maintained it is easy to see why things can start to go south.  All it takes is one person turning their back on God or an element of intimacy to be ignored or forgotten or a single unforgiveness offense for it to no longer be covenant. 

Cultural contracts provide a safety net for society as a rule, but they are in some ways more fragile than covenants.  While a cultural contract does not need either of the two elements above, it does require that both (or more) parties keep their end of what is expected of them.  One clause disregarded, one cultural rule violated and the contract invokes consequences.  Because a cultural contract is based more in selfishness and self interest, violation is going to be in some ways harder, but also easier.  Example: In a covenant adultery is defined as lust toward another person other than your spouse, in a cultural contract lust could exists but the marriage contract maintained, but the moment in a cultural contract that physical adultery takes place, contract dissolved.  The existence of lust in the contract type of arrangement is going to make such falls more of a possibility.

In modern marriage what I see, even in Christian marriages, is kind of mixed hybrid of both where some elements of covenant are there and other things have devolved to a contract.  You may for example see a couple who are each dedicated to God but their intimate friendship has dropped down to contract level.  Mixed marriages also have this problem as one spouse is dedicated to the ideas of relationship with God and their spouse, but the other spouse has no walk with God and views their marriage as a contract arrangement.  The Goal is to get both elements in place and growing, but that is not always possible.

Next: Women's Equality in Marriage
Previous:  God and the Spiritual Covenant