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 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 1 -- The Questions

New Series. I know I still have Series on Revelation out there but I am not ready to continue it so I am looking at something new.

Marriage. Now i am not going to give 7 steps to a healthier marriage. I am also not here to reinforce what everyone says marriage is my question is -- What does the Bible Say Marriage is? When does God according to his word recognize that a couple is married? These two questions have a whole batch of questions tagged with them.

1. Is there a difference between marriage and being husband and wife? Some say there is, are they right?

2. Does a license, vows and sexual intercourse constitute marriage or does the Bible give an actual moment of marriage that is definable?

3. Are other types of marriage bonds acceptable? Polygamy? Homosexual? Group?

4. Can someone become unmarried to God's view? Divorce?

Now other questions may come up but these are good for starters. My method will be much the same as always: Observe what the Bible says, try to interpret what it means, apply it to real life and the draw it all together with what I already know.

Next: Were Adam and Eve Married?

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 2 -- Noah: Drunk and Naked

Genesis 9:20-27"Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, The God of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant. "May God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant."
This is an odd story. 1) Noah gets drunk and God does not think it ill and 2) God honors his curses and blessings of his sons.
The first I think is explained in the fact that the world Noah now lives in has changed. Before the Flood there is no rain or seasons, but after it there is. This indicates a change in the climate and nature of the world. The flood has removed whatever preserving power of life the world had in its makeup. Evidenced by the fact that the ages of people drop off very fast afterwards and seasons mean there is now weather and natural disaster because of it. I think Noah has no idea that the wine he would make would be alcoholic. He may not have even knew what it was.
The second weirdness has to do with Noah's nakedness. Drunk as he was an perhaps an unwilling participant in this drunkenness. He uncovers himself. I think this refers to full nakedness as when working on the ark the men probably stripped down for work -- Like Peter does in John 21. It is not that these men have not seen most of each other when working and so it is probably the case that Noah is completely naked exposing himself.
The issue here is not so much nakedness as respect. By seeing the nakedness of His father and then telling others he diminished family respect for the leader of that family -- Noah. Shem and Japheth show more respect for their fathers nakedness and cover him without looking. Had Ham done so and then no one but he would have even know he would have covered the shame of his Father's nakedness and shown love to his father. The issue is not the nakedness in and of itself it is how it is reacted too that is the issue. Ham does not show his father respect but exposes him, the other two sons do the opposite. In any case this does little to help us consider the issue of nakedness and modern issues involving it because this is family and these are all men involved.
I don't think there is any evidence that Ham's reaction was homosexual it was one of shock and exposing his father to ridicule -- something that should not have been done.
Next: Sundry Verses about Breasts and Priests

Sexuality, The Church and America -- Part 7 -- How Should the Church React to All This?

To begin with let us recap the issues I have dealt with in this series:

1. Public Nudity
2. Pornography
3. Homosexual Marriage
4. Friends with Fringe Benefits
5. Polygamy
6. Legalized Prostitution

All of these issues are hot button topics and if you ask your average Christian religious right person about these issues you would get the traditional -- "Well I'm Against Them". This of course causes the left to respond with a loud voice saying -- "Well, how typically knee jerk of you" and "Isn't it just like Christians to try to control peoples' lives and behavior". It wouldn't so bad but many times they are right.

Compounding the problem is the fact that most Christians when dealing with these issues have never really examined them for themselves with Bible in hand. Most of the time it is group psychology thing where because 'the pastor and church say it's wrong, I am going too as well'. Hate to say it but the accusation by the left that Christians do not think through issues but religiously follow traditions is in many cases true. We also have a tendency to be dogmatic about these things even when faced with Biblical evidence that our views might be faulty in some way. We cling to our views and then try to find a new interpretation of the passages in question to keep them. This is BAD! Our response to any issue including the sexual ones of our culture should be based on the following factors:

1. What is the Biblical view of the issue:
2. What are the realities of the issue and how do they differ from the Bible
3. What does the Bible recommend as a course of action in dealing with the issue

In doing so we need to remember that the United States is not Israel of the Old Testament and the notion that somehow our jobs as Christians is to create a holy state here in the west is nonsense. Even if this so, it is obvious to me our tactics are not working because over the last 50 years we have watched the Christians go from being the dominate force in the culture to being a mere subculture. Every time there has been a change in our culture, we have reacted in such a way as to drive people from the pews. Why? Because in almost every case we have looked very religious and very self righteous. This is not going to win friends and influence people.

When it comes to the Bible on these issues we actually only have clear Bible on 3 and 4 -- Homosexual marriage and Friends with Fringe Benefits. Both are declared as sins by the Bible so it is not difficult to say these are wrong and should be avoided. The others are not so clear.

Nakedness for instance is very difficult to define Biblically and thus affects the issues of Public Nudity and Pornography. Nakedness and modesty are spiritual conditions based on the passages we do find on the subject, not a state of dress or undress. Particularly, when it comes to women going topless the Bible is remarkably silent in equalizing nudity with women's breasts. We are not to look at someone with lust in our hearts and thus commit adultery with them, but where does this lust come from? Nakedness and Pornography? The Bible does not indicate this as the source but our own hearts. If this is the case, then is the battle really with society or with the hearts of men and women including our own? I think it is with human hearts.

Polygamy makes the situation even worse because Biblically we actually have some support for the practice. It becomes difficult to look down our noses when some of the great characters were polygamous.

Legalized prostitution Biblically of course has its problems in that it promotes the two big no-nos for the Christian adultery and fornication. At the same time, how do you get rid of it being that it is so pervasive in every culture? As long as people have lusts in their hearts and want to control their time and place of sin, there will be prostitution. I take an interesting approach to the problem because I do not think outlawing it will stop it or hinder it. The is no surer way to curb a behavior than to legalize it, regulate it and tax it. You could do something similar with pornography.

The action to take on these things I am going to propose is not going to sit well with most Christians but at the same time I think it is Biblical.

1. Where the Bible is silent or supportive -- let it go. I think toplessness for women and polygamy fall in this category. If you are not standing on the Word on these issues where are you standing? These two simply have no way to fight them with Biblical justification it is simple a matter of what is tolerated by the culture.

2. Where the Bible is clearly against a behavior, make sure it is dealt with internally before turning external. The biggest failure of Christianity in America is the fact we are very quick to notice the motes in society's eyes while ignoring planks in our own. The rate of pornography use, infidelity and divorce is just as high in the church as it is outside of it. Who are we to judge others when the problem is in ourselves. The prophet who stands and decries his society and then does the same things himself is a hypocrite.

3. We need to get it into our head that people in the world who are not Christians are going to do what they do - sin. The resulting attitude that we as Christians should have is not to be self righteous about it, but to look at them as Jesus did -- with compassion. See Jesus Luke 7:36-50 in particular when dealing with sins of this nature. So as we turn external it should be with an attitude of 'if not for the grace of God, there go I" not this 'I am better than you because I don't do that" attitude that turns people off.

4. Quit relying on carnal weapons. Christians turn quicker to petitions, picket lines and political action that they do prayer and supplication to God. One of the greatest weapons we have is the gospel itself that changes peoples' hearts. We do not use it nearly as much as the others that are worldly.

5. Act as a citizen when you can but be humble about it. I vote and I am not saying that a Christian should not be active in his or her country but that is not ultimately how you are going to change a society. What you will get is a bunch of people who think their freedoms have been infringed upon again by those nutty Christians. I am not against mobilizing, but go find people that agree and motivate them, don't try to persuade or coerce those that oppose you with self righteous and judgmental tactics.

Over the coming weeks we may dive into some or all of these issues further but this series was to lay it our there to see what we could find initially.

Finis

Sexuality, the Church and America -- Part 3 -- Homosexual Marriage

Isn't it interesting how sometimes things come together that you didn't expect or look for? Like my post for today and the decision yesterday to allow active and practicing homosexuals to be ordained in the Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELC). I really wonder how they can claim to be Evangelical (there is little conservative evangelicalism in this decision) or Lutheran (Can we really see Martin Luther advocating homosexuals in the pulpit), but then again nothing surprises me these days.

There is absolutely no Biblical basis to say homosexuality is justified by God. In fact, quite the opposite is true. God looks at homosexuality as one of the great sins. Right up their with adultery and rape. Homosexuality is listed by multiple Biblical authors as a sin that will destroy you covenant with God both in the Old and New Testaments. Yet here we are not only fighting about homosexual marriage but whether or not to let such people in the pulpit to preach the Word they are violating.

Now, I want something understood, I consider adultery to be just as bad and I have a fit where many denominations have rehab stuff for ministers caught in infidelity but not in homosexuality. Both are equally abhorrent to God. It is only in our minds that we make one above the other. In the Law of Moses both were punishable by death along with rape, murder and sorcery. (Not fornication, couples caught in 'trouble' are simply required to get married with no option for divorce) The reason I say this is I know many churches where homosexuals are forbidden to attend but people in adultery are openly allowed to go. Sorry, double standard. Sexual sin is sexual sin.

Now, in our relationship with the world I think we need to realize not everyone is a Christian and we can't go around legislating morality or in the end homosexual marriage. The battle is not over on this but I believe it will end with some states having homosexual rights. California surprised me. but don't think that is forever. Just means California gays will probably take their case to a higher court which is what they have been looking for in the first place. What we will see is gays immigrating to states that allow them their wishes. Ultimately legislation solves nothing, if people want to engage in sin, they will do so whether it is legal or not. Only the gospel and the changed life through its acceptance stops homosexuality, adultery or any other sin. This gospel is very difficult to preach to someone if they look at you as an enemy political force or trying to take away their rights.

Homosexual marriage has some implications to other things normally seen in this issue.

1. If the homosexuals get their way, what other marriage situations will suddenly petition to have equal rights: polygamy (subject of another post in this series) -- which might include one man with multiple women or *gasp* a woman with multiple men and group marriages of all types (One form is 'line marriage' with men and women sharing each other -- say three men and four women -- the combinations are endless -- for the purpose creating and raising children -- a la Robert A. Heinlein's views in his science fiction) and open marriages. Or is it open if hubby is dating his perspective fourth wife? Yipe, this gets confusing doesn't it
2. Homosexual and other marriage situations listed above in the church. (I think it might be very interesting for some guy to come into my church and introduce me to his wives!)

The church's response will be interesting because as you can see in some churches like the ELC they accept such things and it makes no difference to many of them if your homosexual or polygamist (See the Mormons in certain places). But what about those good ole boy conservative Evangelicals?
1. We will take the morally superior position and blast people for their lack of moral fortitude that we obviously possess and they don't.
2. We will enter the halls of government as moral crusaders trying to fix every body's bad morality and make things right.
3. When we fail, (and we will fail -- we have been failing with this tactic for over fifty years) we will advocate isolation and casting out with no hope of reconciliation. Creating our own Christian enclaves shut off from the world Jesus loves but is lost in sin.

Not good, but then again it is what we do, even if it hasn't ever ultimately worked. What might work is never done, because we are always looking for someone to blame for the fall of morality in the United States and the real answer is not them, but us. We stopped making change about the gospel and instead left it to the courts and legislatures. We really don't believe in the power of the Holy Spirit or the gospel anymore, if we did we would use them more for this and other situations.

Next: Friends with Fringe Benefits