Humming away, it seems to me, in the background of any church move today towards some kind of formal endorsement of ordination of partnered gays or blessing of same-sex partnerships, is the question of Christian understanding of marriage. Also, I suggest, right at the beginning, so not to lose sight of it, is the question of Christian understanding of friendship.
What is marriage? Is Christian marriage distinctive relative to other understandings of marriage?
Here I simply introduce a few thoughts by way of a question or two:
Is Christian marriage ...
- between a man and a woman
- monogamous
- exclusive to the couple
- for life?
Must Christian marriage be open to producing children?
PS: See also this post and posts linked to it at The Conciliar Anglican.
10 comments:
Peter,
I did a pretty extensive series on the Anglican theology of marriage not to long ago that addresses these questions. You can find the first part of the series here:
http://conciliaranglican.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/dearly-beloved-a-classical-anglican-theology-of-marriage-part-i/
I shall look that up!
In a way, I find it amazing that this question should even be discussed. This is the kind of question that simply drives conservatives crazy. As it is written - Matthew 19:3-9
Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE...
Man and woman
...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 they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Two. One flesh. There is the requirement for monogamy and exclusivity.
What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
There is the "For Life" requirement.
They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.
Emphasizing exclusivity and permanence. Adultery after all is objective. The covenant cannot be violated by consent. If you divorce your wife, and marry another, the second sexual relationship is inherently adulterous. Neither mutual agreement nor the passage of time can make it non-adulterous.
As for openness to children, we return to the original argument of the Lord Jesus from Genesis. The first commandment was "Be fruitful and multiply." It has never been repealed.
Marriage is presumed to be a permanent exclusive sexual relationship. Sex was created to be experienced within the context of marriage. Children are the natural expected outcome of sex, and marriage provides the necessary environment to nurture them in the Lord. These three - marriage, sex, children - were created as a Unity. It is not at all shocking to me that the concept of gay marriage is calling all of these components into question. What has gay marriage to do with any of this? It reduces marriage to companionship.
In truth, there is no such thing as 'Christian' marriage. There is only marriage. It is a creation ordinance, and man can no more change it then he can change his DNA. Man can create counterfeit relationships that serve his desires. He cannot change what God has established.
carl
Well said, Carl!
Re: is Christian marriage ...
all of the below.
It reduces marriage to companionship.
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Wow, it sounds an awful lot like God thought that it was for companionship.
"Must Christian marriage be open to producing children?"
The answer to this clearly must be: 'not necessarily' - otherwise Christian marriage would be banned for older or barren relationships.
Also there would be the question posed; does Christian marriage cease to function as such after the age of child-bearing?
While some on this thread are pointing to biblical precedents on the subject of marriage, those in the Old Testament could scarcely be called 'Christian' marriages. Clearly, they were 'Jewish'. Not every discipline in both biblical Testaments can be considered consonant.
Brother David
[I]t sounds an awful lot like God thought that it was for companionship.
Yes, companionship is a purpose of marriage. It is not the whole purpose for marriage.
carl
Father Ron Smith
[O]therwise Christian marriage would be banned for older or barren relationships.
Being male and female, they can in type. The physical infirmity of the particular does not invalidate the general typology represented.
While some on this thread are pointing to biblical precedents on the subject of marriage, those in the Old Testament could scarcely be called 'Christian' marriages.
That's why I went to a Scriptural argument that defines marriage according to its original created intent. And the source is none other than the Creator Himself. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:3 It's unimpeachable.
carl
Yes, companionship is a purpose of marriage. It is not the whole purpose for marriage.
But, here Genesis is stating that it is the first, the primary reason.
Post a Comment