Paul says that it would be better if people would abstain from marriage and, as I understand it, that people who marry were not able to quell their desires, so they are given a sanctified setting through which to vent their fleshly yearnings. But then in Titus, it explains an elder, a spiritual elder to be exact. An elder should have experience dealing with money and managing finances. An elder should be the head of a family. But the only environment suitable for intercourse and children is marriage. So how does the Church, the body, produce elders to lead and to act as “apostles” to instill the younger sheep with the “healthy teaching” as described in Titus and Timothy? Is it that certain people are called out of the population to become parents and leaders of their household? And if so, then why does Christianity propagate the idea of marriage as a paradoxical, glorious norm?
Also, on the subject of actually playing out the sacrament of “marriage.” I don’t know of any biblical place that dictates any kind of marriage “ritual.” So why does modern Christianity subject itself to such lifeless acts? Surely the profession of marriages and the witnessing of some act, such as baptism is a spiritual resignation to God and to the Body saying, “I am dead to the world.” I wish that you could prove me wrong, I really do. Just maybe some verses on… anything really. I just have been mulling it over for a while and feel that marriage is something that spiritually binds you to your spouse, and is not something of a confession to Christ and the Body? Of course, I allow for some of the faults of marriage, especially as having many legal/financial benefits, as well it’s degradation into something easily thrown away, to the modern understanding and adoption of the practice by the world as well as “adopted Christianity.” I really couldn’t think of another term. Is there another term for Christians who have kind of “adopted” the beliefs of their fore bearers? I feel like second-generation or “generational” might be appropriate words.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts on marriage. And no, I don’t think marriage is an inherently bad thing. You would be hard-pressed to find something I thought was bad in itself.
Also, I'm sorry if it seems that I am asking questions that step outside of some unwritten bounds. The funny thing is, I don't think people take me seriously when I say that I am willing to be proven wrong. Sometimes I even hope to be proven wrong. Why would I like to see the entity with which I identify as so flawed? Alas, I am do not view myself as some spiritual leader, and as such, I suppose that means I need some guidance.
I apologize if I have ever offended you, and in advance for when I surely do so, accidentally.
-Edmund
On marriage...what do you make of Christ attending a wedding in John 2? He did not say "thou shalt wed" but by attending and providing some beverage for it, He certainly is lending it some credibility as a time to make this covenant with God and each other. In the U.S. at least, we are also called to submit to our govt. (Rom. 13) and marry. This may or not be the case in other countries but it is in the U.S. Good question! What do you think?
ReplyDeleteThe very first command God ever gives people is go forth and multiply. He says a man shall leave his mother and father and cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh. A.k.a. marriage. Well technically those versus are referring to sex but as you rightly said biblical sex is only in the context of marriage. Commenter before me rightly pointed out that Jesus went to a wedding. The Jews practiced marital "rituals" that were from the culture and there wasn't anything wrong or worldly about it. I definitely don't think marriage is a sacrament, but a wedding is like baptism in the way it's symbolic and declarative of two people coming together as one and announcing it publicly to all. The bride wears white, the father gives her away, all biblical symbolism really. Furthermore, God uses the analogy of a wedding feast to describe the end times of God reuniting with his people, and calls the church other and over again his BRIDE. So I would infer from that, that not only is God pro marriage, but also pro wedding. As far as the Paul quote, I think (just my personal thoughts I'm not a bible scholar) that he's referring to people like himself who are full time 100% committed only to God, to missions, to serving, etc. Because with a wife and family, it's not possible to give 100% to God because then your family gets 0%. Paul was constantly on the move, threatened, beaten, imprisoned, hardly the environment for a family. One particular spiritual gift is also celibacy. There are many types of gifts and everyone has different ones. Paul clearly had this gift and many clearly don't. So maybe that's what he meant with not being able to quell their desires. He was only able to because of the spiritual gift, and the others weren't, so I think he's saying go ahead and fulfill your human desires in a biblical context, but it would be better if you could be single and give your all, 100% to God. But to infer from that that marriage is cultural or worldly or whatever is taking it way to far I think. Then there's no biblical way to have children, and humans die out. And personally, there are few things in the world more beautiful than weddings.
ReplyDelete-Kathryn