4 comments

Comment from: brett maxwell [Visitor] Email · http://brettmaxwell.com
you said: "Jesus himself said that a husband and wife were made to be eternally united -- emotionally, socially, economically, and physically -- because in marriage 'they are no longer two but one.'"

How does that mesh with 2 chapters later (Mark 12) when Jesus says "they neither marry nor are given in marriage"?
26 May 2007 @ 00:03
Comment from: ericasp [Member] Email
Good point, Brett! You caught me in my words. When I was originally writing the part about a husband and wife being "eternally united," I was not trying to make a theological statement about marriage in the afterlife. Actually, I was just trying to communicate the permanence of marriage and sexual union in life as we know it -- on this side of heaven. You know, I was going for more colloquial use of the word "eternally" in the same vein that we use other words like "forever" and "always"...

Still, for the sake of accuracy, I edited the original post to read "united for life" instead of "eternally united." Hopefully that makes more sense in light of Mark chapter 12. Thanks for keeping me on my toes!
26 May 2007 @ 11:55
Comment from: Sander [Visitor] Email · http://rejoicing.blogspot.com
I think Christians have heard this many times before; marriage is God's institution and sex belongs to it, not outside of it. Sex is a thing to be enjoyed, but only some of us. I guess among most Christians this goes without much contestation. However, the often unheard message; is that of those who cannot comply to the image of marriage: people who are struggling in unhappy marriages; people who struggle with homosexuality; people who struggle with transgender issues. These people belong to the church as much as any member, but what is their message? Maybe people are told to remain single. But that cannot be the sole message. God also looked at Adam and said it wasn't good that Adam was alone.
In a broken world, many things have diverged from the original meanings and qualities that God has given to it. In some instances, we - kind of - accept it. There's diseases, there's natural disasters... why would sexual brokenness fall into another category? What message does the Church have to Christians struggling with their sexual identity? What message does the Church have to non-Christians who think that marriage isn't any other than a social construct, who at the same time struggle and feel the pain of rejection? Why should they turn to the Church for help, how are we to encourage them? These are issues, I haven't heard much.
28 May 2007 @ 10:54
Comment from: ericasp [Member] Email
Thanks for the honest questions, Sander... You raise some very real issues that certainly don't have easy answers!

Hopefully I will succeed in answering some of these questions in my next post (relating to issues surrounding homosexuality and spirituality in particular). I'm slow in getting these last couple of posts out because they were less developed for the home group discussion we had a couple of weeks ago and because I want to communicate my thoughts well. The upcoming post (about homosexuality) is the one that I've been most concerned about getting right (that is to say, it's the one that I'm most nervous about). But no matter what, I freely confess that my thoughts are not complete and not perfect. The dialogue is the whole point anyway...

Throughout this series, I've been trying to maintain a very difficult balance. On the one hand, we need to be able to say that sex is good (and not just in the incomplete way that the world typically experiences it) -- but on the other hand, we need to be able to say that sex is NOT the be-all-end-all of human existence. This is a bit of what I was trying to get at in post #3... But needless to say, this balance can be a very difficult one to achieve. Particularly in our culture today.

I absolutely agree that the Church needs to accept everyone as co-strugglers in our mutual state of brokenness (expressed in so many different ways, including sexuality). Still, I don't think we should accept perverted views of sexuality just because it's hard for people to live according to God's blueprints for sexuality. The truth is that none of us desire disease or disaster or brokenness in any of its forms -- but broken sexuality has become an especially complex issue in our world today because of the fact that so many people are trying so hard to "normalize" perverted forms of sexuality and present the "broken" as "healthy" (as if we should start injecting otherwise healthy people with life-threatening viruses or build school buildings and skyscrapers along fault-lines in earthquake zones). Now, it's a separate (and very valuable) question to figure out how we can encourage people who struggle in their sexuality -- but I would tend to deal with this question apart from the "acceptance" of broken behavioral patterns.

In this post, I tried to make the point the singleness and celibacy are very valuable (and God-given) alternatives to married sexuality. But as a point of clarification, I want to openly affirm that singleness should not necessarily translate into "aloneness." I agree, Sander, with the point you made that it was "not good" for Adam to be alone -- but I don't believe that God gave Eve for the sole purpose of sexual fulfillment! I believe companionship and relationship were the primary motivations for the creation of Eve -- and sex was always meant to be a just a (relatively small) portion of that relationship.

Still, I hear what you're getting at, Sander. I appreciate the good questions. Please let me know what you think of the next post after I put it up.
28 May 2007 @ 19:55

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)