Well, my friend anonymous chooses to remain anonymous and not respond to my request for conversation which I think is a shame because I believe conversation leads to learning and understanding (please note I have not said conversion or persuasion to anothers way of thinking).
I thought I might broaden my response to the 30 day sex challenge and to certain other challenges thrown my way by first establishing my position on the subject stated above (which I think is grossly misunderstood by many) and then give you some food for thought if you're interested.
I am and plan to continue to be a man reserved for one woman and that is my wife. I chose to share all intimacy, emotionally & sexually exclusively with her within (what is understood in the culture I live) the western institution of marriage. It is a lifestyle choice I long for for others and a lifestyle I encourage. This is a desire I uphold as a minister of a church and I certainly encourage with the young couples within my ministry influence who are getting serious about the relationship in which they are intimately investing.
However (yeah I know you were waiting for this), I will not under any circumstances, treat differently, or exclude any person who is living in a defacto relationship or same sex relationship just because I have chosen a certain lifestyle for myself. The advice I have given to such couples is to remain exclusively committed to one another in their love for each other. Yes it is possible for a gay couple to be exclusive to one another in love. Hence take note of the final paragraph in my last post.
As for theological reason for marriage...this is an interesting position for western Christians to take when quoting scripture out of a cultural context which may not be understood. I believe marriage was invented as a social tool long before theological thought came into it. That is certainly not to say that marriage isn't God given, although some may disagree with me as that could be interpreted by some in some contexts as God punishing them (and no that wasn't a joke).
On a theological note, I don't believe the bible is a weapon we use against one another to prove our own position therefore I refuse to quote scripture verses because tey are too easily taken out of context. I believe the people of Israel we read about in the early pages of our bibles are not the only society on the planet at the time who are writing laws for living and wondering about their existence (and certainly in the context of the bible their existence in relationship with a theistic being and the cosmos). Marriage by the way, in this context is very different to what we understand now. Marriage in ancient cultures, not only Israel, was based on convenience, social balance, bloodlines, royalty, power and possession, not love! I could make this a long post by explaining that but instead I'll leave the link and you can see for yourself The Origins of Marriage And check this one out. It might be too much for some to take in but I found it a very interesting read and it is enlightening to be aware that there is so much outside my own culture we don't understand Marriage, A History.
Anonymous mentioned that Jesus had something to say about this subject. I think we need to be careful what words we choose to put in the mouth of the one we follow. It has been done many times over the centuries and not necessarily with good intentions. Jesus' comments on marriage (as stated by the Gospel authors) are very limited. In fact Gospel writers probably wouldn't have deemed it necessary to expand on what is already understood in culture and law. For instance Jesus reinterprets the law in the sermon on the mount in the context of adultery and divorce. His comment would seem to promote wholeness for community living more than anything. The divorce one is a doozy! I had a couple come to me last year who wanted me to marry them. They had a very conservative view of scripture and so had a problem because one was divorced and the other never married. The never married person was afraid that he was committing adultery if he married is divorced partner because the reason for divorce was not due to unfaithfulness. Now in our culture there are so many more reasons why people get divorced that are not outlined by Jewish law or the bible. I married them by the way, as there was no legal reason or reason otherwise to prevent them from getting married. There is another Jesus example when he's sitting with the Samaritan woman by the well and it is uncovered in conversation that she has been married 5 times and the man she is with is not her husband. Does Jesus condemn her? No
I've heard it suggested by many that marriage is for life. You try telling that to some traumatized people I have counselled. Marriage has not got a good reputation in our western culture. The problem with western thought on marriage is that most westerners think that this is the way it's always been since the beginning of time. There is a romantic belief that you meet your life partner, abstain from physical contact that may be deemed too sexual, get married and live happily ever after. Yet at no other time in human history has this institutionalized union of a couple been so destructive. Our 20th/21st century commitment to marriage is a blip in history and yet through extensive anthropological research it is found to be the most unhealthy form of institutionalized covenant of relationship. It's only been in the last 2-300 years that love has been the basis of marriage in western culture. And it has only been during this time that the church has had prominence of place in sanctioning marriage on this basis and church buildings have been the locations for wedding ceremonies.
I don't mean to be unhelpful in deconstructing an institution and may be the only one you know, but i say this to tell people, 'pull your head out of your bum' and acknowledge the eclectic, diverse, multi cultural bid wide world we are part of with a history we know very little about and have very little appreciation for.
I once counselled a couple who had been married more than 20 years and my heart broke for them. One member of the marriage relationship felt they couldn't remain exclusive to a monogamous relationship, the other felt that was the only way. In some cultures that would be perfectly acceptable but in ours it's not. I felt for them because it is my desire to remain exclusively monogamous in a relationship with my wife. Yet I chose to journey with them and support them suspending any judgement so them could understand each other and try to work through this.
I recall having this sex before marriage conversation many times before and I can't for the life of me find any direction from scripture that spells out that two people in a committed relationship for life may not have sex with one another outside the institution of marriage. Therefore I'm am struggling to understand why some church communities condemn and exclude people who are committed in a defacto relationship. I know many in such relationships both gay and straight who have a much more solid foundation, are much more committed and are much more in love than many I know who are 'stuck' (another person's words not mine) in marriage. The church is yet to display good health marriages in some contexts and convince others that marriage really is the way to go. Instead we want people to comply, even if we have to drag them kicking and screaming.
As for my further thoughts on same sex relationships, you'll just have to read my Australian Christian article 'Open and Affirming' or my comments on the article 'Australian Pastors Offer Apology To Gay Community'. yeah you can probably guess what I had to say there.
Anyway, this is by no means a comprehensive exploration of the subject I have attempted to engage with and I do not intend for everyone to agree with me. It's just the beginnings of a conversation piece if you choose to participate.
I think I might choose a completely different topic for my next post.
My final thought. I remain committed to the institution of marriage as the primary context of relationship for which I advocate. However I stand with those who have chosen to live in a committed relationship, but for whatever reason are not married. These are often people who have been hurt or are suspicious of such an institution. In the context of gay couples it's just not legal in Australia...yet. I will not exclude them from participating in worship, leadership and the life of the church or the mission of Christ. I believe quite foolishly that Jesus would also be standing with these people. I don't choose to be foolish out of recklessness or lack of education. I will not blow where ever the wind blows, or as some had put it be influenced by culture for the sake of 'being relevant.' I think that is simply naive convenience. No, I will as I once heard Tim Costello say (although not in this context) be one who will influence and 'change the direction of the wind' to be counter to that of popular religious thought for the sake of tradition and promote the cause of the kingdom of God. Because Jesus is a fool who would stand where no righteous religious authority would. He dared to go there for the sake of the human condition where ever people were at.
Shalom Mark
8 comments:
Bold Post Mark. I admire your willingness to tackle the subject. Also, I agree, anonymous posts bug me too! I agree with your position not to " will not under any circumstances, treat differently, or exclude any person who is living in a defacto relationship or same sex relationship just because I have chosen a certain lifestyle for myself."
I am still working through the implications of all of this.
So when in the bible sexual immorality is spoken of what would you say in their culture that is? What does sexual immorality include in their culture and understanding?
You're right Johnman, the scriptures do talk about sexual immorality, you'll find the most commonly quoted bits in Leviticus and Paul's letters to churches. All of these reflections are contained within the experiences of Jewish, Greek and Roman cultures. Of course the Israilites would have had their influences from Babylonian, Persian, Assyrian cultures and the like. There would have been many believers who would have participated in these practices hence where cultures clash and the need for conversation (or direction) initiated by people such as Paul. What is deemed ok in one culture is not in another, which is part of the tension in this discussion.
Paul condemns all behavior associated with lust because lust like greed destroys communities and takes honor and attention away from God. I find it interesting that people tend to align themselves with Paul quite aggressively for the purpose of expulsion or exclusion of someone from a community because of their 'immoral' behavior. And there's another thing for discussion, follow Paul or Jesus. The emergent Pilgrim writes a good one on that I am yet to interact with.
For those who take Paul's words as God's words, why are there not more people choosing celibacy as a lifestyle? Paul says it's better not to marry, yet i see those who get on their high horse about sexual immorality are usually married. I ask them the question as to whether they have addressed the issue of idolatry in their lives. Some have an unhealthy love for their spouse to the extent where they would choose them over following Jesus. Now even Jesus has something to say about that.
This is a complex issue which I think needs to be understood in conversation with the people we want to marginalize because of their 'sexual sin', then ask ourselves who the sinner is here. We are quick to criticize but slow to repent. I have a much borader perspective of sin in general I'd like to explore in a post some time. I think far too many Christians are obsessed with sexual sin (immorality) as a measuring stick for who's in and who's out.
Some further thoughts Mark.
The truth is all the groups are never going to agree because how we understand this issue depends ultimately how we understand the authority of scripture. If we understand the authority of scripture as shorthand for "God's authority exercised through scripture" as Wright argues, then we will have difficulty with some of the more progressive arguments. On the other hand if we understand scripture sacramentally as Borg might then our interpretation of passages will lead to different conclusions (as in your conclusions).
I wonder if the only hope in all of these arguments is a commitment to humble dialogue and respect for different views (which is where I think you are headed with your argument). The tension between the different groups is in their approach to the text. The truth is they will never come to the same conclusions because they are working from different "maps".
If we can somehow begin to dwell in a pluralistic Christian dialogue/relationship that respects one another's differences without having to convert the other then, and only then, is their any hope of unity in the body of Christ.
You hit the nail on the head Mark. Actually what you outlined is where I was going to go next with this.
Sometimes I find that we argue at the surface over moral issues without respect for the other persons experience, world view and how they might view scripture.
Commitment to humble dialogue is tough for anyone particularly maybe for those who don't have any appreciation for the fact that Christians have different approaches to scripture. The Borg and Wright conversation is a good example to us all of what that might look like in a healthy way.
i still have friends who are completely gob smacked when they discover that some Christians don't have the same approach to scripture, or believe the same things. Does this mean they're not Christian? Does it mean we can't be in conversation. Not it means more opportunity for discovery about the rich diversity of the body of Christ.
Hey Mark, Getting to your response to Johnman, would you then say that what was sexually immoral then is not now because we've changed so much culturally?
Is it possible that culture is determining our theology and we are somehow becoming more synchronistic with our culture, more than salt and light?
I'd be keen to pursue conversation probably coming from a different bent, if you are. Hey, we're both Port Adelaide supporters not much can separate that!
Glenn, just for being a Port Adelaide supporter, I publish your comment lol.
It is an interesting tension you raise between culture and theology. You could ask the question, has the shape of our theology ever been without cultural influence? Think about that.
The original scriptures are written through the experiences people are having with the living God. Their theology is viewed through a series of lenses; the lense of culture, the lense of experience and so on. These are lenses through which scripture is written. I now read scripture through similar lenses. You can add in there historical lense.
I think emergent pilgrim really did nail it when he talked about working from different maps. Our maps are very different now. In scripture people referred to God's precence 'up there' beyond the clouds and sheol (hell as some may interpret) was 'down there' below the surface of the earth and the water. They're world view was that the earth was flat. We now know otherwise. Yet for many there has been no theological shift. We still sing songs about God up there, people even refer to God up there. I wonder have we lost the ability to think for ourselves and reshape our theology as a conversation we have with the world around us?
Glenn, I believe we must be salt and light in our world. The people of God must lead not be led by pop culture. I am a fan of Paul's words to the Roman church, 'don't become so well ajusted to the world around you that you just fit in'(Eugene Peterson). 'Do not conform to the standards of this world', he says, 'but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.' and here's the bit that tops it off 'Then you will know what God's will is!'
I think we push so much on not conforming to this world that we forget the rest. There is wisdom in Paul's words to the Roman church. He urges them to allow themselves to be transformed and renewed by the Spirit. This is what I think we continually resist.
Here's another sneak into my theology. God is a God of change, transformation and renewal! Is it possible that the Spirit calls us to reconsider our position on issues so we are not so vindictive and exclusive, but rather embracing and understanding of the people whom God loves, people who are also created in God's image? Is it possible that we could allow the Spirit of God to transform us so that in our renewal we may truely determine God's will rather than hiding behind ancient moral creeds and using the bible as a weapon?
If I jump back on the topic of sexual immorality for a moment, I believe that what is sexually immoral are acts that destroy community, such as adultery and lust. You'll notice that all references to sexual immorality in scripture are out of concern for community welfare. So then, is there any harm in a monogamous, loving, sexual, committed relationship between 2 men or between 2 women, or between a man and a woman who are not married? I fail to see what harm that does to a community when love is the basis of a relationship. I also don't think the bible has anything to say directly about such relationships because they probably didn't exsist publicly, they would have in secret. A lot of gay relationships in Greek cultures inparticular (churches Paul was writing to) whuld have been extra marital affairs. This culture was working from a different map. Let us not forget that these people Paul wrote to were part of the church, yet many of us choose to exclude them.
P.S. Great to connect with you again Glenn. Stay in touch
Post a Comment