Part 1
For readers outside my LIFE class at our church, this post (and some subsequent ones) may need a brief explanation. In the class we are looking into what is happening in our culture and in what some have called Christian subculture, with regard to the shift away from marriage as it has been defined for centuries. One recent example that occurred after our study began comes to us from California. When four individuals on the state Supreme Court can redefine marriage for the entire state, it should cause us to pay attention and to graciously respond.
As our class delves into this topic, we plan also to examine singleness and dating, and what is best for society when it comes to divorce and remarriage. If we are indeed ambassadors for Jesus, then with careful attention to how Christians act in the world today, we want to thoughtfully consider how these areas impact the perception of God in society.
Each week in class I lead off these messages with a statement of hope, not condemnation. As we look at the Scriptures to see what God intends, we also immediately acknowledge that the vast majority of us have been affected in an adverse way either by broken relationships, abandonment, emotional separation, or divorce—all against a cultural backdrop that devalues meaningful sexual relationships that last. The purpose for our class study, and for publishing these thoughts here, is not at all to condemn, but to provide hope. It is the hope of genuine, fulfilled, joyful life with God through Christ. It is the hope of grace, mercy, forgiveness and restoration. It is the hope for a new day.
So, what is the big deal about marriage, and why do followers of Christ care so much about the institution of marriage? We believe that ultimately God’s purpose for marriage is that His glory would be portrayed to a watching world.
God's Purpose for Marriage: His Glory Portrayed
Here is a basic definition. Marriage is, and always has been, intended to be a lifelong covenant relationship in which the glory of God is portrayed in the joining together of one man and one woman for life, as they grow together in oneness and unity through love and respect (Genesis 2.15-25, 15.7-18; Malachi 2.14-16; Matthew 5.31-32, 19.1-12; 1 Corinthians 7.1-40; Ephesians 5.15-33). Listed below are some of the various facets of God’s purpose and design for marriage, with some scriptural clarifications.
- To demonstrate the gospel in the permanent relationship of God with His chosen ones
- Ephesians 5.15-33: As shown by the analogy of Jesus Christ as groom, and the church (all genuine believers in Christ) as the bride
- Genesis 15.7-18: As shown in the beginning of God's covenant with Abram (who became Abraham)
- Ephesians 5.15-33: As shown by the analogy of Jesus Christ as groom, and the church (all genuine believers in Christ) as the bride
- To mirror the image of God
- Genesis 1.26-27: To demonstrate their mutual value, both men and women are created in the image of God
- Genesis 2.15-25: The image of God, then, is also portrayed uniquely in marital oneness as man and woman are joined together
- Genesis 1.26-27: To demonstrate their mutual value, both men and women are created in the image of God
- To complete and compliment (and at times compensate for) each other as husband and wife, and to experience companionship
- Genesis 2.18-20: To demonstrate their complementary qualities, in the beginning, God designed a woman for the man who would be a helper corresponding to the man (translated into English, the Hebrew reads "...a helper corresponding to..." or "...a helper next to...")
- 1 Corinthians 11.11-12: At a very basic level, men need women and women need men
- Genesis 2.18-20: To demonstrate their complementary qualities, in the beginning, God designed a woman for the man who would be a helper corresponding to the man (translated into English, the Hebrew reads "...a helper corresponding to..." or "...a helper next to...")
- To promote holiness and purity
- 1 Corinthians 7.1-9: God designed sexual intimacy to be wonderfully enjoyed in the special covenant of marriage
- Romans 1.26-27: To preserve the pattern of God's design for the healthy pleasure inherent in marriage, God intends that sexual intimacy would not take place outside of a covenant relationship between one man and one woman
- 1 Corinthians 7.1-9: God designed sexual intimacy to be wonderfully enjoyed in the special covenant of marriage
- To multiply a godly legacy
- Genesis 1.28, 9.1, 9.7: Procreation to populate the earth
- Deuteronomy 6.1-25; Ephesians 6.4: Affirmation of God’s word and work from generation to generation, training children in His ways
- Genesis 1.28, 9.1, 9.7: Procreation to populate the earth
Often misunderstood by many today, God's design for marriage was never intended to put a restraint on us for the sake of killing our joy. Far from that, His intended design has always been for His glory, and for our good. When we treat marriage the way God designed it, He provides an exquisite joy for us—in Him, and as husbands and wives. And therein is great hope!
I agree with your biblical definition of marriage, and with the excellent Scriptures you cite. That is one half of a wonderful response to the developments in California. However, I would like to point out the other half.
ReplyDeleteNowhere in the Bible is marriage said to have anything to do with the government. Yet we Christians plead for "licenses" from the government to allow us to marry. Why do we think the government should have that authority over such a holy, sacred covenant? Has God granted it that authority in His Word? No, He hasn't. And, in California, we see why He hasn't.
Honestly, what has happened in California is a good thing. It shows us how ridiculous it is for us to expect the government to define our religious terms and beliefs for us. There was a time this nation defined kidnapping Africans and working them to death as "legal", essentially giving its moral approval by refusing to criminalize the slave trade. There was a time, in my grandparents lifetime, that this nation would've thrown me in jail for drinking the wine Christ made or that Joseph drank with his brothers. When we ask State Government to legislate morality, eventually will find ourselves on the wrong end of the stick.
We should define marriage for ourselves. Our testimony to those who define it differently then us should be our lives of love and our words of wisdom... not our attempts to force them to obey our definition by laws we shove down their throat. By attempting to "witness by force" we ultimately do our witness more harm then good.
"When four individuals on the state Supreme Court can redefine marriage for the entire state, it should cause us to pay attention and to graciously respond." We should proclaim what marriage truly is, but we should also proclaim the reason why the government has no business telling us that. We must cherish the freedom of religion this State gives us, and allow others to cherish it as well.
Anonymous, thanks. As I stated in my post, the post was not in response to California (the Court decision came after I had started a teaching series). I think you probably know I wasn't at all trying to address the issue of whether state governments should legislate morality. That might be a great topic for another day.
ReplyDeleteI merely stated that the California decision illustrates the shifts in culture, and that we must pay attention and graciously respond. Perhaps at yet another time I can clarify what I think it means "to graciously respond."
Thanks for reading and commenting!
Thank you as well. And, you are correct. I am definitely aware you weren't trying to address the issue of "morality legislation". I just think that side issue was worth commenting on, that's all. I tend to "chase rabbits", I suppose you could say. :)
ReplyDeleteAs far as the cultural issue, you responded beautifully with the Biblical view of marriage you presented. And as far as clarifying, another time, how one would "graciously respond" to a "married" homosexual, I think that is a great idea! You have already covered much of it by your wise use of the word "gracious". That was well said. Grace, respect, kindness, gentleness... often those things take our response further into the heart of the culture then the biblical definitions themselves ever could.
As far as the Court's decision, I just think the problem is not that they have "re-defined" marriage as you said... it is that they defined it in the first place! No offense intended and I really don't mean to nit-pick, I just think that is an important distinction.
Graciousness is why I think the two halves of the California "problem" (the State issue and the Cultural issue) are linked. The sooner we, as evangelical Christians, stop trying to legislate our morals by defining our religious terms in the government's law books, the sooner the culture will be more responsive to our message. If we respect the culture's religious freedom as much as we want our religious freedom respected, they will respect our religious message that much more. I know I for one do not want the State to be in the business of defining what a "Christian" is, or what the "Lord's Supper" is, or whether it is properly called the Eucharist, etc. Defining those things is the job of the Church, not the State. Whoever decided the State should sell marriage licenses is probably the same type of person that decided the Jewish Temple should sell pigeons. (Maybe that is a little harsh, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is not too far off the truth).
I don't mean to imply you have any particular view about State sponsored marriage, please don't get me wrong! I just know that I recently have been convicted about forcing my religion on others instead of simply presenting it to them.
2 Timothy chpt 2 says the Lord's servant must... be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful... he must gently instruct those who oppose him..." Writing our religious terminology into law so all citizens must adhere to it seems the opposite of "gentle instruction" to me. To that extent, the California decision is a wonderful one. It just didn't go far enough... it should have gotten the State out of the marriage defining business all together.
To add to what I just wrote... to the extent that the California illustrates a shift toward immorality in our culture, we should oppose it. I just don't think that is what it represents or illustrates. The immorality has been there since Sodom. And our culture has always been gravely immoral. A few generations ago it was slavery; now it is homosexuality. The California decision simply will open up more religious freedom for homosexuals. In the end, that is good for all of us because one day we might be the one's pleading the Supreme Court for those religious freedoms. That is what religious freedom is all about... freedom for those we disagree with.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI see your point, but my question would be, "to what extent?" Taking a stand against immorality is certainly not wrong on a personal level, and I agree that it is wrong to tell others how to use their "wave the American flag" freedom, but how do you control the public school lessons imparted to your children: that being gay is acceptable, premarital sex is fine (as long as you use protection), and that we evolved from monkeys? Gay marriage IS a step in the wrong direction, and making it easier for it to happen just catalyzes our future. Thank God for allowing for repentance, forgiveness and homeschooling.
Katherine,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the State should not teach kids that homosexuality is moral... but I also think it should not teach that heterosexuality is moral. If the State is going to present heterosexuality as "acceptable", then it has to do the same for homosexuality. That is why State education should be limited to facts when it comes to religious points of view like sexuality.
I ask you to seriously consider Jesus words. What if the State only taught homosexuality was fine and refused to teach about heterosexuality or, even worse, taught that heterosexuality was immoral? Whenever you want the State to "sponsor" your religious beliefs, ask yourself how you would feel if the tables were turned and it instead sponsored only those believes opposite yours. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." Matthew 7:12 Ponder that.
Homosexuality between consenting adults is a religious issue. The state should not license or refuse to license religions. As I already pointed out, why do we, as Christians, believe the government has the right to "license" us to marry in the first place??!! Marriage is a sacred Christian belief and practice. We should just as soon allow the government to "license" us to take the Lord's supper! Think about it. Or we should just as soon get a license to sing particular styles of worship songs.
Christian education is the responsibility of the Church and the parents. Try to understand that the State is not the church, and if you think it should be, try to imagine how you would feel if the State were a church that passed laws making your own religious beliefs illegal or saying they were "immoral". Would that attract you to that church, or make you hate it even more?
You cannot force people to become Christians. When you try to force people to adhere to your religious terminology (your definition of marriage, etc.) by force of State law you are harming the Gospel message more then you are promoting it. I know that may be hard to believe, but it is true. The less you respect the freedom of others (especially when it comes to behavior or beliefs between consenting adults), the less they will respect your gospel message. The more you respect their freedoms, the more they will listen to your message. It is that easy. There are quite a few "evangelical leaders" who, by their promotion of State-sponsored legislation of religion, think they have "helped God" win this nation. I tell you the truth... they have actually done the opposite. God doesn't need us to pass laws that force others to "follow" Him, because in the end that makes those people hate us and Him. He wants us to respect others so they want to follow him.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteHomosexuality between consenting adults is not simply “religious.” There is a difference between calling homosexuality immoral, and calling it a sin. “Sinfulness” is religious terminology-- let’s keep state and religion as separate as possible. Upon what foundation do we base this opinion of homosexuality? Without going into whether it is innate or learned, and whether we hate the sinner or the act, let’s try to keep it simple: Is homosexuality immoral? I believe we can affirm that morality is based on what C.S. Lewis dubs “Rules of decent behavior,” common to all of mankind (as in right vs. wrong). These rules have become fairly universal throughout the nations over the years. These rules are not actuality, but what ought to be. (Lewis concludes that in our need to amend right and wrong, we discover also our need for a Savior) Without defining liberty (within limitations, and this may be where our contention lies), we have anarchy. I think we can also conclude that this is bad. Thus, some kind of morality is necessary. Let’s take another look…
We have made many allowances for the wrongdoings of the world: legalized abortion, acceptance of gay clergymen, etc. I see disturbing things in the school system today. Parents have no authority over their children. Children don’t even have to test the boundaries anymore, because everything is rationalized and there is no punishment for bad behavior. I believe that if punishment for crime was more severe, people would think twice before cheating, stealing, sexually abusing, or taking another’s life. I digress. ☺
We come to this question: at what point do we stand apart from the world as Christians, and proclaim the distinction between right and wrong. Our kids are killing, engaging in premarital sex, and cheating through school all because WE are telling them that it is okay to do it as long as it feels good/gets you there quickly/whatever. We have become a “feel good” people and it’s revealed itself in So. Many. Ways.
Anonymous, upon what basis do you think Jesus justified human desire? I believe He referred to the need to keep the heart pure, as it is the wellspring of life. Proverbs 16:25 states, “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” Our world screeches for toleration, do we bow before the king of this world, or the Eternal Ruler? Homosexuality, if we cannot at least claim its sinfulness, is in fact immoral.
Another thought: If marriage were a Christian endorsement, why would homosexuals want to be part of that? Perhaps our government should endorse “civil unions” but keep it separated from intermixing with Christianity. The permissibility of homosexual marriage invites despair that this vow means even less than it does now with today’s divorce rate. My purpose is not to force non-Christians to “adhere to [my] religious terminology.” My purpose is to point out the foolishness of Christians who allow these others to attempt to adhere to Christian terminology. For all intensive purposes, homosexuals should get “bamboozled.” Of course, we would have to create then a bamboozle annulment as well.
I concur that Christian education is the responsibility of the parents/church/etc, until the age of accountability. At that point, it is one’s own responsibility.
If you weren’t able to hear Pastor Horner’s sermon on June 29th, I would recommend it to you. Specifically, take a look at 2 Timothy 4:3-4, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” I think Pastor Horner would agree. It is right to define what Christianity is and what Christianity isn’t.
Katherine,
ReplyDeleteI agree that we should define what Christianity is and isn't. But by "we" I mean the Church... not the State! The State has no business defining Christian terms. If you think it does, then eventually it is going to define a term differently then how you want it defined... and then will you have to suffer under the precedent *you* created! (the precedent of the government defining religious terms by law)
The government is a *popular*, *political* entity. It is representative of the population of a country... not of a particular religion. By trying to get the State to be your religious Judge and Dictionary you are setting a horrible precedent that, one day, will come back to bite you. You will not always be the popular majority... I can guarantee you that. The Bible does not guarantee that at all, and in fact seems to say the opposite.
I understand it is offensive to you when homosexuals "attempt to adhere to Christian terminology" by calling themselves married. But they strongly disagree with you that the term "marriage" is limited to opposite sex couples, even in Christianity. Are they wrong? Yes, I believe so. But nonetheless, I should be the one telling them that, not the State. The State is not the Judge of Christian terminology.
Again, put yourselves in their (the homosexual's) shoes. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." What if you could only baptize by sprinkling... and if you wanted to immerse then you had to call it "bamboozling"... by State law!? What if you couldn't call it church if you led music with a guitar instead of a choir... by State law? You have freedom of religion in this country because the Constitution gives it to you. Why do you so desperately want to take that freedom away from homosexuals? Because they adhere to the wrong religion or to a false religion? Katherine.... that is what freedom of religion is supposed to allow!
By all means share Christ and the truth with them... but it is not your duty to take away their freedom to practice their religion. God has never instructed you to do that. And I would argue He has instructed you to do the opposite... as the verses I have cited above show, we should treat others the way we want to be treated, give them the freedoms we want to have, be kind, be respectful, and gently instruct. Writing our religious terminology into law so all citizens, whether they are conservative Christians or not, must adhere to it is not "gentle instruction" by any means.
Forgive me for being too wordy, but I would ask that you, finally, consider this. When Jesus walked the earth he ate, drank, and spent his time with prostitutes, thieves, and “sinners". He told them the truth, in love. He built friendships with them, respecting them, and yet at the same time he spoke the truth to them. Who did he reserve his harshest, most condemning words for? Who did he spend no time with, other then while condemning them? Who did he call children of the Devil? Who did he have practically no respect for? That's right... the "religious leaders” of his day. The Pharisees and Sadducees. Those were the people who were, using force of law, trying to make others adhere to their religious beliefs and practices. Those were the people who had you punished for not resting enough on the Sabbath and for other things their religion defined as "sins".
If you want the state the endorse your religious terms by force of State law, you are following the example of those Christ opposed... not of Christ himself. Speak the truth in love, but for crying out loud, live and let live. If you really care for the cause of Christ, do not try to force Him on others... because when you do so you push them away from Him instead of attracting them to Him.
The truth is, the State should not be licensing *anyone* to marry. The fact that the government licenses us to marry is ridiculous and completely non-biblical, as I have already pointed out. The State should get out of the marriage business.