Darren and I have been enjoying a set of conversation-starter questions I got him for Christmas. One question kept me thinking. It asked, "What couple in the Bible most reflects the love relationship you have with your spouse?"
Um. When you think about it, there's not a great many inspiring love stories in the Bible. There's the usual litany -- Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Rachel -- but none of them are exactly marriages I'd like to pattern mine after. We finally decided on Priscilla and Aquilla, but it was a stretch because we really don't know anything about their marriage. Naturally I appreciate the way the Bible presents its heroes as real, flawed, redeemed people. But the phrase "Biblical marriage," at least as it applies to actual people in the Bible, is in reality a rather unpleasant idea.
Then I moved on to what little Church history I know, and thought of possible examples among the saints throughout the ages. But for centuries there's been a heavy emphasis on purity through virginity. A married couple who pledged themselves to celibacy for the remainder of their marriage was revered as extra holy. And I sigh, because not only am I not in the least interested in married celibacy, but I don't think virginity is any more pure than a chaste marriage.
In the end, however, my musings brightened. Our culture is screaming in pain, unable to love or be loved, unable to find inspiration or examples of strong, chaste, faithful love. But I know many, aside from my own grace-filled experience so far. Perhaps our generation, our Church in this time, can be that inspiration. Perhaps we can exalt marriage and love -- not by words or amendments or sermons -- but by simple demonstration.
-- SJ
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
What about Ruth and Boaz? David and Bathsheba? Joseph and Mary? Esther and King Xerxes? The guy and his wife in Song of Solomon? Adam and Eve? :)
Actually there are several more couples you forgot to consider... though again, not all are ones you'd want to duplicate.
Joseph and Mary -- you're right, I did skip them. (The others I did consider). Joseph is definitely a husband committed to sacrificial love, while Mary is obviously a strong woman who leans on him for help. Both obeyed God and trusted one another.
Depending on your theological persuasion, their marriage was anything from the usual husband-and-wife after Jesus' birth, to caretaker-and-Temple-virgin. Either way, however, they demonstrate a relationship that I'd like my own marriage to imitate. Thanks for pointing that out.
-- SJ
Christianity took a sad and deceived turn when it began touting celibacy as a virtue in and of itself. Self-denial can be a good discipline, but there's nothing holy in poverty per se - it's what you do with the stuff you choose not to hoard that counts. Clanging cymbals come to mind. And claiming that celibacy is more holy than God-ordained and God-blessed passion in marriage irritates me just as much as the lyrics in the otherwise beautiful song Fairest Lord Jesus, insisting that woodlands are fairer than meadows and moonlight fairer than sunlight. More, actually, since there isn't so much actual heresy in the latter case.
Um. And when you think about it, there's not a great many ways to use is for plurals, is there? Poke, poke.
Yeah, yeah, where were you when the text box was blank?
-- SJ
I would disagree that seeing celibacy as a virtue was a "sad and deceived turn," since the practice of Christian celibacy comes directly from Christ's teaching in Matthew 19:12 and Paul's teaching in I Corinthians 7.
However, I like C. Peter Wagner's view of this, that celibacy is a spiritual gift that not everyone is called to. Thus, just as not everyone is called to prophesy or speak in tongues (contra the Pentecostal churches), there are those who are called to live celibate lives as witnesses to a sex-saturated society.
I agree that putting celibacy above marriage is wrong, just as promoting tongues above miraculous healing is wrong. All are gifts of a good God, distributed as He wills. (I Cor. 12:4-6)
In addition, the Christian tradition of celibacy has always had a Gnostic tendency, a denial that the physical body is good. In my opinion, the Theology of the Body promulgated by Pope John Paul II is a good corrective to this tendency, since he forcefully preaches that marriage is the normal state for those not called by God to celibacy.
--DJ
Okay, maybe I was using the word celibacy in too narrow a context; if you're using it synonymously with chastity, then certainly it's all well and good. I was referring to the idea of simply 'not having sex,' and as such, I think it's a mistake to believe that that's inherently a good thing. Certainly there can be reasons, times, and seasons for abstinence (singleness, for instance). But the idea that not having sex is always the holiest route to take, regardless of context, seems to imply that there's something inherently wicked about sex itself, which I don't believe the Bible teaches. The virtue in not having sex is in doing so in accordance with God's commands, not because it's so wrong in and of itself. Wasn't Augustine the starting-off point for that whole philosophy? That's more what I was referring to.
Actually, I'm not using "celibacy" as synonomous with "chastity." Celibacy is the voluntary renunciation of marriage; chastity is the right use of sexuality. Thus, celibacy is a subset of chastity, just as mercy is a subset of love.
Neither one can fully accurately be described as "not having sex." You pointed out that "But the idea that not having sex is always the holiest route to take, regardless of context, seems to imply that there's something inherently wicked about sex itself, which I don't believe the Bible teaches." You're right. As C.S. Lewis says in Mere Christianity, sometimes chastity requires having sex (see 1 Cor. 7:3-5). In fact, lust (the misuse of sexuality) is merely one of the seven deadly sins, and for many of us, I think it's probably nowhere near as big a problem as pride and anger.
As to Augustine being the starting point for the misunderstanding of "sex=bad," actually he wasn't. This was a Gnostic idea, which even Paul had to deal with (see I Timothy 4:1-5). Gnostics, because they believed that people are souls (good) trapped inside bodies (bad), forbade any marriage at all. Unfortunately, Augustine was a member early in his life of a neo-Gnostic group called the Manicheans, and their philosophy influenced his view of sexuality. Because Augustine has been such a major influence on Western Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, for 1500 years the Church has had a love/hate relationship with the whole idea of sexuality. However, the orthodox view is what you expressed: Sex was created by God before His final "All is good" in Genesis 1:31, so it is good.
Another book I might recommend on this subject is Against the Protestant Gnostics, which takes on both mainline and fundamentalist attacks on the goodness of physical matter. Quite interesting.
--DJ
As Darren pointed out, the problem is created when celibacy is elevated above marriage as being somehow "better" or "holier" than marriage. As far as Rose's "sad and deceived turn" goes, I think that occurred when Christianity began requiring celibacy of pastors/priests/teachers because it(a) was not a requirement prescribed by Scripture and (b) perpetuated the above (wrong) view that celibacy is somehow better than marriage.
Post a Comment