The Death of Marriage
http://thetechgap.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/rip.jpg
Marriage is dead.
At least, the traditional idea that has been an American institution since the founding of the country. Fewer and fewer people are getting married, choosing to live together. Of those that do, the divorce rate is still 50%. Even among those who call themselves Christians. Now think about that.
Would you get on an airline with a crash rate of 50%? Would you buy a car that was known for breaking down half the time?(well maybe-I had one in college, a Chevy Vega!) How about a food franchise which resulted in half the customers getting food poisoning? All these business would be gone very quickly-a total failure.
But is there hope? I don't think so. Think of how much help there is today: excellent ministries like Focus on the Family, The Family Ministry of CCC (Dennis Rainey and Family Life Today), the thousands of Christian counselors and therapists, a virtual avalanche of books in Christain bookstores on how to improve your marriage...and yet there has been a steady downward spiral over the last 50 years.
Why?
Dr. Jerry Root of Wheaton College sums it up, I think: "People's wounds are stronger than their convictions". With that basic truth, here are the top reasons we will not see a recovery of marriage in our culture:
1. How we feel is more important than our "beliefs". The wedding vows are virtually meaningless. "Till death do us part" are only quaint words, devoid of meaning, simply tradition. When we are unhappy enough, we are through. As one wife said, "You can't hold me to something I promised 10 years ago!"
2. The rise of feminism. Marriage over the millenia has traditionally seen the husband as the leader, the wife as the supporter of her husband. This spans time and culture. Some will point to matriarchial cultures or tribes in the past, but these are historical aberrations. The overwhelming historical pattern, and biblical model, is that of male headship of the family. This , of course, is going the way of the brontosaurus.
Men have brought it on themselves, often playing the tyrant and defending it with out-of-context scripture. Wives now pursue their careers, seeing children as something they should do, but ship them off to daycare so they can get back to their "real" job. Most Christian conselors espouse the "egalatarian model" i.e. equal roles in marriage. A nice idea, but really stealth feminism. Show me an egalatarian marriage and I will show you the wife running the show,either passively("you don't really love me!") or agressively ("do this or you can forget sex tonite-or any nite!"). Strong women marry passive men and there you have it. But it is not the way it is supposed to be. Sooner or later, one of them gets tired of this distorted model and leaves the other. Lately, as I think of the couples I know,it seems to be the wife who leaves.
3. Our ego-centric, experience oriented culture. I am the center of my universe. Only God tells me what to do, through prayer, impressions, a quiver in my liver, whatever. Thus, many are not open to wise counsel. I can't tell you how many young couples we have seen insist on getting married, even though wiser, older believers urge them not to. And soon they are in court, wondering why God let them down....
Well, enough for now. There is much more to say, but how much pessismism can one stand? As I said, I really see no hope. And if we are truly in the Last Days, our only hope will be in the return of the One who promised us things would get pretty bad before they get better.
Am I wrong?
Convince me!
Marriage is dead.
At least, the traditional idea that has been an American institution since the founding of the country. Fewer and fewer people are getting married, choosing to live together. Of those that do, the divorce rate is still 50%. Even among those who call themselves Christians. Now think about that.
Would you get on an airline with a crash rate of 50%? Would you buy a car that was known for breaking down half the time?(well maybe-I had one in college, a Chevy Vega!) How about a food franchise which resulted in half the customers getting food poisoning? All these business would be gone very quickly-a total failure.
But is there hope? I don't think so. Think of how much help there is today: excellent ministries like Focus on the Family, The Family Ministry of CCC (Dennis Rainey and Family Life Today), the thousands of Christian counselors and therapists, a virtual avalanche of books in Christain bookstores on how to improve your marriage...and yet there has been a steady downward spiral over the last 50 years.
Why?
Dr. Jerry Root of Wheaton College sums it up, I think: "People's wounds are stronger than their convictions". With that basic truth, here are the top reasons we will not see a recovery of marriage in our culture:
1. How we feel is more important than our "beliefs". The wedding vows are virtually meaningless. "Till death do us part" are only quaint words, devoid of meaning, simply tradition. When we are unhappy enough, we are through. As one wife said, "You can't hold me to something I promised 10 years ago!"
2. The rise of feminism. Marriage over the millenia has traditionally seen the husband as the leader, the wife as the supporter of her husband. This spans time and culture. Some will point to matriarchial cultures or tribes in the past, but these are historical aberrations. The overwhelming historical pattern, and biblical model, is that of male headship of the family. This , of course, is going the way of the brontosaurus.
Men have brought it on themselves, often playing the tyrant and defending it with out-of-context scripture. Wives now pursue their careers, seeing children as something they should do, but ship them off to daycare so they can get back to their "real" job. Most Christian conselors espouse the "egalatarian model" i.e. equal roles in marriage. A nice idea, but really stealth feminism. Show me an egalatarian marriage and I will show you the wife running the show,either passively("you don't really love me!") or agressively ("do this or you can forget sex tonite-or any nite!"). Strong women marry passive men and there you have it. But it is not the way it is supposed to be. Sooner or later, one of them gets tired of this distorted model and leaves the other. Lately, as I think of the couples I know,it seems to be the wife who leaves.
3. Our ego-centric, experience oriented culture. I am the center of my universe. Only God tells me what to do, through prayer, impressions, a quiver in my liver, whatever. Thus, many are not open to wise counsel. I can't tell you how many young couples we have seen insist on getting married, even though wiser, older believers urge them not to. And soon they are in court, wondering why God let them down....
Well, enough for now. There is much more to say, but how much pessismism can one stand? As I said, I really see no hope. And if we are truly in the Last Days, our only hope will be in the return of the One who promised us things would get pretty bad before they get better.
Am I wrong?
Convince me!
posted by Rob | 12:23 PM
16 Comments:
"My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met."
Ok. Let's see. Marriage is dead. Hmmm.
First, I should send a nice note to the woman who used to be my wife.
Second, I ponder, "What now?"
Rob, you should be more careful about your declarations. I'm not too certain about my satisfaction with my new found singleness.
We need some new proposals (no pun intended) to replace, bury, or revive marriage before I get carried away.
Consider the following when thinking of marriage/divorce statistics before throwing out an institution started by the Creator.
41% of First marriages end in divorce
60% of Second marriages end in divorce
73% of Third marriages end in divorce
In short the near 50% divorce rate of all marriages is inflated upward by the great percentage of second and third marriages that end in divorce.
This gave me some encouragement when thinking about the "real" chance a marriage has to survive for a man and woman who commit to each other and who together and individually are committed to the Creator.
"Some people ask the secret of our long marriage. We take time to go to a restaurant two times a week. A little candlelight, dinner, soft music and dancing. She goes Tuesdays, I go Fridays."
Wow. I must say this post,while honest, is quite depressing! As a woman who has been divorced, and now married again, I had a lot of thoughts as I read your assertions. Is it really marriage that is dead, or is it that our willingness to obey God and to take Him at His word is dead? I tend to think it is the latter. I can only speak for myself, but I know that it is difficult for me to do what God asks of me in the realm of marriage. And yet I truly have a heart to obey Him. My selfishness takes over. I forget that God intends for me to be a *gift* (of sorts- Gen 2:22) to my husband. I was created to be my husband's "help meet" (Genesis 2:18). Instead I am often more of a pain in the butt. I guess my point is that we each have individual responsibility to do what God asks of us and to be the blessing to our husband or wife that God intends us to be. So much easier said that done. I have a book (Created To Be HIs Help Meet by Debi Pearl) that has become dog-eared, and is well marked...a book I often return to when I know hubby has a lot of vacation time coming (doesn't it seem that the more time you spend together the harder it can be?). I use it as a reminder of WHAT/WHO I need to be as a wife (Titus 2:3-5, for starters) and WHY I need to be that way...out of obedience that I might bring glory to God by being a crown to my husband (amongst other things.)
As someone who should have heeded the advice of older, wiser women, and chose to be stubborn and sinful, I hope that I can at least learn from my failures and choose now to be the woman and wife that God desires for me to be. And I pray the same for you as husbands.
(I've noticed that only men comment here...am I out of line by putting in my two cents? I hope you'll say so if I am.)
Jen,
Wow! Somebody called me a man! It's usually 'wimp' or 'nerd'. Anyway, we do need more women to comment, please.
Learning and praying sounds like a great start. I'd say it takes about 50 years to make a marriage work. I'm almost half way there.
Keep talkin', Jen.
Hey Jen-thank you so much for the thoughts! Of course women are welcome to comment! And please send me your email, as the blog site won't do that: mrgunn0072@yahoo.com.
More thoughts out there?
Rob
Gentlepersons. Start your arguments!
I disagree with the proposal that feminism is anti-marriage or anti-Christian. (I do agree that feminist extremists often are anti-marriage and anti-Christian, but not necessarily.)
The modern feminist movement in the United States was a reaction to the misogny of cultural Christianity. It paralleled the reaction against the racism of cultural Christianity. The one difference between the two movements is that feminisms roots were more secular (to the discredit of Christians). The Civil Rights movement had a strong religious base (to the credit of African-American Christians).
There is excellent Biblical support of equality between male and female to the point of non-recognition of the obvious biological and cultural differences. The cultural roles of husband and wife should not be cemented into absolutism.
Do I hear your engines rumbling, gentlepersons?
"Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same."
I don't know that I can convince you that you're wrong - you seem fairly set in your thoughts - but that certainly seems both a simplistic and an insensitive view of things.
Might it not be that we change, and in the busy lives we live rushing around to bible studies and carting our children to one activity after another and meeting deadlines and the like, we fail to change with each other. Might it not be that issues we thought would be minor, and thus overlooked, turn out to be profound and polarising?
Whatever the reasons, are we justified in assuming we know the correct solution for a disolving marriage where both partenrs are living is sadness?
People are imperfect. We are falliable. We make mistakes. This is no modern phenomenon; it's been that way since the garden of Eden.
We make decisions that turn out to be the wrong ones, despite the fact that when we made them we believed entirely in them and wanted more than anything for them to work. Sure some people don't view marriage with the sanctity it deserves - but others do - and yet find that despite the immensity of their hope and effort, things don't work out.
This, also, is nothing new. We all know of terribly unhappy couples that persisted with their relationship into old age because it was expected.
Is that any more glorifying to God than the couple who after years of counselling and prayer and infinite "second" chances ultimately concludes they made a mistake and separate?
Is the unhappy divided couple that stays together because they are 'supposed to' any more "one"? Does their relationship please God?
If we try our best, give it our all and then some, and still fail to create a happy or a loving or even a functional marriage are we then doomed to a life of unhappiness and unfulfilled potential?
Are there no second chances in your brand of christianity?
I have to say that this is one of those issues that can seem cut and dry until you plug actual people into the equation. Maybe that's just my fickleness. But I can't help but have compassion for people that truly have tried to make a marriage work and find themselves feeling hopeless.
A few weeks ago I had the realization that what scares me most is reaching the point where I don't care. Where I don't care if I hurt my husband. Where I don't care about working it out. Where I don't care what God thinks of what I'm doing. That scares me. Perhaps that would be the point for me where my "wounds are stronger than my convictions."
Vince, I would be interested to see some of the Biblical support of equality between men and women. I've been chewing on that, but for the time being, I think I'm gonna have to go with Rob on this one, at least to a degree.
While I have to admit to not being very knowledgable in the area of feminism, as an FHD/PSYCH degree person, I was taught the egalitarian model. (Partly why I couldn't bring myself to do a secular masters program...too many inconsistencies between that and the way I believe to be the "right" way.)
I agree that male headship is the model that the Bible teaches us to follow. Not that that makes it wrong for a woman to work and bring in money for her family. We need to look no further than Proverbs 31 to see that the woman is to be saving, investing and making money. But it would seem to me that the object is to be doing that for the benefit of my family, not for the mere betterment of myself.
Submitting to the husband's headship doesn't imply to me that I have to be the shrivelled up little woman that we seem to think of when we think of submission. I have to find the liberation of that role...and trust me, sometimes it is a difficult search.
Anonymous, I agree that we all make wrong decisions. But isn't it our duty to find a way to make the decision right? To allow God to make good of it? To trust Him that He will?
YOu ask if it brings any more glory to God to stay together in a divided unhappy marriage...I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that I am not here on earth for my own glory, happiness, or fulfillment. While those things may be a byproduct of my obedience to God, they are not my purpose. And to strive for those things, rather than for God and His glory, is probably a reflection of the same attitude that brought about dissolution of the marriage. I hope that doesn't sound incredibly harsh. I realize that some situations demand an end to marriage, but for the most part I think we resort to that all too quickly and often for the wrong reasons. Our bad decisions, disobedience, and general inability to follow the word of God are not an excuse for divorce.
And our time on earth is so small in relation to the time we will spend with God. Shouldn't we be more focused on that?
I am in no place to judge the people that find themselves in the unfortunate position of making the decision to end their marriage. I think if we were honest, the majority of us have had the experience at some point of wanting to throw our hands in the air and walk away. Sometimes perhaps that is the best decision. Othertimes, perhaps we just want to think it is the best decision to relieve ourselves of any accountability. I do believe in a God of second chances...he gives me a second chance to repent for my poor choices and disobedience and go forward from today doing what He asks of me. Respecting my husband. Loving my wife (if you're a man.) But most of all, bringing glory to God by being the man or woman He wants me to be....even if my partner isn't doing the same. That brings glory to God. (in my humble opinion)
I realize that I am late adding my comment to this, and I may not even have anything overly profound to say. I mostly just wanted to say how interesting I have found this discussion to be. I will admit that my husband and I are not too far in the running here. We have only been married 3 1/2 years. But, I will say that I already am well aware of how challenging marriage can be. In fact, I would say our engagement was the hardest. Many people thought we were just too young to be married. It was so hard to trust God in our decision to get married when so many seemed to be against it. I do know however that my choice was an important one and I still believe it to be the right one.
There are times when it seems so hard. It is so easy to fall in to human nature and become that selfish stubborn person that only cares about me... this is not what marriage is about and that is not what God intends or wants for us. I think in many many ways God uses marriage to refine us and mature us and stretch us farther than we thought we could be stretched. It isn't just about happiness or self fulfillment, it is about God continuing to refine us... smooth out our rough edges. I think that if we are following His will in our marriage a lot of the happiness comes from knowing we are in step with Him. He blesses us for our obedience. And of course, I think you naturally feel closer and more connected to someone when you've gone through so much of the good and bad together.
Despite the hard things I find happiness in my marriage and I hope and pray all of the time that it will continue in the years to come. I do know that when things get hard we do not just run to the thought of "let's give up". Marriage is a lifetime commitment. It should never be taken lightly. I feel like society tells us today that marriage comes with a return policy.
I saw the heartache of a failed marriage with my own parents. The ill effects of it didn't just affect them, it affected all of us. I, like Jen, can't judge people for ending a marriage after really trying... especially if I don't know their situation. But it does seem that divorce is a result of selfishness on one part or the other or both. It hurts and it leaves lasting scars. I believe that if we truly are seeking God, He can and will heal our marriage.
The sad reality is like what Rob was getting at, our society just makes divorce seem normal, and not a big deal. Perhaps the divorce rate is rising because more and more people get married with the idea that if it doesn't work out then they can just go their separate ways. A lot of people, even Christians, don't want something they have to work really hard for.
Okay, well I will stop there. Hopefully my rambles made some sense. :)
Hey Jen,
I've been traveling, so I did not address your request to talk about Biblical equality of men and women. Obviously, this does not mean "same". But I do not believe that there are Biblical "Roles". More likely, each marriage has to adapt to the individual's gifts, strengths, and weaknesses, as well as give some accommodation to the current cultural roles (which change with time). The current divorce rate is probably more associated with godlessness, cultural acceptance, and sin in general.
Feminism was properly arguing that the 'roles' that our society was placing on woman and wives were stifling and unfair. The time had come to change the roles. Some changes have not good (i.e., greater freedom of sex outside of marriage for women, when traditionally cheating men were more easily forgiven), but some changes have been good.
During World War II there were many jobs in factories that were taken over by women because men went off to war. The working woman was made into an cultural icon by Norman Rockwell's painting of 'Rosie the Riveter' Rosie the Riveter. The working woman felt a sense of value and purpose in working (Ps. 31) that they missed in their required role. Not all woman wanted to return to the kitchen. During the fifties the situation of the talented working woman was continually degraded by companies that promoted younger, newer male workers ... because they were male. Men would be paid twice as much as women for the same job. Some occupations were not permitted for women such as medical doctors, scientists, or lawyers for example. women had very limited opportunity to play sports. It was, in short, the system of inequality in the culture before the feminist movement.
I rarely quote passages of scripture to prove points. I try to ponder the Biblical "big picture" on this subject.
There are a few bible passages that recognize differences between men and women. These are the obvious recognition that extremists wish were not differences. Most are related to obvious physical differences of strength, child-bearing, & physical differences. More striking that the recognition of differences is the equity of male and female that this ancient Jewish document puts forward.
1. Jesus astounds His disciples early in his ministry when he talks to a woman on a human to human level (John 5). This was more surprising to them than the fact that he was talking to a Samaritan. The 'role' of a woman was to not be involved with a rabbi. Jesus ignored the cultural role model.
2. Deborah was an Elder of Israel (Judge) in Judges 4. She was not submissive, she was THE judge.
3. The Old and New Testament give the responsibility of properly raising children to the parents --- father and mother. No where that I can remember does it give the role responsibility primarily to the mother.
4. There are a few places that Paul recognizes cultural differences in the roles of women and men in the synagogue, but he acknowledges that this is a cultural situation and not an eternal truth. (Maybe I will show this in more detail in a later comment.
4. Paul is recognizes leadership of women in the church. At least a 1/3 of the names in Roman 16 that paul mentions as prominent people are feminine Greek names.
5. There is a co-equal ministry implied throughout all the mentions of Priscilla and Aquila (Acts, Rom. 16:3, 1 Cor. 16:19, 2 Tim 4.) Twice Paul lists Priscilla first in his letters. You don't get a sense that it is Aquila's elder ministry and his supportive wife, Priscilla. I must note that not all couples in ministry will have co-equal recognition or leader. Sometimes one might have the calling or gift and the other will have the supporting role. Let's not assume that it is always the man who is the more prominent minister.
5. Right with the verse that says "there is no male or female in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28) he also says, "you are ALL sons of God" (Gal 3:26). He did not say "sons and daughters of God" or "children of God". He was making a point of equality. Women could not inherit their father's land or wealth in the middle east culture. Land always went to the sons or nearest male relative. Paul is purposely going against even the Jewish religious and cultural 'role' of the woman and man to say, "Jen, you are a son of God. You will inherit the kingdom of heaven with the other sons of God!" Peter repeats this eternal truth when he warns husbands to be considerate of their wives "because they are co-heirs" ... i.e., sons of God. Now I want to say that Paul would have said "Daughters of God" if the world was created with women stronger than men and dominated men in most cultures. Just note that the eternal truth is equality, not predefined roles.
What about this submission stuff??
Right before the "co-heir" passage in I Peter, Peter tells wives to be in submission. Paul tells wives to be in submission in Gal. 5. So what's up with this submission? Certainly, Deborah was not in submission in Judges. To properly interpret these passages that many want to use as "eternal roles" of men and women, one must recognize that Paul does not exhort people to violently change their culture even if the culture is probably not agreeing with the eternal truth of equality.
Slavery can be a good example of Pauls earthly acceptance of non-eternal roles at least for a time. If slavery could been done away with, then Paul would have agreed with its removal. He had stated the eternal truth ... "There is no freeman or slave in Christ". But he recongized the cultural situation and taught that the slave should be submissive to his master. Does this mean that the word of God demains the role of slavery within of the eternal plan?? NO, NO. Removing slavery from the culture brings the culture closer to the eternal truth of equality before God.
The same for wifely submission. Paul really recognizes the eternal truth of equality, but for his cultural situation he suggests that people "remain as they are and perform one's role with love and service". He says, "If you are gentile stay a gentile and serve God and people. If you are Jewish, stay jewish and serve God and people. If you are a wife traditional Jewish marriage in the culture, then remain a good Jewish wife and serve God and your husband. If you are a slave, then don't run away. Serve God and your master. etc. etc. The eternal Truth is there is no freeman, slave, male, female, gentile, jew in Christ Jesus. We are all Sons of God. If these eternal truths become dominant influences in the culture then slavery can give way to equality of humans before government and people. Slavery needed to disappear in a dominate Christian culture. Women will and should see greater equality in a Christian society. The Jew and gentile will worship together in love.
The problem of marriage is not an over-acknowledgement of equality before God. It is lack of love and service toward each other.
Well, as I don't want to debate this in the comments section, I urge readers to go to the link in my Part II article for a well reasoned defense of traditional roles. Vince my friend, you are buying into the traditional egalatarian (translate feminist) arguments on marital roles here. Most of your arguments are pretty easily knocked down, and are predicated on seeing scripture through our cultural lens. I know that you know that is not the way to intrepret ancient literature.
For example:
Sons of God is simply a common term for God's people, used in both testaments (Psalms is one example that comes to mind) and is saying NOTHING about gender equality.
The story that Rosie the riveter wanted to stay in the work place is an old feminist myth. Many articles have show the vast majority of women were relieved to go back to their homes, husbands and children. Besides, there have been many recent studies showing today's working women are beginning to regret their missing the best years of being mothers and are leaving the workplace.
The other convoluted interpretatiion of roles you qoute are reminiscint of arguments put forth to support homosexuality as "Biblical" .
Again, check out the link in Part II for tons of good arguments.
Rob
Rob,
I am sorry to see that you give me such little credit in my struggles to understand our shared ancient text of God's revealed action in this world. I am merely duped by modern leftist feminist propaganda. I admit that I am not RIGHT. I think it takes a community of voices in discussion to gain useful understanding of God and God's revelation. I have to not discount other's insights too quickly or I might never learn anything about God.
There are two lenses that I am trying to use lately to understand the Bible ... Jewish and Greek. I definitely still have my Evangelical statement of belief as a starting place, but I no longer think that standard Evangelical literalism is the only or best way to approach the Book.
Paul, particularly, is a mixed bag of Jewish and Greek concepts. One can just read with traditional evangelical interpretations based on "what does this verse say?", but sometimes one cannot see the whole elephant well if one uses only one approach. Paul can be understood on a surface level just through our reading of his letters. Things seem obvious and accessible, especially when evangelical experts translate and interpret for us in modern translations. But there are nuances that can be gleaned only if one steps outside our ingrained evangelical world.
Read Maximus of Eastern Othodoxy to see new things in the Book of John. Read Francis of Assis to see new things in the Book of Matthew.
Know Plato's early dialogs to understand the words that Paul often uses as he expresses a Jewish Gospel to Greek gentiles. Paul paraphrases Plato in our favorite verse (Romans 8:28) from Book X of The Republic. Read Jowett's translation to see paraphrase better.
One concept I used in interpreting Paul's discussion of women in the comment above is the Platonic understanding of temporal and eternal truths. Jesus (a bit), Paul (a lot), and Christianity all use the same concepts of temporal and eternal in their discussions of things on the earth and the in heavens respectively. The fact that Plato is the first to carefully discuss eternal and temporal concepts does not make them true or untrue, biblical or unbiblical. (Actually, he is using concepts from the 'mathematical' religion of Pythagoras.) It just means that one can be more sensitive to the nuances of Paul's letters if you know he is using Plato's words and concepts to communicate the Gospel to greek ears.
Plato: Temporal truths are embedded in human culture, in history, in time, and are not TRUTH in eternity. Eternal TRUTH is timeless, heavenly, beyond our understanding as creatures of time. As we seek TRUTH we only see shadows of it. Through continual reflection (philosophical questioning) we can see TRUTH in our minds with growing clarity, but never perfectly.
The very confrontation of Jesus and Pilate was packed with Jewish and Greek visions Truth. Pilate asks a Socratic question, "What is Truth?" Jesus, IS the Truth, but that is beyond what Pilate can comprehend from his philosophical training? It is beyond MY comprehension really. One does not see the depth of this confrontation unless one has struggled with Plato a bit to see Pilate's question as straight from Socrates mouth.
Now back to the discernment of cultural truths and eternal Truths in Paul's writings. Look at Corithinians 11:1-16. If you hold that Truths are defined by the literal interpretation of verse by verse reading of Paul's letter, then Christian women should be wearing head coverings when praying. Alas, evangelical woman will burn in hell! He strongly exorts that the head covering is very important -- we "have no other practice -- nor do the churches of God?" As you read the passage Paul is pretty strong about the "man is the head (authority) of the woman" concept.
How does the literalist (direct reading) get around his strong exhortations of authority AND head covering?? ... Well, stuck in the middle of this passage of our cultural practice in the temporal Church is a passage refering to Eternal Truth that puts equality of the man and the woman forward. v11 "... HOWEVER, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."
Here is his statement of the TRUTH the remains more fundamental that the cultural truth he his speaking to in the surrounding verses. Woman comes from man. Man comes from woman. We are not independent but dependent on each other. God is over all.
I read it like this: "In our Church practice we do not allow woman to pray without head coverings. We also hold that it is best for women to have long hair in our current cultural expression. The man has authority over the woman. I know. I know! Men are not first and Women are not first. This is the real, timeless Truth before the Eternal God. But God has put us in this temporal situation where it is appropriate that we recognize man's authority over woman to be proper and useful."
Equality does not mean identical. You stated this too. The more fundamental, eternal Truth if one wants to have successful relationships is based in the recognition of the other's value, in our humility towards the other, in the reducing of self, in the encouragement (uplifting) of the other. These statements are closer to Eternal Truth of equal before God and are NOT based on a cultural model of roles.
Roles are a truth (small t). They remain well defined for a time. Disrupting these temporal roles destroys a useful balance. However, we have to acknowledge that these roles change over time to adapted to history, to circumstances, to cultures, to the temporal. Roles are useful and good but they can and should change sometimes. Perhaps as we grow in understanding of the TRUTH Eternal then the temporal truths will become more like the TRUTH as shadows of the Truth.
Eternal (timeless, heavenly) TRUTH and temporal (cultural, historical, earthly) truth are concepts presented throughout Plato's writings. The New Testament uses these concepts without explanation. It is better to know who Plato thinks to understand what Paul intends to say. Paul's 1st century audience knows very well how Plato thinks. Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels are more Jewish, so Plato is less valuable.
To Plato, to Paul, and to the Christian, TRUTH is heavenly, outside of time, never changing. To Plato, to Paul, to the Christian, 'truth' is an earthbound approximation, a shadow inside of history, and is changing. It is worth allowing the community of Christians to reform their expression of truth in the community as history moves in time as the community of Christians improve their thoughtful understanding of TRUTH. Christian culture will be and should be different in different cultures and times.
>>>>>>> I apologize for my typos, grammar errors. I don't have time to edit lately.
Rob,
I don't think we are so far apart in ours statements of roles. I said that marriages should accommodate the differences that each individual brings to the marriage, which includes the obvious gender ones. I gladly let Kathy bear our children as I was poorly equiped for the role. We bear obvious hormoneally induced differences. The Bible recongnizes these differences as well. However, Jesus and others seem to be accepting of wider variation than what some would have for our gender roles.
I must consider the application of I Tim and Genesis towards my understanding of my marriage relationship, but I don't know that I Tim and/or Genesis thoroughly defines 'roles'. I need to be open and accepting of Kathy's uniqueness as well as her womanhood.
Interestingly, in I Tim. 2, Paul is quoting Sirach 25:24 (about there I think) from the OT apocrypha. This book greatly influenced Christians in negativity towards woman. Paul's quoting seemed to give Christian men free rein to embrace Sirach's harsh dictatorial approach (see Tertullian's comments in "On the apparel of women").
My understanding (or lack therof) is tied to how optimistically and positively Jesus and Paul approach women (I Tim 2 excepted). We should not expand a biblical sentence into a encyclopedically defined role for all women.
Consider the upper room in Jerusalem. If you put the whole picture together, it was probably owned by John Mark's family. Jesus tells his disciples that they are to set up the passover meal at a home shown to them by a man carrying a water jar (Mark 14:13) . This situation fits with Mark's family picture. His family was probably weathy (upper room). His mother was probably a wealthy hellenized Jew and her husband was serving her in a role reversal by going to the water well. Jesus does not condemn the situation but rather accepts close association with it. Time after time Jesus embraces the outcast with kindness and acceptance.
I suggest that should not hold tightly to our concepts of traditional roles. I suggest that there are other problems for the failure of marriages.
Interestingly, maybe more importantly, notice the difference in our approaches to the Bible -- verse by verse application or broader view application.
The Jewish approach to the world is wisdom based. Jesus tells stories and gives rabbidical interpretation from a jewish broader approach. I am trying to understand this method better. It requires discussions and applications of the biblical stories and a willingness to listen to other interpretations of the same stories. It allows for broader interpretations and even multiple interpretations because they are stories with many aspects. This encourages dynamic discussion and disagreement, but preserves unity in the synagogue. There are certainly boundaries that must be maintained. 'Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One." is an important boundary.
The Evangelical approach are rationalistic. We seem to be stuck in the Western Enlightenment approach to finding truth. We begin with a statement of a verse or two as an assumed truth, then use logic to apply the truth. Certainly Paul uses Greek rationalism, but not generally. He too uses story interpretations. Think of the use of Sarah-Hagar to discuss freedom and the Law in Galatians. Paul is using the rabbidical interpretation of a story and I am sure he does not think that this is the only truth that can be obtained from the Genesis story of Sarah and Hagar.
Rationalistic application of verses generally lead to logically inconsistent interpretations based on the verses used. The adherences assume truth in their logic so schisms occur because the disagreements.
Obviously, you feel that I am wrong because you found a verse. Don't initiate excommunication proceedings with the elders yet. Examine the verse in the context of the whole ... Jesus' live and actions in particular.
Post a Comment
<< Home