Ethics and covenant
Well, since everyone is in apparent agreement with me, contrary to Larry Norman and later DC Talk, about Matt 23-25, I'll move on. Found a great post on homosexuality. For those who may be tempted to think, "Great, another conservative talking about homosexuality," you'll likely be surprised. For those thinking, in light of the last sentence, "Great, another liberal talking about homosexuality," you'll likely be relieved. Either that or both groups will be annoyed. The gyst is that sexuality is defined in terms of covenant between God and humanity. I especially appreciated his consistent linking of marriage, procreation, and child-rearing, making sure Christians take seriously adultery and divorce, in addition to homosexuality.
Some Guy: I have in mind your question about the 10 Commandments from FT a year or so ago. I wonder if you were asked that question again whether you'd go into covenant requirements and faithfulness. Seems like a tough thing to 'splain in a page. Would you write it any differently?
Some Guy: I have in mind your question about the 10 Commandments from FT a year or so ago. I wonder if you were asked that question again whether you'd go into covenant requirements and faithfulness. Seems like a tough thing to 'splain in a page. Would you write it any differently?
posted by Aaron Perry at
3:16 PM
13 Comments:
a great article; i especially was greatful for the parenthesis: "and no one wants to say that it [sex and marriage] is exclusively for childbearing and rearing."
to use the term "exclusively" then becomes oppressive to those couples who, for whatever reason, remain infertile. the evangelical church especially is not sensitive to infertile couples in practice. this is very annoying and implies that they ONLY see marriage as a safe, God intended space for sex and children, but FORGET and do not emphasize that it is also a model of the expression/testimony of perichoresis. so, when we use such strong language about the purposes of marriage, let us also be conscious that such things could become oppressive to those that marriages that God has "blessed" but has not given children. we need to be VERY careful in practice to not allow for a hierarchial value to be placed on those couples who were able to give birth. this is an unnecessary way in which many couples feel exluded by the community (and they have done nothing wrong). such things irk me, and i had to comment.
I hold largely to a personal tenet I developed a little over a year ago: there is little that is explicitly "good" and "bad" in human relationships to God and with one another. This tenet developed over something very similar to the article, something that clued me in to the fact that Christian living isn't as much about right and wrong as it is about being in or out of covenant relationship with God. In other words, I think this article has a lot to say to Christian ethics in general.
(Lest anyone think I'm off the deep end, I do believe in "right" and "wrong," "good" and "evil.")
I enjoyed the post as well. Thanks for reading and linking to it.
Some Guy needs a little more 'splainin 'fore he can answer. So Lucy, please jog my memory
SG
jo, i think i'm tracking with you, but want to follow-up. the remaining infertile part is ok, but not "for whatever reason." there are lots of *wrong* reasons to remain "infertile" (read: not productive; barren). the view that marriage is mimetic to the perichoresis of the Trinity only works when selfless love generates another being (which sounds alot like procreation). the selfless love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father eternally generates the person of the Spirit. so, i want to say that choosing to be married, without *desiring* children (i.e., "We want to marry, but will not have children") is not a faithful expression of what marriage is and is for. this does not mean that faithful marriage *must* bear children, only that such relationship must not only be open to it, but desire it. some may be unable to, but this must be outside their choice, otherwise marriage is for "my benefit," "completion," etc. and says nothing about homosexuality. [and even then, rearing need not be limited to physical procreation (adoption, etc.)].
what do you think?
lynn, you scare me by saying there is little that is bad or good in relationships... do you want to replace these with faithful/faithless? i will agree if you mean right/wrong in some kantian sense, but not in the way most people, as far as i can tell, use "good" and "bad."
Some Guy: I think you said something about them being "10 reminders" or some such thing. The issue was right/wrong before the 10 Commandments, I think...
Ah YEs.
The question had to do with the role of the 10 c's in Christian life.
I presented Calvin's argument (BIG surprize). The 10 c's
(1) Inhibit crime by scaring criminals
(2) Expose our sin and drive us to Christ
(3) (contra Luther) Guide us in growth in holiness in a relationship with God.
So, like Calvin, I am into covenant responsibilities--#3. I am just into grace first. "I am the LORD who brought you out of Egypt (Gospel). You shall have no other Gods (Law)."
Some Guy
Some Guy, that leads me to think of this: Paradoxically the covenant of the law, which is life-giving (increase in holiness), increases sin (Rom. 5:20). The law's being broken requires judgment. The covenant is carried through to its end and the guilty party declared or the covenant is left broken. (And you cannot make another covenant without the first being taken seriously.) So, the law creates the people through whom God will save the world, but this very law is their downfall. The way God saves the world is by (Wrightian language, almost verbatim) "piling sin up in one place." At once, the law is life-giving and death-increasing.
This judgment, however, against Israel is taken by their Messiah (who is the new Israel). All the punishment for breaking the law is taken on him: he who knew no sin was made sin for us. Now what the law was powerless to do (deal with sin), the new covenant by the blood of Jesus is able to do: it defeats death, as shown by his resurrection. But, resurrection could only come through death. So, the judgment of God against Israel in Jesus creates the new "public context" (O'Donovan) in which judgment has no place, rather only forgiveness (mimetically related to resurrection, just as end-of-exile is related to forgiveness). So, this new community is no longer under law (the covenant made by law), but under grace (the new covenant which supercedes the law). (This is all a co-mingling of Wright and O'Donovan.) So, this new community is commanded to "judge not" although the message of forgiveness does not mean reconciliation...it only confirms the public context (church) in which reconciliation (embrace) can occur. (Where Volf makes his mistake is by mingling forgiveness with embrace. Forgiveness merely opens the arms of embrace, it cannot close its arms around the other or else it is a one-sided embrace and constriction of the other.)
What do you think?
ok, yeah. i think it would have been better if i had left out the "for whatever reason" part, cuz i didn't mean for it to be taken that way.
i think i need to read more in the area of pneumatology. right now i'm not sure i can buy that the Spirit is 'generated' (as in produced?). heck no.
so to say that the purpose of marriage is procration because of the generation of the Spirit in the Trinity is not a sound argument to me. to say that children are good to produce because the (non-hierarchial) Trinity produced all of us--the created order--out of love, makes more sense to me.
still i'm not disagreeing that procreation isn't an important part of the purpose of marriage. however, as i tried to say, i think that statement "the purpose of christian marriage is procreation" without additionally saying that it can be mimetic of trinitarian love is laying the groundwork for a "norm" that is not liberating, but oppressive to some innocent members.
i think that that model of trinitarian perichoresis can still happen in a unwillingly barren marriage---it's just that life-giving production will happen in the investment in the life of others and the invitation of others to receive the nurturing outflow of love from that marriage---a spiritual procreation.....
anyway, i'm just sensitive to these things. i dislike it when people are excluded or deemed sub-par because of unqualifed normative statements. life is not that simple.
AP,
Just wanted to comment on this part of your post...
"i want to say that choosing to be married, without *desiring* children (i.e., "We want to marry, but will not have children") is not a faithful expression of what marriage is and is for. this does not mean that faithful marriage *must* bear children, only that such relationship must not only be open to it, but desire it. some may be unable to, but this must be outside their choice, otherwise marriage is for "my benefit," "completion," etc."
Seems like some people have children for the very reasons you list for people not having children, for their benefit and completion. I have witnessed the damage that has been inflicted on those children born to parents who want to live through their kids or who abuse their kids because they view them as possessions. Of course, I have much more witnessed parents who love their children sacrificially and model the love of God the Father. Broken models shouldn't discourage us from seeking healthy ones.
I am not ready to say that two people marrying and choosing not to have children is always wrong.
Perhaps they realize that they would not make good parents so decide not to have them. Or, maybe they are living in dangerous situations in which it would not be good to have children.
As for me, I would absolutely want to have children if I were ever to marry. It would be the main reason I would get married in fact, but I know people who, frankly, shouldn't have childen, for various reasons. Should those people be required to either not marry or, have children if they do, in order to be faithful?
Genesis indicates that is was not right for man to be alone, so he gave him woman as a helpmate. Partnership seems also another God ordained reason for marriage.
I'm not settled on this issue at all and I'm open to learning, but your comments seemed so certain...and I guess I am not.
Your view begs the question: do you think all birth control is "wrong" or unfaithful?
John
**oops. in the last comment i ment to say, "still, i'm agreeing that procreation is an important part of the purpose...."
wow i think that was a triple negative on my part!
jo--nothing i said leaves people less than persons--either excluded or sub-par. re: generation of the Spirit: yes. he is eternally generated just as the Son is eternally begotten by the Father who is the fount of divinity. this is why the Spirit is said to 'proceed' from the Father through the Son.
to say that the Trinity is who produced us without distinguishing roles in so doing borders, imo, on not having three persons.
John: great reminder that people have children for their completion, as well. self-less giving of oneself cannot be concerned with completing or fulfilling oneself. if people marry but choose not to have children, then they have done exactly what mcknight is warning against in separating procreation and marriage. you cannot do this christianly. (i don't have issues with BC....but i'm not sure i stay consistent. would take me fleshing it out.) your emphasis of partnership is proper--which is why i say that people who cannot have children may still marry--and should explore other ways of procreation (adoption) and rearing (significant relationships with nieces/nephews, etc.).
i'll read more.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home