Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (Hebrews 13:4 TNIV)

Discussing marriage in our current cultural context is a touchy thing.  With homosexuals fighting for their right to have legally binding "marriages" to the broader Evangelical community fighting for "traditional marriages," one is left with the notion that this beautiful thing is nearly undefinable.  To say marriage is between a man and a woman only seems intolerant and yet, simultaneously, "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron of sorts with "marriage" implying that two different things are coming together.  Merriam-Webster would have us think differently, but it is hard to change the implications of a term when it has been used in a particular manner for as long as the term "marriage" has.

So in all of the mess that often passes as "marriage" in America today, what is marriage?  What makes for a strong marriage?  What roles do sex, finances, and even love play in the marriage of today?  In the next few weeks, I am going to tackle these and other issues pertaining to the topic of marriage.  These posts are open for your discussion and comment, so feel free to respond appropriately.  But remember, as in all cases, especially if you're a Christian, respond only in love and respect.  Rude comments will not be tolerated, and will be deleted promptly.

Foundations for a good marriage

Whenever you are building a building, you must start with the foundation.  As cliche as it sounds, this is always true.  To discuss sex apart from marriage, for example, creates an incomplete understanding of human sexuality.  Cracks form and, eventually, sexuality is reduced to attraction and copulation.  Of course, any reasonable person would agree that, as complex as humankind is, sexuality composes much more than simply mating.

The same idea is true of marriage.  Without grounding our understanding of marriage in history and, as Christians, Scripture, marriage falls into the same disrepair.  Cracks form and marriage is reduced to a legally binding document and a set of rituals.  All meaning is removed and all symbolism is erased. 

A brief history of marriage

Marriage began as a fairly informal agreement.  There was no set-in-stone ritual that declared a couple husband and wife.  In Old Testament Biblical times, it appears that it was nothing more than a monetary transaction and the physical union of the man and woman.  Sex made someone married.  In fact, the Law was such that if a man raped a virgin, she became his wife.  He payed the bride price for her and they were on their way. 

By the New Testament era, marriage was a mostly private matter and no civil or religious ceremony was required.  In the Middle Ages, it became common practice to register marriages, which was one of the duties of the institutional church.  Prior to this, marriages were done by way of "verbum."  A couple who chose to be married would privately make a promise.  If it was worded in the present tense, they were married on the spot.  If worded in the future tense, it was considered a betrothal.  But, if the couple chose to have sex, they were considered married right then and there.  This changed little until the time of John Calvin, when he saw to the establishment of a required civil/religious ceremony that registered and declared a couple "legally" married.

And this is largely how it remains today.  To be considered "married," a couple must at least sign some legal documents and have someone licensed witness and sign them as well.  Traditionally, this is done as a part of a religious ceremony, but it is not a required part of the ceremony itself, although it is legally required to receive any of the benefits of being married.  (We will not discuss "common-law marriages" at this point for it is mostly irrelevant to our discussion.)

What are the legal and social benefits of marriage?  The legal rights include the right of the spouse to his or her partner's sexual services, labor, and property, responsibility for a spouse's debts, visitation rights when incarcerated or hospitalized, control over a spouse's affairs when incapacitated, and guardianship of children.  Socially, marriage brings two families together in a unique relationship.

This is part of why loving, monogamous homosexual couples want the right of marriage in the United States.  Currently, if one or the other member in these relationships ends up in the hospital on life support, for example, they are unable to decide for their partner whether or not to pull the plug, even if the injured partner has requested it.  It also leaves property decisions largely up to the state and the the individual's family were he or she to die. 

But this is also why the broader Evangelical community is so opposed to homosexual marriage, and even merely legal civil unions.  They do not believe that homosexuals should get the rights associated with marriage for their relationships are invalid.

Historically, marriage has been recognized as solely a rite between a man and a woman, with one of the only, and earliest, documented cases of acceptance of homosexual marriages being the Roman Empire.  From this point on, our discussion of marriage will remain within the context of heterosexual relationships.  And so as not to be sidetracked in the discussion at hand, please keep debate over the issue of homosexual marriage to a minimum.

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.  The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.  After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in haven. (Hebrews 1:1-3 TNIV)

When I said that I didn't think I could ever be a Southern Baptist again, and even referred to them as apostate, it ruffled some feathers.  In fact, some responders have seemed offended.  And there seems to be a distraction within my previous post that keeps taking precedence over what I was actually saying.  I was not stating my separation from the SBC as a response to the way some leaders have chosen to treat women, although injustice is reason enough to do so.  My issue is with the fact that the denomination as a whole does not see Jesus as central to His own religion. 

In removing the phrase that made Jesus the guiding rule for interpreting Scripture, they were, in essence, saying that there is a better way to read the Bible, and it isn't through the eyes of the Son of God.  The moment this idea was removed from the Baptist Faith and Message, the doors were opened for the kinds of things that have currently been taking that denomination by storm.  But this should not be the case.

The central figure to the Christian religion is Jesus Christ.  It's not Father God.  It's not the Holy Spirit.  It isn't even the Bible.  It is Jesus Christ.  Granted, to properly understand Jesus, we must have a proper view of the Father and the Spirit, but the one who came to establish God's kingdom on earth and left us with a reliable way of doing so was the Son.

Long ago, God spoke through prophets and and priests and visions and asses, but today, He speaks to us through His Son.  Not the Bible.  Not feelings influenced by the Spirit.  Not the Father's booming voice.  Jesus.  It is true that Jesus' words are most accurately found within the pages of the Bible, but because it is through Jesus that God is speaking to us, the words of Jesus should be first and foremost in our minds and hearts.  When we read the Bible, Jesus should be our lens for interpreting it.

When He isn't, things tend to take a much different path than He would take.  When the Bible is interpreted through anything other than Jesus, there are ugly results.

Racism is condoned.  War is embraced as not merely a necessary evil, but a baptized action that must be taken to establish a just society.  Women are treated as at worst property and at best as under men, as unequal to them in ways that are just plain sick.  People who don't look, act, or speak as "we" do can be oppressed and persecuted for the Bible says to cast out the evil (read different) from our midst. 

But Jesus changes all of this.

It is through Jesus whom the earth was created.  And it is through Jesus that this universe is sustained.  And it is through Jesus that it will be later purified in a way eerily reminiscent of the 40 day and 40 night flood of Noah.  And it is through this same Jesus that God is speaking to us and showing us exactly what God is like.  Through Him, God is showing us a new way to live.  A better way.  The Kingdom way.  But we won't see this way unless we are looking at Jesus.  Jesus is pretty darn important if you ask me.

The past week was more than a little frustrating.  Some family dropped in unannounced and just expected us to have a room for them.  Now, when five people are already living in a house and most of the space is occupied, this is no easy feat.  But it is doable.  When they came by last time, we allowed them to use our living room.  But we didn't offer this time, and it wasn't a good time for company anyway.  Despite people's misgivings about them coming, they took over our living room and actually holed themselves in it the entire time they were here. 

By the third day, we had had enough.  And when we overheard them and my brother-in-law talking crap about us through the door (along with some pre-existing issues that I am not going to talk about here), enough was enough.  We asked them to leave.  What followed was accusations and fights and an actual lecture from my brother-in-law about how we were rude, and even un-Christian, for asking them to leave.  Needless to say, the situation was a mess and some of the logistics are still being worked out for if it happens again.

When all was said and done, I got to thinking about love.  What is loving in a situation like this?  On the one hand, love says that you give someone a place to stay and something to eat if they don't have it.  After all, in doing so, you might be entertaining angels.  On the other hand, love says that you have an obligation to protect your family, a husband has the duty to love his wife as he loves himself and even to go so far as to lay down his life for her (and I would say that this applies to wives as well toward their husbands). 

Our situation put these two loves head to head.  Stand up for the family unit versus take care of the "needy."  We chose to defend our family.

What do you do when love conflicts with love?  How do you handle these kinds of situations?

I think it really comes down to being like Jesus.  Christianity as an institutional religion doesn't offer any solution to this kind of thing.  The person dealing with the scenario is left to deal with the situation herself because, as is commonly said, it is a "matter of conscience."  What this means is that you have to do what is right for you.  Being like Jesus yields a different result.

One time, Jesus went to the temple along with His disciples, and what He saw really pissed Him off.  People were there trading and buying and selling.  It was a filthy mess of animal dung and food waste.  Jesus has told these people over and over what true holiness is and what it means to follow God and here they are, in His Father's house, causing a disruption by their corruptions. 

Jesus grabs some straps and makes a whip and proceeds to throw these men out.  He turns over some tables.  Spills money on the floor.  Sets animals free.  The scene is nothing less than riotous.  People screaming and yelling and a mess covering the floor. 

And in the midst of all of this, Jesus yells, in no uncertain terms, "Get the hell out of my Father's House!  This is supposed to be a holy place and here you are using it to make a profit!  Out!  OUT!  All of you!"

Jesus was always one to show love and compassion.  He healed people and raised the dead and called His followers to turn the other cheek and give to those who asked.  What happened?

Jesus had a higher love to show.  While healing and miracles and peaceful demonstrations work wonders, they don't have the same results when "family" begins to inadvertently destroy the home.  In Jesus' case, those who were claiming to be His children were acting in a manner far removed from how His family was to act.  They were hurting His home.  And He would have no part of it and refused to let it continue any longer.

Sometimes, life puts love at odds with love.  Do you give the beggar a meal or do you share a Gospel presentation with him?  Do you embrace the homosexual or do you tell her what the Bible says about it and risk alienating her?  Do you share your home with all who come or do you turn some people away?  This is real life, and there seems at times to be no cut and dried answer.  But, if our goal is to be like Jesus, then we can easily see what He would do.  Sometimes, one love must come before another love.  This will not be popular to those steeped in religious jargon, but since when has being like Jesus ever been popular among those types?

The men who established our Constitution were not opportunists looking out only for themselves.  They also had what was in the best interests of the new United States at heart.  This is why, in 1791, the Constitution was Ammended to say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." 

Back in England, this was not the case.  The church and the government were, in essence, one.  This had actually been the case for a very long time.  A study of politics and religion will show that the two were seemingly inseparable for centuries.  From Rome to the Church of England, theocracy was the order of the day.  But America was to be something different.  The men who ratified this Amendment knew the dangers of theocracy, and saw to it that they would not happen on American soil.

Theocracy carries with it one very dangerous element: the government cannot be questioned because their decisions and actions are "commanded" by the gods themselves.  By making it clear that the United States Congress cannot declare a state religion, they were acknowledging the humanity, and even imperfection, of  the American way.  They were saying, in essence, that this thing had not come from God and was simply people doing the best that they could.  And it could change at any time.  The Constitution could be amended.  The document was a living document, not a set-in-stone, God-granted, unquestionable way.  America was not established as a "Christian nation."

Politically, this was a very smart move.  In keeping with the idea that the people have some say in the decisions made by their leaders, the framers of the Amendment were assuring that it would, at least in theory, remain this way.  No political leader in the United States could claim that his ideas came from God.  The President could not stand before the people and act in direct opposition to their will and say that they were doing what God told them for the government was not free to make those claims.  Doing so would mean that the government was endorsing a religion, and things would revert to the way they were in England, with a tyrant leader.

Sadly, this is not how many Christians want to view things.  They want the government to be a Christian government.  They endorse a political candidate and say that he (it's always a he) is the Christian choice.  Not only that, but, in keeping with the idea that only the wealthy can lead this country, if the man be a wealthy Christian man, the Christian church can seek to control the direction of the government in more ways.  If the right wealthy Christian candidate can be elected, the logic holds, then Roe v. Wade can be overturned, prayer can be put back in schools, evolution can be removed from Science text books, to be replaced by Creationism or Intelligent Design, and homosexuals can continue to be marginalized and maybe even the lifestyle made illegal.

Thankfully, this can never happen.  Our freedoms to think and live are secured as long as the First Amendment remains in effect.  But not only our own freedoms, but also those of the rest of the world.

Recent times have seen a growing number of people writing books and articles that really attack the United States' Founding Fathers and some of the early presidents. Everything from Abraham Lincoln's secret homosexual tendencies to Thomas Jefferson's ownership of slaves have been brought forward in an attempt to belittle their influence on present day America. Some of this information is true, other stuff is false, but it all has one purpose: remove the hero status of the men in the early history of America. But as I reflect back on what I have learned from studying American history, I actually think that these men were geniuses in their own right.

Let's start with Abraham Lincoln. He is actually quoted at one point as saying that he did not see African Americans as ever being treated equally, and that he didn't think that they deserved to be. He actually viewed them as inferior to the white man. But he is one of the principal players in seeing to the end of slavery of that sort here in the U.S.

Why? Because he was smart. He knew that to join the side of the Confederates was political suicide. The majority was opposed to slavery. For him to support the practice would mean that he would most likely not be elected to a second term in office. So, as a political gesture to the men who could keep him in office, he signed the Emancipation Proclamation and freed the slaves.

But it goes back even further than that. The men who founded this nation and established our form of government knew exactly what they were doing. In light of their treatment by the king, they fled England and came to the New World to establish a free(er) life for themselves. They saw their king as a tyrant who refused to submit to any law, even if it were for the common good. He controlled what was made a law in such a way that laws could not be enacted. He called legislative bodies to be convened in ridiculous places just to get people to submit to his way of thinking. He disbanded representative houses simply because they stood against his unwarranted invasions of people's homes and privacy. He micromanaged the decisions of the people and the courts. He kept a standing army, even in peace-times, without the people's consent. I could go on, but you get the idea. As a result, they declared their independence and established their own Constitution.

But, when you read those documents, you notice something very interesting. They did not establish a government run by the people. The government is actually run by representatives and a congress. The President can make some executive decisions, but that is about as far as his power extends. For the Founding Fathers, this was a very smart move.

The framers of the Constitution were some of the United States' political and economical elite. They were wealthy land-owners. When they established the form of government that they did, they ensured that the only people who would be in power were wealthy land owners. The elite. They knew that if they established a true democracy that it was very likely that they would be ousted in no time. As is true today, many times, the decisions made by the wealthy do not necessarily coincide with what the rest of the population really need. The desires of the rich and what makes for the common good are, most of the time, mutually exclusive. The Founding Fathers knew this and so they established a “Republic” rather than a “Democracy.”

Leaving America briefly, let's look at a country that is a Democracy. Let's take France for example. Let's say that the teachers in France are having a hard time financially. As oil, food, and housing costs rise, their own salaries remain the same. As a result, the teachers join together and ask that the French government raise their wages. But nothing happens. So, they strike and take to the streets, demanding that the government step in and do something about their pay. They demand that the normal wage for their profession increase to compensate for the rising cost of living. The teachers are on strike, and so no schooling is going on whatsoever. An entire segment of the country has ceased to function, putting a lot of people temporarily out of work. This has obvious consequences for the French economy.

How does the government respond? They can do one of two things. They can crush the striking teachers and bring in people willing to work for that wage. Or, they can give in to the people's demands and do something about the payment of the educators. They are smart enough to know that if these people are struggling, then so would anyone else they put in their place, so they enact a law raising the wage for teachers in France.

Our Founding Fathers knew that this is the kind of thing that the American people would do if they were allowed a true say in what the government did and didn't do. They also knew that there were more non-wealthy than wealthy people in the country, especially when they considered slaves, that they would not stand a chance of having any governing power. So, they gave the people the opportunity to vote for representatives, out of a pool of those in their respective state from the political establishment, who would decide things in the name of the people. But not everyone would get a say. Only land owners. To own land, you had to be wealthy. Being wealthy meant being a part of the establishment. By a work of sheer genius, the rich political elite took control of the new United States of America.

219 years later, nothing has changed. In fact, things seem strangely reminiscent of the days prior to American independence. The president, and this does not apply only to our current president, refuses to submit to any law, he controls what is made a law in such a way that laws can't be enacted, even if they are for the common good, he micromanages the decisions of the people and the courts by placing his own cronies in those positions, and he maintains a standing army, in places all over the world, with or without the people's consent. But the attitude is that we elected him, so this must be what we want. But, just as in the days of our Founding Fathers, it is not the majority that make the decisions regarding where this country goes, it is those we chose to represent us from the wealthy, political establishment. Presidents are not elected by us, but by those in the establishment who decide for us. And they can overturn the popular decision of the people in their state if they so choose. True, a larger segment of the population can vote now. African Americans, women, rich and poor all have a vote. But they do not get to elect men or women who truly represent them. They are forced to select someone from the political establishment. We really have no vote in any real sense of the word.

So I guess if you really think about it, the Founding Fathers would be proud of where we have come. But then again, maybe that's the problem.

A general problem with much of Western Theology...is that the God portrayed is too small.  It is a god of a tiny world and not a god of a galaxy, much less a universe. - Carl Sagan

The other day, I talked about how, for many Christians, God is dead.  He is not present in the things that they do, support, or in the way that they act toward their neighbors.  So, for them, He is dead.  But this isn't the only segment of Christianity here in the states.  Another set of Christians worships a small god.  For lack of a less offensive manner in which to say this, they worship the Biblical God.

The more I read and study biology and cosmology, the more I am beginning to think that the Bible should not be our final authority in matters pertaining to these topics.  I am not saying that the Bible is unauthoritative, nor am I saying that it is uninspired, nor am I saying that it is not God's revelation to humankind.  It does have authority, it is inspired, and it is God revealing Himself to His people.  But, when it comes to scientific matters, its knowledge is limited.

Because of the Bible's limited knowledge of science, this means that its understanding of the Creator God is limited as well.  As Carl Sagan once said, He is the god "of a tiny world."

Interestingly, though, over the years, our understanding of this world has expanded beyond that touched on by the Biblical witness.  After all, where in the Bible do you find the idea that stars form out of gas explosions or that the cells in your body are entirely replaced many times over the course of your lifetime?  You can look and look, but it's not there.  And that isn't an excuse to say that it isn't true.

But this is what many Christians do.  The attitude is that if it is not in the Bible, than it must be opposed to the Bible.  It's evolution or creation. As a result, these people's view of God is stuck within the confines of the Biblical witness.  This God is unable to grapple with the problems of modern man.

This is not to say that the true Creator God is unable to do so.  In fact, if there is a God, and I believe firmly that there is, He must be very big.  Bigger than we can fathom.  Bigger than any holy book can capture.  To limit your understanding of God and His works to the confines of a single holy book is to do the true Creator a grave disservice.

But this is not how it must always be.

I think it is time that we set aside the old idea that the Bible is our final authority in all matters.  In matters of theology and church doctrine, this may be the case, but when it comes to things like biology and the cosmos, we would do well to expand our canon in a practical sense to include that which God has further revealed to humankind.  We need to begin seeing the Bible as a starting point, not a finishing point, for the Christian faith, especially as it pertains to science.  The Bible provides the tools for an expanding view of God, but it doesn't provide the whole picture.

Isn't that what it is all about?  Shouldn't we, in all things, seek truth?  And isn't this what science is seeking to do?  Not all science is seeking to undermine faith.  The goal of science and cosmology is simply to understand how things work; to understand the process by which stars and galaxies are formed and the process by which humankind and the rest of the animal kingdom came to be where they are today.  This is not opposed to the Christian witness.  Rather, it affirms it.