* * *
One of the most popular debates on this blog is the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate that spontaneously shows up in threads. I have set up this blog post so the Calvinism/Arminian discussion can continue here, but not “overtake” other important articles. Part 1 had so many comments, over 1,000, the page was taking a long time to load, hence, Part 2.
I’ll use Ed’s post to start it off. Feel free to join in:
Hannah,
I hope you came over here:
You had said:
Hmmmm….well if there is no one there to preach the Word says they are without excuse… Romans 1 says he will reveal Himself to them…My response:
Romans 10:13-15King James Version (KJV)
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Ed
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Q–
You’re not making sense. One learns about Reformed theology by reading books explaining it written by Calvinists. They get to decide what is and isn’t part of their belief system. At the very least, read a number of academic texts evaluating the theology, written from several different viewpoints. Don’t go to some obscure “workbook” on the subject, compiled by a layperson with an acknowledged grudge.
All Dispensationalists believe in Unconditional Election. It’s part of the core doctrine of the movement. Check with any Southern Baptist seminary you wish. You’ll get the same reply.
LikeLike
And I just want to ask, “why?” Why would one want to read Reformed theology. Shouldn’t the Bible suffice? What did people have before all of these Reformed books came along? The Bible? It makes me think the Reformers feel the Bible isn’t big enough, complete enough or something.
This is reminding me of when I went to the LDS seminary at the local high school where I volunteer. I saw a book that appeared to be a Bible, but it was huge. I then saw that it was a 3-in one: Bible, Book of Mormon and some other LDS book. Evidently the Bible wasn’t enough for Joseph Smith either.
LikeLike
Not that I think the Bible is the sole means of knowing Jesus. I submit that spending time with, and serving, “the least of these” is a more sure way of knowing Jesus than even studying Scripture. Can we not see Jesus in a group of preschoolers at a birthday Party? Do we not converse with Jesus himself if we stop to speak to a lonely old widower sitting on a park bench feeding squirrels? Do we not see evil as He sees it, do we not participe in his very wrath, when we consider the unspeakable things some fathers do to their little girls, and even to their sons? Surely you get the idea.
No, it is as we live out our lives in love that we come to know Jesus. To the fiery everlasting abyss with any suggestion that it must be through “doctrine and confession and creed” that we come to know Jesus!
LikeLike
Gary–
Giving free reign to individual interpretation of Scripture pretty much guarantees that you will have only a very minimal reference to anything resembling Scripture. The very PURPOSE of confessions and creeds is to set up parameters on how Scripture can be read so that we don’t get completely off-the-wall interpretations.
The Protestant Reformation rebelled against the Roman Catholic notion of giving equal weight to Sacred Tradition, instead insisting that all our beliefs must be derived “in reference to Scripture.”
LikeLike
Are you saying the Bible is not sufficient and we need to add to it?
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Before all “these Reformed books came along,” all that the people had as a resource was their local Catholic priest. They had no Bibles in their mother tongue (if they could read at all). Often it was illegal to even translate Scripture into the vernacular.
All that “Reformed books” represent is a return to “the Bible alone.” Reformed theology is biblical theology. The Reformers tried to get as close to the original intent of Scripture as they could. Without reference to any existing creed, they constructed confessions straight from the Bible.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
Adding anything to Scripture is condemned by Scripture itself.
Why do you object to guidelines for reading Scripture?
Does it add to Scripture to advise people that they should interpret Scripture as teaching that Jesus is God? As teaching the truth of the Trinity? As teaching that Jesus physically rose from the dead?
LikeLike
Wouldn’t God have provided guidelines within scripture if He felt we needed it?
LikeLike
“Reformed theology is biblical theology”
Uh No!
Reformed Theology is actually Dogmatic Theology, as is Dispensational Theology, basically meaning we understand the bible saying this…
Biblical Theology is based only from the bible e.g., the Pauline letters.
Systematic Theology is taking in all evidence, biblical and other, say creation, and organizing it to make sense of the information.
Hans buy a book.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
My understanding of the creeds is they have some value…but commentaries much more.
Jesus gave gifts to men and one of them is teachers.
Gifted teachers can speak verbally or write it down, either way, it is communication and is a gift.
The bible says “do not believe every spirit” but we should test them against the word of God.
Calvin fail, Driscoll fail, and many more.
Many others we can learn from.
I called out Driscoll right away, but had to just patiently wait while everyone said I was judgmental. I could call out a many more and have.
Stay with the bible and find good teachers and call no one father and don’t sign a covenant. Seems good, yes.
LikeLike
Gary–
Some liberal Christians see “Jesus” not only in the eyes of innocent children and lonely old men, but in the promiscuity of their teenage daughters (with the proper “protection,” of course) and in the “blessing of abortion” (should a daughter forget “protection”) and in the indulgence of their kids’ drug and (excessive) alcohol use. After all, kids will be kids!
Atheists, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Pastafarians…everyone believes we should protect children from pedophiles. That doesn’t require any belief in Jesus.
LikeLike
Hans said –
“Don’t go to some obscure “workbook” on the subject, compiled by a layperson…
Kind of says it all.
LikeLike
Hey Gary W, It’s not just a layperson, it’s a women layperson!
LikeLike
“The very PURPOSE of confessions and creeds is to set up parameters on how Scripture can be read so that we don’t get completely off-the-wall interpretations.”
Yikes! This nonsense makes confessions and creeds the measure by which we test Scripture rather than the other way around. Hans complains of Catholicism making tradition equal with Scripture, but he actually subordinates Scripture to his own tradition, in the form of confessions and creeds. And I still fail to see where Jesus is in any of this idolatrous devotion to confessions, creeds and theology.
LikeLike
Lydia, I thought you expressed some really good things, and Marsha.
Are you Scholars or some type of theologians (please present credentials)…If not you are just an obscure layperson and according to Hans I will have to disregard you.
Man this makes things easier.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Hans has me headed towards the Pope, he seems to be the least layperson.
LikeLike
Q–
You may have noticed that I didn’t capitalize biblical theology. Reformed theology contends that it is biblical…theology. It is not based on traditions and creeds but Scripture. Now, the formal study of Biblical Theology (as opposed to Systematic Theology) is another matter entirely. Biblical Theology looks at the historical progression of themes in Scripture without attempting to resolve apparent tensions or conflict. Systematic Theology tries to synthesize these biblical tensions for dogmatic purposes. If Scripture is a unified, inspired whole, then one section of Scripture might be called upon to interpret another section of Scripture (the clearer elucidating the less clear).
LikeLike
Yeah Q, wouldn’t it be scandalous if some “mere” woman were to deign to attempt to speak truth to the intellectually superior Hans. Come to think of it, back when Hans was in offended condescension mode, Lydia and Julie Anne were the targets of an unduly large measure of his invective.
On balance though, I don’t think it’s so much a master of gender bigotry as that Hans has this need to be seen as some sort of authority. It just seems strange to me that he would seek to be recognized for his devotion to man made confessions and creeds.
LikeLike
Gary, It’s to late, Hans has led me to the Pope, I have surpassed his authority, and can remain a misogynist.
LikeLike
Gary W, good point.
LikeLike
Wait, my wife says I have to apologize for dragging people in and I can’t follow the Pope. I apologize.
LikeLike
Well Q, I’m disappointed, but I understand. If we are going to embrace human authority we can follow Hans and his precious confessions and creeds, but why not just go to the top, why not embrace the Pope himself?
No, wait! Going to the top would require that we go to Jesus, Who, unfortunately, cannot be known from Scripture alone! We MUST have the meditation of Hans and his precious confessions and creeds! Er, no surely the Pope would be an even better mediator!
It is all so confusing. Think I’ll just go to bed.
LikeLike
My wife says I have to go to bed too.
LikeLike
Q! You were repenting even while I was writing.
Seriously though, this is a spiritual abuse blog, and some who are reading here may be Roman Catholic. I am in no way making fun of Roman Catholicism (I can agree to disagree with our RC brothers and sisters) . Rather, I am having a bit of fun with the fact that, while Hans is critical of Catholic reliance on church tradition, he would substitute his own.
LikeLike
Slow down Gary W, I’m reading this with a flashlight.
Seriously, God’s word is true, Jesus has come in the flesh, died on a cross and rose from the dead, and God will forgive all who trust in Him for the forgiveness of their sins.
I’m no theologian but have the Holy Spirit dwelling in me.
And if it helps, my wife agrees.
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
You wrote:
“Wouldn’t God have provided guidelines within Scripture if he felt we needed it?”
I agree that, at least from a human standpoint, that would have been nice. But the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament) was around for a few hundred years before the New Testament…and it was interpreted though the guidance of the Mishna and commentary on the Mishna (together termed the Talmud). Jesus never condemned the Mishna, in fact, using it favorably upon occasion. So, God did not provide guidelines within the OT…but accepted outside guidelines for the OT.
God also didn’t provide the Table of Contents in the front of your Bible. He didn’t provide the Concordance or the maps at the end. He didn’t provide the vowel pointings of the Hebrew. He didn’t provide any of the punctuation in the Greek (there weren’t even spaces between words!) He didn’t provide verse numberings or section headings. He also didn’t provide the translations into English (and translations always make interpretive decisions).
I don’t know the mind of God well enough to know why he didn’t provide guidelines. I can only assume he had his reasons. Why didn’t he make it clear whether he wanted infants baptised or not? Maybe because it doesn’t matter that much to him one way or the other. Maybe because he wanted us to figure it out. Maybe because he wanted us to get along in spite of small, unresolvable differences. I don’t know.
The Berean example dictates that we attempt to resolve ambiguities in Scripture. We are supposed to ask questions like, “What does the rest of Scripture say on this topic?” or “How does what Paul had to say fit with the Old Testament (the Bereans’ Scripture)?”
If Julie Anne Smith figures something out straight from Scripture, does that mean that I cannot learn from her insight without “adding to Scripture”? Isn’t all that I am doing is accepting the biblical insights of Luther or Calvin or Wilhelmus a Brakel or Martyn Lloyd-Jones or J.I. Packer?
LikeLike
Q,
Well, God’s word is m-o-s-t-l-y true. There are all kinds of historical and scientific errors. Jesus was born in the flesh just like the rest of us humans. He was pretty wise I guess, but he wasn’t God. He even said he wasn’t. He died on a cross, which was a marvelous display of love but it wasn’t all that necessary. God forgives us all anyway. I tend to think rising from the dead was something the church added later for effect. We rise by being carried on in the memories of our loved ones.
I’m no theologian but I have the Holy Spirit dwelling in me.
And if it helps, my wife and all my children agree, and everybody at my church!
LikeLike
I am really, really unhappy with the nasty words Hans wrote about ‘liberal Christians’ who supposedly have promiscuous daughters who have abortions (once again we see a preoccupation with female sexuality among self professed ‘conservative’ Christians) and children (presumably of both sexes) who use alcohol and drugs. And supposedly they are okay with this.
What a miserable and disgusting thing to say!
LikeLike
Q, thanks for the kind words. I am an obscure lay person. All the same, I am at least as intelligent as Calvin was and I am perfectly capable of reading the Bible and coming to my own conclusions without the filter of pre-existing confessions and creeds.
LikeLike
Hans, you are not going to convince me that I need to read the works of dead men and creeds just as I’m not going to convince you that you don’t need to read all of those extra things. I’m ok with that.
LikeLike
Marsha,
I am glad that you are really, really unhappy with the nasty words Hans wrote about ‘liberal Christians’. The sad thing is, Hans is attempting to make the point that, because we cannot always see Jesus in others, we can never see Jesus in others. He comes across as thinking he is clever, but he doesn’t even get debating points on this one.
According to Hans’ logic, it would be no more appropriate to be inspired by the example of a Mother Theresa than to be an admirer of Joseph Stalin or any other given villain. Surely he doesn’t believe this, unless maybe he really has fallen into the pit of dualism (matter evil, spirit good) that masquerades as the doctrine of total depravity.
It is instructive to have people like Hans around. Any “pastor” who espouses his doctrine, of whatever flavor, with the same incontestable certitude as Hans is an abuser. They, like Hans, are engaged in a power and control game to impose their opinions on others. I say that if one finds themselves in a church where the “pastor” engages in such abuse, the only good choice is to flee.
LikeLike
As to the question whether it is possible to see Jesus in others, we must be discerning, but I find it very insightful when NT Wright speaks of “. . . the one God, whose only appropriate “image” is a living, breathing human being.” Wright, N. T. (2011-10-25). Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters (p. 65). HarperOne. Kindle Edition.
LikeLike
“There are a million and one different sets of Christian doctrine. And everyone but everyone has a belief system. Yours may only contain fifteen or twenty points, and mine may extend to a hundred and fifty, but they act in virtually the same way. Most seminaries, Christian colleges, ministry organizations, and schools have statements of faith that fit on one page. The Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Westminster Confession of Faith are not that terribly long, easily read at a single sitting, and don’t require a graduate degree in theology to understand. No one has “no creed but the Bible.” You have presuppositions through which you interpret passages even if you are unaware of them.”
Until the day I die I will be advocating a “relationship” with Jesus Christ. I have been down the road of creeds, confessions, doctrinal positions, etc and it took me far away from where I should have been.
The problem with Christianity (which many have tried to “fix” for thousand years) is that it IS a relationship and therefore makes it harder to control people spiritually. 1 John says we all can have anointing. The “relationship” is personal while we have corporate means to reflect Jesus back out into the world.
“The question is not whether to have a confession. You have one.”
Actually, I don’t. I have a “relationship” with the Living Savior.
“I assume that you guys believe in Jesus’ death and resurrection. But I wouldn’t, couldn’t swear to it.”
Hans, there is no Living Savior without the resurrection. Many young Jewish men were crucified before and after Jesus. Only one was resurrected. In many ways, the cross was not really understood until after the resurrection.
” I have no idea whatsoever if you believe in the Atonement or in Justification by Faith Alone. I have no clue whether you believe in the validity of Jesus’ miracles or in our confident hope in his return. And I’m still scratching my head as to whether you hold to the ultimate authority, let alone the inerrancy, of Scripture.”
I do not worship a compliation of books. However, I love them and view them as an affirmation of what was experienced, seen, heard, etc. The early Christians had no NT and the Gentiles…well, their conversion relationship to Torah seems a bit complicated as we see throughout the Epistles with the Judaizers. However, the promised Holy Spirit was alive and well for many and that was enough. (Sometimes it is good to go back and read Acts 2). We even have those known as “proselytes” (Greek/Romans) in the NT who were seeking relationship with the One True God like Cornelius, Lydia, etc.
“Why anti-Calvinism is part of your first-order beliefs is also puzzling. Scripture for you cannot give us definitive answers to our questions on soteriology or christology or eschatology, but it can tell us that predestination is right out the window (in spite of verses that seem to say it’s there in the mix, at the very least)? That doesn’t appear to be rational, but the result of some sort of vendetta or grudge.”
I don’t read it for definitive answers on the things you mention because I think the things you mention are confusing man made constructs. “Christology”? Jesus Christ was/is God in the flesh. I can have relationship with Him. He sent me the promised Holy Spirit and it is up to to seek that help. Soteriology, eschatology are all man made contructs to tell us what to believe. It is very scary for some to be tolerant of a “personal relationship” with Christ. It is not something easily controllable.
The reason is I think very understandable. Early on– several centuries after the resurrection–Christianity ceased being about relationship and it became about conformity to a system devised by man. And it was easily accepted because Greek Pagan Philosophy was everywhere including in some factions of Judaism.
It ceased being about “fruit” and became about doctrine, political allegiances and conformity to the prevailing doctrinal stance from whatever power/authority at the time. And from there we have tons of systems. I was always astonished when I would read the historical backdrop during some of the early doctrinal councils. While arguing (for years!) on issues of soteriologty or christology…. wars broke out from the representative tribes or communities arguing these things!
“The inclusion of grudge thinking, along with nonconformist theology, are two signs of the potential for church abuse. I would think this group would stay far, far away from such stances.”
This makes no sense to me. Non conformity brings potential for abuse? Bruce Ware, prof at SBTS, taught something similar to that thinking back about 6 years ago. He taught that “unsubmissive wives trigger abuse”.
That is like saying freedom brings abuse and Conformity brings right treatment. I simply do not understand that sort of thinking. It sounds too “state church” for my taste. I hope I misunderstood you.
I do not understand “grudge” thinking. To disagree is not to automatically have a grudge. You keep trying to position folks who are not Calvinists and who have a problem with the doctrine as “haters”. I realize this is just to marginalize and get us defending ourselves. And I know it is very hard to discuss your position with people who do not hold to creeds, confessions, the writings of many dead guys, the writings of alive guys. Or who do not subscribe to what might be your definition of inerrancy which I think is a bizarre concept with no original autographs. There is simply no where to go with us except King Jesus who dwells within.
LikeLike
“Seriously though, this is a spiritual abuse blog, and some who are reading here may be Roman Catholic. I am in no way making fun of Roman Catholicism (I can agree to disagree with our RC brothers and sisters) . Rather, I am having a bit of fun with the fact that, while Hans is critical of Catholic reliance on church tradition, he would substitute his own.”
Gary, History is very instructive on this one. You know the “Reformation” was simply an attempt to “Reform” the Catholic church. They kept quite a bit of the same thinking and all of the “focus on authority”. The big issue was indulgences. I think folks forget that. Luther said faith alone in terms of the indulgences.
In some ways, putting the preacher/message front and center interpreting scripture for us has been just as bad. It became about the guy on stage. In Catholicism, the sacraments were center stage at least during worship. Some of the things coming out of the Reformation were good and some not so good. Even if bibles more readily available, it became a punishable sin in some places for those not “official” to dare interpret it for themselves. Ironically, many Catholic priests had never read the bible! And of course, most people were illiterate. (This goes back to making scripture a 4th person of the Trinity and why that is such a problem)
Now we can see how the “pastor/orator” center stage has become a serious problem over history and today with the rise in cult of personality. So many want us to believe that the “preachers message is the most important event of the week in the church”.
I have seen more vitriol toward Catholics from the Reformed world than from the Baptists! And that is saying alot. There used to be a Reformed site that was nothing but making fun of Catholics.
This is why I am no “Protestant”. I bleieve the Protestant church’s father is Augustine, too, and full of Greek Pagan Philosophy that wants us humans to believe we are not responsible or accountable because we are unable to do so.
LikeLike
Marsha–
Please, please do me the favor of taking the time to read what I write IN CONTEXT. My point was not that ALL liberal Christian parents are unprotective of their children or even that NO conservative Christian parent is so. My point is that SOME self-professed Christian parents view teenage sexual experimentation as “good, clean fun” and provide their underage daughters with birth control. What some Christian parents view as immoral and against the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, others view as perfectly moral and in line with the teachings of Jesus. (For example, Jesus said absolutely nothing regarding homosexuality, and therefore, he must have been fine with it.)
Both my wife and I have worked in liberal Christian schools. I have worked in a conservative Christian school, as well. We both know plenty of teachers and administrators from both varieties of school. We can tell you that both the general atmosphere and the care and protection built into school policies is decidedly different. We are well aware of what many parents on both sides believe and practice. You can keep your head buried in the sand if you like, but it will not change the facts in the ground.
Many if not most liberal Christian denominations have by now (or soon will) come out in favor of both abortion and same-sex marriage. The president of Episcopal Divinity School, the Rev. Katherine Ragsdale, came out with the famous or infamous statement, depending upon your personal convictions, that abortion is “a blessing.” I didn’t just make that up.
According to you, I’m miserable and disgusting for implying that liberal Christians do not have enough of a protective spirit when it comes to their daughters’ sexuality, and yet my own protective spirit is termed a “preoccupation.” Make up your mind. Is protecting our daughters a good thing or a bad thing to you?
LikeLike
Julie Anne–
There are many fine theological works by dead women. And living women. Even anti-Calvinistic women. Imagine that!
You seriously don’t read anything theological in nature because it might distract from your unencumbered reading of Scripture? I find that incredibly hard to believe.
LikeLike
I am confused. Are Hans and Eric the same person?
LikeLike
Eric, the only books I’m reading right now are text books (started back to school full-time). I’m not saying I wouldn’t read anything – the NT Wright would probably appeal to me, but that’s not what I’m talking about. For example, I took a complete inventory of JD Hall’s tweets for an entire year. I found far more quotes from dead men than quotes from scripture. In fact, the times that I saw him quoting scripture was to back up a debate or to rebuke someone. I don’t recall using scripture to edify, to say who Christ is, etc. I would certainly question someone’s “theology” if they were quoting dead men more than scripture.
LikeLike
Lydia–
You believe in Jesus’ divinity and his resurrection and in having a personal relationship with him. That is a very brief confession, but a confession, nonetheless.
Roman Catholic theologians downplay the whole notion of conversion and of having a “personal relationship” with Christ. The relationship, such as it is, is physical and sacramental and ecclesial. (Now, a lot of priests and their parishioners will indeed speak of “personal relationship,” but that terminology is quite recent and Evangelical in origin.)
If you really want to hear anti-Catholic vitriol, listen to the Seventh-Day Adventists or to Jimmy Swaggart and his organization. They’ve got arrogant pseudo-Calvinists beat hands down (if you care about that sort if thing). I don’t personally care much what people masquerading as Calvinists do.
LikeLike
“As to the question whether it is possible to see Jesus in others, we must be discerning, but I find it very insightful when NT Wright speaks of “. . . the one God, whose only appropriate “image” is a living, breathing human being.” Wright, N. T. (2011-10-25). Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters (p. 65). HarperOne. Kindle Edition.”
Gary, the fact that God came as a human is HUGE. It is rarely discussed in what it means in all its implications. Because if it were and people realized what all that encompasses, then total depravity (inability) and Augustine’s definition of original sin (imputed guilt) would never fly.
We are “image bearers” to the extent we (in our own free will) bear His image– reflecting it to the world. The Israelites were supposed to do this and be the light of the pagan world. They often chose to be like the pagan world.
You take away human volition and the read left to go down is a culture of death.
LikeLike
“You believe in Jesus’ divinity and his resurrection and in having a personal relationship with him. That is a very brief confession, but a confession, nonetheless”
Hans, If you want to call that “confession”, fine by me. But understand I do not interpret the “confess with your mouth” passage the same way do as if it is some sort of mantra criterion for salvation. I believe there were historical implications for Christians being forced to confess Caesar as lord —and it was written in that context.
For us, words are ok– but reflecting Christ speaks louder.
LikeLike
“According to you, I’m miserable and disgusting for implying that liberal Christians do not have enough of a protective spirit when it comes to their daughters’ sexuality, and yet my own protective spirit is termed a “preoccupation.” Make up your mind. Is protecting our daughters a good thing or a bad thing to you?”
“Eric” wrote this but it seems to be like Hans? Very confused.
But nonetheless it is blanket declarative black and white thinking posed with a question framed so if you do not have the right answer could mean you allow your 3 year old daughter to play on the highway.
So this is not a sound bite discussion with yes or no questions. What do we mean by “protection” and what is age approrpriate? Are we talking patriarchy that keeps girls at home until they marry someone of dads choosing and she might be 29? To protect her virginity of course. Which means she had not been to an gyn, either! And yes, they are out there.
So one cannot answer such a question with a yes or no.. The other problem is that children are different. One child will need to be watched like a hawk. Like my 5 year old who struck up a convo at the gas station with the biker who had a skull and crossbone tattoo on his neck. She was the type to “sing” strangers her phone number. (And he probably was perfectly nice and it was amusing his sinister looks did not hinder her in any way)
But many have kids who are opposite. Some have children who have to be encouraged to participate in anything.
And btw, what on earth is a liberal Christian? Those labels are not exactly working well anymore when you take politics out of it. I am accused of being liberal Christian all the time and I am right of Reagan on the economy and libertarian when it comes to most social issues.
There is another aspect to this “protection” business. And it is all within reason and age appropriate boundaries. But the more we try to “protect”, the more they want to “explore” on their own. I always keep that in mind. And teaching them to seek wisdom and knowledge is a good thing
I am very weary of this declarative demanding black white answer to sound bite framed questions. It requires discussion.
LikeLike
Hans/Eric,
I am aware of the context in which you posted about some ‘liberal Christians.’ You were responding to Gary’s post about seeing Jesus in others by making a dig at liberal Christians. And you were not just referring to different attitudes about sexuality but slandered them by calling their daughters promiscuous and their children substance abusers.
Do I think we should protect our daughters’ sexuality? I think we should educate our sons and daughters about sexuality and discuss the reasons for waiting for marriage. I also think that we should make it clear that it is not less sinful to be carried away by passion than to be responsible and use protection if they decide to be sexually active.
I think that the preoccupation I see among some Christians with their daughters’ sexuality is unhealthy and borders on the incestuous.
Stealing is against one of the Ten Commandments. (Premarital sex is not). Unfortunately, many young people shoplift. And yet we do not have anti-theft balls where parents take their children. We do not make our children sign pledges not to steal. We do not give them rings to seal their promises not to steal.
LikeLike
“And yet we do not have anti-theft balls where parents take their children.”
Ha! this made me think of all the kids in “Christian” school who cheat and copy as was a huge problem at my daughter’s school but rarely dealt with in a meaningful serious way. .
That is stealing, too.
Then I thought of “protecting” daughters from the standpoint of all the child molestation and abuse scandals out of SGM where CJ Mahaney reigned as “head apostle” for so many years. Parents thought that was a “safe” place. How about a “daughter” listening to Driscoll? Or Piper who said she should take abuse for a season as a wife?
LikeLike
Lydia–
I understand where you are coming from. The protection of children is not a black and white issue. It’s extremely nuanced and requires tons of wisdom, finesse, and balance. Growing kids require a progression of freedom; they need to be able to earn their parents’ respect and trust without being perfect all the time. And as you say, teaching them how to make wise choices on their own beats coercion any day.
What angers me is when Christian parents put their kids in harm’s way without any type of preparation. Or when they allow them into situations where few could resist temptation even if they weren’t still maturing, not to mention, absolutely riddled with hormones.
But none of that is germane to my original point. Clearly, I should have written it differently and made no mention of “liberal” Christians. (I am used to being in conversations where there is little disagreement or ambiguity in that regard.)
One’s identity as a liberal Christian, by the way, has no real connection to politics (or I should say, ought to have none…or at least very little). I cannot stand Evangelicals being tied to the hip with the racist, classist, sexist, anti-environmentalist, militaristic Republican Party. My own politics are, on the whole, left of center. On the other hand, I have a hard time voting for a Democratic Party which manipulates and exploits the poor as much as they help them, which advocates for abortion on demand, and which seeks to normalize homosexual behavior rather than just protect homosexuals’ civil rights.
A liberal Christian is, pure and simple, one who does not take the Scriptures as preemptively authoritative, as having the final say. It sounds as if you would place yourself in that category. You could be a Libertarian for all I know. A Tea Party aficionado. It doesn’t matter.
LikeLike
Marsha–
And yet we expect them not to steal. We don’t teach them to “steal responsibly.”
LikeLike
Lydia–
Plagiarism is epidemic in just about every school in the U.S., especially with the temptation the internet provides. I have been furious with administrators who want to let it by with just a slap on the wrist. We have taught our children that nothing is wrong unless and until you get caught. Cheating on taxes is also theft. How many of us have been guilty at one point or another?
In Chinese society, plagiarism is considered honorable. Foreign exchange students coming here to the U.S. are often in for a surprise. We’re fast approaching a similar situation in terms of accepting the practice.
LikeLike
Anyone here interested in this free ebook about Reformed churches put out by Ligonier?
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/welcome-reformed-church-free-ebook/
LikeLike
Marsha–
I misread part of your comment, so wanted to apologize. You weren’t advocating that our kids have sex “responsibly.” Simply that taking responsibility doesn’t compound the infraction. Some conservatives would take you to task, saying that responsible sex is premeditated sex, but you won’t hear me doing that. All that to say, “I’m sorry.”
As for premarital sex not being included in the Ten Commandments, I’m not at all sure I can agree. A girl having premarital sex in the OT was constrained to marry the boy (if it was an appropriate match) and otherwise she was considered unmarriageable. It was clearly part of the whole OT adultery scheme. A woman’s virginity belonged to her eventual husband and no one else. This was the big issue. (A girl having sex with her betrothed before their marriage may have been admonished but went elsewise unpunished. A girl losing her virginity to someone other than her betrothed would be divorced, would often even become a prostitute.)
I know we consider such attitudes toward women barbaric, but they are part of the background of the Old Testament. Nothing in the NT in any way abrogates proscriptions of premarital sex. It does, however, seem to ameliorate attitudes toward women in significant ways. They are co-laborers. They are equals. They are no longer subordinates; they are no longer possessions.
LikeLike
Lydia–
Clearly, Mahaney, Driscoll, Piper, and Ware need to go back to school and learn a thing or two. They have been idiots in these regards, and I won’t be defending them.
LikeLike
One comment about creeds and I’m an anti-Calvinist. (It’s difficult to have a conversation like this.) I’m not a Calvinist. I might be an anti- Calvinist; depending on what that means. I’m against any belief structure, and people, who put more emphasis on doctrines than on Christ and His words to us.
LikeLike
“Cheating on taxes is also theft. How many of us have been guilty at one point or another?
Now you have gone way too far! (wink). Would you explain to me how in the we can be sure we have NOT cheated on our taxes? Have you seen the tax code? I was audited years ago and hired a former IRS agent/lawyer to defend me. Our first meeting he brought in a huge case which he said contained about 1/16th of the tax code. He asked…are you sure you understand or even that your accountant understands the entire tax code?. He told me they go after shmucks who want to do the right thing and cooperate because they can close them faster and get money. But it often is not the “right” thing to do at all. It only feeds the beast.
LikeLike
BTW: Plagurism is alive and well from pulpits all over. It became a sort of game to guess the guru being emulated.
LikeLike
Lydia–
Actually, as mediocre as the rhetoric is from most pastors writing their own sermons, I think I would welcome some plagiarism now and again!
LikeLike
Bridget–
Forgive me if I painted with too broad a brush.
For me, learning doctrine is a means by which to emphasize more strongly and to understand more accurately “Christ and His words to us.”
LikeLike
Hans,
Kids and adults are engaging in irresponsible intimacy and in most cases it is premeditated. So what do we do about it in the New Testament era?
Do we make matters worse by hiding their sin by encouraging them to get married even if they don’t love each other? This society have been growing up in an era and are surrounded by those having unwanted pregnancies whether or not their love. (and many cases they can’t even take care of themselves, especially teens)
I have suggested to my own daughters that when some of their unwed friends were immoral who had an unwanted pregnancy, should’ve consulted a doctor to get on birth control. I’ve also suggested that being intimate with someone they don’t love, carries a lot of risk and fallacies. (they figured out that I even though I didn’t condone pre-marital intimacy that the same applied to them has well as to their friends)
Most of us in this thread is going to instill biblical principle to our sons and daughters involving intimacy. It is how we react if our kids fail to meet God’s expectations if intimacy occurs (birth control or no birth control) and whether or not pregnancy occurs or if they are living together which has led to marriage coercion and divorce.
Sometimes I think we judge and place more burdens on our kids than God does even though we fail to converse openly with our kids. There are some that may even hold their kids to a higher standard, than they do on themselves.
I have in-laws who coerced their own teen-aged daughter into marriage, (who was engaging in pre-marital intimacy and wanted to shack-up) in order to hide their immoral intimacies. 3 years later these kids divorced and produced an unwanted pregnancy that occurred after they were married that she is mentally and fiscally unable to care for. (and the ex can’t either)
LikeLike
Mark–
Ethics is a difficult field. When you succeed in making one aspect of a social problem better, you often make several other aspects worse. Your perspective must always take in the whole story, the whole society, and the whole potential for deleterious effects long term. Laws and programs and ministries are littered with evaluations including the words, “did more harm than good.”
As they say, “The road to [the hot place] is paved with good intentions.” It is sad these days BOTH with supposedly enlightened “zero-tolerance policies”/”political correctness” AND with demonstrably Neanderthal opposition to the same…the plight of the vulnerable and the down-and-out keeps getting worse.
It looks as if conservatives may be correct that the long-term effects of the welfare system have completely obliterated the once vibrant African-American nuclear family. Liberals may be correct that wifely submission and the corporal punishment of children increases domestic violence. People just don’t want to see the “big picture.”
Marriage coercion and tough divorce laws once upon a time may have served to keep families intact, incredibly enhancing the lives of millions of vulnerable kids. No one much stays together these days “for the sake of the children.” I have heard marriage counselors say that, given a willing effort by both parties at reconciliation, struggling marriages can be saved about 70% of the time. Bringing in no-fault divorce may have made the lives of particular individuals temporarily easier to face, but it may also have led to a much, much higher divorce rate than necessary…and greater unhappiness, even for some of those particular individuals who benefitted in the short term.
I don’t happen to know what’s best for young people faced with an unwanted pregnancy. I have seen a few such young couples helped out by churches until they could stand on their own two feet. I have seen a good number of these couples still together and happy 15, 20 years later.
It’s difficult to teach children the value of the permanence of marriage (and to get them to take their choice of spouse seriously) when society is willing to give them a quick fix to the situation when they make a poor choice.
LikeLike
Hans,
Much of the issues with Welfare is Gov’t rewarding recipients of practicing immoral and bad behavior.
Not too many people get a raise working private sector jobs for having a new born child.. I’ve known Welfare recipients receiving additional entitlements from the Gov’t every time they have a child.
When I talk about marriage coercion, I’m suggesting clergy and parents guilting couples who are intimate but don’t love each other..
As for staying married for the sake of keeping the family together, is tough when you are talking about mental and physical abuse or when lives are in danger.
It comes back to this, they should’ve never gotten married in the first place.
Getting married to cover up the act of intimacy outside of marriage doesn’t change the fact that the couple practiced immoral intimacy outside of marriage.
I’m not suggesting families shouldn’t stay together,
I’m suggesting that families shouldn’t be fabricated through immorality and marriage coercion stimulated from acts of intimacy between unmarried people who don’t love each other.
I’m specifically suggesting a separate issue and that is prevention of divorce.
As you know immoral intimacy between 2 people doesn’t always equate to love between the couple.
When you connect immoral intimacy and marriage in the same sentence without having love as part of the equation, you really aren’t focused on sin you are more focused on covering that sin up with a piece of paper and the likelihood of abuse and divorce soon follows. .
LikeLike
I am over 40 and still a virgin, have never married. I believed sex was for marriage only (lately though, I’ve decided to go ahead and have sex before marriage when/if I get my next steady boyfriend).
I’ve not read every single post in this thread but I skimmed a few that talked about pre-marital sex (fornication).
Yes, the Bible forbids fornication (sex prior to marriage). But, a woman’s virginity does not belong to her future husband, as someone above was saying. It belongs to her.
Also, the Bible expects MEN to be virgins prior to marriage. It is sexist to speak of virginity only in terms of the female gender when the Bible demands the same sexual behavior of males.
LikeLiked by 1 person
missdaisyflower,
It does work both ways according to God’s word.
I’ve been more focused on marriage coercion as the catalyst for divorce because marriage coercion manipulates couples into getting married even if one, or both, don’t love each other. A disastrous catalyst for abuse and divorce.
When I hear well meaning clergy and parents suggest unwed couples living together need to get married, I always comeback and say if they don’t love each other they shouldn’t get married. Their typical response is “yeah but they are being immoral”.
.Another words they are more concern keeping up with appearances then the sin itself. (like I’m condoning sin when in truth intimacy is a very private matter not always connected to love)
I just said a little prayer that whoever you are intimate with that both of you have a deep love, because truthfully surrendering your virginity to somebody is an amazing gift and at this point in your life, would be more fulfilling when the both of you are emotionally connected
.
LikeLike
Miss Daisy/Mark–
First off, exegetically for sure, but even from a superficial skimming of the Old Testament, it’s clear that there was a double standard in Ancient Israelite policies toward male and female sexuality. Males were not required to be virgins at marriage (but such a policy would be unenforceable any way…how could one possibly know?) Females, on the other hand, had to demonstrate “proofs of virginity” in the wedding bed (the whole blood-stained sheet shtick). Of course, how well that worked in practice, I do not know. Many modern virginal women are not “intact” virgins due to horseback riding, or motocross or the like, and some intact virgins do not bleed.
The New Testament, where law is spiritualized, premarital sex appears to be forbidden for both sexes. There are no clear examples of marriage coercion either.
But I challenge Miss Daisy to think of your virginity as a gift to be shared mutually between you and a committed marriage partner. I messed up one time early on with a woman I very, very much intended to marry. I sincerely regret it. I got married at an age older than you to a virgin. I definitely wish it had been the first time for both of us. I don’t think most people realize the emotional baggage sexual experience brings into a marriage. We seem to think we can magically wipe the slate clean each time. It simply doesn’t work like that. Yes, you can sear your conscience, but then you are far worse off, not better.
I challenge Mark to think of the bigger picture. I’m not at all sure I’m in favor of marriage coercion (for it to work moderately well, the whole society has to be on board). But the truth of the matter is that you may be enabling far MORE physical abuse with your plan. Cohabitating couples experience twice the amount of violent quarrels (shoving, pushing, throwing things), three times the amount of “severe” physical abuse (slapping, punching, kicking), and seven times the amount of abuse severe enough to be deemed crime. A society where marriage is maximized is a safer society (all things being equal).
Before the modern era, marriage was often a fairly loveless, financially-motivated contract. Perhaps that encouraged abuse, I don’t know. But clearly, many loveless marriages are free of abuse, and many passionate love affairs are rife with physical violence. I have no clue how to parse the difference. I know of no studies looking into the matter, but I will continue to search. The feeling of “being in love” is always either temporary or cyclical, never lasting more than about three years without being rekindled. Many people who complain of being trapped in a loveless marriage were at some point in the past, hopelessly “in love” with their spouse.
LikeLike
Hans,
If Cohabiting Couples endure more violent quarrels and abuse why would you want them to get married?
At 54 I guess I am a bit of a romantic. In my view its not OK to get married into a loveless union.
Your chronological time table is useful as it exposes one of the biggest flaws throughout history. We have ignored God’s teaching regarding love.(which includes matrimony)
Intimacy should be between 2 people that love each other. If they don’t love each other they better not get married. Loveless intimacy outside of marriage carry’s enough burden by itself and becomes more complicated if the couple ties the knot.
I’m specifically focused on prevention of divorce.
When unwed Couples endure coercion, it is a remedy for additional abuse and divorce. Judging by all the divorce in churches I suspect the real issue starts at the core of bad teaching or no teaching at all, before the couple says “I Do”.
LikeLike
“First off, exegetically for sure, but even from a superficial skimming of the Old Testament, it’s clear that there was a double standard in Ancient Israelite policies toward male and female sexuality”
And there is a “historical” reason for that. It is written with a pagan backdrop. Everything is juxtaposed with pagan living. Abraham was a pagan. Life as slaves in Egypt for centuries was pagan. Moses’ law has some similarities with pagan laws. The point was to bring them toward Yahweh. Read through that lens it makes no sense to suggest the patriarchal pagan sins are virtue. The law was a means to an end to bring them to Yahweh. We know this because His intent for our creation is obvious: One flesh union. Partners caring for his creation. (Never forget “Ezer” has warrior like connotations)
In fact, God, later on in the OT makes it clear He would rather see mercy than sacrifice.
LikeLike
“But clearly, many loveless marriages are free of abuse, and many passionate love affairs are rife with physical violence. I have no clue how to parse the difference. ”
Love is a committment. It includes the concepts of justice, mercy, duty, etc. It is not a “feeling” only. When there is abuse, the “marriage vows” or contract have been broken.
LikeLike
I cannot agree with exalting virginity. Both my husband and I were married before for many years and have daughters we love dearly; we have two adorable grandsons because of my first marriage. We would have missed out on children had we waited for each other. I don’t think either one of us have ever thought, wow, wouldn’t it have been better to marry as virgins or felt short changed in some way by being second spouses. I just cannot understand that attitude. There is certainly nothing special about one’s first sexual experience which is generally rather awkward; sex gets better with practice.
As for lasting love, I have been head over heels in love with my husband for years now. I can’t remember who did the study, which was done by interviewing college couples and checking back to see who was still together, but research shows that when both the man and the woman LIKE each other, it is a huge predictor of a lasting relationship. When asked whether they liked the person they were involved with, some found the question confusing, “No, I love her.” Others saw the point of the question and agreed explaining why they liked their dating partner. “Oh yes, she’s a wonderful person; I really enjoy being with her and we always have great conversations.” It was couples from the second group whose relationships lasted. I really like my husband, we were friends before falling in love.
LikeLike
Marsha,
Kids are a gift from God.
Intimacy and lust affects each of us differently, some can move on from past relationships less concerned about exalting virginity, while others wished they had exalted it.
In scriptures it describes when man and woman are twain together they become one.
My wife and I of 34 years, love each other, but any previous relationships I had before I was married to her, I was already one with them as well. But in reality I could only be one to the first one, I was intimate with.
How is it possible for me to become “one” in past relationships and then be one with my own wife, unless we were virgins?
What I’m suggesting is I gave up a part of myself to someone else and they did the same to me, making it an impossibility to be 100% “one” with my own wife..We would’ve easily discovered which each other the immense quality of intimacy, had we waited for each other.
I’m glad you are happy with your husband.
LikeLike
Mark,
If you are saying you could never give to your wife 100% because you gave your virginity to someone else, is that not negating what Christ did on the cross for our sins? If He remembers our sin no more when we confess, then why can’t you forgive yourself?
I believe that if you confessed your sin to God, then you have given yourself completely – 100% to your wife – no strings attached. Rejoice in the wife of your youth!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Marsha–
Sorry, but you missed my point. I wasn’t exalting virginity so much as a lack of emotional baggage. Are you really saying you’d rather not have met your present husband much earlier and had grandkids with him? Are you really saying that someone who never commits to anyone, but leaves plenty of children in their wake, should be grateful for his or her children and not rue the complete lack of intimacy in his or her life? I’m glad for you personally, but unfortunately, anecdotal data such as yours is insignificant when it comes to figuring out ethical dilemmas.
You are, of course, correct that liking someone is often more important than loving them (especially since everyone seems to have a different definition of love). Lydia’s definition, which includes justice, mercy, and duty, is helpful in this regard.
LikeLike
Hans,
I was kind of hoping you would respond to my 12:28 post to you. Also I think it would be difficult to not like someone you love and have fulfilling relationship.
Julie Anne,
The point I was trying to make is we can’t trivialize past sins even if we have asked for God’s forgiveness.
LikeLike
Why is not being a virgin being linked to sinful behavior in this discussion? Is a widower or widow less desirable in a marriage partner?
LikeLike
Mark – I’m not sure where you got that asking for forgiveness is trivializing sin. Can you help me understand?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hans, apparently you missed my point. I never said that it is desirable to avoid commitment and have children.
Yes, I would have rather met my current husband first. My life would have been much easier and much happier. However, maybe God wanted the two of us to marry and take care of our first spouses, who were very, very sick, first.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t understand how having loved one person, you have less to give a second person. I don’t love my new grandson any less because I also love my toddler grandson. Love is not a zero-sum game.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Sorry, but you missed my point. I wasn’t exalting virginity so much as a lack of emotional baggage. Are you really saying you’d rather not have met your present husband much earlier and had grandkids with him? Are you really saying that someone who never commits to anyone, but leaves plenty of children in their wake, should be grateful for his or her children and not rue the complete lack of intimacy in his or her life? I’m glad for you personally, but unfortunately, anecdotal data such as yours is insignificant when it comes to figuring out ethical dilemmas.”
Hans, this seems to me to be the black and white thinking that plagues so much of evangelicalism. If our sins are forgiven after serious repentance the emotional baggage left can actually become a blessing. Take children out of wedlock for example. Are they “emotional baggage” for the rest of their lives? Would it have been better for it not to happen? Of course. But what message are we sending people if we make these “ethical dilemmas” the standard for salvation? Are we sending the message: You are not welcome into the Kingdom because you had a child out of wedlock? You did not do life the Christian way?
Or woman who divorces an abusive husband has emotional baggage that can be turned into wisdom if she ever decides to remarry.
Here is what I do not understand. We tend to be on our high horses concerning these things but then give the celebrity pastor who spiritually abuses people or protects child molesters a pass. Only then do Christians tend to make excuses like. oh sinners sin. We have a tendency to give sin passes to those who really do not deserve them.
In my former church a big deal was made over a few couples (in their early 30’s from seminary background) who were “engaged” and it was announced by them to the teens they had never kissed and would have their first kiss at their respective weddings. Many folks were astonished as there was no” purity culture(TM)” in that church before. Thankfully there were enough adults to see through this silliness. My question was “why do we know this”? Why on earth was this announced? It seemed in direct opposition to the spirit of Matthew 6.
What about the new teen girl who has slept around and decides to visit church with a friend from school? (this was a real situation) who automatically does not “measure up” to those standards? I mean this announcement was so far out of her frame of reference as to completely turn her off. (remember, I am not a determinist)
See the “ethical” dilemma that is presented? If we think that is a silly thing to announce we are automatically affirming what? Fornication? That all teens go have make out sessions by the river where John Piper is watching?
That was their PRIVATE BUSINESS. That decision was between them and God. To make it a standard of piety means some folks won’t make it into the kingdom they have devised.
That is the black and white evangelicalism I am weary of and we cannot seem to escape. It is infiltrating everywhere.
LikeLike
And while I am on a roll here, what is the matter with emotional baggage? How can you engage with the world and not carry emotional baggage?
We have people here who were victims of spiritual, physical, and/or sexual abuse. Now they are strong survivors. We have all lost and grieved for loved ones. We have had career setbacks, financial setbacks. We have loved people who did not love us back. We have been hurt by false friends.
Would we rather not have had those experiences? Of course, but the only way to avoid being hurt is to isolate yourself from others and that would mean missing some of life’s best experiences.
LikeLike
Marsha, Julie Anne
I am trying to keep in line several responses between Missdaisyflower (9/12/14 8:39 last night) Hans, and Marsha.
Hans who gives me the impression that I’m trivializing unwed intimate relationships because I don’t think it is a good idea for cohabiting couples to get married if they don’t love each other.
He also made statement that didn’t make any sense when he suggested that cohabiting couples are involved in more abusive relationships than married couples..
He never did answer my question, when I asked him “why would he even want them (abusive couples) to get married?”
Marsha gave the impression that she may have been minimizing the value of virginity with a “exalting virginity” statement.and then suggesting that there is nothing “special” about surrendering their virginity. (awkward or not)
I also suggested that we all are wired differently and may not always look at things the same way, when it comes to intimacy and divorce but the one thing that most of us have in common is abuse.
I would also like to remind Marsha the kind of love we have for our grandchildren isn’t the same kind we have with past or present relationships.
As for those that are widowed and then remarried I don’t see any violation of virtue.
For me, the act of intimacy is very personal. (awkward or not) Though my wife and I are very close, we can’t block past intimate relationships before marriage like it never happen, even if we are forgiven,. Fortunately, we love each other enough that we haven’t said hurtful things to each other about our past relationships.
I think when we engage in intimacy we are giving that person a piece of our heart.
.
LikeLike
Marsha and Julie Anne,
I also don’t see those that are divorced losing their virtues because of physical and mental abuse or abandonment of vows.
LikeLike
I understand that you feel differently than I do, Mark, but the fact that I loved and was intimate with my first husband has not taken anything away from me or from my second husband. When I fell in love with him 43 years ago, I didn’t give away a piece of my heart, I just loved him and did the best I could to be a good wife. The 34 years we were together enriched me; I am not in any way the LESSER for it.
I am proud of the way my husband took care of his sick wife. I am GLAD he loved her. He loves me too, with his whole heart. He lost nothing and there is nothing diminished in our love.
Now, I know that Hans will say that I am just an anecdote and my experiences have no value but that is not true and it is not true because people are assuming that it is not possible to become one with someone who had been intimate and loving with someone else in the past and I know that it is possible. If people disagree, could that be because there is some other problem going on? Perhaps it is a jealousy problem or someone’s inability to move on from the past.
It makes me physically ill to hear about the way some Christian groups are teaching about romantic love. Handing out paper hearts and having young people tear off pieces to represent courtships that don’t end in marriage (and we are not even talking about sex here) and then telling them that they will have less and less to give an eventual spouse, is just plain wrong.
LikeLike
Mark, I didn’t assume that you thought that people who remarry after the death of a spouse or after a divorce caused by abuse are not virtuous. I know you do not think that way. But since you said that you cannot be one with someone if you’ve been intimate first with someone else (because you have lost a piece of your heart), that would have the sad consequence of second spouses having to settle for less. I don’t believe that is true. And that is also why I think too much fuss is made about virginity.
LikeLike
Marsha,
Virtuous intimacy is a little different. I can’t help but think in the case of remarrying after losing a loved one that part of your heart is left aside toward a previous spouse.
I hope you read missdaisyflower and my response to her. She gave a very short and remarkable testimony.
Most of my focus has been trying to see where Hans is coming from.
LikeLike
“Virtuous intimacy is a little different. I can’t help but think in the case of remarrying after losing a loved one that part of your heart is left aside toward a previous spouse”
Mark, this is a very personal issue and one cannot make rules on feelings/hearts and a deceased spouse. And we would have to delve into matters that are no ones business but that person. Did it occur to you that faithful spouses can nurse their sick loved ones for years with no “virtuous intimacy”? Those years of faithful care might have given them to time to mourn the days of virtuous intimacy. In some instances, death is a blessing.
LikeLike
While skimming the last several days comments, I picked up on Lydia’s comment:
“When there is abuse, the “marriage vows” or contract have been broken.”
When there is abuse, the marriage is over, if there ever was one. The divorce has already taken place. All that remains is for the certificate of divorce to be issued, whether in the form of the OT “get” or a modern day decree of divorce.
To compel an abused spouse to remain with her predator-husband is to reduce her to involuntary servitude. She is made to be a slave. When I hear of so called pastors telling abused wives that they are required to remain with, and subject to, their physically, emotionally and/or spiritually assaultive husbands, I find that I must make a conscious effort to avoid hoping that they (the false pastors) will burn in Hell.
I dare say that my anger is righteous, at least to the extent I can manage to desire justice, as opposed to vengeance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lydia and Gary,
I don’t dispute your assertions.
It doesn’t have anything to do to what Hans and i were originally talking about. But for the last couple days people have been popping in and out and it has led to this.
I have proclaimed intimacy as very personal. When I think about not being Virtuous I was mainly referring to adultery, promiscuity or out of wedlock intimacy with those we don’t love and shouldn’t marry and how we are giving a piece of ourselves that is intended for marriage.
When others contributed their views about being widowed and now about disability it began to get away from what I was referring, but I will add it is in my view who ever we are intimate with we gave them a part of ourselves that doesn’t easily disappear from our memory.
My conservation with Hans was focusing on cohabiting couples shouldn’t be enduring marriage coercion by preachers and parents especially if the couple doesn’t love one another. A remedy for abuse and divorce.
I actually talked parents out of practicing marriage coercion of their cohabiting son pounding into their heads “you don’t want them getting married if they don’t love each”. 4 months later that specific relationship dissolved.
LikeLike
Mark–
As I mentioned before, cohabitation is dangerous in terms of physical abuse. Of the 40% who go on to get married (and that figure is probably high), higher rates of divorce invariably ensue. Of those who don’t get married, the relationship dissolves within 5 years in 90% of the cases. So, way more times than not, children born to these couples will not have both parents in the home.
Why have them get married? Because commitment is an act of love. It has the power to bond them and put them in a safer place. We shouldn’t put a shotgun to their heads as in the old stereotype. We shouldn’t take financial support away and leave them no options. But perhaps we should instill in our kids, as previous generations have done, that this is what integrity looks like. You “do the right thing” by way of the lady in question and her child if one is on the way (or already born, for that matter). Love is not just responding to feelings. It is not just taking the easy way out “because I don’t love her.” As far as I’m concerned, it is a moral flaw NOT to love one’s children. And a similar moral flaw NOT to love their mother(s).
India has done studies on arranged marriages. Five years after the wedding, they match the intensity of marriages “for love.” Ten years into the marriage, they are TWICE as passionate as love matches. Marsha is right that we should marry our friends, our confidants, someone we have a lot in common with. When matchmaking is done right, as it sometimes is in India and in the Orthodox Jewish community, it can provide a good deal MORE compatibility than “love at first sight” or “stomach butterflies.” Traditional Jewish divorce rates are below 10%. So are devout Mormon divorce rates, with their high view of the externality of marriage. Catholics and Evangelicals who regularly attend church have rates right around 20%. (Yes, you have been lied to for a long, long time. Divorce in the church is not nearly as prevalent as it is in regular society. Duh!)
At any rate, I think you could be wrong that marriage “coercion” (moral suasion not physical force) is a recipe for abuse and divorce. Abuse is often already there. Splitting up and going separate ways is not different in any sense from divorce as far as kids are concerned…except that certain legal protections might not be in place. Staying together and caring for a child they both love may well bond them and give them a chance (however slight) of being there, together, for their children. And such stability often does contribute to a far less stressed environment, one where abuse may recede or even disappear. Besides, those who pick an abusive relationship the first time, often pick a second…and a third…of the same stamp. You haven’t necessarily “saved” anybody by getting them to move on.
LikeLike
Mark,
It seems to me that forcing a marriage, with or without the coercive force of a shotgun, would most likely tend to backfire. Pressuring a couple into marriage is apt to generate resentment. The resentment is likely to be misdirected at the marriage partner and not at those who were applying the pressure. I suspect that there will be instances in which the couple would have married without the pressure, and that the the marriage would have turned out to be healthy but for the pressure-induced resentment.
As to the question of what I call soul bonds (I believe this is what you are addressing), I suggest that a similar dynamic is in play wherever there has been idolatrous devotion. Fornication leads to lasting soul bonds that will tend to hinder love bonds in a later marriage. Likewise, idolatrous pursuit of, for example, wealth, power and prestige, will create desires and loyalties that are not easily abandoned (repented of) in favor of devotion to only Jesus.
Nor is it only the pursuit of wealth, power and prestige that can command idolatrous devotion. I honestly believe that many, many Christians are guilty of an idolatrous devotion to theology. We can get so caught up in right thinking that we never actually give our devoted allegiance to Jesus. This may cost us our very souls.
Faith in Jesus means more than just believing He exists. Without devoted allegiance there is no saving faith. Marriage is the appropriate metaphor. Eph 5:32. My wife will not be satisfied if I assure her I believe she exists. She is right to expect my devoted allegiance. She is right to expect me to be faithful to her, and not just in terms of avoiding all others. She is right to expect me to be faithful to provide for her materially, emotionally and spiritually.
LikeLike
Hans,
If abuse is higher with cohabitation then why would you want them to get married?
If it is abusive there is no commitment to love. Those kinds of relationship has a better chance of dissolving with less harm done.
Judging by the amount of divorce within our churches that is caused by lack of commitment, abuse and simply were never in love in the first place, is an indication of a lot of bad counseling or no counseling at all, before the wedding bells are sounded off.
You are ignoring reality.I’m saying that promiscuous behavior between 2 people that do not love each other with no intention of being committed to each other being in a No-Strings-Attached relationship, should not endure marriage coercion.
LikeLike
“India has done studies on arranged marriages. Five years after the wedding, they match the intensity of marriages “for love.” Ten years into the marriage, they are TWICE as passionate as love matches.”
A study from a country that had a long history of burning widows on the funeral pyre. Not only that but a caste system that was very much involved in arranged marriages. It can take generations for that sort of foundational thinking to change. Just because they are churning out IT professionals does not mean many underlying cultural assumption are totally gone.
Perhaps you could also cite the laws in India concerning domestic violence ?
LikeLike
“Traditional Jewish divorce rates are below 10%. So are devout Mormon divorce rates, with their high view of the externality of marriage. Catholics and Evangelicals who regularly attend church have rates right around 20%. (Yes, you have been lied to for a long, long time. Divorce in the church is not nearly as prevalent as it is in regular society. Duh!)”
You forgot the Muslims who beat everyone in low divorce rates. :o)
LikeLike
Lydia and Gary–
Who gets to decide what constitutes “abuse”? Obviously, each individual may decide they have had enough of any particular behavior and choose to leave. But when does misbehavior rise to the status of abuse?
You guys say that abuse voids the marriage contract. And yet every marriage that is not some business arrangement of convenience or legality, suffers from intermittent heated exchanges, shoves, and grabs. I have been in enough long-term relationships and had enough confidants speaking of their relationships and am spoken of as mild mannered and self controlled enough…to say that anyone who says there has been no conflict with their partner is either lying or has an incredibly unhealthy (albeit civil) relationship.
If we were to study the greatest love stories of all time, I’m sure we would find periods of “abuse” in almost all of them (and not just Richard Burton and Liz Taylor). Have we not become perhaps a bit too sensitive? I don’t care for corporal punishment myself, but I have friends who grew up being switched for disobedience who turned our remarkably well, both balanced and kind toward their wives and children and co-workers (though often not continuing the tradition of corporal punishment).
There are often mitigating circumstances, as well. If a military hero comes home from war, suffering from PTSD, is it really true that his wife should not tolerate even the faintest bit of abuse while he is undergoing treatment? Perhaps she should go elsewhere for the time being. But divorce him? You all are barbaric!!
I’m emphatically against abuse when it is abuse. But in this age of zero-tolerance, we might be splitting up families we ought to leave alone.
LikeLike
“Who gets to decide what constitutes “abuse”?”
Certainly not the abuser. Still, Hans, I’m not surprised that you seem to need somebody to tell you what abuse looks like.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My husband and I do not shove or grab each other during an argument. Not ever.
LikeLike
@ Hans. said,
“But I challenge Miss Daisy to think of your virginity as a gift to be shared mutually between you and a committed marriage partner.”
That’s nice and everything, but nobody else thinks that way anymore, so I see no reason to continue thinking that way. I’m also 40. It seems ridiculous to me to keep waiting at this age.
We have many Christian bloggers now, such as Tim Challies, Rachel Held Evans, Focus on the Family, writers at Christian magazine Relevant, who are telling people, including Christian readers, that “even fornicators are virgins now,” and other writers assuring female fornicators that “your worth is not in your virginity,” etc.
Absolutely nobody, in or out of Christianity, values virginity anymore, so I am no longer attaching much importance to it myself. God doesn’t seem to strike fornicators with lightning bolts for it, so I see no reason to still abstain.
Still it’s all largely a moot point, as I will be single for awhile until I get some personal issues straightened out, but I’m done waiting. I am only waiting now for a steady relationship to have sex, not marriage. I’m not going to bed every guy I meet or anything like that.
LikeLike
Sorry, I messed up above in typing my message, I am over 40 (but under 45) years of age.
Anyway, about all the divorce talk. I do think that Christian divorce rates are pretty high, but in the past few months, I’ve seen some Christians go into denial about it, and related stuff.
For example, it’s been pointed out by Barna or some other polling company, that evangelical single females outnumber the Christian single males like 3 (or 4) to 1, so that a single Christian woman has no hopes of marrying (if she insists on being equally yoked).
The FOTF -focus on family- group, who is totally obsessed with marriage and natalism, wrote a big old blog post over a year ago disputing those findings, saying oh no, Christian single women, don’t you listen to Barna, you keep holding out for a Christian man, as there are TONS of single Christian men to go round.
~What a lie that is.
A Christian guy who has a blog about Christian dating/marriage also said it’s not true, but I don’t recall either site citing actual data or studies to back up their claims that there are in fact ten million single, evangelical men for every two evangelical women.
They just deny it and say, oh no, you just ignore those studies that say that there is only one un-married evangelical man left on planet earth for every single woman, and he’s engaged to be married next week.
Same with the divorce stats. Christians are in damage control mode over that.
Some Christian lady wrote a book several months ago about it. She has been interviewed on CBN or 700 Club (Christian TV show) and talked about it. She went on and on about how the Christian divorce rate is really quite low, it’s not like how media portray it. I can’t remember any of the data she cited to back her claims up.
My point is that there seems to me to be huge problems with relationships in Christianity (despite the books and blogs to the contrary), and Christians are trying to cover these things up.
Christian women who want to marry cannot find Christian men to marry, and Christian couples who do marry, lots of them end up getting divorced.
But Christians downplay all this stuff and insist, no, things are just peachy, that Christian single women who want to get married can find a man to marry, and Christian marriages never end, that Christian divorce rates are tiny and minimal.
It’s like these Christians are in denial, and I can’t figure out why, maybe they perceive high divorce rates and high single rates to be bad Public Relations for Jesus in the public square?
LikeLike
Hans,
I gave you a response @11:42 while you typing to Gary and Lydia.
I don’t see how you think that unwed cohabiting partners in an abusive relationship are better off getting married. To me that is a catalyst for more abuse and divorce.
I think they are better dissolving the relationship before it gets worse.
LikeLike
@ Marsha
Marsha said, “I cannot agree with exalting virginity.”
It’s not about “exalting” virginity. It’s about, at a minimum, respecting it, respecting a person’s choice to remain one, and agreeing that the Bible does teach it is for both sexes (it is applicable for men as well as women).
Virginity is not respected any more, not even by Christians.
Starting a few years ago on Christian blogs, Christians began writing against the notion of, or practice of, staying a virgin until marriage, and chuckling at the idea of celibacy.
I do think in this case, at least I suspect, that Christian writers, the progressive Christians, have been influenced to argue against women staying virgins via the secular feminists, who oppose it under the heading of “slut shaming.”
For months and months on left wing type sites, secular feminists went on and on about “slut shaming,” and how women should not be judged or criticized for having pre-martial sex, or casual sex.
I noticed after the more progressive Christian types started making more and more blog posts basically excusing or justifying fornication on their blogs (including one very well known one who gets lots of readers of her blog), after the secularists did so, and the progressive Christians began yelling against “modesty” teachings and so forth (not that I am in complete agreement with all facets of modesty/purity teachings), that the more conservative ones started hopping on the same train too.
We have an anti-virginity trend that mostly started out among liberal Christians but seeped into conservative Christian thinking and discourse after several months or a year or two.
Such as by Challies, who blogged against virginity (he claims to support it but easily dismisses fornication as not being a big deal, so no, in the end scheme of things, he truly does not support virginity or celibacy). SBC Russell Moore, who isn’t exactly regarded as a liberal or member of a liberal denomination, bashed virginity, too, in a blog post.
FOTF “Boundless” online magazine disregards virginity and waters the importance of it down, as does Christian publication “Relevant” magazine.
I suspect other than the secular, feminist influence, that these Christians have given up on defending virginity and celibacy because poll and after poll over the last ten years keeps revealing that more and more people are having sex prior to marriage. Staying a virgin is no longer the norm in our culture. Many, many evangelicals are having pre-marital sex too.
These Christian writers, from the liberal to the conservative, all run around now in their blogs and magazines, telling women, “your virginity has no value, only your spiritual worth matters!,” a message which I find to be somewhat un-biblical, appalling, and astonishing.
I’m not saying a woman’s (or man’s) worth is tied up only in their virginity but to totally disregard virginity as these writers do is shocking, and I don’t think their views are completely biblical.
I’m also mystified why none of these people bring up the issue of male virginity. They only yak about women’s virginity.
Source for the following quotes (hosted on “The Week” news site)
————————-
By Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry
From the beginning, what set apart the new and strange sect called Christians from the rest of their culture was their strange sexual ethic. They refused polygamy. They refused the sexual exploitation of slaves by their owners. They refused prostitution, premarital sex, divorce, abortion, the exposure of infants, contraception — and homosexual acts.
As the British philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe noted, in this Christianity was a great equalizing force: Because of the fact of pregnancy, most premodern cultures enforce sexual restraint on women. Where Christianity’s bizarreness lay is that it insisted on the same restraint on the part of men — whether gay or straight. Christians held a bizarrely exalted view of (lifelong, monogamous, fertile, heterosexual) marriage as reflecting the image of God himself, but, even more bizarrely, held up lifelong celibacy as an even more exalted state of life.
LikeLike
Lydia said,
What about the new teen girl who has slept around and decides to visit church with a friend from school? (this was a real situation) who automatically does not “measure up” to those standards? I mean this announcement was so far out of her frame of reference as to completely turn her off.
I’m having the opposite problem. I used to believe in being a virgin until marriage, but the trend now, even in conservative Christian thinking, is to so reassure people who have had fornication that they’re okay as they are, that the writers diminish virginity (and celibacy) in the process. This has stripped me of any more reasons to sexually abstain.
Christians have become so very accommodating on sexual sin, so keen on reassuring sexual sinners that sexual sin is permissible and not so important, that it’s causing the virgins like me to give up on the whole thing.
I am just not seeing overall Christian culture make anyone feel weird or shamed for engaging in fornication. I see the opposite – celibacy and virginity are being dismissed, and virgins made to feel like freaks, even among Christians.
Fornicating may not keep a person out of heaven (if they’ve accepted Christ), but I do think it’s in error to tell people it has no consequences while on earth, or that it is of no import to God, one’s self, or culture at large.
LikeLike
Daisy, I was not responding to you in my comments about virginity but instead to the idea that women who are not virgins when they get married are in some way cheating their spouses.
As a woman who was married before and who married a man who was married before, I disagree. Neither my husband nor I feel shortchanged.
Now of course people immediately pointed out that of course they don’t think that widows/widowers or people who divorced from abuse are not virtuous, but my point is not about morality; it is just about virginity. One commentator wrote that you cannot be one with your spouse when you have previously been one with someone else. Well, I disagree obviously since I know it IS possible. I don’t think that there is anything special in and of itself about virginity.
What about women who have been raped? Elizabeth Smart is furious with the way the Mormon church teaches about chastity. She had been told that a girl who is not a virgin is like a piece of gum that has been chewed. Who would ever possibly want a piece of gum that had been chewed? It should be thrown away. She was afraid to come home once she was raped because according to this teaching she has become a person of no value whatsoever.
Now let’s link virginity and morality. Let’s say a man or woman gets married and is not a virgin because of a previous dating relationship. Is that sin worse than other sins that his or her partner has commited? If they are Christians, haven’t their sins been forgiven?
So I am certainly not saying that it is not a good thing that you have been waiting for marriage, Daisy; it is! I just that I think many Christians these days are obsessively concerned with virginity and woman’s sexuality. Does that make sense?
LikeLike
Mark–
Yes, a couple who has grown up in the current lax environment, who has never been taught the first thing about responsibility or integrity, ought not to be pressured into marriage. None of their relationships will ever likely be any good at all unless and until they grow up and learn the meaning of self-sacrifice.
What I’m pointing out is that the culture needs to change.
Your claim that cohabiting couples will never benefit from marriage unless they are “in love” is just an assertion. Do you have any data to back that up? I haven’t been able to find any such studies.
LikeLike
Marsha–
I think you make a good point. Some Evangelical Christians have bucked the whole “chewing gum” mentality because girls and guys who sincerely repent and are forgiven should be viewed as washed clean. They are as good as new in the eyes of the Lord. “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow….”
This doesn’t mean that hanging onto one’s virginity is being trivialized. It sure hasn’t been in the circles I run in. We don’t sin that grace may abound. I’ve heard of women going in for abortions and saying, “I’ll get it done and then ask God for forgiveness.” There is no forgiveness for such high-handed sin. (Well, there is, but they’ve got an awful lot to repent of. Few if any will ever do it. They got what they want…and now they come back looking for cheap grace. It doesn’t work that way.)
LikeLike
Gary–
And who IS the abuser? If I define “abuser” as any guy who looks cross-wise at a women, making YOU an abuser, too, does that mean that you don’t get to define it?
I wouldn’t trust you to define it either, Gary. You seem to believe you’re always and only right, a real controlling personality. By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
I forget the name of the judge who couldn’t definitively define the word “obscenity,” but he knew it when he saw it. Really? So why is it that TV and film censors NEVER see it anymore? Because it needs to be defined…and narrowly so…if you’re ever going to make headway against those who are constantly pushing the envelope.
LikeLike
Lydia–
You, of course, meant to say Muslims living in Muslim countries. Muslims here in Canada and the U.S. have divorce rates over 30%.
You’re right about India. But there aren’t too many places you can go these days to study arranged marriage. Ultra-Orthodox Jews are intensely private, even secretive.
LikeLike