Please let me start out by saying that I am sure that I don't hold the absolute truth on any of this - the Lord will no doubt correct us on everything when we get to Heaven, but grace and divorce both have to be at the top of His list of human errors. We try to make little rules and tiny boxes for things that span the heavens!
"By grace are ye saved... not of works", "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved". I truly believe that *salvation* is a matter of belief and of faith. Having given one's heart to God, it's given. I rest my hope of Heaven on the blood that was spilt for me. I don't rest it on anything I've ever done - eesh, I'd never sleep at night if I thought that salvation had anything to do with ME. My works, the works that I see in other Christians, they are *signs* of conversion... but only God knows the heart of man.
I am sure that there will be folks that I think hopeless sinners in Heaven, and other folks that I thought were God-fearing who end up in Hell. It's all about that moment when you put your hope of heaven in Christ - your faith in Him. The more you contemplate His sacrifice, the more you fall in love with Him, the more you earnestly desire to obey His commandments.
But obedience to His commandments is not, and is not meant to be, something that humans can do outside the power of the Holy Spirit. I know that every day I fail at "be not anxious for tomorrow..." does that lose me my salvation? Again with the eeesh... I should hope not! (And talk about a mindset that would make me permanently concerned with tomorrow - thinking that I had to follow a zillion rules on my own strength would do that for certain!)
I love my Lord, and I know it displeases Him when I fail... and so each day I give over more of myself to Him. It's not like I don't fail at it - giving over self, surrendering to Him, letting the Spirit work through me... those are not things that come quickly to anyone. I strive, for He has told me to strive, but my strength is not where I put my faith. In fact, the moments when I have knelt, broken, at my Lord's feet in prayer are the moments when I feel that my faith was the truest. The moments when I *knew* that I was only saved by His grace, that I was utterly unworthy to whisper His holy Name.
So. That brings us to marriage, and in it I see grace as well.
First let's look at the purposes of marriage. Procreation, social support, intimacy, friendship, stability, and a vision of the relation of Christ and the church (among others). Ideally, a man and woman marry and support one another through life - the family was the original social support system. You *need* someone to be with you when you're sick, when you're grieving, who knows your weaknesses and still loves you, is still committed to you. Even when marriage was much less about love and much more about the business end - your spouse was the one who was *expected* to have your back, no matter what.
God doesn't want us to throw all of that down the drain for just anything - and as we can see from today's world, people will cheerfully do just that given the opportunity to do so. More in former times, but still today - women get the short end of the stick financially after a divorce. Divorce is *fundamentally* unfair. You are breaching a life-long contract that is meant to be the center of your mundane existence, the thing you take for granted, the thing you depend upon. People who *expect* to be married til death can behave differently than those who expect to be discarded if things "don't work out".
None of that, of course, speaks to the abusive or ugly marriage... and I don't know what to say on that except that for His own reasons, God didn't give an out for that in His Word. Perhaps it's part of how you deal with an abusive master if you're a servant? To serve as you would serve God, and give your service to God in serving the one who hurts you?
For the folks that have been victims of adultery - they are given an out because in the act of adultery you form another primary bond, and you break the first one. "...members of an harlot" says Paul in relation to fornication - so one can assume that it *is* the act of intercourse that makes that bond. When you take an adulterer back, you forgive the sin and then you re-form the intimate bond between you. But you are free not to do so...
Remarriage? Since I think it's the act of intimacy that forms the metaphysical side of the marriage, how could I think that any marriages were "adulterous" or not?? I don't think that's part of grace *at all*. I mean... it's over, you know? If the other person is already remarried or won't take you back when you repent of the divorce - it's over. Ideally, again, you're neither one remarried and can marry each other again, but how often does that happen? Further, saying that the second marriage is adulterous, should be repented of and essentially dissolved is missing the point of marriage in the first place. Once you are *married*... you're married. You should just stay where you are. The one person a OT divorcee was forbidden to marry was her first husband...
I guess the metaphor is that if I throw a baseball and break a lamp, I should first try to fix it, and if it's not fixable, then I should get a new one. The theory that you cited seems to say that if you break the lamp and can't fix it, you should live in the dark.
Some may, indeed, be so called... but it's a hard walk, and such things scare many a convert away. I would take such a sensitive issue on my knees to the Lord in prayer, not for one day but for many, and with fasting as well. After all, that's Who our primary *eternal* relationship is with... God. Should we not consult Him in all things?
One final thought... in Heaven we aren't married, nor will we be given in marriage. Sentimentalist that I am, I pondered, and came up with this: God wants that primary relationship to be with HIM, to free us finally of everything so that we can be individuals, chained not by infirmity of body nor circumstance, free to worship Him for all eternity and rejoice in His love.
I wandered, hope this made my end a bit clearer. :)
- Hearth
Monday, June 30, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Mennonites and Divorce
Who knew? Someone actually put out an official statement on it. I started to think that maybe I had misinterpreted the Mennonite position on divorce but apparently not. Here's the link: http://www.anabaptists.org/tracts/divorce2.html
Turns out that I am in an "adulteress marriage" since my husband was married before. Turns out that he can divorce me, return to his first wife, and all is okay. I am stuck, according to this statement, in spite of this being my first marriage to live a life of celibacy, with no remarriage possible.
I do not believe for one instance that this is God's plan or way of thinking about people in bad marriages. The above linked statement is legalism at it's worst, straining at gnats and swallowing camels, making clean the outside of the cup while the inside is dirty and the church putting burdens on people that they themselves could not bear. I might not be sure what the Bible says exactly about divorce but this pitiless position is not it.
Layla
Turns out that I am in an "adulteress marriage" since my husband was married before. Turns out that he can divorce me, return to his first wife, and all is okay. I am stuck, according to this statement, in spite of this being my first marriage to live a life of celibacy, with no remarriage possible.
I do not believe for one instance that this is God's plan or way of thinking about people in bad marriages. The above linked statement is legalism at it's worst, straining at gnats and swallowing camels, making clean the outside of the cup while the inside is dirty and the church putting burdens on people that they themselves could not bear. I might not be sure what the Bible says exactly about divorce but this pitiless position is not it.
Layla
Friday, June 27, 2008
Divorce and Grace
No, Mennonites do not believe in salvation through grace in the way that you believe in salvation through grace. Mennonites are not actually Protestants: they fall into a no-man's-land between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Mennonites believe that we are all sinners and "come short of the glory of God" and that no matter how hard we try to be good, we could never be good enough for Heaven without the sacrifice that Jesus made, and the grace that allows us to be saved. Nonetheless, they also believe that "out of the heart, the mouth speaks" and that your actions follow your heart. Therefore your faith should be evident in works, otherwise something is clearly not right there. Salvation is a gift but not a gift to be taken for granted or abused. It is also a gift that can be lost. I also don't believe when you're in, you're in.
Salvation can be lost. I don't believe that a divorce necessarily makes it so but I do believe that there are people who turn their backs utterly on God and "deliberately" lose their salvation.
But more generally, Mennonites believe that to sin knowingly, is not covered under that grace. Sinning through ignorance would be covered. You would have to sincerely repent in order for that grace to cover you. Paul addresses this actually. Somewhere he says that there is no "covering" for knowingly sinning, as that means that Christ would be twice crucified.
Since divorce is a sin and remarriage is a sin, and it may be a sin that a person doesn't truly repent in his or her heart, Communion is denied, just as it would be for instance, in the Catholic church which takes a similar view of divorce and remarriage. Although they do provide a way out, as in if only one party was Catholic then the other party isn't, Catholics conveniently "don't count" that marriage as valid in the eyes of God, even if the other party is a Christian only not a Catholic Christian.
Mennonites don't count anyone out. So you're pretty well stuck. The idea that a marriage cannot be dissolved at all and a divorced person can't remarry without sinning is from Jesus' words in Mark: Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.
And in Romans, Paul says: ...by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
Both Jesus and Paul seem to be saying that to remarry while your spouse is alive is adultery, regardless of the circumstances of the separation.
Layla
Mennonites believe that we are all sinners and "come short of the glory of God" and that no matter how hard we try to be good, we could never be good enough for Heaven without the sacrifice that Jesus made, and the grace that allows us to be saved. Nonetheless, they also believe that "out of the heart, the mouth speaks" and that your actions follow your heart. Therefore your faith should be evident in works, otherwise something is clearly not right there. Salvation is a gift but not a gift to be taken for granted or abused. It is also a gift that can be lost. I also don't believe when you're in, you're in.
Salvation can be lost. I don't believe that a divorce necessarily makes it so but I do believe that there are people who turn their backs utterly on God and "deliberately" lose their salvation.
But more generally, Mennonites believe that to sin knowingly, is not covered under that grace. Sinning through ignorance would be covered. You would have to sincerely repent in order for that grace to cover you. Paul addresses this actually. Somewhere he says that there is no "covering" for knowingly sinning, as that means that Christ would be twice crucified.
Since divorce is a sin and remarriage is a sin, and it may be a sin that a person doesn't truly repent in his or her heart, Communion is denied, just as it would be for instance, in the Catholic church which takes a similar view of divorce and remarriage. Although they do provide a way out, as in if only one party was Catholic then the other party isn't, Catholics conveniently "don't count" that marriage as valid in the eyes of God, even if the other party is a Christian only not a Catholic Christian.
Mennonites don't count anyone out. So you're pretty well stuck. The idea that a marriage cannot be dissolved at all and a divorced person can't remarry without sinning is from Jesus' words in Mark: Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.
And in Romans, Paul says: ...by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
Both Jesus and Paul seem to be saying that to remarry while your spouse is alive is adultery, regardless of the circumstances of the separation.
Layla
Something you'd mentioned
Something you mentioned in the blog before last struck me, "divorced people are still not allowed to participate in Communion, and given the fact that in the eyes of many, unless you actually repent a divorce, you are going to go to Hell", don't Mennonites believe in salvation by grace?
Getting a divorce against God's will is bad, but so is doing anything against His will. You walk away, you reap the consequences of not having as good a relationship with the Lord. Those can be temporal, like the punishments He uses to get you back in line, or they can be eternal, losing rewards in Heaven. But once you're saved... you're saved. A divorce doesn't "un-save" you. Once you're written in the Lamb's book of life, you're in.
So that's just weird to me.
You do want to repent sin, of course... but... hmmm.
Can you expand?
Getting a divorce against God's will is bad, but so is doing anything against His will. You walk away, you reap the consequences of not having as good a relationship with the Lord. Those can be temporal, like the punishments He uses to get you back in line, or they can be eternal, losing rewards in Heaven. But once you're saved... you're saved. A divorce doesn't "un-save" you. Once you're written in the Lamb's book of life, you're in.
So that's just weird to me.
You do want to repent sin, of course... but... hmmm.
Can you expand?
Thursday, June 26, 2008
God and Row Boats
Well, I have no specific intentions of separation or divorce at this point. I just have never been able to figure out where my marriage fits in. There's an old saying about where one rat is seen, there are actually twelve. So it is with anything I might say about my marriage: for everything I say, there are twelve unsaid things.
What I do know, and which my mother has also said, is that like the evil spirit seemed to "depart" from Saul when David played the flute, however irrational my husband may be, my presence also does that to a certain extent. It is simply very, very hard to get nothing back. He is not my rock, nor my "soft place to fall."
As to what God's plans are for me, beyond doing unto others as I would have them do unto me and forgiving until it hurts, I do not know. I believe that is God's plan for every Christian, and for my every interaction with human beings, so there's no reason to believe that my husband is somehow excluded from that.
I tell myself that the God who was able to release the Israelites from Pharaoh, is able to release me from my marriage. At his time, not mine. Then at other times I think I am bullshitting myself because I am too much of a coward and am using God to avoid making a decision.
The pacifism I believe in, is a pacifism that reflects in every aspect of life, from the personal to the international. And the sorts of violence I am against, is every sort of violence - not just physical but the emotional harm people can and do do to each other. It's not the Mennonite church per se, that upsets me in terms of how it sees divorce or marriage. I went against, in a way, my own beliefs when I left, which is that God sees and knows everything today as he did yesterday and was in fact able to deliver me, but chose not to. But after years of my head feeling like it has been batted around like a mouse by a cat, I can't be sure that makes any sense to anyone.
I don't want to be like the guy who is caught on a rooftop in a flood and prays to God for someone to help him and a rowboat comes along. The guy sends the rowboat away and prays some more for God to deliver him. Three times he prays and three times a rowboat comes along and the guy sends it away. Then the fourth time he prays, a voice from Heaven says, "I sent you a rowboat three times to save you and each time you sent it away."
I don't know if I've been sending rowboats away. I also had a lot of Mennonites who are seriously religously against divorce, tell me to leave as fast as my feet could carry me. They were more than those who thought I should stay.
If God wants me to leave, He'll have to be real clear about it. Writing on the wall would do it or a sheepskin filled with dew and a dry ground and a dry sheepskin with a dew-wet ground. A light on the road to Damascus. All of the above.
Layla
What I do know, and which my mother has also said, is that like the evil spirit seemed to "depart" from Saul when David played the flute, however irrational my husband may be, my presence also does that to a certain extent. It is simply very, very hard to get nothing back. He is not my rock, nor my "soft place to fall."
As to what God's plans are for me, beyond doing unto others as I would have them do unto me and forgiving until it hurts, I do not know. I believe that is God's plan for every Christian, and for my every interaction with human beings, so there's no reason to believe that my husband is somehow excluded from that.
I tell myself that the God who was able to release the Israelites from Pharaoh, is able to release me from my marriage. At his time, not mine. Then at other times I think I am bullshitting myself because I am too much of a coward and am using God to avoid making a decision.
The pacifism I believe in, is a pacifism that reflects in every aspect of life, from the personal to the international. And the sorts of violence I am against, is every sort of violence - not just physical but the emotional harm people can and do do to each other. It's not the Mennonite church per se, that upsets me in terms of how it sees divorce or marriage. I went against, in a way, my own beliefs when I left, which is that God sees and knows everything today as he did yesterday and was in fact able to deliver me, but chose not to. But after years of my head feeling like it has been batted around like a mouse by a cat, I can't be sure that makes any sense to anyone.
I don't want to be like the guy who is caught on a rooftop in a flood and prays to God for someone to help him and a rowboat comes along. The guy sends the rowboat away and prays some more for God to deliver him. Three times he prays and three times a rowboat comes along and the guy sends it away. Then the fourth time he prays, a voice from Heaven says, "I sent you a rowboat three times to save you and each time you sent it away."
I don't know if I've been sending rowboats away. I also had a lot of Mennonites who are seriously religously against divorce, tell me to leave as fast as my feet could carry me. They were more than those who thought I should stay.
If God wants me to leave, He'll have to be real clear about it. Writing on the wall would do it or a sheepskin filled with dew and a dry ground and a dry sheepskin with a dew-wet ground. A light on the road to Damascus. All of the above.
Layla
Each thing is different
Biblically, I think you're entitled to a separation, not a divorce, since your husband hasn't been physically unfaithful. As far as God is concerned, you *are* married until one of you goes off and "marries" someone else. From what you posted, that wouldn't take long for your husband - and I've never gotten the slightest feeling that what you want is some other person, just to be allowed to be yourself.
Practically - well, what's to stop your husband from doing what he did before, which we discussed in our private correspondence? You leave and then what? He does what he did the last time and you do what you did the last time. The purpose for you leaving is to stop the pain and humiliation... but he was easily able to continue that the first time when you left. How would this time differ?
Spiritually - what is your purpose in God's kingdom? You know that Christian women are called to witness to their non-Christian husbands. And we both know that your years of witness haven't done a bit of good, and to our mortal eyes, don't look like they ever will. But what about God's eyes? Have you asked Him? And have you asked Him about His timing? There are factors other than divorce that might free you from this time of misery.
And thank you... now I know why you're so set against the popular protestant view of being saved! MUCH has become clear.
I hope that God adds you to His list of folks to "wind up the leftovers" so that you are prepared for whatever He has next for us...
HUGS and lots of love,
Hearth
Practically - well, what's to stop your husband from doing what he did before, which we discussed in our private correspondence? You leave and then what? He does what he did the last time and you do what you did the last time. The purpose for you leaving is to stop the pain and humiliation... but he was easily able to continue that the first time when you left. How would this time differ?
Spiritually - what is your purpose in God's kingdom? You know that Christian women are called to witness to their non-Christian husbands. And we both know that your years of witness haven't done a bit of good, and to our mortal eyes, don't look like they ever will. But what about God's eyes? Have you asked Him? And have you asked Him about His timing? There are factors other than divorce that might free you from this time of misery.
And thank you... now I know why you're so set against the popular protestant view of being saved! MUCH has become clear.
I hope that God adds you to His list of folks to "wind up the leftovers" so that you are prepared for whatever He has next for us...
HUGS and lots of love,
Hearth
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
another question about divorce
This pertains to things we have shared via private email but I'll be a little more open here, for the sake of those reading the blog who may be similarly confused.
Given what you know of my marriage, could I, as a Christian, divorce and marry again from your point of view? My feelings won't be hurt no matter what you say, so don't hold back although some details, as I know you know, aren't meant to be public.
Given how I was raised, with the belief that divorce is always wrong and that there is no Christian remarriage possible, no matter what has been done to you, given the fact that to this day, in the church in which I was raised (okay so I only attended until I was 14/15, something like that), divorced people are still not allowed to participate in Communion, and given the fact that in the eyes of many, unless you actually repent a divorce, you are going to go to Hell, it was not easy for me to leave my husband.
I believe I have stated before that I don't go to church, except at Christmas and for funerals and weddings, and have never been baptised in any church and yet, still, it was so very hard to leave. And Catholics talk about "Catholic guilt." Humph. Mennonites have more than their fair share of Mennonite guilt.
I am seventy-five percent sure that my husband never cheated on me physically, although I think that it was only that the opportunity did not present itself. My husband had never been faithful to any woman and has an ex-wife and a series of ex live-in girlfriends behind him. So on the literal, biblical sense of adultery, I have no grounds for divorce.
He never hit me, so I don't have any grounds there either. The only grounds for divorce I have is the violence he did to my soul and the fact that I am an adulteress. I am sure I am not the perfect wife either. To be told what a favor it is that your husband married you right from the start though, does a number on one's head. For years I didn't think I was abused - he didn't hit me. Abuse happens to low class, trashy types. I am far too independent, have too much pride, am too smart - it couldn't happen to me, like those women who are too stupid to get out of a bad relationship. That's what I kept telling myself. So, I tried harder. I lived his life, not mine. The harder I tried, the further short I fell in his eyes. The more of his life I lived, the more he wanted. I confided in no one because it was all clearly my fault, even if I didn't understand what it was that I was doing so wrong, and I feared that if I talked about it to anyone, then they would simply corroborate what my husband was already telling me: how lucky I was to have him. And also because I am an intensely private person. I joke around sorrow. I don't spill my heart.
Submitting myself, as in being a doormat, did not work. I was a doormat. I prayed to be a better wife so that my husband would love me. I didn't pray that he would change. Every single thing that went wrong, I blamed myself for, convinced myself that it was my fault. I prayed for me.
There are some people who see love and the natural expression of it - that one wants to make the other happy - as a weakness to be exploited, not as something to be reciprocated. To do something that I knew would make my husband happy because I loved him - that, as far as he was concerned, was only his due. It never occurred to him at all that when people love each other, that love and caring goes both ways, like day follows night. This, I know now but not then, was an issue in all his previous relationships. They all ended because of his infidelity - which I don't think was physical in my case, but emotionally and mentally my husband was never faithful. If there was a way he could take my "good works" and spin them to make them look bad, he did.
So as you know, I eventually left and we have been reconciled for many years by now but nothing has changed. I do not like the way that I left - I should have left in a classier way than I did but I just flipped, like a circuit breaker that's been overloaded. From one day to the next, I could not take it any more.
While I was gone, he even became a "born-again Christian" in the presence of one my religious relatives. That made me look bad, you see (if he's a born-again Christian, by definition, I would be the polar opposite, a godless heathen) and has caused a rift in the family. This relative knows better now, but he didn't know then that he was being used as a weapon against me. The irony is that this relative, being a very old-fashioned Mennonite, never believed our marriage was valid to begin with, since my husband had a previous marriage behind him. Yet, in spite of that, he told my husband (who was delighted to share the news with me and my family) that I was going to Hell, for having left him in violation of the Christian idea of no divorce.
So I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. Those certain Mennonite who have always looked askance at my marriage to a divorced man, and considered it not to be a marriage in the eyes of God, would damn me for having left a marriage, when following their logic, it never was a marriage to begin with. Odd, isn't it?
Layla
Given what you know of my marriage, could I, as a Christian, divorce and marry again from your point of view? My feelings won't be hurt no matter what you say, so don't hold back although some details, as I know you know, aren't meant to be public.
Given how I was raised, with the belief that divorce is always wrong and that there is no Christian remarriage possible, no matter what has been done to you, given the fact that to this day, in the church in which I was raised (okay so I only attended until I was 14/15, something like that), divorced people are still not allowed to participate in Communion, and given the fact that in the eyes of many, unless you actually repent a divorce, you are going to go to Hell, it was not easy for me to leave my husband.
I believe I have stated before that I don't go to church, except at Christmas and for funerals and weddings, and have never been baptised in any church and yet, still, it was so very hard to leave. And Catholics talk about "Catholic guilt." Humph. Mennonites have more than their fair share of Mennonite guilt.
I am seventy-five percent sure that my husband never cheated on me physically, although I think that it was only that the opportunity did not present itself. My husband had never been faithful to any woman and has an ex-wife and a series of ex live-in girlfriends behind him. So on the literal, biblical sense of adultery, I have no grounds for divorce.
He never hit me, so I don't have any grounds there either. The only grounds for divorce I have is the violence he did to my soul and the fact that I am an adulteress. I am sure I am not the perfect wife either. To be told what a favor it is that your husband married you right from the start though, does a number on one's head. For years I didn't think I was abused - he didn't hit me. Abuse happens to low class, trashy types. I am far too independent, have too much pride, am too smart - it couldn't happen to me, like those women who are too stupid to get out of a bad relationship. That's what I kept telling myself. So, I tried harder. I lived his life, not mine. The harder I tried, the further short I fell in his eyes. The more of his life I lived, the more he wanted. I confided in no one because it was all clearly my fault, even if I didn't understand what it was that I was doing so wrong, and I feared that if I talked about it to anyone, then they would simply corroborate what my husband was already telling me: how lucky I was to have him. And also because I am an intensely private person. I joke around sorrow. I don't spill my heart.
Submitting myself, as in being a doormat, did not work. I was a doormat. I prayed to be a better wife so that my husband would love me. I didn't pray that he would change. Every single thing that went wrong, I blamed myself for, convinced myself that it was my fault. I prayed for me.
There are some people who see love and the natural expression of it - that one wants to make the other happy - as a weakness to be exploited, not as something to be reciprocated. To do something that I knew would make my husband happy because I loved him - that, as far as he was concerned, was only his due. It never occurred to him at all that when people love each other, that love and caring goes both ways, like day follows night. This, I know now but not then, was an issue in all his previous relationships. They all ended because of his infidelity - which I don't think was physical in my case, but emotionally and mentally my husband was never faithful. If there was a way he could take my "good works" and spin them to make them look bad, he did.
So as you know, I eventually left and we have been reconciled for many years by now but nothing has changed. I do not like the way that I left - I should have left in a classier way than I did but I just flipped, like a circuit breaker that's been overloaded. From one day to the next, I could not take it any more.
While I was gone, he even became a "born-again Christian" in the presence of one my religious relatives. That made me look bad, you see (if he's a born-again Christian, by definition, I would be the polar opposite, a godless heathen) and has caused a rift in the family. This relative knows better now, but he didn't know then that he was being used as a weapon against me. The irony is that this relative, being a very old-fashioned Mennonite, never believed our marriage was valid to begin with, since my husband had a previous marriage behind him. Yet, in spite of that, he told my husband (who was delighted to share the news with me and my family) that I was going to Hell, for having left him in violation of the Christian idea of no divorce.
So I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. Those certain Mennonite who have always looked askance at my marriage to a divorced man, and considered it not to be a marriage in the eyes of God, would damn me for having left a marriage, when following their logic, it never was a marriage to begin with. Odd, isn't it?
Layla
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Love and War and the Kitchen Sink
Why do I find it more than a coincidence that the verse of the day is the call for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church? In any case, very appropriate.
As to western secular laws and Christian marriage, my only point is that western law is based on Judeo-Christian faith. All secular laws have their origins in faith which is why it's important to understand them, without necessarily agreeing with the direction they take as they increasingly deviate away from their religious origins. Sometimes, the secular side of society takes the brunt of what the faith-based society finds itself either too ignorant, or afraid to do. As an example, I would refer to the laws prohibiting cohabitation (meaning marriage) between races that existed in many states, due again to religion's influence on society and the way those Christians interpreted the verse that Christians ought not to become unequally yoked.
It isn't that the Bible isn't true - it is that people misinterpret the Bible all the time. It isn't deliberate or malicious. I have no doubt at all that many Christians who are racists, believe/d firmly that their ideas were Biblically sound based on the verse not to be unequally yoked, and because Paul advised slaves to be obedient to their masters, and because Ham was cursed by Noah to be a servant of servants.
Christians who believe/d those things were absolutely in error in the first instance, that of being unequally yoked and applying that to race, and completely in error in reading a validation of slavery into Paul's comments to slaves.
Which is the whole problem with many Bible literalists - they are too literally minded. Paul speaks to those who are in a terrible secular circumstance and offers them the comfort of Jesus. He does not validate slavery when he tells slaves to serve their masters with a smile on their face. He says not to worry about them, that the day of judgement is coming, and that the Lord knows their suffering.
Why would the same not apply to bad marriages? He tells us what is desirable, not what is possible.
On the subject of secular laws, just generally I find that very interesting in and of itself, and a kind of indirect "proof" that there is a God, since there is a Law inherent in all of us - what Immanuel Kant would call "the moral law within" that gives rise to religion which in turn gives rise to how we govern ourselves generally. We do not live in a moral vacuum, not believer nor unbeliever. Even the sociopath is aware of that inner Law even if it makes no difference to him or her.
Laws that are purely separate and have no origin in religion tend to be those that have sprung out of new knowledge that wasn't there before. Like for instance, at what point can a human being be pronounced dead. It used to be obvious. No breath, no heartbeat - boom, you're dead. Now we connect brain activity to death. No brain activity, if your breath can only be artificially maintained, then you're dead. Brain activity and no ability to breathe on your own doesn't necessarily mean death.
All of which requires religion to redefine its own definitions and where it believes the line is to be drawn in many things. Currently in Canada there is a case making headlines in Winnipeg in which an elderly Orthodox Jew who is in a semi-conscious state and is the subject of a court case and much controversy regarding just when you let someone go. So secular laws matter a very great deal as they are faith-based to begin with.
Just as a point of interest, the court forced the hospital to treat the patient, in accordance with the family's interpretation of their faith. That is interesting because the courts are clearly taking the position that freedom of faith takes precedence over everything else. It's also (not in a nasty way) been a little amusing to me based on the urban legend that people can get arrested for reading Romans 2 here.
However, I am puzzled by one thing that seems to be a contradiction in what you say when you say that "As for the laws governing Christians... well, aren't they supposed to govern committed Christians? I mean... if you loved your neighbor as yourself, wouldn't it be possible to *show* love (action verb) to your spouse, even if you no longer particularly liked them? "
Yes, Christian laws are supposed to govern Christians. Why then do Christians want to make Christian ideas into secular laws in the States? And if you love your neighbour as yourself, as a Christian, how can you go to war with the explanation that the secular responsibility to the state supersedes the Christian's responsibility to love everyone?
Okay, we've been over that enough times for it to be more of a rhetorical question. My mind just doesn't work in a straight line without connecting various thoughts. The head bone is connected to the neck bone, etc.
Layla
As to western secular laws and Christian marriage, my only point is that western law is based on Judeo-Christian faith. All secular laws have their origins in faith which is why it's important to understand them, without necessarily agreeing with the direction they take as they increasingly deviate away from their religious origins. Sometimes, the secular side of society takes the brunt of what the faith-based society finds itself either too ignorant, or afraid to do. As an example, I would refer to the laws prohibiting cohabitation (meaning marriage) between races that existed in many states, due again to religion's influence on society and the way those Christians interpreted the verse that Christians ought not to become unequally yoked.
It isn't that the Bible isn't true - it is that people misinterpret the Bible all the time. It isn't deliberate or malicious. I have no doubt at all that many Christians who are racists, believe/d firmly that their ideas were Biblically sound based on the verse not to be unequally yoked, and because Paul advised slaves to be obedient to their masters, and because Ham was cursed by Noah to be a servant of servants.
Christians who believe/d those things were absolutely in error in the first instance, that of being unequally yoked and applying that to race, and completely in error in reading a validation of slavery into Paul's comments to slaves.
Which is the whole problem with many Bible literalists - they are too literally minded. Paul speaks to those who are in a terrible secular circumstance and offers them the comfort of Jesus. He does not validate slavery when he tells slaves to serve their masters with a smile on their face. He says not to worry about them, that the day of judgement is coming, and that the Lord knows their suffering.
Why would the same not apply to bad marriages? He tells us what is desirable, not what is possible.
On the subject of secular laws, just generally I find that very interesting in and of itself, and a kind of indirect "proof" that there is a God, since there is a Law inherent in all of us - what Immanuel Kant would call "the moral law within" that gives rise to religion which in turn gives rise to how we govern ourselves generally. We do not live in a moral vacuum, not believer nor unbeliever. Even the sociopath is aware of that inner Law even if it makes no difference to him or her.
Laws that are purely separate and have no origin in religion tend to be those that have sprung out of new knowledge that wasn't there before. Like for instance, at what point can a human being be pronounced dead. It used to be obvious. No breath, no heartbeat - boom, you're dead. Now we connect brain activity to death. No brain activity, if your breath can only be artificially maintained, then you're dead. Brain activity and no ability to breathe on your own doesn't necessarily mean death.
All of which requires religion to redefine its own definitions and where it believes the line is to be drawn in many things. Currently in Canada there is a case making headlines in Winnipeg in which an elderly Orthodox Jew who is in a semi-conscious state and is the subject of a court case and much controversy regarding just when you let someone go. So secular laws matter a very great deal as they are faith-based to begin with.
Just as a point of interest, the court forced the hospital to treat the patient, in accordance with the family's interpretation of their faith. That is interesting because the courts are clearly taking the position that freedom of faith takes precedence over everything else. It's also (not in a nasty way) been a little amusing to me based on the urban legend that people can get arrested for reading Romans 2 here.
However, I am puzzled by one thing that seems to be a contradiction in what you say when you say that "As for the laws governing Christians... well, aren't they supposed to govern committed Christians? I mean... if you loved your neighbor as yourself, wouldn't it be possible to *show* love (action verb) to your spouse, even if you no longer particularly liked them? "
Yes, Christian laws are supposed to govern Christians. Why then do Christians want to make Christian ideas into secular laws in the States? And if you love your neighbour as yourself, as a Christian, how can you go to war with the explanation that the secular responsibility to the state supersedes the Christian's responsibility to love everyone?
Okay, we've been over that enough times for it to be more of a rhetorical question. My mind just doesn't work in a straight line without connecting various thoughts. The head bone is connected to the neck bone, etc.
Layla
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Western secular laws
aren't quite the point of this blog... and I'll not argue them. I have a sneaking suspicion that though they did damage, the current set are worse. But our Lord will set us straight on that... only He can govern wisely, more's the pity.
As for the laws governing Christians... well, aren't they supposed to govern commited Christians? I mean... if you loved your neighbor as yourself, wouldn't it be possible to *show* love (action verb) to your spouse, even if you no longer particularly liked them? As for the radical exceptions you noted - I firmly believe that separation and a call for justice is the loving and correct thing to do.
It's hard to be a human, and indeed one of the hardest relationships that humans can have is within marriage. It's a metaphor of Christ and the church - it should be a way to show what will be, but too often is a way to imitate His suffering instead. I do think that He notes all sacrifices given in His name - especially those that go unnoted by anyone else.
As for sex, no I meant sex, not procreation. For sexless marriages - well, we're enjoined against that too... shall I cite? And for the time after sex leaves... hopefully a life spent together is all the joining needed.
Marriage is hard, no way 'round it. And if we fail or fall... we do.
As for the laws governing Christians... well, aren't they supposed to govern commited Christians? I mean... if you loved your neighbor as yourself, wouldn't it be possible to *show* love (action verb) to your spouse, even if you no longer particularly liked them? As for the radical exceptions you noted - I firmly believe that separation and a call for justice is the loving and correct thing to do.
It's hard to be a human, and indeed one of the hardest relationships that humans can have is within marriage. It's a metaphor of Christ and the church - it should be a way to show what will be, but too often is a way to imitate His suffering instead. I do think that He notes all sacrifices given in His name - especially those that go unnoted by anyone else.
As for sex, no I meant sex, not procreation. For sexless marriages - well, we're enjoined against that too... shall I cite? And for the time after sex leaves... hopefully a life spent together is all the joining needed.
Marriage is hard, no way 'round it. And if we fail or fall... we do.
Christians and Divorce part 2
My friend who felt that because her marriage hadn't worked out, it therefore wasn't a real marriage in the eyes of God was American and not Mennonite, which is why I was curious as to whether her idea was a common American Christian one or what. I agree, it would have made more sense to say that she was sorry the first hadn't worked out, and that in spite of having gone through a divorce, she didn't actually "believe" in divorce, but nonetheless....
Well, I'm actually relieved that it doesn't make sense to you either. I was very floored since she was so bitterly against divorce, and then to find she'd been divorced...
Okay, well for years, western secular divorce laws were based on what you just said about Christians marrying and divorcing - allowable only with one party clearly in violation. In practical terms though, what that meant was PI's jumping out of the bushes with cameras to catch a cheating spouse, or if both people wanted out badly enough, one party (usually the man since men were expected to be hound dogs anyway) claiming they had committed adultery, even if they hadn't, just to be granted a divorce.
My problem with all that comes in that as in the above example, the matter of Christians divorcing and remarrying in cases of physical adultery, is that it sticks to the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law.
Paul doesn't address wife-beating, husbands who sexually abuse their children, or spouses who to all intents and purposes spiritually stray in that they are not there in the marriage as a partner and a helpmate, or perhaps even where the marriage has deteriorated to the point where the sex in the marriage is non-existent. If it is the act of sex, as Paul says, in the verse you quote, that you are joining yourself to unholy things, and sex is the act that bonds a marriage, then what about sexless marriages? If it is about the act of procreation, then where do infertile couples fit in?
To me then the whole aspect of Christians and marriage and divorce, and sticking to the letter of the law, becomes what Jesus said about keeping clean the outside of the cup, and not the inside. Which is why western secular divorce laws became easier to begin with - because they didn't and couldn't address all the different ways spouses can stray or make a marriage unendurable. It isn't just about the physical act of straying.
I know you know all that, I'm just setting it out for any readers.
When I separated from my husband, I heard a humorous thing said by one of my friends that an acquaintance had a "Mennonite divorce." I asked her what that was and she said that was where you couldn't stand each other but, by God, you stayed married and rained down judgement on everyone else for "not trying."
Which reminds me of another joke, which I've also heard as a Baptist joke: "Why don't Mennonites make love standing up? Because it might lead to dancing."
There's a lot of truth in some of these jokes - how people can become so absorbed by the letter of the law, that the spirit behind the law completely escapes them.
Well, I have a lot of work to do myself. Thanks for your response. I'm not taking issue with it. I just finally admitted to myself years ago that the Bible makes no sense for me at all on the issue of divorce and I think Jesus means that people ought not to divorce for frivolous reasons, and that an intact union was the original plan before we screwed it all up.
Layla
Well, I'm actually relieved that it doesn't make sense to you either. I was very floored since she was so bitterly against divorce, and then to find she'd been divorced...
Okay, well for years, western secular divorce laws were based on what you just said about Christians marrying and divorcing - allowable only with one party clearly in violation. In practical terms though, what that meant was PI's jumping out of the bushes with cameras to catch a cheating spouse, or if both people wanted out badly enough, one party (usually the man since men were expected to be hound dogs anyway) claiming they had committed adultery, even if they hadn't, just to be granted a divorce.
My problem with all that comes in that as in the above example, the matter of Christians divorcing and remarrying in cases of physical adultery, is that it sticks to the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law.
Paul doesn't address wife-beating, husbands who sexually abuse their children, or spouses who to all intents and purposes spiritually stray in that they are not there in the marriage as a partner and a helpmate, or perhaps even where the marriage has deteriorated to the point where the sex in the marriage is non-existent. If it is the act of sex, as Paul says, in the verse you quote, that you are joining yourself to unholy things, and sex is the act that bonds a marriage, then what about sexless marriages? If it is about the act of procreation, then where do infertile couples fit in?
To me then the whole aspect of Christians and marriage and divorce, and sticking to the letter of the law, becomes what Jesus said about keeping clean the outside of the cup, and not the inside. Which is why western secular divorce laws became easier to begin with - because they didn't and couldn't address all the different ways spouses can stray or make a marriage unendurable. It isn't just about the physical act of straying.
I know you know all that, I'm just setting it out for any readers.
When I separated from my husband, I heard a humorous thing said by one of my friends that an acquaintance had a "Mennonite divorce." I asked her what that was and she said that was where you couldn't stand each other but, by God, you stayed married and rained down judgement on everyone else for "not trying."
Which reminds me of another joke, which I've also heard as a Baptist joke: "Why don't Mennonites make love standing up? Because it might lead to dancing."
There's a lot of truth in some of these jokes - how people can become so absorbed by the letter of the law, that the spirit behind the law completely escapes them.
Well, I have a lot of work to do myself. Thanks for your response. I'm not taking issue with it. I just finally admitted to myself years ago that the Bible makes no sense for me at all on the issue of divorce and I think Jesus means that people ought not to divorce for frivolous reasons, and that an intact union was the original plan before we screwed it all up.
Layla
A lengthy answer
First a summary of my church's position on divorce (this would be what I was taught as an Amercian Baptist and at Calvary Chapel). Marriage is sacred, and the only grounds for divorce is adultery. Divorced people are free to remarry. If the divorce was on the grounds of adultery, the aggrieved spouse is free immediately upon divorce. If they got divorced for other reasons, ideally the spouses should hold off on remarriage in the hopes of reconciliation. (But once one spouse remarries the other is free to do so). This is the most ideal of circumstances, they don't hold you to the reconciliation ideal once you're legally divorced... what is, is. (This would be for two Christian people).
So since that was a messy thing to write... if A&B aren't getting along that's not grounds for divorce. If A takes a mistress, then B has grounds for divorce (although the church will encourage forgiveness even so). Assuming A&B divorced because A was unfaithful, B is free to remarry. If they got divorced for "irreconcilable differences" neither are free to remarry. (With the obvious exception that starting a physical relationship with a third party would still qualify as adultery and would free the innocent spouse).
Paul's teachings are generally understood as an expansion on what Jesus said, not a contradiction. So - Jesus sets it down as "you can divorce for adultery" and Paul expands it to "but if you're both Christians obviously you're not in adultery so there's no reason to divorce, so don't".
For Christian/non-Christian marriages, officially they should never exist except that one spouse converted and the other didn't. As you know, we are specifically enjoined not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. So... if A is married to B and B doesn't yet believe, A is to witness to B through good character (see 1Peter chp3). But if B doesn't want to be with A, B is to be allowed to depart. Reconciliation/remarriage is certainly desirable here - but if B is a non-Christian, the most likely thing is that B will immediately find a new relationship to enter into, which frees A to do likewise.
Young widows are told to remarry, older widows are told to stay single - at least as a recommendation. Mostly I think this applies to divorce as well... so if you are of childbearing age you're encouraged to get on with life, and if you're older, you're encouraged to throw that extra energy into the church. (This is because of the natural urges that women of childbearing age have, and in theory older women have the support of adult children, etc).
Okay so the metaphysical part... we are spoken of as *joined* to whomever we marry. Only... "marry" here is a euphemism for "having sexual relations with". Which makes sex a bonding, and is why adultery is grounds for divorce, whereas say non-support or abuse is only grounds for separation. 1 Corinthians 6:16 What? Know ye not that he who is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh. So the act of sexual union creates another sort of union as well. (Which is why fornication is such a big deal, much bigger a deal than other sorts of sins of the flesh).
And yes, your friend sounds like a total cop-out to me. :p But maybe she just can't say, "Well I sinned in the past by getting that divorce, but I'm remarried now and am a faithful and true wife to the husband I have"? Starting that new relationship creates a new union, after all. And who among us is without sin?
So my own position... is pretty much the same as above, with a curiosity and respect to the mystical union involved in the creation of a sexual union. I know that being united horizontally is not the same as being married... but is that the case because those in this day who sleep together are refusing marriage or living a lie rather than because they don't have that union? There is a difference... but what makes it different?
Hm. Off topic that was.. For me, once you're married you should do everything you can to remain married. If you are able to forgive fornication (and if the fornicating spouse repents, which they might not!) then you should so that the original union can be remade. If not, then not. Being grumpy with your spouse isn't grounds for divorce - it is, however, good grounds to spend a lot more time in prayer and possibly in counselling.
And I'm being pestered by a seven year old who is delivering me imaginary pizzas... pepperoni and watermelon and sausage and cheese he says. So if this was unclear... pester me in turn. :)
So since that was a messy thing to write... if A&B aren't getting along that's not grounds for divorce. If A takes a mistress, then B has grounds for divorce (although the church will encourage forgiveness even so). Assuming A&B divorced because A was unfaithful, B is free to remarry. If they got divorced for "irreconcilable differences" neither are free to remarry. (With the obvious exception that starting a physical relationship with a third party would still qualify as adultery and would free the innocent spouse).
Paul's teachings are generally understood as an expansion on what Jesus said, not a contradiction. So - Jesus sets it down as "you can divorce for adultery" and Paul expands it to "but if you're both Christians obviously you're not in adultery so there's no reason to divorce, so don't".
For Christian/non-Christian marriages, officially they should never exist except that one spouse converted and the other didn't. As you know, we are specifically enjoined not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. So... if A is married to B and B doesn't yet believe, A is to witness to B through good character (see 1Peter chp3). But if B doesn't want to be with A, B is to be allowed to depart. Reconciliation/remarriage is certainly desirable here - but if B is a non-Christian, the most likely thing is that B will immediately find a new relationship to enter into, which frees A to do likewise.
Young widows are told to remarry, older widows are told to stay single - at least as a recommendation. Mostly I think this applies to divorce as well... so if you are of childbearing age you're encouraged to get on with life, and if you're older, you're encouraged to throw that extra energy into the church. (This is because of the natural urges that women of childbearing age have, and in theory older women have the support of adult children, etc).
Okay so the metaphysical part... we are spoken of as *joined* to whomever we marry. Only... "marry" here is a euphemism for "having sexual relations with". Which makes sex a bonding, and is why adultery is grounds for divorce, whereas say non-support or abuse is only grounds for separation. 1 Corinthians 6:16 What? Know ye not that he who is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh. So the act of sexual union creates another sort of union as well. (Which is why fornication is such a big deal, much bigger a deal than other sorts of sins of the flesh).
And yes, your friend sounds like a total cop-out to me. :p But maybe she just can't say, "Well I sinned in the past by getting that divorce, but I'm remarried now and am a faithful and true wife to the husband I have"? Starting that new relationship creates a new union, after all. And who among us is without sin?
So my own position... is pretty much the same as above, with a curiosity and respect to the mystical union involved in the creation of a sexual union. I know that being united horizontally is not the same as being married... but is that the case because those in this day who sleep together are refusing marriage or living a lie rather than because they don't have that union? There is a difference... but what makes it different?
Hm. Off topic that was.. For me, once you're married you should do everything you can to remain married. If you are able to forgive fornication (and if the fornicating spouse repents, which they might not!) then you should so that the original union can be remade. If not, then not. Being grumpy with your spouse isn't grounds for divorce - it is, however, good grounds to spend a lot more time in prayer and possibly in counselling.
And I'm being pestered by a seven year old who is delivering me imaginary pizzas... pepperoni and watermelon and sausage and cheese he says. So if this was unclear... pester me in turn. :)
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Not poofing on you
Just a quick note, I have a lot to say on this one, both "official church" "unofficial church" and "metaphysical"... but it will take me a while. Thanks for the good post! :) And wow - our churches differ heavily.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Christians and Divorce
Okay, so I do have a question about something I've been thinking of for a while. I was always taught that divorce was wrong - no ifs, buts or maybes. No matter what your spouse did. For a Christian to leave a marriage was always a sin. However, in keeping with 1 Corinthians 7, your spouse could leave you but even though it might not have been your desire to be separated, you could never officially divorce him or her since it was the divorce that was the sin, not necessarily the separation. But on top of that, you could never marry again until your spouse died or you were an adulterer even if your spouse remarried.
That was the interpretation of what Paul had to say about divorce. Unlike some other points, such as Paul's reference to celibacy in the same chapter, in which he says, "I speak this by permission, and not of commandment," Paul calls his ideas about divorce a commandment from the Lord.
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
What is also interesting is that his reference to divorce mentions unbelieving spouses - presumably if both spouses are Christians, divorce would be even more unthinkable, wouldn't it?
What Paul has to say about marriage is so difficult to accept - that no matter what - it is a commandment from the Lord to remain married. There's no way out in that statement.
Jesus, though, seems to take another tack altogether when he says to the Pharisees, in Matthew 19, 3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
And in Matthew 5: 27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Jesus, in Matthew 19, seems to leave an out for adultery although Mennonites never interpreted it that way. The way they interpreted it, was that you could leave your spouse if he or she had committed adultery but you were still bound by what Paul said not to commit adultery yourself and therefore while you could leave, you could not remarry.
So even if you were sinned against, you were still stuck. But Jesus still in Matthew 19, which is supported by Matthew 5 where he says there is no difference between lusting after someone and the actual act, seems to be saying that it is the hardness of our hearts - our imperfect selves - that stand in the way, as always, between us and reconciliation, between our flesh and our spirit, our 'old man' and 'new man.'
Jesus seems, in a philosophical approach, to be making the point that we are all sinners, and all come short of the glory of God and his words there seem more to be about how impossible it is to live that way - to live without ever having looked at a member of the opposite sex with lust in your heart, and therefore all are adulterers, not just those who have committed adultery in terms of the actual act, just as he compares someone who calls his brother a fool to a murderer. Jesus is emphasizing the futility of salvation without him.
Which again is supported by his words to the woman caught in adultery: "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone."
Jesus seems to know that life isn't as simple as maybe it was for Paul. That no matter how hard some people try, you can't get blood out of a stone, or a relationship with someone who doesn't want to be in one. And particularly if you are young, what sort of burden is it to put on a young person whose spouse has left them, to be condemned to walk through life alone, without a partner, a helpmate by their side?
Jesus and Paul to me say very different things about divorce. Paul is always more of a legalist than say, Peter.
Which brings me to another thought: I know a woman who is very adamant that divorce is always a sin. No matter what. So imagine my surprise when I discovered she was married to her second husband, having divorced the first. Her rational? It was that her first marriage didn't count because "what God hath joined let no man put asunder" and since the first marriage hadn't worked out, God clearly had not joined them.
Does that seem as big a cop-out to you as it does to me?
So what do you think? All in all, I think that the only clear thing in the Bible is that it isn't the ideal solution, and it isn't what God intended for us. Of course, most people never marry intending to divorce either, so most of us, believers or not, and God are in agreement there.
As I said already, I was raised to believe divorce, no matter what, was wrong. I have always wondered just how Christians who believe that way feel about second marriages in which it is one spouse's first marriage and her or his partner's second marriage. By the definition of marriage and divorce and adultery in which I was raised, the divorced spouse is committing adultery as long as he continues in the second marriage. Where does that leave the spouse to whom it is a first marriage? Do two wrongs (divorce) make a right here then?
I think that sometimes circumstances are such that it is impossible to stay together and remain sane, whether both people are believers or not. And I think that particularly if someone is young, then to remarry is one of those human frailty, falling-short-of-the-glory-of-God things that is covered by Jesus' perfect life and sacrifice. Otherwise, as Paul also says, ever the legalist, to the young widows, that he would rather that they marry for it is better to marry than to burn.
I don't believe the official position of the church in which I grew up has changed any although in practical terms it changed when pastors and other church leaders had children who found themselves in marriages that didn't work out. Suddenly they were no longer so sure about what they had been so sure about when it came to other people's children with the pain of their own children staring them in the face.
Unless you are asexual, it is so part of how God made us, to want a mate, that I think for most people it would be impossible to live without being intimate with someone for forty, fifty, sixty years.
Layla
That was the interpretation of what Paul had to say about divorce. Unlike some other points, such as Paul's reference to celibacy in the same chapter, in which he says, "I speak this by permission, and not of commandment," Paul calls his ideas about divorce a commandment from the Lord.
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
What is also interesting is that his reference to divorce mentions unbelieving spouses - presumably if both spouses are Christians, divorce would be even more unthinkable, wouldn't it?
What Paul has to say about marriage is so difficult to accept - that no matter what - it is a commandment from the Lord to remain married. There's no way out in that statement.
Jesus, though, seems to take another tack altogether when he says to the Pharisees, in Matthew 19, 3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
And in Matthew 5: 27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Jesus, in Matthew 19, seems to leave an out for adultery although Mennonites never interpreted it that way. The way they interpreted it, was that you could leave your spouse if he or she had committed adultery but you were still bound by what Paul said not to commit adultery yourself and therefore while you could leave, you could not remarry.
So even if you were sinned against, you were still stuck. But Jesus still in Matthew 19, which is supported by Matthew 5 where he says there is no difference between lusting after someone and the actual act, seems to be saying that it is the hardness of our hearts - our imperfect selves - that stand in the way, as always, between us and reconciliation, between our flesh and our spirit, our 'old man' and 'new man.'
Jesus seems, in a philosophical approach, to be making the point that we are all sinners, and all come short of the glory of God and his words there seem more to be about how impossible it is to live that way - to live without ever having looked at a member of the opposite sex with lust in your heart, and therefore all are adulterers, not just those who have committed adultery in terms of the actual act, just as he compares someone who calls his brother a fool to a murderer. Jesus is emphasizing the futility of salvation without him.
Which again is supported by his words to the woman caught in adultery: "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone."
Jesus seems to know that life isn't as simple as maybe it was for Paul. That no matter how hard some people try, you can't get blood out of a stone, or a relationship with someone who doesn't want to be in one. And particularly if you are young, what sort of burden is it to put on a young person whose spouse has left them, to be condemned to walk through life alone, without a partner, a helpmate by their side?
Jesus and Paul to me say very different things about divorce. Paul is always more of a legalist than say, Peter.
Which brings me to another thought: I know a woman who is very adamant that divorce is always a sin. No matter what. So imagine my surprise when I discovered she was married to her second husband, having divorced the first. Her rational? It was that her first marriage didn't count because "what God hath joined let no man put asunder" and since the first marriage hadn't worked out, God clearly had not joined them.
Does that seem as big a cop-out to you as it does to me?
So what do you think? All in all, I think that the only clear thing in the Bible is that it isn't the ideal solution, and it isn't what God intended for us. Of course, most people never marry intending to divorce either, so most of us, believers or not, and God are in agreement there.
As I said already, I was raised to believe divorce, no matter what, was wrong. I have always wondered just how Christians who believe that way feel about second marriages in which it is one spouse's first marriage and her or his partner's second marriage. By the definition of marriage and divorce and adultery in which I was raised, the divorced spouse is committing adultery as long as he continues in the second marriage. Where does that leave the spouse to whom it is a first marriage? Do two wrongs (divorce) make a right here then?
I think that sometimes circumstances are such that it is impossible to stay together and remain sane, whether both people are believers or not. And I think that particularly if someone is young, then to remarry is one of those human frailty, falling-short-of-the-glory-of-God things that is covered by Jesus' perfect life and sacrifice. Otherwise, as Paul also says, ever the legalist, to the young widows, that he would rather that they marry for it is better to marry than to burn.
I don't believe the official position of the church in which I grew up has changed any although in practical terms it changed when pastors and other church leaders had children who found themselves in marriages that didn't work out. Suddenly they were no longer so sure about what they had been so sure about when it came to other people's children with the pain of their own children staring them in the face.
Unless you are asexual, it is so part of how God made us, to want a mate, that I think for most people it would be impossible to live without being intimate with someone for forty, fifty, sixty years.
Layla
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Mennonites and Missionary efforts
There is no one position on evangelical work among others among Mennonites. There's pretty much a whole gamut of beliefs, like there is generally in Christendom.
The church I grew up in taught that "a light on a mountain" could not be hidden and "by their works ye shall know them." Proselytising was not common. It was believed that if you lived the way a Christian ought to live, people would see that, and come to you for clarification, not that you would go to them.
What proselytising there was was on the level of looking after people's immediate needs in the name of Christ. There is no point in witnessing to a starving person. First you have to feed him bread. A good example of this is the work that the Mennonite Central Committee does, sometimes together with other Christian relief organizations.
However you have to keep in mind that traditionally, in the areas of the Soviet Union where Mennonites had settled for centuries, they were farmers and their language set them apart from those around them. There were groups like the Mennonite Brethren that formed precisely because of their emphasis on evanglisation and full-body baptism.
After the Revolution turned Mennonites of all denominations into refugees, and the resultant flow of immigrants to the US and Canada, under democracy, they were obviously unable to segregate themselves the way they had in Russia and other ideas crept in. But evanglisation itself, among most churches, was unheard of, in part because our pastors were generally farmers who had been chosen by lot to be the pastor, and the women, in those days, hardly made it off the farm, having their hands busy with farming and children and everything else.
My grandmothers, in spite of being second generation Canadians, barely spoke English. They didn't associate with non-Mennonites. It wasn't a plan to separate themselves the way the Amish do to this day, but a combination of factors, such as work and the lack of a common language. And as refugees, the first generations, were busy trying to provide for their families. Marrying outside the faith usually resulted in excommunication, and almost definitely alienation from family, even if it was another Christian denomination. The church I grew up in basically did not like the idea of its members marrying someone from another Mennonite congregation - that's how far they took the idea of not being unequally yoked.
In Russia, where many Mennonites had servants who weren't Mennonite, those were often introduced to the faith aspect/beliefs of Mennonites because they were there - in the field or in the kitchen.
Mennonites have always believed there is only one way to God and that is through his Son, Jesus Christ. They have never believed in the intervention of saints or priests as necessary to approach nearer to God.
As to my ideas about evangelisation - I am in favor of feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, those in jail, and giving a glass of water to a little child and seeing the face of the Saviour in each person. The subject of my religious beliefs either comes up naturally or doesn't come up at all. Not in a million years will I go around asking people about their faith or lack of it.
I believe that there is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus, but at the same time I also don't believe that those who don't know about God go straight to Hell and never pass go. I believe they are judged on their works, and their lack of belief, is due to lack of knowledge, not to deliberately turning their backs on God.
Layla
The church I grew up in taught that "a light on a mountain" could not be hidden and "by their works ye shall know them." Proselytising was not common. It was believed that if you lived the way a Christian ought to live, people would see that, and come to you for clarification, not that you would go to them.
What proselytising there was was on the level of looking after people's immediate needs in the name of Christ. There is no point in witnessing to a starving person. First you have to feed him bread. A good example of this is the work that the Mennonite Central Committee does, sometimes together with other Christian relief organizations.
However you have to keep in mind that traditionally, in the areas of the Soviet Union where Mennonites had settled for centuries, they were farmers and their language set them apart from those around them. There were groups like the Mennonite Brethren that formed precisely because of their emphasis on evanglisation and full-body baptism.
After the Revolution turned Mennonites of all denominations into refugees, and the resultant flow of immigrants to the US and Canada, under democracy, they were obviously unable to segregate themselves the way they had in Russia and other ideas crept in. But evanglisation itself, among most churches, was unheard of, in part because our pastors were generally farmers who had been chosen by lot to be the pastor, and the women, in those days, hardly made it off the farm, having their hands busy with farming and children and everything else.
My grandmothers, in spite of being second generation Canadians, barely spoke English. They didn't associate with non-Mennonites. It wasn't a plan to separate themselves the way the Amish do to this day, but a combination of factors, such as work and the lack of a common language. And as refugees, the first generations, were busy trying to provide for their families. Marrying outside the faith usually resulted in excommunication, and almost definitely alienation from family, even if it was another Christian denomination. The church I grew up in basically did not like the idea of its members marrying someone from another Mennonite congregation - that's how far they took the idea of not being unequally yoked.
In Russia, where many Mennonites had servants who weren't Mennonite, those were often introduced to the faith aspect/beliefs of Mennonites because they were there - in the field or in the kitchen.
Mennonites have always believed there is only one way to God and that is through his Son, Jesus Christ. They have never believed in the intervention of saints or priests as necessary to approach nearer to God.
As to my ideas about evangelisation - I am in favor of feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, those in jail, and giving a glass of water to a little child and seeing the face of the Saviour in each person. The subject of my religious beliefs either comes up naturally or doesn't come up at all. Not in a million years will I go around asking people about their faith or lack of it.
I believe that there is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus, but at the same time I also don't believe that those who don't know about God go straight to Hell and never pass go. I believe they are judged on their works, and their lack of belief, is due to lack of knowledge, not to deliberately turning their backs on God.
Layla
Well it's believable to Americans
That urban legend is believable to Americans because it *would* happen here. We do have folks that sue over things like that, perceived slights. Watch and see...
But onward... :) We have gotten into the realm of patriotic pride rather than religious discussion.
I was excited by your feeling that the tribe hasn't been unreached - thank you. In similar news, a couple came to church this Sunday, raising funds for their life's work ... they're going into New Guinea for the next 20 years, to translate the Bible into the local dialect and to reach those folks for Christ. I was so happy to see that missionary work into the corners of the world is still being done. Our church runs a lot of missionary endeavours.
What is the Mennonite position on missionary activity? What is yours?
Obviously as an evangelical... let's evangelize everyone! That's ... sorta the point. I spend a lot of time building relationships with non believers or slipped believers and witnessing to them. I'm not really very good at spur of the moment evangelism, I don't have what it takes. But I try to use my other blog to talk about my relationship with God, and speak about it to folks as if it's an everyday thing (which it is).
Do you have a next topic?
Hope your week is going well... this is a busy one for me.
- Hearth
But onward... :) We have gotten into the realm of patriotic pride rather than religious discussion.
I was excited by your feeling that the tribe hasn't been unreached - thank you. In similar news, a couple came to church this Sunday, raising funds for their life's work ... they're going into New Guinea for the next 20 years, to translate the Bible into the local dialect and to reach those folks for Christ. I was so happy to see that missionary work into the corners of the world is still being done. Our church runs a lot of missionary endeavours.
What is the Mennonite position on missionary activity? What is yours?
Obviously as an evangelical... let's evangelize everyone! That's ... sorta the point. I spend a lot of time building relationships with non believers or slipped believers and witnessing to them. I'm not really very good at spur of the moment evangelism, I don't have what it takes. But I try to use my other blog to talk about my relationship with God, and speak about it to folks as if it's an everyday thing (which it is).
Do you have a next topic?
Hope your week is going well... this is a busy one for me.
- Hearth
Monday, June 9, 2008
well, yikes! right back at ya!
Don't feel bad. I think that you have the right idea in many ways, it's just that the example isn't true. There are a lot of urban myths circulating in the Christian world - this sort of ties into my refusal to accept end-of-the-world prophecies from anything other than the Bible. When you Google certain terms - paranoic Christian things - you'll come up with a whole host of things in which it is written slanted to give a certain impression.
My instinct is always that if it sounds too ridiculous to be true, it probably is, and for anything, not just religious stuff, I tend to first sort through what is reasonable and plausible and possible before I jump to a supernatural conclusion.
Where I think you are right is that traditional moral Bible guidelines are constantly being blurred to the point where even Christians do not always know what is the right thing to do. I think there will be a war-war, but there is also a war of ideas and spirits going on and that pressure to conform will only increase as time goes by.
Did you ever think that one of the side-effects of the scrambling of languages at the Tower of Babel separated the nations in a good way? When God says, that, with a common language "nothing shall be impossible unto them", it is true that a common language seems to up the mischief factor that people can get into. And English is pretty much the lingua franca of the day.
I would just rather we not jump at shadows and so miss the real threats. And I honestly think that Christians are their own worst enemies when they expect the state to follow the Bible.
I also think that many Americans confuse socialism (which Canada is - a social democracy) with communism, which Canada is not. I recall one debate during which an American whom I suppose most Americans would regard as left-wing or left-of-centre, basically stated that she believed that the US was the only country in the world with free speech. And yet, for all that, apparently American communists cannot be school teachers in at least some of your states. I don't understand that. Doesn't freedom apply to everyone?
Canada had at least one communist big-city mayor in the 60s and 70s that I know of, and many other communists in other positions. One of our Prime Ministers was apparently on the list of Canadians not allowed into the US due to his travels before he was Prime Minister in communist countries. It hardly seems to be fair to accuse communist countries of keeping their citizens prisoners when communists are restricted in their activities in the US. So much for freedom of ideas.
I also think that many Americans think that freedom includes the right to say what you damned well please, no matter who it hurts. I don't believe that. I don't believe in an automatic right to say anything in any situation at any time. A lot of it is common sense - don't yell "fire" in a theatre - don't incite racial hatred or any other hatred. It's like if five big crazy guys ask for your wallet in a dark alley - would you assert your right to free speech and tell them you think they are a brick short a load, or would you say, "Here's my wallet?" Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.
You have to pick your battles and I don't waste my energy on people who don't believe in God. Why would I hold them to God's standards? God gave me the freedom of will - why would I not extend it to others?
I have full confidence that when the Lord reigns over the world, he will judge and rule righteously, and sort out all our confusion, sexual and otherwise, and then we will be in no doubt at all as to what way is God's way and what is not.
I don't think, based on what I read, that Boisson is in any danger of being fined. If anything, the paper who published his letter-to-the-editor might be fined as they obviously have to use a certain amount of discretion in what they publish. We are a very politically correct country by and large. Some people don't like that and some do.
Me, all in all, I like it. I like it that we don't have the KKK here. I'm happy that our laws infringe on their "freedom" of speech. I like it that Holocaust deniers are charged under the hate crimes laws. They are spreading lies. Why should lies be covered under "freedom?"
On the other hand, you could have a church pastor preach whatever he wanted to about race, and that is covered under our conscience laws. There is no danger at all to freedom of religion. I'm not saying that that day will not come, I'm only saying it isn't here yet, nor is that train anywhere in sight. Christ is preached every day in Canada without any fear of arrest.
Layla
My instinct is always that if it sounds too ridiculous to be true, it probably is, and for anything, not just religious stuff, I tend to first sort through what is reasonable and plausible and possible before I jump to a supernatural conclusion.
Where I think you are right is that traditional moral Bible guidelines are constantly being blurred to the point where even Christians do not always know what is the right thing to do. I think there will be a war-war, but there is also a war of ideas and spirits going on and that pressure to conform will only increase as time goes by.
Did you ever think that one of the side-effects of the scrambling of languages at the Tower of Babel separated the nations in a good way? When God says, that, with a common language "nothing shall be impossible unto them", it is true that a common language seems to up the mischief factor that people can get into. And English is pretty much the lingua franca of the day.
I would just rather we not jump at shadows and so miss the real threats. And I honestly think that Christians are their own worst enemies when they expect the state to follow the Bible.
I also think that many Americans confuse socialism (which Canada is - a social democracy) with communism, which Canada is not. I recall one debate during which an American whom I suppose most Americans would regard as left-wing or left-of-centre, basically stated that she believed that the US was the only country in the world with free speech. And yet, for all that, apparently American communists cannot be school teachers in at least some of your states. I don't understand that. Doesn't freedom apply to everyone?
Canada had at least one communist big-city mayor in the 60s and 70s that I know of, and many other communists in other positions. One of our Prime Ministers was apparently on the list of Canadians not allowed into the US due to his travels before he was Prime Minister in communist countries. It hardly seems to be fair to accuse communist countries of keeping their citizens prisoners when communists are restricted in their activities in the US. So much for freedom of ideas.
I also think that many Americans think that freedom includes the right to say what you damned well please, no matter who it hurts. I don't believe that. I don't believe in an automatic right to say anything in any situation at any time. A lot of it is common sense - don't yell "fire" in a theatre - don't incite racial hatred or any other hatred. It's like if five big crazy guys ask for your wallet in a dark alley - would you assert your right to free speech and tell them you think they are a brick short a load, or would you say, "Here's my wallet?" Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.
You have to pick your battles and I don't waste my energy on people who don't believe in God. Why would I hold them to God's standards? God gave me the freedom of will - why would I not extend it to others?
I have full confidence that when the Lord reigns over the world, he will judge and rule righteously, and sort out all our confusion, sexual and otherwise, and then we will be in no doubt at all as to what way is God's way and what is not.
I don't think, based on what I read, that Boisson is in any danger of being fined. If anything, the paper who published his letter-to-the-editor might be fined as they obviously have to use a certain amount of discretion in what they publish. We are a very politically correct country by and large. Some people don't like that and some do.
Me, all in all, I like it. I like it that we don't have the KKK here. I'm happy that our laws infringe on their "freedom" of speech. I like it that Holocaust deniers are charged under the hate crimes laws. They are spreading lies. Why should lies be covered under "freedom?"
On the other hand, you could have a church pastor preach whatever he wanted to about race, and that is covered under our conscience laws. There is no danger at all to freedom of religion. I'm not saying that that day will not come, I'm only saying it isn't here yet, nor is that train anywhere in sight. Christ is preached every day in Canada without any fear of arrest.
Layla
Yikes!
I've been caught out, believing (and perpetuating) an urban legend.
My apologies to you, and whatever readers we have.
It doesn't dissuade me from my position, but I'll edit that out of my brain... thank you!
My apologies to you, and whatever readers we have.
It doesn't dissuade me from my position, but I'll edit that out of my brain... thank you!
I think I found what you're referring to
But it's not the way you put it if the case in question is about Stephen Boisson. I am quite confident that no pastors are being arrested in Canada in their pulpits for reading Romans or anything else from the Bible. This case of Stephen Boisson is the closest thing I could come to, and probably what you are referencing. And it's not about the Bible, it is about his comments on gays in a non-religious forum - the newspape, not the pulpit. And he's not been arrested or fined (yet) nor will he be sent to jail.
I read a number of sites that have bits and pieces about this case but nothing that gives me a clear picture of what happened. I don't necessarily believe Mr. Boisson's slant on his website either, although maybe that is the way it happened.
Generally speaking though, I believe freedom of speech comes with responsibility and I don't believe that people ought to be able to say whatever they want to say in whatever forum just because they have an opinion. Opinions, are like you-know-whats - everyone has them. I don't believe that letters written in the style of Mr. Boisson's does anyone any good. It doesn't follow that I think he should be fined or forced into a public apology, but I just don't think he did Christ any good.
Christ didn't go out railing at the fallen women of the world, or the homosexuals. He spoke to the individual about grace and forgiveness. He knew that they knew when they were doing wrong. They didn't need to be told they were wrong. The people who needed most to be told they were wrong were the religious leaders who thought they had figured it out.
And you know, all kinds of things happen in Alberta that never happen anywhere else, with all due apologies to Albertans. It's like our version of Texas. Bigger, better, louder, richer. I recall a teacher there teaching students that the Holocaust was a lie and he too jumped on the freedom of speech band wagon....
But you can't take an example that is extreme and assume that it is the norm, even if your original belief that some pastor had been hauled out of his own church pew was true. There are nuts on the side of the law as well, who every now and then behave irrationally and contrary to the law. The system has never failed to straighten itself out.
My husband remembers when he was a kid in school many years ago and in order to promote dental hygiene, toothbrushes were handed out to students, and the parents said, "It's a communist plot...."
Layla
I read a number of sites that have bits and pieces about this case but nothing that gives me a clear picture of what happened. I don't necessarily believe Mr. Boisson's slant on his website either, although maybe that is the way it happened.
Generally speaking though, I believe freedom of speech comes with responsibility and I don't believe that people ought to be able to say whatever they want to say in whatever forum just because they have an opinion. Opinions, are like you-know-whats - everyone has them. I don't believe that letters written in the style of Mr. Boisson's does anyone any good. It doesn't follow that I think he should be fined or forced into a public apology, but I just don't think he did Christ any good.
Christ didn't go out railing at the fallen women of the world, or the homosexuals. He spoke to the individual about grace and forgiveness. He knew that they knew when they were doing wrong. They didn't need to be told they were wrong. The people who needed most to be told they were wrong were the religious leaders who thought they had figured it out.
And you know, all kinds of things happen in Alberta that never happen anywhere else, with all due apologies to Albertans. It's like our version of Texas. Bigger, better, louder, richer. I recall a teacher there teaching students that the Holocaust was a lie and he too jumped on the freedom of speech band wagon....
But you can't take an example that is extreme and assume that it is the norm, even if your original belief that some pastor had been hauled out of his own church pew was true. There are nuts on the side of the law as well, who every now and then behave irrationally and contrary to the law. The system has never failed to straighten itself out.
My husband remembers when he was a kid in school many years ago and in order to promote dental hygiene, toothbrushes were handed out to students, and the parents said, "It's a communist plot...."
Layla
A quick reply for clarification
***Just to clarify, I don't necessarily think that homosexual *attraction* is a choice, but that *any* sexual behavior is a choice. I'm heterosexual... but I confine my sexuality to my husband. That's a choice. It doesn't negate the fact that occasionally (not often, but sometimes) I am attracted to other men. But I am, as an adult human, capable of not following through on those attractions.
***I am, as a mother, far more well-aware of the horrors of CPS seizures than I would like to be. Unfortunately for all of us, they've made a lot of semi-governmental agencies powerful enough to take what is essentially military action. Conservatives across America have noted this, yet the vast majority of the people are more interested in the pursuit of happiness than in freedom. It pains me.
***I will look up the Canadian pastor at first opportunity. You might be interested before I get there, to read the first two chapters of Romans for yourself. I believe he was jailed for hatespeech. Perhaps it was fined? At any rate... I will find it for you.
Hope your Monday is good!
***I am, as a mother, far more well-aware of the horrors of CPS seizures than I would like to be. Unfortunately for all of us, they've made a lot of semi-governmental agencies powerful enough to take what is essentially military action. Conservatives across America have noted this, yet the vast majority of the people are more interested in the pursuit of happiness than in freedom. It pains me.
***I will look up the Canadian pastor at first opportunity. You might be interested before I get there, to read the first two chapters of Romans for yourself. I believe he was jailed for hatespeech. Perhaps it was fined? At any rate... I will find it for you.
Hope your Monday is good!
The mysterious new tribe
Now on to the so-called undiscovered Amazon tribe. I don't believe that when Jesus said that the gospel would be preached throughout the world that he meant necessarily to each individual tribe. "All the world" means simply widely known, as Christianity is widely known throughout all the world and not limited to Jerusalem, or Rome for example and the areas Jesus actually walked, or Peter, or the rest of the apostles.
It is like taking all the people within a city block and because you find one who has never heard of God, taking it to mean that Christ will therefore not return until that one person has heard of the gospel. The whole rest of the block knows - therefore the knowledge can safely be caused common knowledge.
So the discovery of a new tribe makes no difference to when Christ comes at all. Christ is known in the countries that border the Amazon, and by tribes that border the so-called undiscovered tribe. But I do not take the Bible to mean that each individual person needs to have heard about Jesus before He will come.
However, in the second place, I don't believe either that this is a "new" tribe that has never had contact with the outside world. They may not currently have contact with the outside world due to bad experiences in the past, but I'd bet my house that they've had contact with others at some point. Even tribes don't live in a vacuum.
I've heard this on many news stations reporting on this so-called new tribe. Here's a link that about covers it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/30/2260586.htm
Layla
It is like taking all the people within a city block and because you find one who has never heard of God, taking it to mean that Christ will therefore not return until that one person has heard of the gospel. The whole rest of the block knows - therefore the knowledge can safely be caused common knowledge.
So the discovery of a new tribe makes no difference to when Christ comes at all. Christ is known in the countries that border the Amazon, and by tribes that border the so-called undiscovered tribe. But I do not take the Bible to mean that each individual person needs to have heard about Jesus before He will come.
However, in the second place, I don't believe either that this is a "new" tribe that has never had contact with the outside world. They may not currently have contact with the outside world due to bad experiences in the past, but I'd bet my house that they've had contact with others at some point. Even tribes don't live in a vacuum.
I've heard this on many news stations reporting on this so-called new tribe. Here's a link that about covers it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/30/2260586.htm
Layla
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Canadian Freedom of Religion
I'm going to respond to your first post, first, since you obviously caught my attention with " hear pastors in Canada have been arrested for just *reading* Romans 2 from the pulpit - no commentary - just reading. "
I think that lots of urban myths circulate the church world, and unless you can find me a link to this, I don't believe it. I Googled every imaginable combination trying to discover this story and came up with nothing.
Since many schools in Canada still say the Lord's Prayer as part of their regular school day and prayers are said in our Parliament, it just seems highly unlikely that any pastors were ever arrested for reading the Bible in their own pulpits.
I know Americans find it hard to believe but I think we have far more freedom of speech in Canada than you guys do in the US. In the first place, our titular head is the Queen of England who is also the head of the Church of England. And our Parliament opens with this prayer.
Almighty God, we give thanks for the great blessings which have been bestowed on Canada and its citizens, including the gifts of freedom, opportunity and peace that we enjoy. We pray for our Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth, and the Governor General. Guide us in our deliberations as Members of Parliament, and strengthen us in our awareness of our duties and responsibilities as Members. Grant us wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to preserve the blessings of this country for the benefit of all and to make good laws and wise decisions. Amen.
It varies from province to province, but many public schools in Canada still open with the Lord's Prayer. Freedom of religion has never meant freedom from religion as it seems to do in the US. Here's a link that provides a summary of prayer in different provinces: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/02/13/lords-prayer.html
What I think many American Christians don't realize is that freedom is a two-way street. We have same-sex marriage and that sort of tolerance also flows back to Christians who practise their religion. People just don't get their shorts in such a knot as they seem to do in the US over every mention of public prayer.
The way I see it, American Christians have shot themselves in the foot with their involvement in politics and thinking to impose their beliefs on secular Americans. When you decide that someone else's right are not important, you are also opening a door to having someone decide that your rights are not important. You set a precedent for your own rights to be taken away at someone else's whim. A door lets traffic in both ways. Maybe that is why people generally are more content to live and let live here.
In Ontario, there is now a movement underway to change the Lord's Prayer in schools, but if you read this link, then you will notice a comment by a Jew who recited the Lord's Prayer in public school and his opinion that "it hadn't changed him."
So now just how a pastor could be arrested for reading the Bible when we have prayer in our schools and in our government, is illogical. Interestingly, a recent poll stated that 33 percent of Canadians do not believe in a god whereas only 8 percent of Americans say the same. That's a big difference and yet there is far less dissension and more acceptance here with regards to religion than there is in the US.
Witness the recent Texas polygamy thing. Just how people can go into another person's home with no more than the word of a known liar and troublemaker, and take away, not one child, but four hundred plus children and say there is freedom of religion in the US is beyond me. Which isn't to say that I support polygamy or anything but I'm telling you, that if they can do that there, they can do that anywhere in the US.
Americans like to think of themselves as individualists, and yet, when it comes to alternative lifestyles, be it by way of same sex unions, polygamists or immigrants who speak their own language, Americans want everyone to fit the same cookie cutter mould. Diversity is really not celebrated or much tolerated. Everyone has to be Americanized. We think entirely differently here in Canada where multi-culturalism is celebrated, not the whole melting pot idea.
As far as same-sex attraction and it being a choice, unlike the color of your skin, I don't believe that is true. If birth defects were limited to mobility, you would have a point but people are born sometimes intersexed - as hermaphrodites. So it is possible for people to be born sexually confused in a physical sense and if so, then why is it not possible for people to be born mentally confused about sexuality? We know more than we used to about the human brain but we don't know everything. Christians can be schizophrenic, bi-polar and depressives, without ever once having chosen it in any sense of the word due to something that went wrong in their genetic makeup, so it isn't a stretch at all to think that attraction to your own sex is also the result of something beyond their control.
I am not saying that homosexuality isn't a sin according to the Bible. I am only saying that I don't buy that it is always a choice. It may be a choice for some to experiment, to play with boundaries. There have always been people who wanted to push boundaries, who are thrill seekers and expressing themselves in all sorts of different non-traditional sexual ways, whether with a menage a trois, or with their own sex can also be part of that behaviour. But not necessarily.
I do agree with your last point that the war that is coming won't necessarily be a war fought with weapons but with words and ideas - that actually was the war fought by my ancestors. It wasn't a physical war but a war of ideas. But I also think that when Christians want to take their faith to a political level, they are opening that door themselves. Faith is a private matter.
As far as the laws in Canada are concerned with the issue of conscience, we have conscience laws. A doctor or a pharmacist can freely follow his or her conscience but they must give the patient information on where they can obtain the service they would deny on that basis. Canadians just don't sue like Americans do.
If you think of the different mottoes of our respective countries, there is a huge difference between us - Canadians believe in "peace, order, and good government" not "the pursuit of happiness."
We are far more willing to sacrifice an individual right that we don't really need for the good of everyone.
Layla
I think that lots of urban myths circulate the church world, and unless you can find me a link to this, I don't believe it. I Googled every imaginable combination trying to discover this story and came up with nothing.
Since many schools in Canada still say the Lord's Prayer as part of their regular school day and prayers are said in our Parliament, it just seems highly unlikely that any pastors were ever arrested for reading the Bible in their own pulpits.
I know Americans find it hard to believe but I think we have far more freedom of speech in Canada than you guys do in the US. In the first place, our titular head is the Queen of England who is also the head of the Church of England. And our Parliament opens with this prayer.
Almighty God, we give thanks for the great blessings which have been bestowed on Canada and its citizens, including the gifts of freedom, opportunity and peace that we enjoy. We pray for our Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth, and the Governor General. Guide us in our deliberations as Members of Parliament, and strengthen us in our awareness of our duties and responsibilities as Members. Grant us wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to preserve the blessings of this country for the benefit of all and to make good laws and wise decisions. Amen.
It varies from province to province, but many public schools in Canada still open with the Lord's Prayer. Freedom of religion has never meant freedom from religion as it seems to do in the US. Here's a link that provides a summary of prayer in different provinces: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/02/13/lords-prayer.html
What I think many American Christians don't realize is that freedom is a two-way street. We have same-sex marriage and that sort of tolerance also flows back to Christians who practise their religion. People just don't get their shorts in such a knot as they seem to do in the US over every mention of public prayer.
The way I see it, American Christians have shot themselves in the foot with their involvement in politics and thinking to impose their beliefs on secular Americans. When you decide that someone else's right are not important, you are also opening a door to having someone decide that your rights are not important. You set a precedent for your own rights to be taken away at someone else's whim. A door lets traffic in both ways. Maybe that is why people generally are more content to live and let live here.
In Ontario, there is now a movement underway to change the Lord's Prayer in schools, but if you read this link, then you will notice a comment by a Jew who recited the Lord's Prayer in public school and his opinion that "it hadn't changed him."
So now just how a pastor could be arrested for reading the Bible when we have prayer in our schools and in our government, is illogical. Interestingly, a recent poll stated that 33 percent of Canadians do not believe in a god whereas only 8 percent of Americans say the same. That's a big difference and yet there is far less dissension and more acceptance here with regards to religion than there is in the US.
Witness the recent Texas polygamy thing. Just how people can go into another person's home with no more than the word of a known liar and troublemaker, and take away, not one child, but four hundred plus children and say there is freedom of religion in the US is beyond me. Which isn't to say that I support polygamy or anything but I'm telling you, that if they can do that there, they can do that anywhere in the US.
Americans like to think of themselves as individualists, and yet, when it comes to alternative lifestyles, be it by way of same sex unions, polygamists or immigrants who speak their own language, Americans want everyone to fit the same cookie cutter mould. Diversity is really not celebrated or much tolerated. Everyone has to be Americanized. We think entirely differently here in Canada where multi-culturalism is celebrated, not the whole melting pot idea.
As far as same-sex attraction and it being a choice, unlike the color of your skin, I don't believe that is true. If birth defects were limited to mobility, you would have a point but people are born sometimes intersexed - as hermaphrodites. So it is possible for people to be born sexually confused in a physical sense and if so, then why is it not possible for people to be born mentally confused about sexuality? We know more than we used to about the human brain but we don't know everything. Christians can be schizophrenic, bi-polar and depressives, without ever once having chosen it in any sense of the word due to something that went wrong in their genetic makeup, so it isn't a stretch at all to think that attraction to your own sex is also the result of something beyond their control.
I am not saying that homosexuality isn't a sin according to the Bible. I am only saying that I don't buy that it is always a choice. It may be a choice for some to experiment, to play with boundaries. There have always been people who wanted to push boundaries, who are thrill seekers and expressing themselves in all sorts of different non-traditional sexual ways, whether with a menage a trois, or with their own sex can also be part of that behaviour. But not necessarily.
I do agree with your last point that the war that is coming won't necessarily be a war fought with weapons but with words and ideas - that actually was the war fought by my ancestors. It wasn't a physical war but a war of ideas. But I also think that when Christians want to take their faith to a political level, they are opening that door themselves. Faith is a private matter.
As far as the laws in Canada are concerned with the issue of conscience, we have conscience laws. A doctor or a pharmacist can freely follow his or her conscience but they must give the patient information on where they can obtain the service they would deny on that basis. Canadians just don't sue like Americans do.
If you think of the different mottoes of our respective countries, there is a huge difference between us - Canadians believe in "peace, order, and good government" not "the pursuit of happiness."
We are far more willing to sacrifice an individual right that we don't really need for the good of everyone.
Layla
Monday, June 2, 2008
Quick question/thought
Did you see that they'd found some previously uncontacted/undiscovered tribes in the Amazon?
Obviously the end isn't nigh until we get down there and spread the good news... :) But will we be allowed to? Have you noticed the cultural preseveration movement?
What are your thoughts on this?
Obviously the end isn't nigh until we get down there and spread the good news... :) But will we be allowed to? Have you noticed the cultural preseveration movement?
What are your thoughts on this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)