More arrests likely in alleged gang rape of 11-year-old - "More arrests are likely in a rape case involving an 11-year-old girl who may have been attacked by as many as 10 men, according to police."
Jeb Bush dodges question on being McCain's running mate - "Jeb Bush has frequently said he won't run for president in 2008, but he's never ruled out being on the ticket as someone's running mate."
Bringing the church to the courtroom - "Considering itself the antithesis of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Scottsdale-based organization has used money and moxie to become the leading player in a movement to tug the nation to the right by challenging decades of legal precedent. By stepping into the nation's most impassioned debates about religion in the public sphere, the group aims to bring law and society into alignment with conservative Christianity."
When did marriage become a Christian institution? - "As the Christian right ushers the so-called marriage protection amendment to the Senate, vowing to valorously defend the sanctity of ‘Christian’ wedlock, we should all be asking: Is marriage really a Christian institution? Are Christians really an authority on the sanctity of marriage and the family? Ironically, based on the early history of the church, the simple answer to both questions is, no. In fact, the Christian Fundamentalists seeking to ‘enshrine their doctrines and marriage practices into the constitution’ are in need of a serious history lesson when it comes to marriage‘s place in their religion’s history." -- Interesting read.
Sex, sin and angry disputation - "His conclusion: Religion, morality and sexual behavior influence each other in all directions. "Adopting a more monogamous mating strategy can make you more religious," he said. But this doesn't explain the bitterness. Can't we all just get along? Weeden said no, because those of us with a more "promiscuous" bent really do pose a threat."
9/11 'revisionist' allowed to teach - "An instructor at the University of Wisconsin who has said he believes US officials orchestrated the September 11, 2001 attacks, will be allowed to teach a course on Islam."
Tobacco death toll could reach 1 billion this century, study finds - "Tobacco is on course to kill a billion people this century — 10 times the toll it exacted in the 20th century — if current trends continue, public health officials said Monday."
Aiming to catch criminals red-footed - "THEY may be able to wear disguises, dodge CCTV and even keep their DNA under control, but one thing will always identify criminals — their walk. Far from relying on fingerprints or photofit, scientists now believe that an individual’s gait can give the game away."
Scientists grow sperm from stem cells - "The advance in reproductive science raises new opportunities to treat male infertility and the possibility that women could make sperm."
Rove predicts Bush's 1st veto - "President Bush will likely cast the first veto of his presidency if the Senate, as expected, passes legislation to expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, White House aide Karl Rove said Monday in Denver."
More getting Parkinson's before age 50 - "Parkinson's isn't just an old person's disease: A growing number of Americans are diagnosed before age 50, and their illness seems biologically somewhat different from the version that strikes seniors."
Circumcision may stop millions of HIV deaths-study - "Circumcising men routinely across Africa could prevent millions of deaths from AIDS, World Health Organization researchers and colleagues reported on Monday. They analyzed data from trials that showed men who had been circumcised had a significantly lower risk of infection with the AIDS virus, and calculated that if all men were circumcised over the next 10 years, some two million new infections and around 300,000 deaths could be avoided."
Study: Eating fish helps protect eyesight - "Two new studies give one more reason to eat a diet rich in fish: prevention of age-related macular degeneration, the leading cause of blindness in old age."
Apple and Microsoft race to launch wireless iPOD - "Computer giants Apple and Microsoft are racing to develop a wireless digital music player in time for Christmas, it emerged today."
Depression tied to risky teen sex - "Sexually experienced middle- and high-school teenagers with higher levels of depressive symptoms are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior, a new study shows."
What Kind of Genius Are You? - "A new theory suggests that creativity comes in two distinct types – quick and dramatic, or careful and quiet."
Quote of the Day
"When war is declared, Truth is the first casualty."
~ Arthur Ponsonby
4 comments:
Ok, I'll start with an apology because there's little chance of me being brief on this one. This is in response to Jeff Nall's article, When did marriage become a Christian institution? (Gotta admit, this is stuff I can sink my teeth into) While there is a bunch here to discuss, I'll focus on his "serious history lesson", as it's neither history, nor can I take it seriously.
(Have a seat and grab a drink, I'm about to go into a rant.)
Let's start with his interpretations of Paul:
While Paul says it’s okay to get married, both he and Jesus clearly state that giving up all carnal pleasures, even those between husband and wife, is the best course. In 1 Corinthians, Paul says being too involved in marriage can actually detract from proper worship of God: “An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs. . . . But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world -- how he can please his wife -- and his interests are divided” (7:32-4). Earlier in Corinthians, Paul says plainly: “It is good for a man not to marry” (7:1)
Some folks who discuss the Bible like to play little tricks, usually citing a single line, pointing, and saying "See, it's evil!". Nall seems to be good at this, so let's look at 1 Corinthians more closely to see what is actually said.
1 Corinthians 7:1-7
1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. 6 I say this by way of concession, not of command. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
Clearly, this is not the interpretation taken that marriage is bad. Pay close attention to the statement, “I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am.” Paul is clearly discussing his personal opinion; he states what is acceptable to God, and then he gives his own personal opinion. He himself was chaste, and his opinion was that this was an ideal way of life; he concedes that this is a personal preference and not appropriate for all.
As for Nall's reference to 1 Corinthians 7:32-34, let's take a look at 7:25-28, which introduces the section:
25 Now concerning the unmarried. I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 I think that in view of the impending distress it is well for a person to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. 28 But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.
Again, we see Paul giving his opinion, not law. He states clearly that he is giving his opinion when he speaks in favor of chastity, as opposed to marriage; however, we have seen in the section above that he concedes that this life is not be suitable for everyone. He may wish it was, but he concedes that it is not.
Nall goes on to make statements regarding Saints Augustine and Jerome. Most of his observations cited their writings regarding the Jovinian heresy. Jovinian, “says that ‘virgins, widows, and married women, who have been once passed through the layer of Christ, if they are on a par in other respects, are of equal merit.’” (St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus), in other words, that everything else being equal, that a wife and a virgin have equal merit before God.
The official Church position regarding this view is stated clearly by Pope Siricius to the Church of Milan:
5. But of their madness I suddenly received intelligence by means of a shocking writing which certain faithful Christians, men of high rank, and signal piety, caused to be conveyed to me, unworthy as I am, in order that the opposition of these men to the Divine Law might be detected by the discernment of the Clergy and repressed by a spiritual sentence. Assuredly we receive without scorn the vows of those marriages which we assist at with the veil 8, but virgins, for whose existence marriage is necessary, as being devoted to God, we honor more highly.
The response from the Church of Milan to Pope Siricius illustrates the same:
2. We praise you for this, our Lord and brother dearly beloved, and join in cordial commendations of it. Nor are we surprised that the Lord's flock was terrified at the rage of wolves in whom they recognized not the voice of |283 Christ. For it is a savage barking to shew no reverence to virginity, observe no rule of chastity, to seek to place every thing on a level, to abolish the different degrees of merit, and to introduce a certain meagreness in heavenly rewards, as if Christ had only one palm to bestow, and there was no copious diversity in His rewards.
3. They pretend that they are giving honour to marriage. But what praise can rightly be given to marriage if no distinction is paid to virginity? We do not deny that marriage was hallowed by Christ, for the Divine words say, And they twain shall be one flesh, and one spirit, but our birth precedes our calling, and the mystery of the Divine operation is much more excellent than the remedy of human frailty. A good wife is deservedly praised, but a pious virgin is more properly preferred, for the Apostle says, He that giveth his virgin in marriage doeth well, but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better; for the one careth for the things of the Lord, the other for the things of the world. The one is bound by the chains of marriage, the other is free from chains; the one is under the Law, the other under Grace. Marriage is good, for thereby the means of continuing the human race has been devised, but virginity is better, for thereby the heritage of the heavenly kingdom is regained, and the mode of attaining to heavenly rewards discovered. By a woman care entered the world; by a virgin salvation was brought to pass. Lastly, Christ chose virginity as His own special gift, and displayed the grace of chastity, thus making an exhibition of that in His own person which in His Mother He had made the object of His choice.
Now, regarding Nall’s statements regarding Jerome and Augustine. Jerome, in his treatise Against Jovinianus, expresses this opinion in a manner that greatly skews towards the favor of virginity, to the point where he borders on implying marriage was bad. As seen by the letters from the Pope and the Church of Milan, this was clearly not the standardized view.
Contrary to what Nall would have you believe, Augustine did much to balance the thoughts expressed by Jerome. In his treatises, Of the Good of Marriage and On Holy Virginity, Augustine does well to expand on the statements given by Pope Siricius regarding the exaltation of virginity and chastity, yet also balances the importance and inherent goodness of marriage. The references Nall made to Augustine’s Confession were misleading on two accounts: first, in the Confessions Augustine is discussing the lustful behavior of his youth with regret, stating that he would have been better off had be been chaste; second, these later works mentioned here give a more accurate representation of Augustine’s thoughts on the subject, esspecially On the Good of Marriage, which addresses the very subject at hand.
Nall's article continues, stating:
In the New Testament, Jesus tells large crowds “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). A similar passage comes to us from Luke 18:29. “‘I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.’”
Compare these passages to Luke 9:59-62,
59 To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” 60 But he said to him, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” 60 Another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home.” 62 Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”
By looking at these passages, we would reach the same conclusions as Nall did… that if one is to follow God, one must leave everything (and everyone) else behind. Compare Luke 9:59-62 to 1 Kings 19:19-21
19 So he departed from there, and found Eli’sha the son of Sha’phat, who was plowing, with twelve yokes of oxen before him, and he was with the twelfth. Eli’jah passed by him and cast his mantle upon him. 20 And he left the oxen, and ran after Eli’jah, and said, “Let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you.” And he said to him, “Go back again; for what have I done to you?” 21 And he returned from following him, and took the yoke of oxen, and slew them, and boiled their flesh with the yokes of the oxen, and gave it to the people, and they ate. Then he arose and went after Eli’jah, and ministered to him.
In 1 Kings, we see Eli’sha leaving everything behind to follow Eli’jah. In fact, it is to this that Christ makes reference to when he refers to he that “puts his hand to the plow”, alluding to Eli’sha doing the opposite and thus being a true servant of God. So the question is, are Christians truly supposed to leave everything and everyone behind in order to follow God? Following Nall’s strict interpretation of these passages, the answer would seem to point to yes.
But this is not how the Church, and in particular the early Church, interpreted the meaning. Consider the following two passages:
1 Timothy 5:3-8
3 Honor widows who are real widows. 4 If a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn their religious duty to their own family and make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. 5 She who is a real widow, and is left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day; 6 whereas she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives. 7 Command this, so that they may be without reproach. 8 If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
1 Corinthians 6:10-11
10 To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband 11(but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) – and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
Following Nall’s interpretation of Luke, we would arrive at contradictions in Timothy and 1 Corinthians. How else would it be that if the requirement for being a true follower of God one must leave one’s family, but by doing so this person is condemned in Timothy as being worse than an unbeliever for abandoning their family, and by Paul for leaving his spouse, not to mention all the other references I’ve not included here?
What we see in 1 Kings is Eli’sha abandoning all to become a follower of God, and he is held in high regard. Jesus uses this as an example in Luke 9:62. But this is an example of what an individual should be ready to sacrifice if necessary, not what the expected norm is. This life is not for everyone; as Paul said, “each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another”. This interpretation is consistent with the general theme of Pope Siricius’ letter to the Church of Milan… that there are degrees of goodness, and there are those who are capable (and willing) to perform greater service. This service is not for everyone, and failure to perform this service does not make someone bad. The problem that Nell has in his interpretation is that he is taking a very literalist approach to reading the Bible, which is generally a quick way to go astray. One must keep the Scripture and Holy Tradition in mind when searching for an interpretation; I’ll leave it to any literalist Christian readers you may have to defend the position from a literalist perspective.
Finally, we look at Nall’s claim that
As for marriage, Jesus says, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). However confounding to contemporary Christians, early Christian aversion to what is now considered “traditional” family values does in fact makes sense when one considers Christianity’s renunciation of the physical world: “Do not love the world or anything in the world” (1 John 2:15).
The 1 John 2:15 passage belongs in the previous discussion with Luke 9:62, as the argument is the same. Now, as for his use of Matthew 22:30 to define Christ’s view on marriage, let’s look at that more closely by looking at Matthew 22:23-33
23 The same day Sad’duccees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies, having no children, his brother must marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, to which of the seven will she be wife? For they all had her?”
29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
Clearly Jesus is talking about marriage, or lack of it, in “the afterlife”. Despite Nall’s implications, one cannot and should not attempt to draw any parallels between the states of relationships in time of the resurrection to marriage.
To bring to light just how off Nall is, consider the following passage:
1 Timothy 3:1-7
1 The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitible, an apt teacher, 3 no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; 5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's Church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may be pulled up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil; 7 moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
If we are to believe Nall's thesis, then why would Paul tell Timothy that bishops may not only be married, but may also have children? It is because there is a fatal flaw in Nall's premise. It is true that the Church has historically held chastity above married life, but these are viewed as two degrees of good; however, in these degrees, that of chastity is viewed as better. Compare this to the (often misunderstood) discussion regarding marriage in the Roman Catholic priesthood. Priests are celebate, or eunichs (as Paul states it), so that they may better serve God. This is a cultural norm adopted by the Roman Rite in Catholicism, not a universal Christian law. For instance, consider the Eastern Rites (e.g., the Maronite RIte) of Catholicism; this Rite is fully in communion with the Roman Rite, they follow under the jurisdiction of the Pope, yet their priests can marry. This is also true for the entire Eastern Orthodox Church, which, although in schism with the Catholic Church, is recognized by the Catholic Church to have a valid priesthood. The Tradition expressed in the Roman Rite chooses to adopt Paul's opinion (as stated above) as their accepted norm; the Eastern Rites do not. The Catholic Church has always considered them both good, but has also always considered chastity as better.
Also compare Nall's thesis with the heresy of some Franciscans who claimed that neither Jesus nor his Apostles owned possessions, which arose amongst certain Franciscans who were of the opinion that their vow of poverty was representative of the will and law of God for all. This was rebuked as heresy by Pope John XXII in 1323 in the Bull Cum inter nonnullos,
1. Since among not a few scholarly men it often happens that there is called into doubt, whether to affirm pertinaciously, that Our Redeemer and Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles did not have anything individually, nor even in common, is to be censured as heretical, diverse and opposite things being opined concerning it, We, desiring to put an end to this contest, after [having taken] the counsel of our brothers [the cardinals] by this perpetual edict do declare that a pertinacious assertion of this kind, when sacred scriptures, which assert in very many places that they had not a few things, expressly contradict it, and when it supposes openly that the same sacred scripture, through which certainly the articles of orthodox faith are proven in regards to the aforesaid things, contains the ferment of falsehood, and consequently, as much as regards these things, emptying all faith in them, it renders the Catholic Faith doubtful and uncertain, taking away its demonstration, is respectively to be censured erroneous and heretical.
Clearly, if we are to believe Nall's interpretation regarding marriage (taken from his interpretation of Luke), we must also have to believe that the Church felt equally about possessions (also specified in the passages from Luke referenced by Nall). But if this were the case, the Franciscans would have been correct in their opinions. But this was not the view of the Church; it accepted the vow of poverty as good, but rejected the idea that it was required by God as heretical. Likewise, celebacy is viewed good, but it cannot be required.
Nall unfortunately makes the same mistake many folks make... they have a point to make and they scour the Bible and other Church documents for sentances they could use as ammunition, but they do not actually pay attention to what is being said; he refers to history but makes no effort to represent it accurately. Nall is relying on folks to take him at his word, not counting that there will be those who see his slight of hand. It's a shame, actually... people who do this usually wind up believing their own propoganda.
Sorry about the rant... now I gotta go and unbunch my panties :)
You know, when I came across that one, I just knew you would have something to say about it. No, I wasn't thinking it would be Moby Dick or War and Peace or whatnot, but I knew you would opine. And yeah, maybe I goaded you a little with my "Interesting read" comment. Hey, I wanted to know what you had to say.
While I didn't buy into his "history" lesson, I do believe that some in the Christian community (and I know this is not unique to Christianity) are using their religion to narrowly define marriage in their quest to prohibit homosexuals from marrying. I find this unacceptable and appalling. Contrary to some arguments, I do not believe humanity will end because of homosexual marriage. Now, there are many other reasons for the acceleration of the fall of humanity, but gay marriage is not one of them.
Thanks for the history lesson. It always feels better after a little rant now doesn't it?
Ok, I'll try real hard to keep this one brief ;)
I find the subject of homosexual marriage an interesting one, especially when viewed as a generalized issue of public good vs fairness (essentially, the merits of a social institution that provides social benefits, that receives social benefits in return, yet who necessarily cannot include everyone in society). I find the discussion especially interesting from the perspective of a single man in his thirties, given that up to this point, I have not enjoyed the benefits provided by marriage, and I wouldn't be alone in claiming that this inconvenience (especially to my pocketbook) is unjust. Even if homosexual marriage prevails, this unjust aspect to marriage will persist. And even if the lobby to address this injustice prevails, other unjust aspects in marriage will exist.
The problem is that the nature of the reward system means some folks are necessarily left out in the cold. I can't help but view the debate over homosexual marriage not as a debate over fairness to homosexuals, but rather in terms of the more academic "how do we decide who we give the shaft to?"
Ooooh. Now I like the cynicism: "how do we decide who we give the shaft to?" I agree with you. I do not think it is fair that there are benefits given to those that are married but not those single folks out there. Another reason I believe marriage is a sham (And I've been happily married for over seven years).
So, why have marriage at all? My personal opinion is that it is not needed. It is a social construct designed to assist the state and church in controlling their subjects. To be able to have such-and-such benefit you must be married. Why? That's a control issue. This lead to employment benefits and financial benefits only for those married folk. More control issues, this time by employers.
And then there are of course those people in loveless, miserable marriages for whatever reason they can not get out of: whether it's for the kids, family, church, finances, whatever. Not all marriages are good marriages.
So, why does there have to be a reward system at all? Why not eliminate the marriage benefits and treat everyone equal?
My argument is that as long as there are these benefits to married folk, then homosexuals should have the ability (through marriage) to obtain them as well. That doesn't mean I agree with the two-tiered system we have in place. If I had my way, I would eliminate the two-tiered system altogether. I want everyone treated equally regardless of marriage status, race, sexual orientation, etc. From where I sit, this dream will never be attained as there will always be those of us who see themselves as "more equal than others."
Post a Comment