In my last post I discussed how marriage bears the image of God in a particular way that neither male nor female alone can do. This begs the question of how are we to think about singleness then?
I think that the matter of sin and the Fall are crucial to this topic. When we look at Genesis 1-2 and the design for the male/female union to bear God's image we immediately realize that this is implemented in the Garden of Eden before the Fall. Genesis 5 and Genesis 9 both reiterate that mankind still bears God's image after the Fall, and that marriage as a bearer of His image and His blessing on marriage also remain after the Fall. Yet it is clear that the image of God in man has been marred by sin. When we look at all of this it seems clear that marriage and the male/female union are designed before the Fall and that in the Garden of Eden there is no design for singleness. It can be assumed that children would have been single for some amount of time even in Eden, but the design is for marriage. It seems that long term singleness is one outcome of the Fall. This will be a 'hard saying' for some folks but that seems to me a clear implication of Genesis 1-3.
This by no means equates singleness to sin; it simply means that the design for men and women has been marred by sin and there are a great many consequences of that. It also does not mean that singles as people are somehow less in God's image as individuals. The fact that marriage bears God's image in a way individuals cannot is a matter of the vocation or calling of marriage, not of the individuals involved.
Widowhood results from the death of a spouse, and death is a result of the Fall. This type of singleness is clearly connected to the Fall. For young adults, the world system is fallen and very often impacts marriage. In China now, as a result of the Communist one-child policy, there is a shortfall of at least 20 million women compared to the male population below 30. Many of these men will be single as a result of the sin of the Chinese leaders who forced so many abortions and the sin of parents in selectively aborting baby girls. Abortion of baby girls has been practiced in India as well, where there will be a similar impact on singleness. In the U.S. how have the 50 million abortions since Roe v. Wade impacted the marriage opportunities for some young adults? Many young adults will be single as a result of the world system through no fault of their own, and that includes the U.S. as well as the examples in Asia. They still bear the image of God as individuals. Genesis 9 in the passage that institutes capital punishment makes it clear that individuals also bear God's image, though it in no way cancels the fact that the male/female union bears that image in a way that individuals cannot.
Some believers will remain single for lack of a suitable believer to marry. In this fallen world there are consistently more women than men in church, consistently more women than men who self-identify as believers. This means some will have difficulty finding a suitable marriage partner. The Bible is clear that we are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, so it is a Biblical and responsible choice to remain single in this circumstance. This too is a result of the Fall.
There will be some who remain single as a result of chosen sin as well: sins of homosexuality, sins of placing career above all else, sins of promiscuity that end up destroying the chance for marriage all come to mind. Both the world system and chosen sin have an impact on singleness. They also impact marriages, and destroy many marriages.
This can be compared with disease, which is also an outcome of the Fall. Some disease seems to be a result of our choices (lifelong smoking that leads to cancer comes to mind) while others are simply part of the way things are in this fallen world (infants with cancer come to mind). Some will remain single due to their choices, others due to things beyond their control.
Some are also called to singleness for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Jesus in Matthew 19 speaks of those who are 'eunuchs for the kingdom'; Paul speaks of those who remain single for the work of the gospel in his letters to the church at Corinth. Genesis says that in this world the male/female union in marriage carries God's image in a special way, but Jesus points out that in the resurrection 'they neither marry nor are given in marriage' (Matt. 22:30). The image of communion in a love relationship is carried by Christ and the church in the resurrection. Christ himself was single. Believers may be called to be the picture of what is to come by their singleness in devotion to the kingdom of God.
It is sometimes useful to consider pushing ideas to their extreme limit. What if everyone were single? Would that bear God's image on this earth in a full manner? Would the image of God on earth be diminished by the lack of male/female unity, children, and families? I think this would clearly diminish the fullness of God's image on earth. What if everyone were married? Would that diminish the fullness of God's image on earth? I think not. There would still be singles before they marry and there would still be widows. I think this reinforces the notion of marriage as the basic design.
Yet the Fall has resulted in singleness as a reality, and those singles are no less in God's image. Their station in life is different from those who are married, however, and so in Christ they are called to bear God's image in a different way, a way that looks forward to the resurrection.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Monday, November 23, 2015
The Image of God in Marriage
What does it mean to be made in God's image, as Genesis 1 and 2 maintain, and how do we live out that image on this earth? There have been many attempts to try to locate God's image in some single attribute like rationality or language or decision making. The Bible never tries to do that sort of thing and I think it is a mistake to attempt it. However, I do think we can identify some of the elements of being in His image directly from the Bible.
Genesis 1:26-28 is a key text on this topic, saying " Let Us make man in our image, according to Our likeness....And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And He blessed them and said, 'Be fruitful and multiply...'
In our culture much of the emphasis in teaching about marriage has been about companionship, but this is talking about much more than companionship. It is talking about the male/female union in marriage as an important part of bearing God's image on earth.
In his book The Mission of God (chapter 13, p. 427), Christopher J. H. Wright makes these observations about this passage: "Genesis 1 sets human male/female complementarity closely alongside the image of God.
In talking about this in chapter 2 of his book Genesis in Space and Time, Francis Schaeffer points out, "male and female constitute one whole, become one flesh. Man, with a capital M, equals male and female..." This is to say that to fully bear God's image requires both male and female in union.
All of these agree that marriage bears God's image in a special way. This image requires complementarity and fruitfulness, as shown in the verses immediately following where the man and woman are blessed and the blessing specifically involves fruitfulness to multiply. This is clearly about much more than companionship; it is about being God's image on this earth, living out His image here and now. The fundamental purpose of marriage is to bear God's image on this earth in a way that male or female alone cannot do.
Same-sex marriage cannot do this. It cannot because it denies the basic meaning of the body by joining 2 bodies not designed to be joined; it cannot because of its inherent sterility rather than an inherent design to be fruitful; it cannot because it lacks the differences between male and female natures that must join to more completely bear God's image.
Most evangelical churches totally fail to teach the importance of marriage in bearing God's image on earth. That is a huge failure. Is it any wonder that there are so many divorces in the church now, since we don't seem to know the fundamental purpose of marriage?
Genesis 1:26-28 is a key text on this topic, saying " Let Us make man in our image, according to Our likeness....And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And He blessed them and said, 'Be fruitful and multiply...'
In our culture much of the emphasis in teaching about marriage has been about companionship, but this is talking about much more than companionship. It is talking about the male/female union in marriage as an important part of bearing God's image on earth.
In his book The Mission of God (chapter 13, p. 427), Christopher J. H. Wright makes these observations about this passage: "Genesis 1 sets human male/female complementarity closely alongside the image of God.
- So God created man in His own image
- In the image of God he created him
- Male and female he created them
In talking about this in chapter 2 of his book Genesis in Space and Time, Francis Schaeffer points out, "male and female constitute one whole, become one flesh. Man, with a capital M, equals male and female..." This is to say that to fully bear God's image requires both male and female in union.
All of these agree that marriage bears God's image in a special way. This image requires complementarity and fruitfulness, as shown in the verses immediately following where the man and woman are blessed and the blessing specifically involves fruitfulness to multiply. This is clearly about much more than companionship; it is about being God's image on this earth, living out His image here and now. The fundamental purpose of marriage is to bear God's image on this earth in a way that male or female alone cannot do.
Same-sex marriage cannot do this. It cannot because it denies the basic meaning of the body by joining 2 bodies not designed to be joined; it cannot because of its inherent sterility rather than an inherent design to be fruitful; it cannot because it lacks the differences between male and female natures that must join to more completely bear God's image.
Most evangelical churches totally fail to teach the importance of marriage in bearing God's image on earth. That is a huge failure. Is it any wonder that there are so many divorces in the church now, since we don't seem to know the fundamental purpose of marriage?
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
The Triumph of Romanticism in the Supreme Court
The ruling in the Supreme Court last week to legalize homosexual marriage in the U.S. culminates the long history of romance becoming the sole cultural basis for marriage. Unfortunately it extends that mindset to unions that are also contrary to nature and contrary to the Biblical concept of marriage.
C. S. Lewis in his book The Four Loves spends a lot of time talking about how the falling-in-love experience is never adequate as a foundation for true love, love as described in the Bible such as in I Corinthians 13. He points out that following romantic love as the great authority in life is nothing new but has been especially ascendant in Western culture since the rise of the romantic poets and romantic composers about 200 years ago. He makes clear that following the lead of romance often results in nothing more exalted than adultery, injustice, destruction of families and breaking of vows regardless of how soaring and exalted that in-love experience may be. Lasting love ('caritas' in Latin, 'agape' in Greek), he goes on to explain, is more often controlled by such things as justice, fidelity, self-sacrifice, and self-denial.
Both the Bible and Lewis point out that there are a great many times when falling in love is not an acceptable reason for marriage. The Bible is especially emphatic about not marrying those outside the faith, regardless of whether you are in love. It is also clear that falling in love when you are already married or falling in love with a near relative (incest) are not acceptable reasons for marriage. The Biblical injunctions against homosexuality make it clear that falling in love with someone of the same sex is not an acceptable reason for marriage. There are many other cases, such as falling in love with someone vastly different in age, in which it is not a good idea even if it may not be immoral. There are a great many cases where falling in love is not an acceptable reason for marriage.
And while falling in love often provides the motivation to get married, it is never enough to sustain a marriage. Again the The Four Loves makes a very strong case that the love of I Corinthians 13 requires that things like justice, fidelity, self-sacrifice and the keeping of vows be the basis of a marriage, not falling in love.
In our culture the rise of romance as the only basis for marriage began to take its heavy toll with the rise of no fault divorce. This kind of divorce is based on the idea that no longer having the 'in love' experience is justification for divorce, and requires acceptance of the idea that falling in love is the basis of marriage. If marriage were based on more solid ground, then falling out of love would not be a basis for divorce. Having accepted the idea that falling in love is the foundation of marriage, it only made sense to see falling out of love as the basis for divorce.
If falling in love is the foundation of marriage, then falling in love is also the basis for sexual intimacy. From there, it is a very short step to accepting falling in love as justification for sex as soon as you fall in love, without waiting for marriage. So the rise in the cult of romance has resulted in easy divorce and also the rise in living together without marriage.
The church has been all too complicit in this. The church exalts the idea of falling in love as the basis of marriage just as the secular world does. The teaching of the Song of Solomon as a guidebook for marriage does exactly that, proclaiming romantic love as the foundation of marital bliss; yet, the Bible itself looks at the phase of Solomon's life in which the Song was written and proclaims it vanity (Ecclesiastes 2:8) and sin (I Kings 11:1-8). Some say the Song is a picture of Christ and the church but the extreme sensuality of the Song contrasted against the totally non-sensual nature of Christ's love make that view untenable in my mind. The teaching of the church about the Song is typical of the victory of romanticism in the church as well as in the broader culture, and this romanticism has paved the way for viewing homosexuality with this same romantic mindset. If falling in love is the main issue, then gender should not matter.
The fruit of the triumph of romanticism is clear: rampant divorce, rampant out of wedlock births and cohabitation, rampant adultery and fornication, and rampant homosexuality. In every case children are damaged even more than their romance-obsessed parents.
It will not be enough for the church to continue to speak out about the sin of homosexuality; the church will have to abandon its obsession with romance as well.
There are other issues with the decision of the court, issues about constitutional law and the court's disregard of the legislative process, but it seems to me that the acceptance of the ruling by much of the public has nothing to do with their concept of constitutional law: it is all about their complete acceptance of the cult of romance.
C. S. Lewis in his book The Four Loves spends a lot of time talking about how the falling-in-love experience is never adequate as a foundation for true love, love as described in the Bible such as in I Corinthians 13. He points out that following romantic love as the great authority in life is nothing new but has been especially ascendant in Western culture since the rise of the romantic poets and romantic composers about 200 years ago. He makes clear that following the lead of romance often results in nothing more exalted than adultery, injustice, destruction of families and breaking of vows regardless of how soaring and exalted that in-love experience may be. Lasting love ('caritas' in Latin, 'agape' in Greek), he goes on to explain, is more often controlled by such things as justice, fidelity, self-sacrifice, and self-denial.
Both the Bible and Lewis point out that there are a great many times when falling in love is not an acceptable reason for marriage. The Bible is especially emphatic about not marrying those outside the faith, regardless of whether you are in love. It is also clear that falling in love when you are already married or falling in love with a near relative (incest) are not acceptable reasons for marriage. The Biblical injunctions against homosexuality make it clear that falling in love with someone of the same sex is not an acceptable reason for marriage. There are many other cases, such as falling in love with someone vastly different in age, in which it is not a good idea even if it may not be immoral. There are a great many cases where falling in love is not an acceptable reason for marriage.
And while falling in love often provides the motivation to get married, it is never enough to sustain a marriage. Again the The Four Loves makes a very strong case that the love of I Corinthians 13 requires that things like justice, fidelity, self-sacrifice and the keeping of vows be the basis of a marriage, not falling in love.
In our culture the rise of romance as the only basis for marriage began to take its heavy toll with the rise of no fault divorce. This kind of divorce is based on the idea that no longer having the 'in love' experience is justification for divorce, and requires acceptance of the idea that falling in love is the basis of marriage. If marriage were based on more solid ground, then falling out of love would not be a basis for divorce. Having accepted the idea that falling in love is the foundation of marriage, it only made sense to see falling out of love as the basis for divorce.
If falling in love is the foundation of marriage, then falling in love is also the basis for sexual intimacy. From there, it is a very short step to accepting falling in love as justification for sex as soon as you fall in love, without waiting for marriage. So the rise in the cult of romance has resulted in easy divorce and also the rise in living together without marriage.
The church has been all too complicit in this. The church exalts the idea of falling in love as the basis of marriage just as the secular world does. The teaching of the Song of Solomon as a guidebook for marriage does exactly that, proclaiming romantic love as the foundation of marital bliss; yet, the Bible itself looks at the phase of Solomon's life in which the Song was written and proclaims it vanity (Ecclesiastes 2:8) and sin (I Kings 11:1-8). Some say the Song is a picture of Christ and the church but the extreme sensuality of the Song contrasted against the totally non-sensual nature of Christ's love make that view untenable in my mind. The teaching of the church about the Song is typical of the victory of romanticism in the church as well as in the broader culture, and this romanticism has paved the way for viewing homosexuality with this same romantic mindset. If falling in love is the main issue, then gender should not matter.
The fruit of the triumph of romanticism is clear: rampant divorce, rampant out of wedlock births and cohabitation, rampant adultery and fornication, and rampant homosexuality. In every case children are damaged even more than their romance-obsessed parents.
It will not be enough for the church to continue to speak out about the sin of homosexuality; the church will have to abandon its obsession with romance as well.
There are other issues with the decision of the court, issues about constitutional law and the court's disregard of the legislative process, but it seems to me that the acceptance of the ruling by much of the public has nothing to do with their concept of constitutional law: it is all about their complete acceptance of the cult of romance.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Let the Earth Rejoice!
I recently finished reading John Muir's book My First Summer in the Sierra which is his journal from a summer spent helping herd a flock of sheep in and around the area that is now Yosemite National Park in 1869. My first visit to Yosemite was about 6 years ago, and I had been interested in reading some of Muir's writing since then because of his important role in getting Congress and President Theodore Roosevelt to expand the park.
When I first visited the park I was very nearly overwhelmed with the extravagant beauty of the place. The enormous water falls like Yosemite Fall and Bridal Veil Fall, the imposing granite formations like Half Dome and El Capitan, and the grandeur of the sequoia groves all in close proximity give meaning to the word 'breathtaking'. For me, though, they also move me to thanksgiving to the Creator who made such places possible, and the place itself moves me to worship. That seems to have been the case with John Muir as well.
In our time when most environmentalists seem to worship nature as god, Muir praised God for creating nature. I was impressed by how very often he brings up God in this book. The book is not a long book at 159 pages in my edition, but I counted over 40 times when he brings up God in his journal. He speaks of how the beauty of the wilderness seeks to 'draw us up into God's light'; one beautiful morning he comments about 'the morning stars "still singing together and all the sons of God shouting for joy"'. He comments how the pitch on certain conifer cones are 'bringing to mind the old ceremonies of anointing with oil' and how the seeds from these cones 'fly to their predestined places'. He speaks of how the great granite formation remind him of the Scripture "He hath builded the mountains." He makes reference to Samson's riddle, to incense offerings, and to psalms. Muir clearly was well acquainted with the Scriptures and they were also top of mind and readily recalled, not something he had written off and forgotten.
I appreciated his book because it captured much of what I also felt when at Yosemite, a feeling that this is the beauty that God both created and intended. It made me wonder what the garden of Eden may have been like in beauty and wonder as it is hard for me to even imagine a more beautiful place. The place itself seems to offer praise to God, and draws it forth from me.
Tomorrow is Easter Sunday. Finishing this book just before Easter reminded me of words from a Sandy Patty song about Easter: 'did the grass sing? did the earth rejoice to feel You again?' she sings in the song "Was it a Morning Like This?" about Christ's resurrection. Psalm 98 says 'let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy before the Lord'. I have to think that the universe itself praises God for the resurrection we celebrate at Easter. It was good to be reminded of that by Muir's little book.
When I first visited the park I was very nearly overwhelmed with the extravagant beauty of the place. The enormous water falls like Yosemite Fall and Bridal Veil Fall, the imposing granite formations like Half Dome and El Capitan, and the grandeur of the sequoia groves all in close proximity give meaning to the word 'breathtaking'. For me, though, they also move me to thanksgiving to the Creator who made such places possible, and the place itself moves me to worship. That seems to have been the case with John Muir as well.
In our time when most environmentalists seem to worship nature as god, Muir praised God for creating nature. I was impressed by how very often he brings up God in this book. The book is not a long book at 159 pages in my edition, but I counted over 40 times when he brings up God in his journal. He speaks of how the beauty of the wilderness seeks to 'draw us up into God's light'; one beautiful morning he comments about 'the morning stars "still singing together and all the sons of God shouting for joy"'. He comments how the pitch on certain conifer cones are 'bringing to mind the old ceremonies of anointing with oil' and how the seeds from these cones 'fly to their predestined places'. He speaks of how the great granite formation remind him of the Scripture "He hath builded the mountains." He makes reference to Samson's riddle, to incense offerings, and to psalms. Muir clearly was well acquainted with the Scriptures and they were also top of mind and readily recalled, not something he had written off and forgotten.
I appreciated his book because it captured much of what I also felt when at Yosemite, a feeling that this is the beauty that God both created and intended. It made me wonder what the garden of Eden may have been like in beauty and wonder as it is hard for me to even imagine a more beautiful place. The place itself seems to offer praise to God, and draws it forth from me.
Tomorrow is Easter Sunday. Finishing this book just before Easter reminded me of words from a Sandy Patty song about Easter: 'did the grass sing? did the earth rejoice to feel You again?' she sings in the song "Was it a Morning Like This?" about Christ's resurrection. Psalm 98 says 'let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy before the Lord'. I have to think that the universe itself praises God for the resurrection we celebrate at Easter. It was good to be reminded of that by Muir's little book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)