Saturday, December 14, 2013

Married to an Unbeliever

Am following up on a previous post from my Adult blog.  Specifically on the Marriage Treatise of Martin Luther.  Am following it up here because it is more for general consumption.  For the consumption of believers as well as non-believers.
At that blog I recommended reading Luther's  Marriage Treatise, yet surprisingly I do not agree with all of it.

Derek Rishmawy had a good related article about a month ago.  He was responding to yet another good article on this topic by Kathy Keller about two years ago. That Luther treatise would have been a good starting point for both of those articles, though.  So, let's start with that Luther article.

As a polemic against Rome, in Part One of his treatise Luther says-

In the first part we shall consider which persons may enter into marriage with one another.

The particular point we will be addressing in this post is Luther's fifth point. 

The fifth impediment is unbelief; that is, I may not marry a Turk, a Jew, or a heretic. I marvel that the blasphemous tyrants are not in their hearts ashamed to place themselves in such direct contradiction to the clear text of Paul in I Corinthians 7 [:12-13], where he says, “If a heathen wife or husband consents to live with a Christian spouse, the Christian should not get a divorce.” And St. Peter, in I Peter 3 [:1], says that Christian wives should behave so well that they thereby convert their non-Christian husbands; as did Monica, the mother of St. Augustine.

Know therefore that marriage is an outward, bodily thing, like any other worldly undertaking. Just as I may eat, drink, sleep, walk, ride with, buy from, speak to, and deal with a heathen, Jew, Turk, or heretic, so I may also marry and continue in wedlock with him. Pay no attention to the precepts of those fools who forbid it. You will find plenty of Christians, and indeed the greater part of them, who are worse in their secret unbelief than any Jew, heathen, Turk, or heretic. A heathen is just as much a man or a woman-God's good creation-as St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Lucy, not to speak of a slack and spurious Christian.

Now, it seems that Luther kind of slipped in that treatise.  Seems to have misunderstood that Paul was actually only speaking of divorcing an unbelieving wife (as had been the case in the "abominations" introduced by foreign wives in the final chapter of Ezra).  Indeed, in Luther's polemic zeal- Luther seems to have misunderstood Paul to be talking about engaging in marriage with an unbelieving wife.  And Luther seems to have misunderstood Peter to be speaking of proselytizing through marrying.  Yet, it seems to me that both passages are speaking of divorcing an unbelieving wife.  Both are speaking of divorcing the foreign, abominable wife.

Unfortunately, Luther neglects to mention a pertinent passage in the subsequent book of Corinthians as well (2 Cor. 6:14).  I find that puzzling.
It seems that Luther only considers such restrictions on unequal yoking as good advice at best.  Luther seems to consider the yoke of marriage as little more than "an outward, bodily thing".  I wonder if his position changed when he got married a couple years later.

However, Luther actually has a very good point about marrying a "slack and spurious Christian".  That too can cause you much grief.  Indeed, many are baptized but few are chosen.  Many say, "Lord, lord" when their belly is actually their lord (cf. John 6).  When they just want to have sex.  When they just want to have children.  A motivation which Luther seems to consider quite sufficient for marriage.

Then almost as an aside, Luther boldly suggests (an endearing quality) that many unbelievers have more Common Grace than slack Christians.  True enough, yet it should be understood that Special Grace is not to be under-rated as it appears Luther did (in fact, Special Grace is to be X-rated :) .  And it should be understood that no true Christian is spurious.  That there is a committed, indwelling-Spirit in Christians rather than the infused, spurious spirit of unbelievers.

As I recall [Haykin?], Jonathan Edwards was asked by a suitor for the hand of his eldest daughter.  Yet Edwards refused the suitor.  The suitor then asked, "Why, is she not in grace?"
"Yes", Edwards replied.  "But you can't handle her grace..."

And as numerous comments in those above articles suggest, though you may be able to handle his or her particular grace for a while... it often doesn't end well.  Yet, with Special Grace  there is a supernatural commitment to end well.  And there is far less "slack and spurious". 

In my own particular situation, I married a girl who was baptized as an infant.  She believed in God and went to church with me both before and during our marriage.  She was very complementarian.

Yet as I grew less "slack and spurious" things changed dramatically.
As I grew in supernatural grace and knowledge, my spouse grew far more distant.
What started very well grew very, very ugly.

What once was complementarian soon became quite egalitarian.
And what once was our "bodily thing" became my "bodily thing".

Where once there was tremendous passion, there evolved passivity and disinterest.
Where once there was joy and peace, there evolved hostility and suspicion

Suspicion and jealousy displaced love and trust.  And that displaced our marriage.

In the final days of our marriage I was reading J.I. Packer while she was reading Deepak Chopra [unintentional alliteration].  I was knowing God while she was knowing self.
I recall reading an article of a Christian married to a Jehovah Witness around that time, and thinking, 'My marriage really sucks but his must be much, much worse... he is seeing overt hostility and anarchy in his marriage while mine is merely surreptitious.  Mine is merely slack and spurious'.

As things evolved, my wife became increasingly "slack and spurious" (despite suggesting some conversion experience some years earlier).  She would take long baths instead of "putting on a face and attend church" with me.
After several years of "slack and spurious", her lightly veiled suspicions and jealousy eventually got the better of her- and she left with the kids.  Indeed, my wife 'couldn't handle my grace'. 

Was there Special Grace in her?  Was she a believer? I doubt it.  Too many contraindications.

Yet, there was still some measure of sanctification infused in her by our marriage (she was not as corrupt as she would have been).  And that seems to be the point that Luther is promoting in his treatise.  That marriage to an unbeliever is 'neither a sin nor a total waste'. That there is 'still some measure of sanctification in such a marriage, even if it is only for chastity or procreation purposes'.

Now, the arguments of those other articles referenced above seem to revolve around 'a severe compromising of your worship' when married to an unbeliever.  That was not true in my particular case.
My worship life was reasonably rich.  And I supported the church that I was attending reasonably well.  In fact, I helped form a worship team at my church around that time (I played bass).
And I supported that church without spending an inordinate amount of time away from my suspicious wife- even though her love had turned quite cold (for all you allegedly pious people, such compromises of time and worship are biblically mandated).
Yet, as the argument suggests- 'fewer worship compromises would be made in the case of two believers'. And as the argument suggests- 'the purposes and the sanctification is likely greater if you are married to a believer'.

However, I am more inclined to consider Inspiration as a better argument against marrying an unbeliever.  I am more inclined to consider Paul as being inspired by God.  To consider 2 Cor. 6:14 as inspired by God.  To consider it as more than just good advice from Paul.

As a result I am currently married to a less-than-spurious Christian.  Married to a Christian because I believe in Inspiration.   And because- to coin a popular phrase, my belief that Christians are supernaturally inspired to "do it better".

So, come on you "slack and spurious" Christians-  do not be yoked with unbelievers (but if you are, here is a very helpful site).  Because contrary to skewed statistics, eager believers are inspired to do marriage far better  than spurious unbelievers!

Indeed, inspired to love Christ and love each other better... because He loves believers better.

Monday, June 24, 2013

A NOT so Novel argument against Homosexuality

As a supplement to a novel argument on my Adult blog, I am now presenting a NOT so novel argument.  Not so novel because this argument has fatal implications.  That's why it is at this blog.

And not just fatal implications because of a statistical increase of morbidity among homosexuals in this life, but because of a certainty of morbidity among homosexuals in the life to come.  A morbidity revealed in numerous biblical passages in the Old and the New Testaments.  

A morbidity revealed in a mandate (to preserve that Jewish culture)- that homosexuals should be put to death in Lev. 20:13.  And revealed in a condemnation in 1 Cor. 6:9- to set apart an  unholy culture.

Now, before you accuse me of being a homophobe (and I again respond by accusing you of being a heterophobe- or worse yet, a genophobe) allow me to say that I am not afraid of homosexuals.  Not afraid of them despite being sexually assaulted by an adult homosexual when I was a child.  A phobia that I got over as a child (unlike others that seem to treasure their victim status).  So quit yer bitchin'.

Now let's examine the argument of 1 Cor. 6:9.  An argument that is suggested in other places as well.  An argument that insists that 'homosexuals will NOT enter the kingdom of God'.  A NOT so novel argument.   

A text that is best seen here.  A 2nd century manuscript held at The University of Michigan [get with the paleography program, Chester Beatty- update].  A fearful text with no real variants among the many manuscripts.
A text with an argument that is insisted on not once-- but twice in this pericope. 
An argument that is largely feared by "Christian homosexuals" (as indicated by this recent  census).  A less fearful argument for non-Christian homosexuals. People who even try to deny the biblical definition. 

Regardless, the argument reveals the reason WHY homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of God in verse 11 of this pericope.  It is because homosexuals are NOT washed, NOT sanctified, NOT justified by God.

Yet some homosexuals were actually washed, sanctified and justified by God in Corinth. The aorist "were" is used three times in this translated verse.  A verb that is translated into past tense very sparingly by this translation committee of the NET Bible.  Translated very sparingly by a largely Arminian committee of translators that are reluctant to grant such exhaustive sovereignty to God.  

However, even that committee agrees that this pericope addresses homosexuals that actually were washed and sanctified to desire something quite hetero.  Were sanctified to desire something quite opposite.  And were justified when their desires were changed.
An unholy people who were washed to desire a Holy God... even though they may still struggle with that unholy desire in Corinth.  A people that may still struggle with unholiness in this world- as do other people in the other categories mentioned in this text.

As a case in point, a friend that has questioned me on this several times over the years.  A friend that seems to struggle with one of these categories.
She seems to be convinced that homosexuality is no worse than any other sin.  And that 'her friend' is no worse a sinner than say- a false witness.  
Yet I keep insisting on 1 Cor. 6:9 with her.  That these are 'fatal categories' (more than morbid).  That these are largely categories of inordinate intimacy.  As this text goes on to say, categories of crimes against "the body".  Crimes against "the temple of the Holy Spirit".

Then I insist with her that this pericope also includes alcoholics in its 'fatal categories'- another fatal crime against "the temple". And I repeat my commitment to the truth revealed in that text.  A commitment that I would rather not hold to- because I don't like how it may relate to someone that I  loved.  Someone that I loved dearly.  

It relates to an alcoholic that beat his wife and was subsequently removed from his home.  An alcoholic that continued going to A.A. and continued drinking away from his home.  An alcoholic that several months later rear-ended a snow-plow with his truck.  
The truck was a write-off, yet he was fine.  And he was grateful to be fine. Yet,  three days later he wrote-off  another truck--- into a train.

Did my dad enter the kingdom of God at that point?  Did my father cease to be an alcoholic in those three days between write-offs?  Did his love for God exceed his love for alcohol in those intervening days?  Well, we don't know if he had been drinking when he crashed... an autopsy was impossible.  He was burnt to a crisp.

But that doesn't prejudice my interpretation of this pericope.  Doesn't cause me to introduce some modern-day theological novelty into this pericope.  Doesn't cause me to introduce the novelty that God will actually allow alcoholics etc. into the kingdom of God. And it shouldn't prejudice my friends interpretation regarding homosexuals either... not while she is still on this side of the kingdom. 

My friend should not be deceived.  She should know that her love for God should exceed her love for women (and I think that she does know that).  She should know that God is quite willing to give her over (Romans 1:26) to an unrequited love for women... to the exclusion of Himself.

And I expressed my faith in her God-given ability to give a far greater love to God than women.  My faith in a godly ability that is given to those that were actually washed by God.  

Indeed, I believe in that Holy Spirit ability and as I expressed to her, "I believe in you".

I still pray for her.  I don't believe that she is a train-wreck.  
Just another sinner struggling with ungodly desires.  Lord, help her godly desires.