A friend of mine was examining Scripture and came to the conclusion that he and his wife were not following what appeared to be clear commands from God. So he told his wife, "We need to change our approach and obey God." Well, anyone with any life experience can guess what came next. Since his wife wasn't "on the same page", this change in approach produced conflict between husband and wife. Now there is a new problem to deal with, a new hurdle to overcome, a new point of friction, and it's not small. I mentioned the situation to another friend who shared the first friend's position on the particular issue. Here's what he told me: "One of my key pieces of advice to people who are considering making serious ethical changes in their marriage (or relationship) is to discuss them with your beloved first. It’s better to be together than to be 'right' many times."
Okay, now I'm baffled. (Yeah, like "what's new?", eh?) We're talking about "ethical changes" as opposed to preference, likes or dislikes, that kind of thing. We're not talking about, "Honey, I've decided I much prefer a blue living room to a red one and we're going have to repaint and thin no more." No, not at all. We're talking about "ethical" changes -- a new realization in what is moral and immoral, a new recognition of what God has commanded. So the recommended approach is "It’s better to be together than to be right"?
Maybe I'm confused. Maybe I don't have a clue what's going on. Maybe I have too high an opinion of God's perspective. Maybe it would be best to discard what appears to be clear, biblical instruction from God in order to "be together" ... with a spouse, a friend, well, anyone with whom I have a relationship, right? I know this would certainly go a long way toward removing all those pesky complaints from the world about "You Christians are so judgmental and moralistic" and all that. I mean, if we just give up all those explicit commands from Scripture that are diametrically opposed to all those positions that the world takes (or Christians immersed in a secular worldview), well, then, we could just get along, couldn't we? I wouldn't have to worry about avoiding immoral people or standing up for what is right or any of that hard stuff. Oh, sure, I might retain some friction with God, but, hey, I have to keep in mind that "It’s better to be together than to be right", right?
No, I am definitely confused. I am not getting this at all.
14 comments:
Here's the conundrum as I see it. If the couple is married (I mean a real couple---man & woman---not any other arrangement pretending to be the same thing) when one of them comes to God or decides doing things His way is best, and the other isn't on board, there is still the question of the vows they exchanged. Doing things God's way would have to take this into account.
BUT, there is also the loophole wherein if one isn't a believer then a parting may be justified. I haven't reviewed this aspect of tolerated divorce, but I believe I'm at least close.
If I'm right, then that parting could take place at some point. Still, there's also something about the believer's faith covering both, or words to that effect. Again, not really up on this subject.
You'll need to review your "tolerated divorce" conditions. According to 1 Cor. 7, a believing spouse is not allowed to leave an unbelieving spouse. As a matter of fact (and this will surely irritate Dan Trabue and a host of believers), Peter tells wives to be subject to their husbands even if they do not obey the Word. (I know ... it's not popular and it's not "happy", but there is a biblical hierarchy for marriage relationships.)
I think, though, that you are correct (at least as I understood you) that the marriage relationship (man and woman) is a different type of relationship than all others. It is a union unlike any other. That certainly changes things.
It is really sad that we have allowed ourselves to be okay with "irreconcilable differences" as a reason for divorce. Marshall answer to the question of an ethical disagreement in a marriage is divorce if they are not both believers, and the reason isn't for sexual immorality, or abandonment, or any of the other reasons most Christian's try to pass off as okay reasons for divorce, but that the couple in question could not agree on a very serious issue. Yes, God has allowed for divorce, but only because of the hardness of our hearts, not because it is the best option. As believers, we need to stop seeing divorce as an option that is even on the table. Because divorce is seen as a viable option to Christians, we have almost as high of a divorce rate as non-Christians. "Tolerated Divorce"...should not be.
If you're going to bring my name into this, then go ahead and post my comment, Stan. I AM interested in what your answer is to my question I asked this morning.
Peter tells us to submit to one another, that does not irritate me. People suggesting women are to be particularly submissive does, though, as it is bad exegesis, in my opinion. That Peter passage is not talking about submitting to the point of doing evil.
So, to ask the question again:
You have a wife who has studied the Bible and come to the conclusion that God does not want them to be swingers. The husband DOES want them to sleep with multiple partners.
What's the wife to do?
The wife has studied scripture and come to the conclusion that God doesn't want them to pay war taxes (ie, pay that portion of their income that goes towards paying the military). The husband does.
What's the wife to do?
"If you're going to bring my name into this..."
But ... I represented your view correctly. Why would you complain?
No, as I said in my latest comment on the other discussion, this is ended. It was my mistake. I need to learn these things by repeated beatings. I'm done.
(And I answered your question in my response to Marshall: "I think, though, that you are correct (at least as I understood you) that the marriage relationship (man and woman) is a different type of relationship than all others. It is a union unlike any other." and "Peter tells wives to be subject to their husbands.")
According to 1 Cor. 7, a believing spouse is not allowed to leave an unbelieving spouse. As a matter of fact (and this will surely irritate Dan Trabue and a host of believers), Peter tells wives to be subject to their husbands even if they do not obey the Word.
This is not my position. It is a falsehood. A slander, if you will. You know, one of those things that you would suggest I shun you about.
Don't bring my name into things because you have demonstrated an inability to rightly understand my position. Over and over. I don't really think it's slander. I just think it's a very poor understanding of other people if they're not coming from a background/position matching yours.
Thanks for leaving my name out of this from now on.
this is ended. It was my mistake. I need to learn these things by repeated beatings.
What? This was a reasonable conversation (on the other post), what was a mistake?
The position that I said would would irritate you: "Peter tells wives to be subject to their husbands even if they do not obey the Word. (I know ... it's not popular and it's not "happy", but there is a biblical hierarchy for marriage relationships.)" Your response: "bad exegesis." Where is the falsehood? Where is the slander? And why on earth would you think that we should continue this sparring? That was the mistake. (These were rhetorical questions. You've demonstrated again the gap between us that makes these conversations impossible.)
Everything makes sense only when you consider the perspective of self centeredness. When self is the center, self dictates everything. The idea of some objective truth imposing istelf as the reference point from which to measure is forign in this perspective. Every measurement is taken from self: feelings, desires, esteem, etc. Eternity is even further from this perspective. The idea of obeying husband in this short life in order to honor God by obedience to him is very worthy to be compared to, and in fact trumps, the glorly that is to be revealed in us.
Funny how so many do not "rightly" understand Dan T. Funny also how all those who do not, do not in pretty much the same manner.
For my part, feel free to bring up my name as deemed appropriate to make a point. If I come upon it and find a misunderstanding, I'll address it as best I can. This goes for absolutely anyone.
As to the topic and my initial response, I do not feel that a believer would consider divorce. My point, made clumsily, would deal with the non-believer deciding to leave on account of the new-found devotion of the believer. The believer, I believe, is allowed to allow the non-believer's departure as opposed to forcing the non-believer to stay. If the non-believer cannot tolerate a strict alignment with the Will of God, a parting is almost mandatory as the believer is now faced with the "shunning" spoken of earlier should the non-believer prefer to continue in behaviors the believer must avoid.
Yes, Marshall, the 1 Cor. 7 passage says that a non-believer may leave and the believing spouse is not bound. I cannot imagine any sense, however, in which a non-believer would be shunning a believer. Nor is there any demand in Scripture that a believer "shun" a non-believer. That passage in question -- "avoid the immoral" -- is specifically aimed at the "so-called brother" and specifically not a non-believer.
Marshall...
If I come upon it and find a misunderstanding, I'll address it as best I can. This goes for absolutely anyone.
This doesn't work when the host is not posting your defense/explanation.
And it IS funny how right wing idealogues can't seem to understand what I'm saying or successfully repeat back my points so consistently, even though those without a political axe to grind can understand me perfectly well. It's almost like some people have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to their worldview that they have a hard time understanding basic English communication from a perceived political opponent.
If you're not going to post this, Stan, you could at least acknowledge this to Marshall so that he can see why I can't simply defend my position.
You like to paint yourself as the reasonable one, the clear thinking one, the moderate one (as opposed to the ... what was your phrase? ... "right wing idealogues"). You're the kind one and all those others who oppose you are meanies.
I hope you understand that phrases like "right wing idealogues", "indoctrinated" (in the way you used it), and "they have a hard time understanding basic English communication" are not conducive to friendly dialog. Or, here, let me put it another way. Referring to you as a left wing idealogue, so indoctrinated in your worldview that you cannot understand basic English communication, likely doesn't go very far toward encouraging a rational exchange with you, does it? I mean, rather than discuss ideas, you'll feel the need to defend yourself against what would be perceived as an attack.
Interestingly, this whole thing illustrates exactly the point of the post. No ... sometimes we cannot just get along. Sometimes it is more important to be right than to get along.
I don't expect Stan to post your response, but Dan T, the reason nobody is able to clearly say back your stance on something, is because you don't stand on anything. I have, for the most part, quietly followed your responses to Stan's blog, and when he has allowed us to see your rants, they don't make sense, are hostile, and sometimes even contradict themselves. You say "Studies have shown..." and since those studies are opposed to clear Scripture, we can conclude that you don't believe Scripture is the final say in Christian faith and practice, to which you respond that you do believe that Scripture is. Then you turn around and say Scripture is wrong about something. How can we possibly know what you think about any given subject when you don't give a clear argument? Stan brings your name into things because he knows you still read his blog (for some odd reason we can't fathom) and that for the most part you are very liberal in your faith and practice, and for this case, you would agree it is not good for a Christian woman to submit to her unbelieving husband. There is no slander in the assumption. You have shown yourself to be liberal, and the liberal side says women don't need to submit. So, in what way did he wrongly portray your stance? (rhetorical question)
You are probably right that Stan won't allow me to defend myself against these charges (false though they may be) or to clarify, but I'll still give it a shot...
I have, for the most part, quietly followed your responses to Stan's blog, and when he has allowed us to see your rants, they don't make sense, are hostile, and sometimes even contradict themselves.
1. Don't make sense? That may well be. That is, they may not make sense to you. They do to me. Do I always communicate perfectly? No, no one does. But generally, "normal" people (ie, those who are not obligated/tied to a more fundamentalist/right wing world view) have no problem understanding my words. That only seems to come from a certain segment of the right.
My parents (who are conservative) have no problems understanding what I write, so I'm not even suggesting it's all conservatives, just the segment that I tend to meet online. For whatever reason.
I'd honestly like to try to understand that phenomena. It's one reason why I try to communicate at places like this.
2. "Rants??" I communicate what I believe to be a reasonable, respectful idea. In this last case, the idea that we need to remember that we are fallible humans ourselves and that we therefore ought to lean towards grace.
I wonder what in that makes you want to call it a rant? I tend to think of rants as hostile-sounding, emotional, volatile "yelling" in writings and I can't see how anyone could possibly see that in my writings. If you could cite a source and support such a claim, I'd be deeply indebted (ie, Dan, when you say, "x" it sounds hostile and ranty because...)
Post a Comment