Understanding Each Other's Curse

What I am about to share is likely to strike some of you as controversial. Not because of how I interpret the Word of God in arriving at this, but because of how you have been taught to look at the subject by modern, secular culture. I suggest to you that the modern view is sundered from reality and leads to dysfunction in relationships and the psychological dissonance involved in the perception of gender we see today.

What is the essential biblical truth in this matter? Biological males and females are different from each other both physically and psychologically.

Our society, as most western societies, has been laboring for decades under the false assumption that men and women are basically interchangeable. Fundamental differences in outlook, values, ambitions, etc. are seen to be superficial trappings artificially foisted upon us by developing under outdated patriarchal societal norms. Under such a view, gender is actually nothing but a choice in perspective, not a physiological assignment with psychological implications.

What I’ve seen anecdotally over my lifetime is that whatever our society has been trying to adopt in regard to the issue of manhood and womanhood has been a massive failure. I think we're collectively trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. It seems clear to me that the fallout has been the dissatisfaction, dissociation, divorce, and the sad state of gender confusion so prevalent today.

So what, exactly, does the Bible say? 

Genesis 1:26-27

According to the Bible, there is but one physical creature God made in his image, man, of which there is two physical sexes, male and female. This one creature, consisting male and female individuals, was made with one purpose by God in his pristine creation: to rule over the earth. There was no differentiation between the sexes in this and no implication of preeminence or authority in one over the other. There was, however, a differentiation in roles.

Genesis 2:15, 20b-24

Though male and female humans were undifferentiated in being (image of God), purpose (dominion), and authority (equivalent), they were made by God different in role, even in his pristine creation. The male was made to till and care for the garden God had planted. The female was made to relate to and accompany man, and eventually bear children.

Made as he was for his role, the male had a pristinely pure desire to plant, raise, maintain, and watch over the creation over which he exercised dominion. The female had a pristinely pure desire to stand beside (aid) the male she cared for and who cared for her as she exercised dominion. These purposeful conditions of either sex were implied by God's aim in creating them and verified by the dysfunction imposed upon them by God's curse upon them due to sin. 

Secular psychology will not make this distinction between the sexes, but the Bible can and does, and therefore, reality does.

Understanding this truth is to apprehend why males tend to be task-oriented and find identity in what they do, and females tend to be relationally-oriented and find identity in how they are connected to other people. Ask a man about his life and he’ll tell you about what he does or what he plans to do. Ask a woman about her life and she’ll tell you about the people in her life. A simplistic generalization, I know, but it certainly jives with my experience of people throughout my life.

This difference between the sexes is deep-rooted. It goes back to the purpose of God in creating us, and persists despite the flaws pervading our being since the Fall. Regardless of what we may say about gender differences in our politically correct affectedness, the difference is genetic, biological, and defeats our best efforts to erase it by social posturing or even surgery. Even something as mundane as video game preferences betray our innate differences: female players prefer The Sims and male players prefer Grand Theft Auto.

Genesis 3:16-19

Since the curse, Adam and Eve and all that have followed after, have been frustrated in their innate created purposes. Together in frustration, but distinctly so from each other, men and women live and die in an irreparably broken environment. Man was struck in body and in what he did: now all that he was purposed to do fights against his doing of it and then he dies. Woman was struck by death too and with increased difficulty in childbirth, as well as how she related to man. Instead of a mutually caring, egalitarian relationship, she is objectified by man, frustrated by subservience to him and then she dies.

In this age since the Fall, the differences between men and women are no longer strictly about their roles within a singular purpose (dominion in God’s image), but are also differences in the frustrations we experience with life led under the curse on the way to death. The things our natures were made to pursue are subject to struggle, are always out of reach, and then we die. So, we owe it to our husbands, our wives, and our children, by way of being examples of love, to understand the frustrations our mates experience because of the curse.

Husbands and wives do not experience the frustrations of life and death in the brokenness of this world in the same way. With patience, dedication and consideration we can make each other’s world better than it would otherwise be by understanding the burden our spouse experiences because of the curse. Jesus has broken that curse, but we can't get back to the unbrokenness of Eden in this life. We can, however, live by the light of faith, and help each other succeed despite the brokenness we encounter as we walk through this darkened age together in love and patience.

Sex, Marriage & Fairytales

I have no, even faint, appreciation for rap, but I thought this would be an interesting change of pace. Way to say, Jefferson.

I Think We Need A Cold Shower!

Concupiscence refers to the passion aroused for sex--the longing that pursues and finds satisfaction in the completion of the act. Ray Romano, in Everybody Loves Raymond, serves up a workable video definition of the concept when he informs his wife that she's already activated the launch sequence. If we grant a Solomonic exception because Debra and Ray were married, then we have a picture of concupiscence. It is the arousal of desire that fixes itself upon the attainment of sex.

It is an obscure word, in Bibles only found in the King James Version, so many contemporary readers aren't even familiar with it. Modern versions of the Bible generally translate "covet," "lust," or "desire" where KJV translated concupiscence. Translators obviously felt a more general word was required, although I don't think that makes sense in Colossians 3:5 and 1 Thessalonians 4:5 (even though it does in Romans 7:8). I think the context of the Colossian and Thessalonian passages specifically includes things sexual--hence sexual arousal and desire.

Concupiscence is the very definition of how the heathen live, at least if we take our cues from the popular culture. Everything in that milieu is about sex, or more accurately, the arousal of sexual interest and its pursuit. It fills the silver screen, dominates the lyrical, and sells cars, tools, and perfume. It spills over into the church with the baptism of "romantic" love and the near universal evangelical acceptance of the cat and mouse sexual game the world is so adept at playing. I think we all need a cold shower!

Somehow Christians need to wake up from the daze we're in and realize that following Christ means not following the world. We must dare to be different, for we are a different sort in Christ. We're not called to be the versions of the worldly whose only difference from the lot is the address of our final destination. We're new creatures, with a different kind of fire, for the fire that is burning the world can only end in endless fire and is not the sort we want to share.

Sex and the Bible

Sex is a touchy subject. It's hard for me to write or say the word without blushing. I guess an older generation's sense of decorum rubbed off on me. Not to worry, it's not like the vapors are going to overcome me, so let us proceed.

For all the talk of sex these days amongst evangelicals, the Bible is really not very explicit nor exhaustive in its treatment of the subject. Its approach is not developed in detail from the ground up; but rather sex is treated as a given in human life, something assumed, and handled euphemistically with the less said the better. Generalities and principles are the best that can be inferred, and proscriptively, despite all the angst among the religious through the ages, there really isn't that much said at all. There is enough, however.

I can find but four absolute sexual proscriptions in the entirety of the Bible: homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, and adultery. The overarching principle, it seems to me, is have no sexual intercourse with any creature other than your human spouse of the opposite physical gender. There are specifics that fall under this principle such as no intercourse during menstruation or immediately after birth, and no incest (particularly cross-generational), but that's it, really. So much for the detailed lists that so many believers bandy about!

So how do so many Christians come up with so many proscriptions with so much detail? I think many rely on Natural Law. If one adopts the premise that sex is fundamentally reproductive in purpose, just about anything non-reproductive could be considered willful and ultimately sinful. Masturbation and birth-control are examples of such issues, though neither is ever mentioned in the Bible.

Other proscriptions are clearly man-made and cultural. Specific sexual practices or approaches to the act are most certainly never mentioned in scripture, but that hasn't stopped people authoritatively listing dos and don'ts that do not appear there. What I think can be said in light of what has been said is that whatever a husband and wife wish to do in regards to the subject is up to them. As long as they are agreeable it's nobody's business but theirs.

I wish the subject stayed that way. We are an oversexed culture! What ever happened to less is more? I think the relative biblical silence on the subject ought to tell us something in and of itself, especially today--we think too much and speak too much about sex. And that's just from the pulpit!

Finding the Right One

Helping folk find the "right one" is big business. Ads for dating and matchmaking services fill the web, TV, and the mails. It is not unusual to see such endeavors openly associate with Christianity or have departments that cater to the faith community. Love and marriage is not only important to us, but to God (and to pastors), so let me offer some advice for those seeking to find that special one to spend a life with.

THERE IS NEVER JUST ONE

As special as you may be, you're not that unique--you're not God. There is no such thing as the one: that is nothing more than a Hollywood fabrication meant to stir the flesh. If this one doesn't produce a love connection, then the next one could or the one after that. Out of 6.3 billion people in the world, I'd have to imagine that at least 100,000 would suit you just fine; that is if you're looking for a spouse, rather than a circus dog who can jump flawlessly through hoops.

         

Picky people end up lonely, get desperate, and then settle for less. Nobody's perfect so don't look for the perfect one for you. Even if someone could meet your standard, what's the likelihood you'd meet theirs? Though not just any one will do, remember that everyone has some annoying habits, and some philosophical disagreements with anyone else. So don't hold a standard that would exclude you if the other party approached this thing like you were or that only God would have a right to.

FIND SOMEONE WHO TRUSTS CHRIST

With rare exceptions, the choice of a mate is ours rather than God's, but we must exercise that freedom in line with Christ. If you and your potential mate do not agree on Christ, how will you be able to agree on a godly course through life? "Converting" in order to marry will not do, because folk will do almost anything to marry their love, even falsely acknowledging Christ. If you downplay or do not mention you allegiance to Christ, or accept a lame conversion by your mate in the selection of a spouse, you are out and out ashamed of Christ and that has no future at all!

FIND SOMEONE WITH A SERVANT'S HEART

Jesus, the mightiest, came to serve and he is the example we emulate. We should look for something of Jesus in our potential someones. Therefore, look for a person who endeavors to serve you; who does not consider it inconvenient to do so; who does not consider it a burden. If a potential mate doesn't want to serve you, plain and simple, he or she does not love you.

Don't be so afraid to not be in a relationship that you endure the boot heel of an unloving potential mate--that's mentally ill! Spouses are meant by God to be complementary companions, which means they help each other. Queens that wish to be pampered and kings that demand to be served are alike unfit for marriage, may they make themselves eunuchs or true widows for life! So be a servant, and look for a servant, if you desire marital bliss.

FIND SOMEONE WITH INTEGRITY IN THE SMALL THINGS

Someone who will cheat in little matters will cheat in the big ones too. That one will cheat on you (I certainly hope you see yourself as a big matter as a spouse)! So look for character, with integrity being the key issue. Don't look for a mate like a loaf of bread: just because it's soft to the touch, smells good, and doesn't look moldy, doesn't mean it must be wholesome.

The Bible never promotes romanticism in finding a mate, (even the Song of Solomon refers to love after marriage). God wants godly parents and godly children. If you want a mate, use your heart for sure, but also your Bible and your head! The lust of the flesh and eyes are no basis to find a suitable mate: no more than is mutual hedonism. Who you find, you give your life to, so pick the right one. Look for someone whose vision for God matches yours.

What Happens After We Die: Inclusivism III

We continue our talk on what happens after we die by delving further into the subject of inclusivism, which posits that people who do not know Christ directly or perfectly will be included in the salvation he has wrought.

If there are any clear biblical grounds for inclusivism concerning children, the best would have to be found in 1 Corinthians 7:14 (and even that is iffy). A decent case can be made that the verse deals in context merely with the legitimacy (clean vs. unclean) of an existing marriage in the eyes of God when one party comes to faith but the other does not. If that union was considered spiritually unacceptable by God, the children would be the products of fornication and unclean. If the marriage is valid spiritually (clean) in the eyes of God, then the children produced by it are clean too.

The thought would have to be Jewish at it's root, developed ultimately from Malachi 2:11-16, as I see it. If legitimacy is the prime concern, then Paul would have to be saying that the principle of Malachi 2:11 cannot be applied to an existing marriage between one who remains an unbeliever and one who becomes a Christian. In these cases, the presence of the believer in the union sets apart the unbeliever so that the union is seen as acceptable by God, and the progeny resulting would be holy. Whereas I see the merit in such an interpretation, I don't think it quite captures the entirety of the thought--more than legitimacy or illegitimacy seems to be at stake to me.

The point of sanctified children is that they would be considered part of the covenant community, benefactors of the covenant blessings. If the marriage was acceptable, then the offspring produced as a result of it are considered part of the Israel. And here is where inclusivism both hits a rock and sets sail for me. If the inclusivist thought is true (i.e. all children are born innocent, and under the blood that was shed for everyone) then why reference the uncleanness or unacceptability of children at all? In what meaningful way could children from a mixed marriage be unsanctified?

Interpretations that refer the thought to being exposed to the gospel or in a better place to come to faith (extrapolated from the spousal argument Paul makes) are unsatisfying. They just don't explain the hullaballoo in the passage. If there is an inclusivist claim that can be made here, the only one that stands up, imo, would be one that says the children of believers are included in salvation until they decide they don't want to be. In fact, I do see the verse substantiating that very thought.

When it comes to children, or even the infirm in general, I cannot say with any certainty what happens after death to those who were born of unbelievers. Good arguments exist to see them as included in Christ: what doesn't exist is a bible verse or verses that say as much. There are, on the other hand, verses that call into question whether or not such is the case. What I can say with some confidence is that children born of believers will be included, and that, at least, is a comfort to me.

A Biblical Political Platform

Christians come in all stripes politically, and those that espouse a political position (as opposed to having no real position at all) tend to do so passionately. My only question about doing so is whether or not such views are truly informed by the word of God, or are they just the ideas of mankind? I've previously written about things in the political sphere that are unbiblical, but now I would like to offer some broad principles that are biblically informed and that effect virtually every political issue.

All Are Sinners

Every politician, every office holder, every public servant is a sinner. They won't always do what is right, they won't always act in other than their own interests, their judgment is able to be swayed by other than facts and circumstances, they are corruptible by privilege, power and lucre. In view of these realities, no biblically informed and Bible believing Christian should be for anything which expands governmental imposition on people. Such actions will always result either in bondage to or tyranny from the sinful, and should be opposed insomuch as a Christian has the freedom to do so.

Because those that govern are irretrievably sinners, government should be as small as possible, and as weak as possible in comparison to the citizen. Those serving in government should do so in as limited a fashion as is possible for the shortest period that makes sense given the learning curve. Most definitely, elected officials should not be able to raise their own salaries, perquisites or pensions while in office.

The Rich and Powerful Oppress the Poor and Weak
Combine the truth above with money and power and the result is the ability of the rich and powerful to use the system and to massage circumstances to their own benefit to the detriment of the weaker and poorer. The wealthy always find an excuse, like "the market," to shuffle the benefits of production to themselves, while those who labor to make the production possible get the shaft.

Unions, minimum wage laws, and the SEC have been mere bandaids for the problem. They have the appearance of addressing the issue, but leave the wealthy relatively untouched in their ability to make the system work for themselves, and actually end up working against increased productivity. Why not allow market mechanisms to determine base wages, but have every worker share in the profits produced by corporate ventures (not necessarily just incorporated ones) equally with executives and shareholders?

Human Life Is Precious
Since each human life has its own blood, it should be protected from the womb to the tomb. Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Each abortion kills a human being that left alone would live as long as God determined. Those that perform abortions are guilty of murder, and those that have them done are guilty of conspiring to murder. Assisted suicide could certainly be considered a conspiracy to murder as well.

Family Is More Fundamental than Government
The family, particularly parents, should not be interfered with nor infringed upon. If there is not actual, physically treatable abuse or neglect, no one has any right to tell anyone else how to run their household or raise their children. All decisions, from education to healthcare rests with parents, never with government.

Government Is to Do Good to Its Citizens
Citizens that do ill need to be treated appropriately, but citizens who do not, should never be put into worse situations, or be adversely effected by government action.

One could apply these principles and make a case for everything from publicly assured healthcare to environmental protection, from preventing the seizure of private property to banning professional lobbying. The issue to be balanced in doing so would be whether any stance or proposal would transgress any of these principles in its prescription to cure some ill.

Gender Roles In Marriage

Men and women are different by nature, not just physically, but psychologically as well. That is a generalization, of course, and lots of folk will not fall precisely in any definition highlighting said differences. Nonetheless, I know countless women who find themselves torn when it comes to leaving their infant in the care of others when it's time to return to their work: I know of no men experiencing the same or similar consternation. Does this imply anything about gender roles in marriage? Well, yes and no.

Men do not bear children in the womb, almost never develop working breasts, and do not face the same hormonal swings as do females. They are not designed by nature to nurture infants at anywhere near the level that females are. It's not that men cannot be wonderful, caring fathers (certainly, it doesn't take genes to change diapers, give baths, or rock a cranky baby), but I have yet to see the same natural care, connection and ease of relating exist between father and infant that seems effortless between mother and her baby.

I think common sense would lead one to the conclusion that women will tend to be more domestically oriented in Christian marriage than men, but the Bible removes all doubt. I understand that some of the specifics of these passages are culturally bound, but I think the general message is unmistakable. In our day and age, we have been blessed to be much further removed from subsistence than were the original audiences of these passages. Our application of the principles will look different than theirs, but it will still result, generally, in mothers of young children being more oriented to their care and nurture than their fathers.

Fighting against the physical nature one has been made with is never anything but abominable before God, but that doesn't mean that KP is a woman's realm and bringing in the doggies is man's. Specifically, a husband and wife will have to agree together as to how this looks for them. I think what's important to remember in defining Christian marriage in this regard, is that neither spouse can enforce such decisions on the other. You're partners in the grace of God, get over yourself and figure it out together.

Overcoming the Gender Effect of the Fall II

Just because the gender curse wasn't spoken directly to Adam, doesn't mean men weren't cursed along with women. Their side of the equation was to rule over their wives and face their insurgency. I can understand why any women (and some small-minded men) would wonder where the curse was in that, but it is in fact the source of men's alienation from the fairer sex. In their finer moments men seek companionship, partnership, intimacy with their mates, but the curse has them thinking in most moments of dominance, possession, and detachment.

Clearly, the creation account makes no distinction between the humanity of men and women. They are all man-- male and female he created them. The wonder that is a human, built in the image of God, is indistinguishable between genders. When Eve was fashioned from Adam's rib it was as a corresponding companion in mission (a help meet) without any reference to any differential in authority. They were partners in the grace of God. That changed with the curse, and has been the unpleasant reality of life since.

Adam was cursed directly as well as Eve. He was a gardener: it was an expression of his God-given authority over land and animal. Now, thorns and thistles would battle his efforts at making a living, and in the new curse economy if he didn't work, he wouldn't eat. Eve was made to stand beside him in that authority, but now she became part of what he had authority over but which resisted him. She who had been made a partner for him, now took on some of the same characteristics of the parasites that plagued him. But Jesus changes all that.

Nature and the curse may have given men the opportunity to domineer women-- they're bigger and stronger, and in most societies still have the imprimatur to do so. But that is not Christ-like and its bondage is a two-way street. Who would want to use such a framework as a basis for Christian marriage? God says to men, "put aside your crown and your glory, step into your wife's world and lay down your life for her. Make it your mission to help her be all she can be." The trump card of decisive authority is one gender effect of the Fall that must be sloughed off.

Overcoming the Gender Effect of the Fall I

Complementarians cite numerous NT Bible verses (like this, this, this and this) for their approach to male domination in Christian marriage. Is that what's really intended by those scriptures? I don't believe it is, and I think, generally, that kind of thinking is based on a faulty understanding of gender, it's place in God's plan, and the far reaching implications of our redemption in Christ Jesus (see the link in the title).

That the scriptures command wives to submit to their husbands is beyond doubt. That, however, is not the same as saying to husbands, "rule over your wives." That is the assumption (and it most certainly is an assumption) I see in the complementarian approach to Christian marriage. It leads to the unfortunate and faulty conclusion that Jesus' passion and resurrection may have cured many of the ills of the Fall in the here and now, but it didn't get near the gender consequences of it.

Eve, and all women through her were cursed to live in this natural world under the physical and societal domination of their husbands, though they would have an inward desire to master those men. Since the Fall, it has been natural for women to desire to maneuver, manipulate, and manage their dominant husbands. Even in the church world, this reality has been the fodder of the humor mill, as attested in old jokes like Aisle, Altar, Hymn. But Jesus changes all that!

From my particular egalitarian viewpoint the NT commands to wives to submit to their husbands actually prove the point: they merely say to Christian women, "don't do that kind of thing, you have been redeemed from the curse. Stop trying to master your husbands and submit to your partnership with them." The battle of wills in the Christian household is one gender effect of the the Fall that must be overcome!

The Gender Consequences of the Fall

I've stated earlier that God knew marriage was temporary (see the link in the title). It will not be our state in eternity, and I am forced to believe that this must have been the case before the Fall, not only after it. Certainly, God not only knows what he's doing, he always knew it and always will (omniscience). If you follow this thought to its logical conclusion, it means that Adam and Eve may have been in good condition, but were not in their ultimate state before the Fall (see 1 Corinthians 13:9-12). Created gender--male and female he created them-- was a purely functional, and merely temporary contrivance.

This fact is verified in the NT by Galatians 3:26-29, which teaches that in Christ (the eternal condition) there is neither male nor female, everyone is merely a son. Gender is not an eternal verity, it is just a passing means to an end; therefore, our born again approach to gender better not rely upon created order, nor current physical reality, or it will miss what is of eternal significance. Doubtless, those considerations have had some value in history, but they will have none in eternity.

Gender authority distinctions were introduced to the human race with the curse. After Adam and Eve were confronted by God for sin (willful independence in opposition to God) they were cursed as follows: the male would rule over the female though it would be her desire [to master him] (see Genesis 4:7 for the grammatical construction). The effect of sin upon the interaction of husband and wife would be the development of a hierarchical relationship which would result in a battle of wills rather than a partnership in mission. Such a structure is clearly the result of sin and the curse rather than the design of God.

So why is gender such a controversial issue in the church today? Egalitarians pay little heed to it, complementarians see it as determinative. I see that sin and the curse have been dealt with in Christ, and that faith embraces the eternal promise of God, even while we still waste away in a world that is still wasting away. For freedom we have been set free. Is it not well past time for the church, particularly her men, to rise up and set the captives free from the gender consequences of the Fall?


Addendum: Check out this post on women leaders in Wesleyan movements.

The Biblical Duties of Matrimony

I have said that marriage is more about what we give to it than what we get from it. That, of course, is a practical statement, for if we concentrate on what we're getting from it, we'll short shrift what we give to it and end up undermining it. Unfortunately, the sacrificial attitude necessary to maintain marriage is foreign to the narcissistic baby boom generation and all the alphabet generations that have followed. 

The result—the burgeoning divorce rate. 

One must give continuously, for a lifetime, to make marriage work. Thankfully, there are plenty of happy marriages for us to learn from. There's a fair of amount of not so happy ones to take lessons from too. Those that I've come across that are happy and long lasting are those in which the spouses haven't saddled each other with the burden of making each other happy. Spouses can share our happiness, we can be happy to share life with them, but they cannot, in themselves, make us happy.

Unhappy marriages are often laboring under the faulty assumption that marriage, or at least the one they're married to, is meant to make them happy. It is the epitome of immaturity and folly to expect another human being to have that much power as to hold the key to our happiness. Spouses do supply emotional comfort to each other, which takes different forms for husbands and wives due to the gender effects of the Fall, but they are not the source of each other's happiness.

Natural women were cursed to live in a contest of wills with their husbands: redeemed women provide their husbands the comfort of knowing that their wives respect and submit to them. Natural men were cursed with ruling over their wives and the frustration of their toil (a source of preoccupation): redeemed men provide their wives the comfort of knowing that their husbands love them sacrificially (ἀγαπᾶτε) and will lay down their lives for them. 

A husband who has the respect of his wife and a wife who's loved by her husband like Christ loves the church are people who have something that makes life worth living.

When we see ourselves and yield ourselves as bound in oneness, providing our spouse with the kind of comfort we've been speaking about, we give our mates a sense of belonging and security that nothing else on earth can truly supply. My first pastor used to repeat over and over again for the sake of all of us coming into marriageable age, "love is not a feeling, it's a commitment." So true. I wish we all went into marriage buying into that.

It's not just an emotional or relational dynamic, however. It translates into all those more tangible areas that mark our shared journeys. Being a reliable source of provision and care is just part of the package. One area along that line is the marriage bed. Despite our culture's incredible fixation on sex, and the Word's relative silence on what, exactly, goes on between a husband and wife, the Word does say that nothing is wrong with sex in marriage, that we should have as much as we like in whatever way a husband and wife agree upon, and that we should not hold out on our spouse.

Marriage will not work for the takers, the heartbreakers, the jerks, nor those who would shirk the obligations of love. Marriage is a picture of the love within the Godhead, and must be treated with the honor appropriate for such. Though, in our age, we have managed to treat marriage as no more than a paper plate or plastic spoon, used for a moment then tossed aside, there is still hope for us in the church. It begins when we dedicate ourselves to the biblical duties of matrimony.

Why Did God Create Marriage?

From God's omniscient perspective, marriage could have little eternal significance. He knew the end from the beginning and realized there would come a time when marriage for humans would be no longer practiced. In fact, this is THE silver bullet that pierces the heart of Mormonism. Mormon hopes rest in eternal marriages with expansive reproduction of offspring, whereas Jesus said such do not and will not exist. Therefore, Mormons bank all of their hopes on a mirage that actually never was and never will be. 

If marriage has such a limited shelf life, then why did God institute it at all and make such a fuss about it?

God's plans for humankind within history required marriage, but not just for the dominion clause. Breeding and bossing can be accomplished without a  covenant between husband and wife, but effective child-rearing cannot. Fathers and mothers working together is absolutely required. That is why the divorce epidemic is having such detrimental effects on our broader society— children cannot be raised according to design by single mothers (or fathers) in broken homes. Sure, there are exceptions, but it's hard to miss the overall trend. 

Our fly-by-the-seat-of-our-pants, make-it-up-as-we-go approach to love, marriage and family is a dismal failure.

So, within this space called history, from the fall in the garden to the dead seed of man rising from the dust to face God's judgment, marriage has divine and practical benefit. He who finds a wife, or vice-versa for that matter, finds a good thing. Certainly not something to be discarded after the kids have grown and gone. Certainly not something to discard because it takes too much effort. 

How hard can it be to see that spouse as the gift from God he or she truly is?

Marriage is not a human invention, nor a societal convention that can be tossed aside or experimented with. Oh, we can continue to break marriages upon the rocks of hedonism, but that only delivers the next generation into the cold, dark, stormy deep. That a non-believer opts for the selfish option or takes what seems to be the easier road is not all that surprising— that supposed Christians do is incomprehensible.

When it comes to marriage and family, there's God's plan or there's an inevitable spiral down into chaos. He didn't create marriage for that!

Marriage Is About What We Give to It

Marriage is anything but a human invention. 

Marriage licenses formulated at the whim of governing authorities didn't establish it, shifting social mores can't change it, and what God has joined together should not be separated by people. Historically, and biblically, marriage is not primarily the consequence of "falling in love." Yes, I said that! Unfortunately, the present cultural understanding of marriage in the West gets none of this.

As a result, God's purposes for marriage have been frustrated and public trust in the institution has been eroded to the point of collapse. Marriage is no longer assumed or expected to be a pathway to a life of blessedness, but has become a roll of the dice, a passing phase. The Bible tells us God instituted marriage to accomplish several things for humankind and to allow several things from our perspective to be accomplished in our lives.

From God's perspective, marriage was meant to provide the human race with companionship in the mission of life, to be the environment for sexual expression and the conception of new life, and to be a bastion of holiness and learning for the family. To be honest, it's not like fallen man was ever going to do well achieving such noble ends. Nonetheless, noble ends these are, and they need to be front and center in our consideration of the institution.

From our perspective, marriage is meant to provide mutual emotional comfort, to supply the security of a loyal commitment, and to be a reliable source of provision and care. These, too, are noble goals, but unfortunately are set before the eyes of inherently ignoble people. Nonetheless, this is the design of marriage, and we need to understand this if we're ever to honor the bond with the gravity it deserves.

Marriage has been romanticized through myth, tale, torrid paperbacks, and the insipid celluloid regurgitations of Hollywood. The emphasis, generally, is on how Prince Charming or Snow White makes their love feel. If these sources are the only input informing one's expectations of marriage, that one will, in all likelihood, make a terrible spouse. He or she will find the trouble of maintaining the bond of matrimony more than they care to bear. Marriage failure begins with self-concern, marriage success starts with self-sacrifice

In the real world God made, marriage is not about what we get out of it, but what we give to it.

.

Biblical Grounds for Divorce

Despite what many folk say, according to Jesus Christ (also here, here, and here) there are no affirmative grounds for divorce. 

What Jesus said about marriage is that it is a lifelong covenant that no one should break. Some people will shatter the bond through abandonment and/or adultery, to their shame, but no one is given the grounds by which they can take the initiative to break it because they want it broken. Those that are the victims of a marriage broken by abandonment and/or adultery have some leeway to remarry, those who remarry apart from those exceptions commit adultery.

If a supposed Christian has abandoned a spouse, that one should be rebuked and commanded to return to the care his or her spouse. If that one will not return, he or she has proven not only his or her infidelity to a spouse, but to God. Their unwillingness to provide (what marriage is supposed to provide) for their spouse before God makes them worse than an infidel. According to the Word, the Christian abandoned by an infidel, or unbeliever, is free of the bond and can marry again as long as they do so with a believer. 

If a supposed Christian has entered into a sexual relationship with someone in addition to his or her spouse, that one should be rebuked and commanded to cease the adultery. If he or she will not, that one should be excommunicated. The faithful spouse would have the ability to remarry and not be considered an adulterer, nor the cause of adultery. The wronged party, in effect, is given an exception to the adultery clause for remarriage rather than a positive ground for divorce.

The effect of these allowances is an exception to the Lord's adultery clause rather than a ground given to initiate divorce.

If a Christian marriage is broken out of acrimony, or because of irreconcilable differences, or loss of interest, or anything other than abandonment and/or adultery, the parties do not have the right to remarry. To do so would be adultery. We are grown ups with God dwelling inside of us. If we're actually saved we should be able to find the means of getting along with someone else we're going to spend eternity with. Laying down our lives one for another is the stuff of the kingdom, it's certainly the stuff of marriage as well.

I live and am licensed to drive in Pennsylvania. Our traffic laws do not assign anyone the right of way on our roads. Instead, our laws are framed as to whom must yield right of way in any circumstance. So in a mishap, no one can claim they had the right of way; one can only be assigned blame for failure to yield such. I see the Bible approaching divorce in a similar fashion: it doesn't give anyone the right to divorce a spouse, it gives an exception to the adultery clause for remarriage for those for whom there was a failure by a spouse to yield to the marriage bond. 

So, although there are grounds for remarriage, there really are no grounds for divorce.

The Disaster of Divorce

America's epidemic is not AIDS, nor abortion, nor even pornography, although all are widespread and portend terrible trouble. The most virulent disease in the West is divorce. It only kills a relative few (although some are notable), but it is destroying our culture, and worse, something these other plagues could not— our churches.

The evangelical church has lost her voice and her way in dealing with the dilemma, preferring pop psychology and hedonism to the Bible when it comes to the subject. As long as American Christians, like any other Americans, continue to sell their souls to the demon of happiness and the phantom of self-fulfillment, marriage won't stand a ghost of a chance. Our society and our churches will continue to decay and be nothing but shadows of their former or their possible selves.

The OT allowed divorce on fairly broad grounds. Anything deemed an uncleanness, or indecency, in a wife (only husbands could divorce) by her husband (how objective was that likely to be?) could result in a pink slip and a "seeya." Who would have guessed that in God's sight "you disgust me" was actionable? Paradoxically, this same God who allowed divorce in the Mosaic code, decried it in no uncertain terms through the prophet Malachi! Forked tongue, perhaps?

In explaining the apparent duplicity, Jesus said it was the hardness of our hearts rather than the softness of God's that inspired that provision.

I've pastored long enough now, and have seen enough marital failures to realize just how right Jesus was: we are terribly hard-hearted, absolutely unwilling to give another person what reasonably could preserve a relationship. Every marriage I've ever seen fail has done so because one or both parties were too hard-hearted to do what had to be done to maintain the marriage. Usually, it's not long at all until such parties are at it again in a new marriage, likely there to see the same result as they did with the one they tossed away.

We're naturally self-centered, self-absorbed, fault-finding, unforgiving, ungracious, uncommitted, and that's just the Prince Charming and Snow Whites among us. Trying to maintain a relationship that requires dedication and sacrifice in the face of such hard-hearted human nature all but dooms the effort to disaster. Nonetheless, God hates divorce! The greater disaster, by far, is finding yourself justifying the thing that God has clearly said that he hates.