Comment by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 19, 2013 at 8:05pm

It is possible to read the Bible with the simple-minded certitude of those who "impose as Commandments the teachings of men".

And it is also possible to read it while truly asking God to clarify His intentions -- Not "How have people traditionally (mis)read this to justify ordering each other around?" but "What can You help me understand from this?" One stance has its mind made up & slammed shut; Bennett's approach lets God get a word in edgewise in interpreting what too many people call "His" book, but use as if He'd had it written merely to confirm their prejudices.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 19, 2013 at 11:51pm

That "bride of Christ" metaphor is kind of interesting, in several ways. It doesn't sound like precisely a sexual relationship... or at least, not a monogamous one -- and couldn't be entirely heterosexual unless some half of the human race were left out.

Mainly, it reminds me of Hosea, who God tells to marry a hussy so that Israel can see how they've been treating their 'husband', God. Now many Jews can tell you that God has been screwing them all along, but again, that's not what this metaphor is about.

Is it a happy, monogamous marriage that God urges on Hosea? Well, no, his wife goes right on being a hooker, has a couple of kids he doesn't think look like him -- He gives them names that no one should have to grow up under... I believe there is love involved, but this doesn't sound like a model relationship.

So, given that it isn't a sexual metaphor, what does it mean? That God is 'courting' us, intends to be our 'lover' and to express that in a way somehow analogous to the ways human beings express love for each other: the intention to give pleasure, to delight in a person, to let acquaintance develop into mental/emotional/spiritual "intimacy."

Is the Bible basically saying that we're supposed to live like idealized 19th Century Americans, and then God will love us? It wouldn't have taken a thousand-page book and 30 centuries of history to send that message.

Comment by Olivia on 9th mo. 20, 2013 at 3:47am

I am reminded by Doug's post and Howard's comments that I find more faith and divine freedom in the people that others sometimes think of as doubters or non-believers. 

I see in Doug's insightful post a lot of mercy and simple speaking of truth relevant to current discussions of marriage.  I see no need for anyone to get defensive and/or offensive to Doug about that and suggest that he is against marriage in general and can't be any sort of person of faith to raise these questions.  So much defensiveness in our Christianity sometimes....it actually makes or faith look less worthy and more immature so we would be wiser to allow others kindness and respect.

Howard's comment about the Shakers practicing non-marriage as part of their theology reminds me of a conversation I had with an Episcopal Priest once.  I had not heard this argument before and found compelling his statement that there was more evidence in the Bible that we should all leave our marriages and live celibate lives if we love God, than there was evidence that we should be in monogamous marriages....           

His suggestion:  anyone who wants to start arguing otherwise had better take a good hard look and see where the truth of this complex book would point him before making the case too loudly!

I like Friend Forrest's point about the nature of the love God has in mind for us. It is, like the comments of Doug and Howard, compelling and yet elusive in some ways, ways that Truth needs to be elusive....reflecting back to us that there is this Love that is not on our terms and won't be put in a box.  I suppose the comments so far are in truth less about who are Christians and who aren't, and are more evidence of who the mystics are among us!

Comment by Howard Brod on 9th mo. 20, 2013 at 7:24am

Your assessment Forrest is so insightful! Thank you.

Yes, the bride of Christ indeed does include men. And if we are going to use this as a literal example of marriage, then indeed we would have to conclude that same sex marriage is included in the sanctioned definition of marriage.

I will state again that when you make the choice to use the Bible as your rule book instead of the pure love of Christ as your Light, all types of games can be played to act out one's human judgementalness, prejudice, and unloving desires.

Comment by William F Rushby on 9th mo. 20, 2013 at 10:10am

Yesterday, I wrote: "My sober conclusion is that Doug Bennett is wrong in his claim that: (1) "the Bible doesn't say much about marriage", (2) "what it says can seem contradictory", and (3)" in the end [the Bible doesn't] provide much specific guidance."

After thinking the matter over, I accept Doug Bennett's second point, that what the Bible says about marriage "can seem contradictory".  I think this is especially true in reference to issues of divorce and divorce and remarriage.

 

Joan Wilson wrote: "The title and content of Doug's post are provocative and invites a challenge to his statements regarding the Bible and what it has to offer on the topic of marriage."   Doug Bennett's blog title, "The Fraud of 'Biblical Marriage'", phrases the issue in a rather inflammatory way.  He argues that the New Testament says very little, and that ambiguous, about marriage.  When challenged on this point, he shifts gears and tells us that he is really talking about something else: same-sex issues. 

 

Some others have commented, extolling Doug's Bennett's objectivity.  I, in contrast, think that he began his QQ campaign with a conclusion, and he has worked surprisingly hard to convince others that his discernment is correct.  Can anyone cite even one of Bennett's conclusions which casts doubt on his own interpretation?  From the start, we know that he sided with the "New Association" group in Indiana Yearly Meeting.  So, where is the evidence for objectivity in his posts?

 

Howard wrote: "And if we are going to use this as a literal example of marriage, then indeed we would have to conclude that same sex marriage is included in the sanctioned definition of marriage."  Biblical writers use imagery frequently to express God's truth.  We need to be careful not to interpret metaphor inappropriately.  We also need to look at the big picture when we are talking about the Bible, and not to be too quick to proof text.

 

When we address marriage issues, we need to go back to the beginning, the Book of Genesis, and examine how it conceptualizes such matters.  It is important to ask what Biblical texts assume, not only what they assert in a specific verse or text.  My conclusion, (are you surprised??), is that marriage as a union between male and female is assumed throughout the Bible.  I don't think that we need a specific verse to confirm this observation.

 

Howard talks repeatedly about using the Bible as a "rule book".  I think of the Bible more as a Divinely-given source of insight, and as a touchstone for testing the validity of human opinions.  I don't find the "rule book" concept very useful.

 

 

 

 

 

Comment by Doug Bennett on 9th mo. 20, 2013 at 12:09pm

Friend William Rushby–

 I know myself, and I would have you know me, as a seeker and also as one both prone to sin and hopeful of forgiveness. I make no claims about objectivity; that seems presumptuous. I do try to tell the truth as I know it.

 Questions about what the Bible says, in a directive way, about homosexuality, marriage, divorce, gender roles and related matters have been with me for some years. About two years ago, largely prodded by Indiana Yearly Meeting’s minute declaring homosexuality a sin, I found myself led to speaking out about why I had come to think that posture a mistake – a harmful one.

 I read widely on these questions: everything I can find, especially things that might lead me to different conclusions. Nevertheless, I continue to be under the weight of a leading to speak out against the view that homosexuality is a sin.

Comment by Olivia on 9th mo. 20, 2013 at 12:28pm

Thank you, Doug.  For your leading --  certainly one that exposes you to flames from others from time to time!   My sense has been in general that you have a perspective and some life experience informing it, and it's a perspective that we NEED in the mix. We don't need any One of us to be the whole word of God incarnate, but simply another voice of God / the Divine to speak to (and for!) those who need it.  Thanks for your heart.

I'm very sorry that there are people who have one view of their Christian faith and feel clear in their own minds that you are a sinner not led by God in your own views.   The world is far wider, and the people of faith far more perplexing to one another, than certain viewpoints are comfortable with!   This is a place for discussion and I thank you for raising this topic and having your views, hard won I am sure. 

Comment by Howard Brod on 9th mo. 20, 2013 at 1:05pm

Thank you Olivia for expressing so well my appreciation also for the thorny issues of our day that Friend Doug is willing to tackle.

Please continue to bless us, Doug, with your insights whenever you are so moved.

For that matter, the expressions of all Friends here are so valuable to us all, as we strive to walk in Spirit and Truth.

Comment by William F Rushby on 9th mo. 20, 2013 at 5:07pm

Hello, Doug Bennett!  As far as I know, I never alleged that you claimed objectivity for your own stance.  As I recall, it was an inference I made from what others wrote.

 

I appreciate your clarification and expression of humility.  I think it would help if the rhetoric got toned down.  Use of the word "fraud" in the title of your blog is particularly offensive.

 

I know that you find the separation in Indiana very traumatic.  I personally think that it is a healthy response to the conflict there, and I hope that both sides will find new freedom to pursue their quest for faithfulness to Christ!  An Amish man once said to me: "only good wood splits".

Comment by Irene Lape on 9th mo. 21, 2013 at 10:36am

This is such a difficult conversation to do right, but I think this exchange has been really good. I am going to bring a bit of a different perspective to it here. The marriage customs of humankind - secular in origin - are all very much incorporated into the biblical narrative, and I think everyone would agree that whether the story involves one husband having many wives or only one wife, there is no reference anywhere to any same sex relationship being likened to marriage. Same-sex sexuality is always seen as bad. And I think it's fair to say that loving and enduring marriages between male and female are often used as a metaphor for the faithful relationships people establish with God, a metaphor that could well be used to represent monogamous or polygamous marriages.

But it is also true that scripture celebrates intimate and deeply loving relationships between people when no marriage is involved - the most celebrated is the loving relationship David has with Saul's son Jonathan.

I think it is possible to believe that God might be "doing something new" with us today, maybe using faithful but naturally same-sex people, male and female, and moving them to bring the idea of "marriage" or "covenant" to the same-sex relationships that are core to their lives. I do not know whether this can be made pleasing to God, and I don't feel I know the answer to this. I feel that if gay men and women could settle for the term "covenant relationship," and the key benefits that our society grants to "married" couples could be extended to them, it would be easier for Christians across the spectrum to be supportive of them. I think that "marriage" and "covenants" are both very human-based realities but raised up by faith to a very central place in our lives.

Then it will take time to see what the fruit shall be and whether it shall find lasting and widespread acceptance in human society.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page