Marriage: Capstone or Cornerstone?

 A Christianity Today article "Don't Diss the Early-Married," caught my eye this morning. In my humble opinion, it is an article of particular value to those who occupy the profession that was mine for most of my adult life--pastoring a small to medium-sized local church.

One of the catch-statements that I used to describe one aspect of my ministry was (I suppose still is), "I'm not in the marrying business, but I am glad to help build Godly Christian homes." Looking back on a forty-year + career it is clear to me that being involved in that family-building process has been one of the most important elements in doing lasting work--leaving something behind that will impact the world in a positive way for generations to come. "How to best do that?" is a very important question.

When a woman and man decide to "plight thee my troth" to one another, and they desire to involve the church including a pastor like I used to be in the process, it seems to me that some questions need to be answered.

• Who? 
  Biblical teaching on marriage indicates that there are people that one should not marry. Perhaps I'll pick that up in another post at another time.
• How? 
  I always made it a practice to require that grooms and brides-to-be go through premarital counseling. Actually, I think that the modeling of good family life within the church and the systematic teaching of the Word of God, which has a lot to say about families, is more important than those few sessions together. It is beyond doubt, however, that churches and pastors ought to address the question, "In this post-Christian, post-modern, (dare I say?) post-common-sense world in which we live, how does one build a Godly home?"
• When?
  When I look at my grandparent's generation, my own, and now the generation of my grandkids, I see that the age at which the typical couple marries has gone up. This is an observation that is verivied in the CT article, "Don’t Diss the Early-Marrieds." In many ways this this article is a follow-up to an article CT published thirteen years ago, "The Case for Early Marriage." It is this "When?" question that I want to highlight for a moment.

As I have already said the trend in our part and time of the world is for couples to marry later. Obviously, the matter of couples cohabiting prior to marriage is a factor, but not the only one. The recent CT article observes, for instance,  "The “capstone model” [referring to the later marriage trend] says you are supposed to have all your ducks in a row—education, some professional success, and a clear adult identity—before you marry." Is this a sentiment that is in line with the Biblical value system? For many, it is not. Way too often it reeks of materialism and hedonism. 

The question of "When?" is not just an individual question that needs to be put before prospective marriage partners; it is a societal matter that relates to the (if we can believe the surveys) nigh unto universal involvement of couples in premarital sex. Two trends overlap in a way that ought to interest those of us who are seeking to teach a Biblical, traditional Christian view of sexual morality. While the age at which people marry has been going up, the age of puberty--when a person can have, and usually wants to have, sex has been going down. Douse that with a liberal anointing of total freedom of self-expression with all societal restraint of free sexual expression removed and you have a big problem. 1 Corinthians 7:1-8 was written to a group of Christians who lived in a culture that was rife with sexual license. My target audience knows enough to put the statement into context, but the closing words of this section of Scripture are relevant to the topic. "[I]t is better to marry than to burn with passion." Yet the model that is put before those who are most likely to burn, folk in whom the flame was lit earlier than in the loins of their ancestors, says, "Wait! First, you need to get your education [which increasingly means not only a four-year college degree but post-grad work, as well. Get a good car, perhaps buy a house, and get some money in the bank." 

The church goes along with this trend at of peril undermining one of its important tasks--that of helping to build Godly families.

As the title of my blog implies, my view of the world is somewhat limited. Nevertheless, I'll close with a personal observation. As I look back over my ministry I note several families that began with marriages involving people who were clearly in the process of becoming. Their marriages were not capstones to early adulthood of personal achievement. They were more like the beginning of a mutual project. As I think about Bob and Susan, Pete and Carol, or Sally and Rob, who are now grandparents (not the couples' real names) I see that the Lord has given me the opportunity to push back against some of the destructive trends of the age in which I lived. In the right sense of the word, I'm proud of these families that God allowed me to have a part in. I'm glad they got started sooner rather than later.

(In case you didn't read the article I referenced, let me point out that it makes a distinction that I endorse. Neither the authors of the article nor I are encouraging teen marriage. While, by God's grace, some teen marriages end up producing wonderful families, far too often the marriage of two immature individuals is a faulty foundation that is not able to bear the weight of a solid family.)

Pastoring, in regard to matters of sexuality and marriage is more complicated than it used to be.

 I guess I should be glad that I've entered the emeritus phase of my ministry. Pastoring, especially in regard to matters of sexuality and marriage has certainly gotten more complicated. I'm not, however, comfortable in just ignoring these matters. For one thing, Old guys like me are frequently asked to perform weddings. Given the right circumstances, it is something I'm glad to do. Secondly, I regard my years of experience as a trust. I think I have an obligation to help the next generations of shepherds. For these, and other, reasons I maintain an interest in the increasingly complicated realm of pastoral ministry in the sexual/gender/marriage realm.

In that regard, I recommend two articles that have come my way recently;

1. A blogpost by Gene Vieth, https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2021/11/should-couples-and-their-pastor-reject-marriage-licenses/
   Vieth is a Lutheran, and as such interacts with a report that came from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. I encourage my pastor-buddies to read the report. As a baptistic, conservative Evangelical, I find it helpful. The report is linked in Veith's post. Veith gives a good summary of the report. Basically, Veith and the longer report ask some post-Obergefell questions and offer some answers and counsel that are worth considering. My oversimplified summary is that the article's position is that the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision didn't really change anything for a faithful pastor's practice. SCOTUS clearly misdefined marriage, but it didn't do so in a way that requires we shepherds of God's flock to do so. (Might that happen? Maybe. Realize, though, that while some slopes are slippery, not all are. I say for now we should be vigilant and try to drive in some stakes on the sloping terrain wherever and whenever we can.)
2. A second article, by Al Mohler, asks a question that I've seen come up several times, lately, though I don't remember exactly where (there are reasons why I'm emeritus). Here is the article. https://albertmohler.com/2021/11/10/briefing-11-10-21?utm_source=Albert+Mohler&utm_campaign=b40e1c087c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_04_08_09_12_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b041ba0d12-b40e1c087c-307975913&mc_cid=b40e1c087c&mc_eid=20aa58364c
   The question posed is a fine-line kind of distinction but one that in my humble opinion needs to be considered. Again, IMHO, I think that way back in the last century those of us who seek to hold to a Biblical view of gender/sexuality lost a significant semantic battle. That loss led to, or contributed to, a significant point of confusion. Is it proper to speak of a "Gay Christian"? Or even more pointedly, a "Gay Celibate Christian"? 

Pastors in the 2020s are faced with questions that weren't out there in the 1970s when I began my ministry. The requirement to be faithful to the Word remains the same.

Two Good Articles on the Church's Role in the 21st Century Sexual Mess.

Last Thursday I was involved in the nth session of an important and difficult dialogue. How does the church, how do those of us who have leadership in the church, respond to the questions of sexual ethics in the Twenty-first Century? My partners in dialogue were a half dozen clergy, involved in a variety of ministries, and from a smattering of Theological backgrounds--a retired" missionary/pastor, still very active; four pastors of churches here on Guam, but from at least three different subcultures; a military chaplain; and me, an old pastor and somewhat reformed Fundamentalist, now serving as president of a small Christian college. Theologically, the guys are from Baptist, Pentecostal, Reformed, and Evangelical churches and backgrounds. All are conservative--they take a high view of scripture--well-read, and articulate.
Basically, the topic of the conversation was the same as it had been in scores of other conversations I have been involved in with different partners, "How should the church respond to the unBiblical, in some cases antiBiblical, sexual mores of our day, and how do we minister to those who choose a way of life that the Bible labels as sinful?" My current ministry places me in the midst of young adults, many of whom have been abused by sinful, dare I say "perverted," versions of sexuality that are winked at, if not culturally sanctioned in the communities they come from. The "winking and sanctioning" includes some church leaders. On top of that these "kids" (I have a grandson older than some of them) now live in a world where they have 24/7 exposure to the sexual muck of the world I used to live in, on the other side of the pond, plus all the stuff that comes from the other direction as well. It's like they are trying to put their lives together in the aftermath of one typhoon while enduring the fury of another one bearing down with full-force. It is a privilege for Kathy and I to model what a wholesome marriage looks like, and to, whenever possible, engage in productive conversation on the subject.
This morning two articles came my way that profitably continued the conversation.
Joe Rigney posted an article at Mere Orthodoxy, "Today’s World Would Not Be Strange to Paul: On Church Discipline." His article is mainly a critique of a post by Wesley Hill, a name that came up in my conversation last Thursday (though I mistakenly called him "Wesley White), "FIVE THESES ON CHURCH DISCIPLINE." I encourage you to read Hill's article first and then read Rigney's reaction to it.*
Knowing, though that many of you won't read the articles, I share a few comments below. My hope is that they will encourage you to read the articles.

Here are Hill's Five Theses:

1. There is no singular biblical model of church discipline, and our obedience to what the New Testament teaches in this regard must be an imaginative, metaphor-making obedience.
2. Church leaders must face the fact of their own complicity in the moral failings of those under their care.
3. The complexity of our post-Sexual Revolution cultural moment should lead us to expect that many “conversions” to a scriptural view of sex and marriage will be gradual and halting.
4. Church discipline in Anglicanism should be treated as a largely forgotten practice in need of rediscovery, rather than a possession being intentionally neglected.
5. In our slow recovery of the practice of church discipline, we must remember the aim of discipline: the forgiveness of sins.

#1 is primarily a matter of exegesis. I'll leave it for another day. Rigney has some thoughtful comments on this aspect of the discussion.

I was most interested in #s 2 & 3. 

#2 is true beyond any doubt. Some church leaders, being so desperate for a place at the cultural table, have become exegetical contortionists, excusing, and even embracing what scripture condemns. Others by their proverbial ostrich stance, teach and act like a traffic cop at a wreck, "Move along, there's nothing to look at, here." Still others by their lack of compassion, and failure to accurately reflect what Scripture really says, are like straight men for those who proclaim a new version of sexuality. A good straight man makes it easier for the other guy to deliver his lines effectively.
In particular, Hill points to the lack of clear winsome teaching on sexuality.

One of the details in 1 Corinthians 5 that has struck me with more and more force in recent years is how Paul not only counsels the Corinthian Christians to hand over the sexually immoral man in their midst to Satan (i.e., excommunicate him, in the hopes of his eventual restoration) but also stresses their collective failure in handling the situation in a godly way. Immediately after naming the presenting problem, Paul rounds on the church as a whole: “[Y]ou are arrogant! … Your boasting is not a good thing” (5:2, 6). In context, Paul is accusing the Corinthians of hypocritical pride in their spiritual status when they can’t even muster the moral will to confront the flagrant immorality of one of their congregants. But his point seems to me to have a wider significance. It highlights the fact that no individual sin is truly individual. We are all implicated in one another — or, to use Paul’s organic metaphor, we are members of the same body (Rom. 12:5) — and one person’s disobedience can affect the community, just as the community’s disobedience can affect an individual.

This strikes me as incontrovertibly true.

#s 3 & 5 mark the overall tone of Hill's article, as well as his book*. We on the conservative end of Christianity need this counterbalance.

Concerning #4, I'll let my Anglican friends sort their own laundry. I would say in general, though, concerning this one, that it has to be put next to #2. When we adopt the ostrich stance we are not innocent.

I think last Thursday I gave my version of one of Rigney's points. "If you bought the Apostle Paul a suit of 21st Century clothes, gave him a Star Trek universal translator, and dropped him in San Francisco, as soon as he figured out how to ride the trolley, he'd feel pretty well at home. While I don't think Hill is guilty of this, he does lean more in this direction more than I'm comfortable with. One of the tendencies in our day is for exegetes to adopt a stance toward the Biblical text that sees it as so culturally embedded that it loses any relevance to any cultural situation beyond the one immediately addressed in the text. Good Biblical hermeneutics demands that we respect the cultural setting. Yet, it appears to me that when we consider that Holy Spirit is the coauthor of scripture, and that He oversaw (sees) the preservation of Scripture (canonicity), that we can conclude that there are timeless, transcultural truths and ethical standards contained in the Bible. I maintain that a Biblical view of marriage and sexuality is one of those universals. Hill agrees with that, but he gives a greater level of sympathy to those who take the other side, than I or, it would appear, Rigney.**

____________

*Several years ago, when I and a fellow pastor were working on a series on how the Bible defines marriage, I read  Hill's book, Washed and Waiting. It did a great deal to help me understand the questions, not only intellectually, but empathetically, something that is hard for we "straight" oriented types. I hadn't heard from Hill recently. Though I am somewhat disappointed that he is no longer a Baptist, I am pleased that his orientation toward how to handle homosexuality is still the same. I encourage anyone who is studying deeply on 21st Century sexuality to read his book. Here is a review that will give you an idea of what Hill has to say, http://www.bloggingtheologically.com/2010/11/09/book-review-washed-and-waiting-by-wesley-hill/.
I'm not familiar with Joe Rigney. I do appreciate the way he interacts with his friend in this article.

** This article by Robertson McQuilkin and Bradford Mullen speaks to this issue, http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/40/40-1/40-1-pp069-082_JETS.pdf.

A review of the book by Dale S. Kuehne, SEX and the iWORLD:

In a world where the Ten Commandments are banned from court houses and social Mores are consistently ignored or overthrown what rules are there to guide us in our social interactions? Dale S. Kuehne observes that there are three taboos which govern the “iWorld,” his descriptive title of the dominant culture of the West in the Twenty-first Century:
1. One may not criticize someone else’s life choices or behavior.
2. One may not behave in a manner that coerces or causes harm to others.
3. One may not engage in a sexual relationship with someone without his or her consent. (p. 71)
Brave or not, this is the new world in which we live.
In Sex and the iWorld Kuehne contrasts three paradigms for finding meaning in life—the tWorld, traditional, the past; the iWorld, individualistic, the present; and the rWorld relational, proposed. While a discussion of sexual matters is very much a part of the book, the presentation of the three worlds is much broader than that. Sex, being an important part of who we are and our relationships, serves in the text as a window into relationships in general.
The first four chapters provide a description of, and contrasts between, the tWorld and the iWorld. The fourth chapter is devoted to an examination of “humans, human relationships, and sexuality” in the iWorld (p. 44). The rest of the book is devoted to describing the rWorld. While Kuehne is not heavy handed in his treatment, he does make it clear that a world in which relationships, with our God and others, dominate is superior not only to the individualistic way of life that dominates the West at the beginning of this millennium, but to the traditional patterns that gave meaning to life from the Greeks through the Cleavers (Ward, June, Wally, and The Beaver).
The difference between the three worlds can be seen by asking a denizen of each realm a basic question: How does one achieve happiness? The tWorlder would reply that one achieves meaning in life by accepting the role into which she or he is born, respecting the boundaries that define how one lives in that realm and then living life fully in that capacity. The citizen of iWorld is all about removing all impediments to freedom and self-expression as the means to achieving the good life. While the rWorld advocate would say that we were made to relate; we are at our best when we respect and develop relationships—with our Maker, with family, and others. While the tWorld and rWorld have some key similarities, Kuehne makes plain:

I do not want to return to the tWorld, and this book does not recommend that we try. The tWorld contained much that was good and that is consistent with my faith, but unfortunately it also contained many evils. . . . Instead I am arguing that in rediscovering the relational essence of Christianity and in seeking to live accordingly, society would actually be doing something that has never been done well. In short, I am asking you to be open to the possibility that what I am about to describe is something that has been often misunderstood and never fully lived. (p. 97-98)

Anyone who is aware of the radical changes that took place in our world around the 60s will be familiar with most of what Kuehne has to say about the contrast between the t and the i Worlds. Anyone familiar with the Bible’s teaching on sexuality, relationships, and meaning in life will likewise be disappointed if he is looking for something new in the author’s proposal for a new paradigm. But, then, didn’t Solomon say that the quest for the novel is a fruitless search? In spite of the book dealing with mostly familiar material the organizational matrix Kuehne provides is worth the read. Actually, if a reader figures that he already mostly knows about the information referenced above, what he might want to do is read the introduction, then read chapter 10, and then decide whether to read the rest of the book.
The author labors the point that this is not a Christian book per se. Kuehne identifies himself as a pastor and professor of politics. He claims to be writing primarily as the latter. A non-Christian will likely find the disclaimers disingenuous. As a conservative Christian I found them unnecessary. As one who preaches from and seeks to live by the Bible, I found little if anything with which to disagree. The author is in favor of traditional marriage, does not accept homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, and rejects the idea that for a person to not fulfill his sexual desires—whatever flavor they be--is the sure road to unfulfillment, if not downright neurosis.
From my perspective in the pastoral trenches it was a worthwhile 220 page read.