Bloggin' the 28: Marriage, family, homosexuality, children

Continuing our summer Bloggin' the 28 project, we have two -- from a man and a woman -- applications of the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of Marriage and the Family to contemporary life.

“Marriage was divinely established in Eden and affirmed by Jesus to be a lifelong union between a man and a woman in loving companionship. For the Christian a marriage commitment is to God as well as to the spouse, and should be entered into only between partners who share a common faith. Mutual love, honor, respect, and responsibility are the fabric of this relationship, which is to reflect the love, sanctity, closeness, and permanence of the relationship between Christ and His church. Regarding divorce, Jesus taught that the person who divorces a spouse, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. Although some family relationships may fall short of the ideal, marriage partners who fully commit themselves to each other in Christ may achieve loving unity through the guidance of the Spirit and the nurture of the church. God blesses the family and intends that its members shall assist each other toward complete maturity. Parents are to bring up their children to love and obey the Lord. By their example and their words they are to teach them that Christ is a loving disciplinarian, ever tender and caring, who wants them to become members of His body, the family of God. Increasing family closeness is one of the earmarks of the final gospel message.”

Between Heaven and Earth: A Reflection on Marriage and Family
Siroj Sorajjakool

I personally believe that there is an ontological drive toward Transcendence in all of us and this drive expresses itself in various dimensions of life.  This fundamental belief about marriage and family grows out of this inner reach for Transcendence and Divinity within human relationships.  While it may be practical to capture this within the belief system, Transcendence always transcends any attempt to capture it, especially in doctrinal form. 

There is an inner longing in us for that ideal family where love, respect, honor, and responsibility form the core values.  Where our inner needs are fulfilled.  Where there is harmony.  Where family members constantly support and nurture one another.  Where everyone is fully committed to standby in misery and happiness.  Where there exists complete acceptance and love.  Where family members take the time to really listen.  These are the yearnings of the soul for the Divine within the boundary of human relationships.  These yearnings and longings are a part of us from creation.  They are the essence to which we were created for.  They are the stuff of the soul that needs to be recognized and honored. 

At the very same time there needs to be the recognition that as human beings, we are always standing in-between, between the heaven and the earth, Divinity and humanity.  We are children of both realities.  And “family” is very much a part of these two realities.  We stand in-between.  The earth represents the possibility for conflicts, tensions, human weaknesses, the basic primal aspects of our humanity.  The earth symbolizes the messiness of life, of the reality that love is a difficult path to follow, that respect requires a great sense of maturity, that honor does not come easy, that responsibility comes with growth.  On earth one realizes that the desire to love is compromised by the reality of our humanity, of the possibility of our weaknesses, insecurity, and jealousy. 

To stand in-between is to come to an awareness of the deep yearning for the Divine within the boundary of marriage and family and the reality of our humanity. It is to create the distinction between the yearnings and the reality of there fulfillments.  To stand in-between is to allow our souls to savor the romance of Divine agape while extending our love tarnished by our very own humanity in the best possible way.  I personally think that if we do not place our marriage and family between heaven and earth, we may be living in a home without a soul, or having a soul that has no home.

I do have many suggestions about raising children in relation to the concept of standing in-between.  But when you have your own children and you have lived through their teenage years, what is there left to say about raising children except that may the grace of God be upon all of us parents.  As my wife once remarked to me, “When you have children, you are never the same.  They change you.”  While raising my teenage son, I was forced to grow emotionally.  I can’t say that I’m fully emotionally  mature, but I have certainly grown.  If you are not growing while helping your child to grow, you have to wonder what growth is all about.  A part of parenting is about a corrective that a child places on us in the way we come to experience Transcendence.
______________________

Marriage is a School; Churches are Families
Carrol Grady

In addition to procreation (“Be fruitful and multiply”), companionship (“It is not good for man to be alone; I will make a helper suitable for him.”) and a reflection of the Trinity’s relationship (“Let us make man in our image.”), in our fallen world I believe marriage serves as a school where we can learn to understand God’s love for us and model His love to each other and to our children.

Marriage, at its best, draws us out of our self-centeredness; becoming one-flesh, we learn that our partner’s needs and desires are as important as our own. If we stick with our marriage through difficult times, God uses them to teach us many lessons and mold our characters. Becoming parents, we learn to forego sleep, surrender personal plans, and expend financial resources for the sake of a helpless, squalling mite of humanity we helped create.

The love we experience for our children gives us a small glimpse of God’s love for us. We discover that discipline is necessary for their long-term good, even though they don’t appreciate it, and this helps us discern God’s loving hand when our cherished plans go awry. Our deep love is strong enough to encompass our children even when they are flawed, make mistakes, or misbehave, just as God loved us while we were still sinners. (Romans 5:8).

Children don’t realize their parents are just people. For a few years, in their little world, their parents are God for them. One of our most important tasks as parents is modeling God’s constant, unconditional love. If we fail at this, it may take our children a lifetime to believe God really loves them.

From my experience, some of the most profound, most difficult lessons we learn as parents come as our children near or reach maturity, when their decisions may be life-changing. For me, such a lesson began 20 years ago when we learned our youngest son is gay.

Not once did the possibility of shunning or withholding my love from him enter my mind. The first thing I had to do was confront my ignorance and prejudice. After the first shock, I realized that my pre-conceived ideas about homosexuality needed some revising. I’ve spent the years since learning as much as I can and reaching out to hundreds of other families going through this experience.

God has taught me many lessons. I learned the meaning of unconditional love on a deeper level. As I came to understand homosexuality better and to realize what my son had gone through, I learned tolerance for those who are different from me. I learned not to be judgmental, because I can’t know others’ circumstances. In sharing my experience, I learned that transparency and vulnerability allow others to drop their masks of perfection. I learned the relief of humility. Through it all, we have kept a close, loving relationship with our son.

I believe church families, just like individual families, have an important responsibility to model God’s overwhelming, persistent, mighty, unconditional love to everyone who seeks their fellowship. Our job is to love everyone and pray for them. We can leave the rest to God and the Holy Spirit.

Just one final, thoughtful question: Do our gay and lesbian sons and daughters also need the growth and learning provided by the school of marriage or a committed relationship?

Comments

[arlyn]

A small personal plea for insights if there is any out there. My 48yo brother-in-law has been in a "vegetative" state for 3yrs without improvement in a nursing home from multiple strokes (not trauma)thrown off a congenitally malformed heart valve no one discovered early enough. The prognosis is grim- healthy body (thanks to SDA lifestyle),tube feedings, uncomprehending mind, could last decades(no-code status, with no treatment except comfort measures)judging from his lack of illness even in his debilitated state. Recognition is nil.My sister-in-law is raising a young son, now 7yo. Fornication is nonexistent, love exists from the surviving spouse. Is this a marriage in God's sight?

[Darius (statrei)]

We need to stop spreading the idea that marriage was established in Eden. Somebody must have changed the definition of marriage. Why can't we speak the truth? Where are the true scholars when you need them?

[Andrew]

Whilst this is good, I can't help but notice what isn't said... what does our church have to offer the single, the widowed, the seperated and divorced? What do we say to those who either can't or don't have children? What about those in same-sex relationships?

I'm only asking because these people make up the majority of our commmunities outside the church (and if we're honest, a growing number inside it too).

[Ryan Bell]

Good point, Andrew. I'd say up to half my congregation are singles. We have something like 5 kids under 16 that attend church regularly. But we have something like 40 people in their 20. Kinda weird.

[Elaine]

We don't educate our children; they educate us. All parents realize this very early.

Darius has given us an important question? Why do we constantly state that "marriage was established in Eden"? We know no such thing. From the earliest Hebrew writings, there was incest (who did Cain marry?) and polygamy was widely practiced, something almost totally ignored by all Christians except the earlier LDS.

We do NOT live in Eden, but a sinful and corrupt world. Why should we stress that our marriages and homes should imitate that "Edenic state" about which no one knows? We know little or nothing about the first pair, but if their lives extended even half as long as the biblical record, they surely had plenty of disagreements (even at the tree!). Which reminds one of Ruth Graham's answer to a question of whether she had ever considered divorcing Billy, she replied: "Divorce, never; murder, yes."

Paul, who wrote much about marriage, as well as Jesus were single, weren't they? Just like those who've never been parents they are the ones giving the most advice.

It takes "Two to Tango" and at no time in our recorded history, have people lived as long as now; their life spans were much shorter, and their marriages, also. Today, there are those who celebrate their 50th, and 60th anniversary and longer. What happens when one partner grows and the other stays at the stage when first married? Is that a true companionship? Also, what about the condition mentioned here of a spouse who will likely remain a vegetable for the remainder of his physical life. Is a spouse considered "unfaithful" to divorce him? Yes, a faithful spouse will continue to see that an incapicated partner is adequately cared for, but where does the marriage vow envision this situation? Is "medical death" somehow different than "legal death"? Do flat brain waves still tie spouses together?

These question could never have been raised or even considered during the time the Bible was written, but are questions we need to grapple with today. What say you?

[Carrol Grady]

Arlyn, my heart goes out to your sister. We hear a lot of talk about how children need a male role model; your brother-in-law cannot provide that.

Ideals are good things to strive for, but we need to consider human needs and the real world we live in, too. As a church, I wish we could leave a lot more to the individual consciences and unique needs and experiences of each person - and show a lot more love and support and a lot less judgment and condemnation.

Carrol

[Raul Batista]

Speaking of perfect male role models, what would you think of a man who is moved easily to tears, never fights back when physically attacked, and isn't very competitive careerwise? If Christian mothers and fathers really took the meek and gentle Jesus as the model for their sons, how would those boys really turn out as far as modern culture is concerned? Luckily for those fortunate or unfortunate boys, as the case may be, very few Christian parents have very little interest in bringing up meek and gentle boys. Instead, they wish their girls turned out that way. No, that's not right either. That may have been true 50 years ago, but not even girls are successfully reared if they turn out meek and gentle these days.

It makes you wonder just who makes rules of how Christian children, especially, boys should be brought up?

[arlyn]

1. It says "Mutual love, honor, respect, and responsibility are the fabric of this (marriage)relationship, which is to reflect the love, sanctity, closeness, and permanence of the relationship between Christ and His church." But the supposed essence of this relationship-is not unique to marriage and can also be found in committed lifelong friendships or child-parent relationships.

So, transcendent-ly,spiritually, what is qualitively unique to the marriage RELATIONSHIP? (outside of the physical/procreative/legal aspects)(Is marriage an acknowledgement to the sin(or potential for it) within us that makes such quality relationships a rarity unless enforced from the outside? and hence it is a stop-gap measure unnecessary in heaven?)

2. Here's my "meek and gentle"- if interpreted as "teachable and empathetic", I think I can work with this in parenting both boys and girls. But the "strength-courage-assertiveness" part would have to be added to both sexes- defined as "unintimidating and unintimidateable". For Jesus was clearly both.

[Siroj Sorajjakool]

It is really nice to hear concerns base on experiences on this topic and many profound questions. About marriage made in heaven, I personally think that the inner drive for transcendence within human relationships extend beyond marriage and family to every form of human relationships (I believe in the role of the archetypes within our souls). And whether we are single or divorced etc., the inner soul will always long for this. Any closure needed in life rests on the reconciliation that comes with this awareness. Without it, it will be projected and therefore makes it impossible to have a meaningful relationship. The uniqueness of marriage does not make it any better or worse. It is just unique to its own nature of the relationship.

About gender role, I'm a deconstructionist and therefore I'm very hesitant to state what is and is not. We have seen so many different definitions of gender roles across cultures. I think everyone will have to reconcile for himself/herself in how one choses to define and what actually work for her or him within one's intrapsychic process, one's family, and community.

[arlyn]

"It is just unique to its own nature of the relationship."

am I understanding you to be answering, it is itself?

[Siroj Sorajjakool]

I mean it is just one of the many possible forms of relationship. But it is unique in its own way much like relationships among friends or sibling etc. Each particular relationship is unique with its own contribution and complication.

[Carrol Grady]

Arlyn, you say that the essence of the marriage relationship can be found in friendships or the parent/child relationship. Some people say that homosexuals should be satisfied with friendships; that the intimacy of marriage is only for a man and woman. What do you think about that?

Hopefully without sounding unsympathetic to those who aren't married, I would say that what is unique to marriage is that, unlike a parent/child relationship it is between equals; and unlike a close friendship the daily intimacy of marriage is more demanding. Therefore, the lessons to be learned are more difficult and perhaps more important.

Your thought about the need for "outside enforcement" of marriage being necessary in our sinful world, but not in heaven is very interesting. Could that lead to the idea that we will have deeply intimate, supportive relationships in heaven, but they won't be defined as marriage?

Carrol

[James Coffin]

Arlyn, the case of your sister and her incapacitated husband is heart-wrenching. In such cases, people must follow their own consciences, doing what they feel is right for them. However, I find it interesting how one rather influential person in our Adventist history seemed to view such a situation--one that was rather close to home for her. Note the following:

"Sister White's next older sister, Sarah Harmon, was married to Stephen Belden and became the mother of five children. After her death, in pity for his children, he married a woman who had many years been a faithful servant in his household. Shortly after this, the measles visited the vicinity, and she with others had the measles in a severe form. The measles went to her brain, and she became insane, and had to be taken to the asylum. Brother Belden struggled along for some time, trying to care for his five children, then for their sake married a very good, efficient woman. She helped him make a home and bring up his children, and was with him in Norfolk Island when he died. At various times, individuals where Brother Belden lived undertook to secure his exclusion from the church because he had married without separation from his wife on the charge of adultery. When appealed to in regard to this matter, Sister White said, 'Let them alone.'"--W. C. White letter, February 21, 1927. [http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$vid=default]

[Darius (statrei)]

I don't where to post this so I'll post it here. Let's fact it, friends. Humans are more interested about the future of their groups and organizations than they are about the future of the human race. They only consider to be truly human those who believe as they believe or are likely to believe as they believe.

[David R. Larson]

Arlyn
Please feel free to call me at Loma Linda University (909) 558-8103. Leave a message if necessary and I'll get back to you ASAP. Because I specialize in Christian medical ethics, I might be able to be of help. Thank you!
Dave

[Joselito Coo]

Would you agree, Darius, that since we trace our roots to the American church and consequently our belief system (reflected by the 28) and rituals are intrinsically tied to the dominant EuroAmerican world view, that the preservation of this kind of human group/organization is what Adventism really aims to achieve? It's a colonial Adventist culture we foster around the world, IOW?

Pastor Coffin's revelation regarding Ellen White's attitude in connection with a very specific situation only shows her pragmatic approach. It reinforces the view that inspired accounts must be approached on a case basis, versus a universal code book application. Our own historians have also observed that Ellen White was as much a product of her own time and so it won't be surprising if there were people outside of her own church community that approved of her brother-in-law's decision. Different times and diverse situations demand coping that should not be expected to be identical. There's a lesson for an international church that promotes a gospel vision of discipleship and worldwide organizational discipline.

[David R. Larson]

Arlyn,
Sorry for this post script; however, I invite us not to think of this as a case in the ethics of marriage but rather as one in the ethics of medicine. Thank you!

[Darius (statrei)]

You are absolutely correct, Joselito. If we were able to recognize this we would understand that this is what all groups are doing and it would impel us to lead the world in finding an approach that seeks to restore the entire race as an organism rather than seeking to transform all into copies of ourselves. Terrorism is terrorism regardless of how it is practiced.

[arlyn]

Carrol,

I do think our friendships in heaven will be even better and intimate than marriages on earth. But that's probably not a biblical doctrine, just an extrapolation from God telling us He is way above and ahead of us in fulfilling our wishes.

Honestly, I have not taken the time and effort yet to become deeply educated when it comes to the morality of homosexuality (outside of medically ministering for the unique needs of homosexuals- which I personally find a privilege, and had a growing niche in my group practice for.)so take everything I say as musings of an ignorant but learning person. While being open to growing, I am not at the level of accepting it is a valid expression of God's original plan for humanity. But it does seem to have both inborn and enviromental causation. At the risk of being tarred and feathered here, I presently and lightly-while affirming homosexuals are no less christian or human or lacking in any relational potential- should join the rest of us in avoiding whatever natural tendencies the HS urges us to avoid. Join the club! Many of us struggle with pride, envy, selfishness, which are much more pervasive and even MORE evil than sexual need that only differs in target. We're not radically different morally.(probably heterosexal promiscuous urges are more common and worse!) I firmly believe, we're in the same boat to heaven. So understanding, humility and mutual love ought to help all of us stumble together along the heavenward path.

[Elaine]

Coming to grips with homosexuality should cause us to humbly recognize that Scripture knows nothing of homosexual monogamous relationships. Promiscuity in both hetero and homo relationships were abominations. Certainly, there has always been homosexual relationships; we don't know of a time when there wasn't. Even the description of David's love for Jonathan surpassing the love of woman surely could have been describing more than mere friendship.

NONE of us approach God's ideal (which is what and how we attempt to describe what seems perfection), so why should those who may have been born differently be shunned or not admitted to God's house? Yes, in the Israelite's law, no male less than physically perfect could function in the tabernacle. Are we still at the understanding today?

Why seek to "restore" the Biblical description of marriage, when for most of this world's history either polygamous or arranged marriages were the norm? Doesn't each generation, even each couple have to structure their own marriage? Egalitarian marriage is new; as someone has said, before love there must be respect. Most marriages as historians tell us (Stephanie Coontz' "Marriage: A History") was not the joining of two equals, only in this century have most marriages adopted marriage between equals. Women have always been economically dependent on marriage; this prevented equality and even equal respect.

[Darius (statrei)]

We need to recognize that homosexuals did not suddenly arrive on earth from Krypton. Something happened in the human race so that today it can be said that homosexuality is part of human behavior. It is well to believe it is not part of the original plan, but one could say that wearing clothes was not either. We cannot change things by changing homosexuals because it was not their doing. We have to go for systemic change. We must discover what happened in the development of the race that caused such a mutation in the species level DNA, so to speak.

[Bill Cork]

It's called "the fall," Darius.

[Elaine]

And not one of is unaffected by the "fall."

[Bob Rigsby]

Not sure if the intent was that this become a thread on homosexuality, though it is an interesting topic. If this topic catches ones interest, there is a fascinating and long discussion over on Julius Nam's site; progressiveadventism.com It's Feb 5 by Daneen Akers.
Nearly 200 comments from all sorts of perspectives. Great, intense, reading. Some incredibly deep pain out there on this. And some very good contributions by Carrol too. I've recommended this read to many many friends.

http://progressiveadventism.com/2007
/02/05/for-the-bible-tells-me-so-biblical-literalism-and-homosexuality/

From my reading, the absolute best treatment of this topic is by Richard Hays in his book Moral Visions of the New Testament. Upon reading it, one realizes the pressure, the onus, is really on the non-homosexual... To realize that we all reflect, in various ways, departures from our created order; what God intended for us.

Sometimes I think we tend to settle for a "good enough" mentality in our human relationships. Not perfect, but good enough... But if we're honest I think, we see that all our relationships could be better; it's as if something holds us back -- maybe even ourselves. We can always be better parents, husbands, wives, lovers, friends. Not that we dwell in our failings, but that we always seek better (through our own actions and growth).

Now 50, I am bold enough to tell young people I have some advice for their marriage. (Most lately, my own daughter, who just got married) If you think you are noble by being willing to participate in a 50/50 marriage, your marriage is doomed. For we neither know when we are giving 50% (we surely tend to over estimate our contribution) nor when we are "getting" 50%. (We tend to underestimate the value of other's "gifts" to us.) IF you enter marriage expecting to give 100 % ALL the time, and your partner is doing the same, THAT relationship can get really wonderful.

Arlyn:
I empathize with your relatives experience. One of the most poignant things I witness in my work is watching old couples nurture and comfort each other in old age. Often one partner is demented, marginally functional, and the other steps in so nobly and bravely that it can brings tears to ones eyes. That kind of love seems almost sacred to me; the tenderness between people who live on memories, whose only hope is the spiritual, who know it is likely only going to deteriorate even more, is almost holy to watch. The reserves of inner strength seem a witness to the image of God within. It is powerful to watch...

Though I sometimes embarrass these people, I find they always seem to appreciate when their devotion is noticed and commented upon.

[Bob Rigsby]

Elaine:

In my continued attempts to grasp how you use scripture, how can you say that "Scripture knows nothing of homosexual monogamous relationships"? How can you possibly know that the homosexuality referred to by Paul in the NT was the "promiscuous" variety? That it was promiscuity that was frowned upon -- not homosexuality? The way you are using scripture here, Paul would have to explicitly say what you assert; he does not.

Besides, it's curious to me that monogamy is used to "justify" homosexuality. Sure monogamy is an ethic to emulate -- but just because one is monogamous need not mean the relationship is wholesome and in God's "plan". I'd bet lots of abusive relationships are monogamous.

So, just because a marriage relationship is male/female, it does not mean it is wholesome nor in God's created order. Similarly, just because a relationship is monogamous, that does not mean the relationship thereby passes all measures of goodness -- does it?
Just because love is seen in polygamous marriages, that need not mean polygamy is justified nor in God's order.

How do you reconcile all this?

[Carrol Grady]

Bob, it's true that this thread is not primarily about homosexuality, but whenever our Sabbath School lessons touch on the topic of marriage, a prominent point is made that marriage is only between a man and a woman, so I think bringing it in here tangentially is in order.

The point in my blog is that marriage presents a unique, though not exclusive, opportunity for God to teach us important lessons about his love for us. Not only as children, but even more as grown children parenting, we come to appreciate anew the sacrifices our parents - and God - made for us. Maybe that's more of a "Mom" thing, but I think it's a lesson that may not be learned as well any other way except as a parent.

As not only the mother of a gay son, but the surrogate sister/mother/grandmother of hundreds of dear and special gay and lesbian people, I have come to believe that by denying them the opportunity for an as-close-to-marriage experience as it is possible for them to have, we are making it very difficult for them to fully understand God's love. Imagine trying to believe in a loving God who allowed you to be born with a strong, emotional/physical attraction to someone of your own gender, and then told you that you must deny that longing He created in you. Understanding marriage as something more than a "legal" outlet for sexual expression might, I think, allow us to see the plight of homosexuals in a new light.

Actually, Scripture knows nothing of homosexuality. The understanding that there is a group of people who are only attracted to the same sex did not come about until the late 18th century, when the term "homosexuality" was developed, at the same time as "heterosexuality" came into use to describe those who attracted to the opposite gender. When the Bible was written, it was assumed that everyone was attracted to the opposite gender, and those who engaged in sex with the same gender arbitrarily chose to do so by "leaving" what was natural for them.

Hopefully before the end of the year, a book will be published: _Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Seventh-day Adventist Perspective_ which will include an excellent chapter on the six "clobber texts." I hope all of you will read it.

Carrol

[Elaine]

Carrol, you've said it much better than I could have. You have experienced a gay child, and only such a parent can possibly understand society, and especially the church's attitude toward them. Those of us who have enjoyed the many pleasures, memories and all the wonderful experiences of a happy marriage, cannot possibly understand what it means to have all that denied you simply because you weren't created like the other 90% of humanity. We should have even more empathy and understanding for those who, if they are told by well-meaning Christians that essentially, they should "get over it." How is that different from the hundreds of human physical problems experienced, that whe should simply "suck it up." How can possibly be a Christian response to a fellow believer?

Many have equated this to a continuing sin, that we cannot be saved while continuing in any sin. If that is true, then there is no hope for any of us, for there is no assurance that a single human will be sinless here on this earth, and sins are labeled by the group. The Ten Commandments makes not one word about homosexuality, but the fruits of the Spirit as enumerated in the NT are Love, joy, peace, patience,kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, against such things there is no law--none are included in the Ten Words. This can be equated with the 600+ rules surrounding the Israelites: by enumerating sins, there are only more to be broken; while enumerating the gifts of the Spirit are where we should focus.

[Elaine]

We should be more explicit in defining the terms "homosexuality" and homosexual ACTS. One can feel s(he) is homosexual at very early ages, yet no acts have ever even been contemplated, only that there is an attraction toward someone of the same gender. One simple questions for all hetersexuals to answer: "When did you decide to become heterosexual"? Was it a conscious choice, or did you actually have a choice in the matter? Can you possibly understand a homosexual has no choice, either? What if, as a heterosexual, you were told that you could never marry or have a partner nor expect the joys of a mutually loving relationship? IOW, put yourselves in other's shoes.

There are promiscuous people, more in the heterosexual scene than homo. There is no time in recorded history when prostitution was not practiced. In Paul's time, the Greeks practiced pederasty, and most had young male lovers. Paul is, no doubt, speaking of this very common practice. These men were nearly all married, but considered that Love was something to be experienced with another male while women were to be the mistress of the "hearth" and bear children. Such are some of the ancient marriage customs. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[arlyn]

"Imagine trying to believe in a loving God who allowed you to be born with a strong, emotional/physical attraction to someone of your own gender, and then told you that you must deny that longing He created in you." posits homosexuality as God's gift.

We do have God telling Jeremiah in Jer. 16:2 to not take a wife or have children. So even certain heterosexuals were commanded to stay celibate. Wouldn't that clearly be a denial of a God given longing? How hard it was for him! or for Hosea to marry a prostitute knowing the kids weren't his, How hard it was for him! Christianity and pacifism is very very hard! Paul telling the believing wife to stay with the unbelieving husband unless he wants her out is very very hard! Jesus saying divorce requires adultery is very very hard- and the disciples understood him clearly and voiced that celibacy would be easier than that kind of commitment!

Empathy should abound, but is not in itself a valid argument for saying something ought to remain status quo because the alternative is hard.

[arlyn]

Bob,
Amazing how the human heart can express God's love in inspirational sublime ways- independent of return and mutuality.

But the pragmatist in me (like the one in yourself that would defend minor children with violence if necessary)rebels against the rigidity of the moral marriage injunction that chains a young son to go through childhood with a diminishing chance of ever experiencing a tangible father relationship. We all gather about him, and as uncles and grandfathers we can impact him a few times a week- but 90% of the time he is fatherless. And it doesn't have to be that way- unless one feels morally compelled to love a body without a functioning brain for the ideal of marriage without the substance.

So what is the secret plea of my daily prayer to God on his behalf? Either heal his dad or kill him. And truthfully, that is the prayer of our whole clan. How horrible it sounds.

And if there is a spiritually sublime, superior lesson in this limbo of a marriage that outweighs the loss- therefore a reason to keep this going for decades- Please ease the pain by letting us in on it.

For three years, we are still groping numbly in the silence.

[arlyn]

the above are the two faces of relational pain. Christianity doesn't give easy outs, yet sustains one through it.

Question is: What is a morally eternal principle? Versus what is a temporary hermeneutical interpretation of a principle- and needs revision?

[Joselito Coo]

It seems clear that in this blog marriage has been held up as an ideal. It's "a school where we can learn to understand God’s love for us and model His love to each other and to our children." The same has been extended to include a committed relationship. Where procreation is not possible, either in a married or a committed relation, I would assume the absence of a child would prevent couples from achieving their educational objective.

Needlesss to say, not everyone will marry and will have children. Are they condemned to be less schooled and less mature as human beings, though created in God's image?

My question/request about the connection between the doctrine of the Trinity and marriage/family. Would you kindly unpack this a little further? Would the person who was assigned to blog the 28 on the Trinity weigh in as well?

[Daneen]

Fascinating discussion all. I find it telling that so many conversations turn to homosexuality--I'm actually glad. I think it means that more and more people are starting to grapple with the implications of our historic biases towards homosexuals, especially when it comes to marriage and family.

I actually noticed that the doctrine we're discussing says hardly anything about sexuality at all even though this is the doctrine where I'd imagine it would be. The only reference is to say that those who divorce for reasons other than the adultery of a spouse can't remarry without committing adultery themselves--which is a highly unrealistic standard today.

I think this glaring omission speaks to our Puritan hertitage and our deep discomfort with sexuality in general. Thank Augustine (who seemed to think his sexual issues were shared by all), but we seem to think anything carnal/of the body/desire is an innate tendency that should be overcome. As a young woman, I remember thinking how odd it was that the only real instruction I got on sexuality was "Don't have it until you're married"--also a rather unrealistic ideal given that women used to get married at first menses and now don't get married until their late 20s.

Any thoughts about sexuality (or the lack thereof) in this doctrine?

[Joselito Coo]

Matthew 19:11-12 (The Message)

'But Jesus said, "Not everyone is mature enough to live a married life. It requires a certain aptitude and grace. Marriage isn't for everyone. Some, from birth seemingly, never give marriage a thought. Others never get asked—or accepted. And some decide not to get married for kingdom reasons. But if you're capable of growing into the largeness of marriage, do it."'

[Joselito Coo]

Excellent thought, Daneen. It might help to advance our understanding if we distinguished between gender identity, gender role, and sexual orientation or attraction.

[Siroj Sorajjakool]

Joselito,

In your earlier comment you raised questions about trinity in relation to marriage. I am not the most qualified person on either topics but as I pondered your questions, I gather some thoughts on the topic. The concept of trinity is archetypal. We have this in Hinduism as well where there are Siva (destroyer), Vishnu (sustenor), and Bhrama (creator). You will also recall in Hegel's dialectic, we have thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In archetypal theory, trinity represents incomplete dynamics, a progression that will continue. Carl Jung believes that what trinity really needs is the feminine. Applying this to relationships, I think it symbolizes incomplete progression and that God's completeness will take place only when human beings have learned to embrace their humanity fully. Hence in a marital relationship, for example, this may suggest that marriage is a symbol of a home to human brokenness and incompleteness and vulnerability. Bonhoeffer in Creation and Fall states that the creation of Eve is meant to convey the message that Adam has limitations. Eve symbolizes man's limits in thoughts, feelings, perspectives, responsibilities etc. On the day I celebrated my 25th anniversary my wife asked what I've learned in these years (what a tough question). My answer was, there are very few things that really matters in life and relationships. Many things we thought matters were only our attempts to play god. The ideal family is indeed just another family going through life the best they can through the grace of God. I think this applies to other forms of relationships as well...those who take any relationship seriously will learn humility and to embrace our humanity. Just a thought.

[Siroj Sorajjakool]

Daneen, You raised such an important question about sexuality. I totally agree with you that our puritanical indoctrination is so strong...and it does not feel right. I don't mean it is wrong to be pure. I mean, we are not pure; we are sinners. It is our inability to talk about sex that makes things much harder. I wish we could find a place that provide openness to really talk about sexuality. It can solve many problems. But again to your question, why is it that we just can't find that place?

[Elaine]

If sex is discussed it's uaually either/or: One stays a vigin until marriage (a rare event today), which is the only accepted place; or it is a perverted and depraved part of humanity.

Surely, there must be another perspective. Must we always be saddled with the Augstinian and puritanical view? If God gave us sex to be enjoyed (?) should we do so? Or did he only give it to "be fruitful and multiply"?

Why can't it be a joyful pleasure shared by two consenting and committed adults? Just as sharing a delicious meal is much more enjoyable than eating alone. Yet, our Christian history deplores its use for other than procreative purposes. Hasn't that been the rule largely? Even EGW spoke of not arousing the "animal passions" so it certainly carried a Victorian attitude of just lying back and thinking of England!

[Siroj Sorajjakool]

Elain, I love your metaphor of 'lying back and thinking of Enland!' Will have to try that and let you know. The term 'animal passions' is kind of disturbing to me. I think there are other contexts where she speaks of sex in a positive light. Regardless, to me, there is nothing animal about sex. It is not sex but the people who approach sex. The tendency to name anything primal as negative is something that is most disturbing. Primal isn't bad. It is us and the sooner we can accept it, the better. Accepting does not mean following every desire but just recognizing that it is there and it is real and it can be good if we approach it right.

Now regarding 'being fruitful and multiply' I think there is a bigger issue here especially if we were to look at population growth. In some devious ways, our society has constructed certain economic norms and a definition of a family that make it hard for us to have children...more children. I personally do not like to have more because it is hard to make them fit the norms that is increasingly difficult to attain. I do not know if I answer any question...just have to write something because you raised interesting questions.

[Elaine]

More than a few couples marrying today, both young and older, do not plan on having children. And there are also those who only wish to have one because our earth is already too over populated and the costs of raising even one child through college is astronomical. Who knows what it will be 20 years from now?

The oiginal and primary reason for marriage was to give legitimacy to children that were born. Although today in the Jewish culture, ethnicity is traced through the mother, in ancient times, the mother had no rights whatsoever, as the father got the children as, after all, according to their biological understanding, women were merely the "incubators" and gave no genetic inheritance to their offspring.

Should we not consider the times many of these rules were given in light of our better understanding today, both biological and sociological? Any institution that does not adapt to the prevailing circumstances will soon find itself obsolete. See the Hasidic and Orthodox Jew for this fulfillment.

[Siroj Sorajjakool]

I totally agree about the need to adapt or else one can be obsolete. I only one and I do not think I can handle more then one. I also know that 'Muslim' is the fastest growing population. And the level of education corresponds with the number of children in the household in our current society (the more educated, the less children). What is the implication of this? I'm not quite sure. But my questions are: why can't it be simplier to raise children, why can't education be cheaper? Why can't we expect a little less and live a little more?

[siroj]

Clarification, I do not know if there is any correlation between level of education and number of children in Asian countries especially in the Muslim world.

[Carrol Grady]

Arlyn, To paraphrase Jesus' words, I believe Marriage is made for humans; not humans for marriage. It was designed to be a blessing for us, not chains to bind us to an untenable situation. We live in a fallen world! What was a Creation ideal is not always possible here. As Elaine said, "It takes two to tango," and unless both partners are able or willing to nurture and sustain their relationship, I think we ought to honor the conscience of the involved partner.

Is marriage often difficult at times? Of course. That is how we learn to overcome selfish tencencies. But to me, anyway, the difficulties of lifetime celibacy for homosexuals don't offer the same learning experience as marriage. God is a God of relationships - witness the Trinity - and I just can't believe he would ask approximately 10% of his children to live lonely lives without companions because they are born attracted to the "wrong" gender. Perhaps some of them, like heterosexuals, will never find a companion, and perhaps some can live without a companion, but what about the many who fall in love with another - just as heterosexuals do? Is that love sinful? Is any true love sinful? It seems to me there is a difference between saying that some individual situations present difficulties, and saying that difficulty is mandated for a whole class of people.

Carrol

[Carrol Grady]

Elaine, I believe God made us sexual beings for more than the purpose of procreation, as special a gift as that is. After all, he didn't make us like animals, who only mate in season.

I see the baleful influence of Satan in trying to destroy this gift of God in so many ways. The fairly recent idea that both men and women should enjoy sex is, I think, a gift of God, although Satan has certainly succeeded in corrupting that, as well. I do believe that it is a pleasure that should only be enjoyed within the protection of a committed relationship.

Carrol

[Carrol Grady]

Daneen, you are so right about our sense of shame in relation to the body and sex. I remember the discomfort of most Sabbath School teachers some years ago when our lessons were on Solomon's Song of Songs!

I think the lack of any reference to sexuality in this fundamental can be attributed to the general wish that the whole issue would just quietly go away.

The tools that modern medical and psychological understanding, and current research about homosexuality have given us should create, I believe, an opportunity for "present truth" that Adventists should be especially sensitive to.

Carrol

[Joselito Coo]

Carrol writes: "But to me, anyway, the difficulties of lifetime celibacy for homosexuals don't offer the same learning experience as marriage. God is a God of relationships - witness the Trinity -...."

My question: If you were to delete the word "homosexual" above so that it refers to anybody, including heterosexual, would that not change your view regarding marriage/committed relationship and the Trinity?

[Joselito Coo]

Henri Nouwen, the Dutch Catholic priest, was a fine example of one who struggled with his sexual orientation resulting in clinical depression. Nevertheless, he never broke his vow of celibacy. I'm not arguing for or against the unmarried state; but I object to the notion that the difficulty of staying unmarried or outside a committed relationship can result in less than a complete (as complete as is possible on earth) human experience.

[Wondering]

Mrs. Grady,
There are several fallacies in your arguments that I wanted to take up with you.

1. You seem to be taking the tack of putting marriage up on a pedestal in order to argue that it should not be denied to anyone who wants it.
You almost seem to be saying that "marriage is next to Godliness; therefore to deny one marriage is to deny one the fullness of God".

We do know, that while marriage--among other God-created things-has parallels that are able to teach us more about God;

i)The goal of life is not marriage; and marriage is not essential for knowing God or getting to heaven. Is this a Mormon blog?

The purpose of life is not to marry or to form "committed relationships" (are we so self-absorbed? Is life all aboutus? Us and our "commited relationships"?).
As it was in the days of Noah..."eating, drinking and giving in marriage"...

ii)The Bible clearly shows that a shift in the times prescribes a shift in priorities.

Paul and Jesus did without marriage, and here is no reason we cannot expect those who cannot form intimate heterosexual relationships to follow the example of our Lord and alter the focus of our lives.

2. I cannot believe you are arguing that because God allows something to occur that it is then a "gift from God" that He "created". Surely you do not believe this?

And what is a "loving God"? God's ways are past finding out and we have barely a glimpse most days (through a dark glass) of the reasons He does what He does and allows what He allows.
It is therefore arrogance and presumption that would have one say that "If God really loved me he would not ask me to_______."
Why can't a God who gives us a sexuality not tell us how to use it (forgetting the fall for a moment)?
What request of God's is "too unreasonable" in light of the cross and "all that stuff"?

Christianiy is not an inward-looking, sentimental religion based on feelings and the temporal pre-occupations of our unreformed hearts.
Christianity says that something dreadful is wrong with all of us, and that we have a work of surrendering to do in trying to change the natural, inherited order of things since the fall. We are so far from God it is not funny--and yet here you are trying to equate mundane human concerns like marriage and finding a mate with important things like salvation and the redemption of mankind. Sexuality may be a god, but it certainly is not God; and I never thought anyone would try so hard to argue otherwise.

And then you said this:

"But to me, anyway, the difficulties of lifetime celibacy for homosexuals don't offer the same learning experience as marriage. God is a God of relationships - witness the Trinity..."

"To me..."?
But it is almost certainly not about "you".

God requires different things of different people.
Everybody should have the same experiences? Everybody needs to grow and learn in the same ways?
The rich young ruler had to give all, Zacchaeus half and Nicodemus none. "To me" that may seem "weird and inconsistent". But what do I have to do with it?
Shelby Spong will have to answer for himself, but the word of God is clear about the matter--homosexual intimacy/relatinships/"marriages"/behavior is forbidden by God. How else can God show his disapproval? What else can the Bible say about this matter? "Promiscuity"? "Temple prostitution"? Really? Think about what you'll have to say to God on judgement day.

I wanted to delve into the misuse of the term "love"-- as in "...how can love be wrong?"-- (most often to refer to a formless but overwhelming, warm, sentimental, fuzzy, feeling about an action that miraculously ennobles said action; and catapults it beyond the reach of reason, law, judgement and morality. In a perverse way, by this definition, "love" does indeed "conquer all") but I do not have time. Think about it though; what it "love" really? Is it an objective thing?

Someone above also wanted to embrace man's "animal passions".
Really?
Think about what you are saying.
When--ever--has the embrace of animal passions been beneficial for mankind?
How can this ever be a good idea for any of the fallen seed of Adam?

[Carrol Grady]

Joselito, I don't mean to argue that marriage and parenting are an elite status, and only those who experience them have lived a full life. I'm sure that God can teach us all important lessons in life, whether married or not. I'm just saying that these may be God's most effective avenues of teaching us about his love. I see the Trinity as evidence that relationships are the essence of who God is.

I very much admire Henri Nouwen, who has blessed so many through his experience of suffering, but I am not convinced that this was what God really wanted or expected. Yes, God can bring good and blessings from the trials we endure, but I believe his greatest desire is for us to enjoy life, even more than earthly parents want their children to be happy and fulfilled.

Carrol

[Bert]

Carrol,

I liked your post very much. I have nothing to add to it or take away from it. It touched me. Thank you.