The meaning of marriage (and gender!)

theological

I want to set up a new thread for the general discussion of marriage and gender as distinct from the megathread. These issues go above and beyond that issue.

Cabaal wrote: »

You are 100% right,
We clearly should follow the bible when it comes to dealing with people and marriage.

Perhaps you should read something on covenant theology. Christians read the Old Testament with the interpretative lens of what Jesus has done. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the law and we are no longer under the Law of Moses. If you genuinely want to hear our position you just need to ask us rather than pretending to know.

Side note on the Exodus passage that Cabaal mentioned earlier. I'm putting it in spoiler tags for those who are interested. My main point about what marriage is from a Christian context is below:

Having said that, even within the theocratic system of Israel. That passage that you quoted - affirms the rights of slaves as above and beyond other nations. It was time limited for the purposes of repaying debts. The passage is not primarily about marriage. That is a side note.

Exodus 21:7-11 wrote:

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

So - a few things.
1. If the daughter is a slave, she can leave if she doesn't please her master. This is a distinction in comparison to male slaves who must serve for 6 years.
2. If he does let her go, he must let her go free.
3. If he takes her as a wife he must consider her needs, and if his son marries her then likewise.
4. To boot if the master fails in his obligations he must let her go free.

Now - having looked at the Old Testament law, let's look at what Christianity actually says about marriage and the complementarity of gender.

Ephesians 5:22-33 wrote:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

From reading this we see a couple of things:

1. Marriage is a complementary union between the sexes. It is complementary with two different roles. Not two of the same roles or two of the same genders. Why? Because men and women are created differently by God and that matters. Gender is not a construct from the Biblical worldview. Gender matters, it isn't something interchangeable in marriage.

2. The husband plays a sacrificial role in the marriage like Jesus Christ. The husband is meant to be willing to lay down his life for His wife. That will obviously also mean being willing to cast aside his own interests for His wife. The husband is responsible for the well being of his wife, both physically and spirtually.

3. The wife submits to her husband. Part of you might be thinking that it isn't fair that only the husband gets to reflect Jesus Christ. Although in this passage marriage does reflect the union of Christ and the church, the wife also reflects Jesus Christ by submission because Jesus submitted freely to God the Father in the work of salvation.

Hopefully this will trigger good and helpful discussion. That's my aim.

smacl

I think the issue here is that there is a difference between what we consider married from a Christian perspective and what we consider married as a society that is neither exclusively nor devoutly Christian. Marriage has a legal standing independent of religious adherence and non-Christians get married. As such it seems reasonable that there is a difference between what constitutes a valid marriage from the perspective of any given church and that of the state. So it is entirely reasonable that as a society we allow a gay couple to get married, or a couple who have no intention of ever having kids, even if various churches would not consider the marriage valid from the standpoint of their religion.

We don't live in a theocracy. As such it is the people rather than the church that get to say who can or cannot get married. The people have clearly expressed their preference in this regard. Who gets married in a church on the other hand is up to that church and their rules.

theological

smacl wrote: »

I think the issue here is that there is a difference between what we consider married from a Christian perspective and what we consider married as a society that is neither exclusively nor devoutly Christian. Marriage has a legal standing independent of religious adherence and non-Christians get married. As such it seems reasonable that there is a difference between what constitutes a valid marriage from the perspective of any given church and that of the state. So it is entirely reasonable that as a society we allow a gay couple to get married, or a couple who have no intention of ever having kids, even if various churches would not consider the marriage valid from the standpoint of their religion.

We don't live in a theocracy. As such it is the people rather than the church that get to say who can or cannot get married. The people have clearly expressed their preference in this regard. Who gets married in a church on the other hand is up to that church and their rules.

Others can get married however they choose in their own sight. What other people get up to is up to them.

From a Christian perspective this is what marriage is. This thread as distinct to the megathread is about criticism about the Christian perspective on marriage.

smacl

theological wrote: »

Others can get married however they choose in their own sight. What other people get up to is up to them.

Not just in their own sight, also in the sight of society. What various Christians may or may not think about this is up to them.

From a Christian perspective this is what marriage is. This thread as distinct to the megathread is about criticism about the Christian perspective on marriage.

Quite so, but there seems to be an increasingly large number of Christian churches that are fine with gay marriages, or marriages where there is no intent to have kids, that might not meet the more exacting standards of more conservative churches.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

I think the issue here is that there is a difference between what we consider married from a Christian perspective and what we consider married as a society that is neither exclusively nor devoutly Christian.

This is an important point, and is recognised by Christian marriage services which incorporate the civil aspects so that the marriage is also recognised by the state. That being said, the Bible doesn't recognise a distinction between "civil" and "religious" marriage. Christianity views marriage as a creation ordinance, in other words something that was given by God for the good of all people, whether they are believers or not. Marriage is established in Genesis 2 for the threefold purpose of companionship and mutual loving support, as the legitimate context for the expression of our sexuality, and for the creation and nurture of children. These are goods that apply to everyone.

Until recently, the wider societies view of marriage has broadly conformed to this Christian understanding. Similarly, society has granted certain benefits to marriage in recognition of its universal value to society. What has changed is that our we are now redefining marriage to be something different.

So while we don't (nor should we) live in a theocracy, Christians do believe that marriage means something specific, has been given by God for the good of all, and isn't for us to tinker with or recast as we see fit.

smacl wrote: »

there seems to be an increasingly large number of Christian churches that are fine with gay marriages, or marriages where there is no intent to have kids, that might not meet the more exacting standards of more conservative churches.

I think this brings in a separate but related question, that is the question of authority. What is our final authority on questions of life and belief? As an evangelical Christian, my answer is the bible. The other two options for Christians are tradition (because the church says so) and reason (because we say so). At the risk of being overly simplistic, Roman Catholicism is a good example of the former and more liberal leaning western churches (where there is increasing acceptance of gay marriage) are good examples of the latter.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

So while we don't (nor should we) live in a theocracy, Christians do believe that marriage means something specific, has been given by God for the good of all, and isn't for us to tinker with or recast as we see fit.

You possibly need to better qualify what you mean by Christians there. The majority of the people of this country identify as Christian of one denomination or another, and these Christians voted to allow same sex marriage by a considerable majority.

I think this brings in a separate but related question, that is the question of authority. What is our final authority on questions of life and belief? As an evangelical Christian, my answer is the bible. The other two options for Christians are tradition (because the church says so) and reason (because we say so). At the risk of being overly simplistic, Roman Catholicism is a good example of the former and more liberal leaning western churches (where there is increasing acceptance of gay marriage) are good examples of the latter.

As you suggest above, authority with relation to life and belief is clearly a personal matter that is influenced largely by the tradition you come from. My opinion is that a problem arises where those from one religious tradition seek to restrict the behaviour of others who are not members of that tradition based on the tenets of that tradition.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

You possibly need to better qualify what you mean by Christians there. The majority of the people of this country identify as Christian of one denomination or another, and these Christians voted to allow same sex marriage by a considerable majority.

Quite right; I mean someone who has faith in Jesus Christ as lord and saviour. As Romans 10:9 puts it, "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." A practical test would be sincere assent to the apostles creed, for example.

I don't mean someone who is nominally a member of one institutional church or another, or who merely ticks a certain box on the census form. That isn't what the term has meant historically, and is so devoid of content to be quite meaningless.

smacl wrote: »

As you suggest above, authority with relation to life and belief is clearly a personal matter that is influenced largely by the tradition you come from. My opinion is that a problem arises where those from one religious tradition seek to restrict the behaviour of others who are not members of that tradition based on the tenets of that tradition.

That's not quite what I meant. The point I was trying to make is that within Christianity there are three sources of authority: scripture, tradition and reason. All three are valid, but different groups of Christians emphasise them to different degrees and will give a different answer as to which one is decisive. Evangelicals regard scripture as the highest and final authority in matters of life and faith.

In terms of restricting behaviour, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Scripture is quite clear that establishing a theocracy is not the goal of Christianity. Nor are Christians to aim at restricting or modifying people's behaviour as a prerequisite to salvation "Clean yourself up and God will accept you." On the contrary, the good news of the gospel is that anyone and everyone can come to Jesus in faith as they are.

If you mean that Christians shouldn't be influenced by their beliefs in how they act as citizens, in how they engage in the public square, and in what they think is in the best interests of society, then I have to disagree sharply. Everyone campaigns or advocates for what they think is good based on their beliefs.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

If you mean that Christians shouldn't be influenced by their beliefs in how they act as citizens, in how they engage in the public square, and in what they think is in the best interests of society, then I have to disagree sharply. Everyone campaigns or advocates for what they think is good based on their beliefs.

Not at all. I think everyone should be free to express their opinion in the public square, though on the basis that the opinion will come under scrutiny and is likely to attract criticism where it runs contrary to more broadly held opinions. Gay marriage is a good case in point here, insofar as while one religious group might hold marriage to be a sacrosanct joining between one man and one woman according to their articles of faith, others might think very differently. So if your belief system would seek to prevent a gay couple from getting married for example, the question is whether that ruling should apply to those who do not share your beliefs. The secular position here is no, that this is unreasonable, much the same way it would be if the countries Muslims tried to force everyone to eat halal.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Not at all. I think everyone should be free to express their opinion in the public square, though on the basis that the opinion will come under scrutiny and is likely to attract criticism where it runs contrary to more broadly held opinions. Gay marriage is a good case in point here, insofar as while one religious group might hold marriage to be a sacrosanct joining between one man and one woman according to their articles of faith, others might think very differently. So if your belief system would seek to prevent a gay couple from getting married for example, the question is whether that ruling should apply to those who do not share your beliefs. The secular position here is no, that this is unreasonable, much the same way it would be if the countries Muslims tried to force everyone to eat halal.

I broadly agree with you in terms of legislating for religious beliefs / practices. But that's not really what the Christian opposition to the redefinition of marriage is about. I don't know of any Christians who think that non believers, or followers of other religions shouldn't get married or that their marriages aren't valid.

I and others have summarised a Christian understanding of marriage at the top of the thread, and how it fits into a wider Christian worldview. Until recently Western society broadly shared that understanding, but that now appears to be changing. In light of that, what do you think marriage is and what is it for? And who gets to decide?

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I broadly agree with you in terms of legislating for religious beliefs / practices. But that's not really what the Christian opposition to the redefinition of marriage is about. I don't know of any Christians who think that non believers, or followers of other religions shouldn't get married or that their marriages aren't valid.

I and others have summarised a Christian understanding of marriage at the top of the thread, and how it fits into a wider Christian worldview. Until recently Western society broadly shared that understanding, but that now appears to be changing. In light of that, what do you think marriage is and what is it for? And who gets to decide?

My personal opinion is that marriage is a point in a relationship where a couple declare publicly that their relationship is committed, loving, permanent and exclusive. As such they are considered a married couple by the community and state for various social and legal purposes. Marriage is not dependent on gender, religious persuasion or intent to have kids. Judging from the recent referendum outcome, this is not only also the position held by the majority of people in this country but also by the majority of Christians in this country.

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

My personal opinion is that marriage is a point in a relationship where a couple declare publicly that their relationship is committed, loving, permanent and exclusive. As such they are considered a married couple by the community and state for various social and legal purposes. Marriage is not dependent on gender, religious persuasion or intent to have kids. Judging from the recent referendum outcome, this is not only also the position held by the majority of people in this country but also by the majority of Christians in this country.

Here we go again with your definition of Christian.... If we can get that right then there can be a proper discussion.

I do agree with your definition of marriage but it's between a man and a woman.
It's a commitment by 2 people which makes them married. The law then recognises that committment and infers certain rights and responsibilities.

smacl

Alexis Brave Bun wrote: »

I do agree with your definition of marriage but it's between a man and a woman.

Not in the eyes of the law or the majority of people in this country.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

My personal opinion is that marriage is a point in a relationship where a couple declare publicly that their relationship is committed, loving, permanent and exclusive. As such they are considered a married couple by the community and state for various social and legal purposes.

That's a fine definition of marriage as far as it goes, the point is that it's true whether you or I believe it or not. As I said above, this comes down to a question of authority. As a Christian, my highest authority is the bible, which clearly defines what marriage is and what it's for.

smacl wrote: »

Marriage is not dependent on gender, religious persuasion or intent to have kids. Judging from the recent referendum outcome, this is not only also the position held by the majority of people in this country but also by the majority of Christians in this country.

smacl wrote: »

Not in the eyes of the law or the majority of people in this country.

I think this reflects the idea that human reason, or the collective will of society is the highest authority. Christians dispute that idea, and I would say that society is overstepping by seeking to redefine marriage. The same point is true in the current debate on gender; both have an objective meaning that cannot be changed by a referendum. Society can ignore that fact, or try to change it, but such is a denial of reality.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I think this reflects the idea that human reason, or the collective will of society is the highest authority. Christians dispute that idea, and I would say that society is overstepping by seeking to redefine marriage. The same point is true in the current debate on gender; both have an objective meaning that cannot be changed by a referendum. Society can ignore that fact, or try to change it, but such is a denial of reality.

Some more zealous Christians take this stance perhaps but most clearly do not. Most Irish people, the majority of whom are Christian, have the good grace not to interfere with the lives of others because it is an affront to their religious position. Now while you might denounce those Christians as not being Christians at all for taking a stance that opposes your own they might do likewise for placing religious zeal ahead of compassion.

theological

smacl wrote: »

Some more zealous Christians take this stance perhaps but most clearly do not. Most Irish people, the majority of whom are Christian, have the good grace not to interfere with the lives of others because it is an affront to their religious position. Now while you might denounce those Christians as not being Christians at all for taking a stance that opposes your own they might do likewise for placing religious zeal ahead of compassion.

Round and round and round we go.

When we define what Christianity teaches we look to the Bible to see what Jesus and the Apostles taught. That's sensible.

Claiming that there are loads of lapsed Christians who don't refer to the Bible at all means nothing. They live their lives on a secular basis without reference to God.

I'm not going to use a definition for being a Christian other than the Biblical one.

I don't argue for "interfering" in the lives of others. I'm much more interested in getting involved in the job that Jesus has given me as a Christian to build His church up in the truth both by encouraging believers and by sharing the gospel with others.

smacl

theological wrote: »

Round and round and round we go.

When we define what Christianity teaches we look to the Bible to see what Jesus and the Apostles taught. That's sensible.

Claiming that there are loads of lapsed Christians who don't refer to the Bible at all means nothing. They live their lives on a secular basis without reference to God.

I'm not going to use a definition for being a Christian other than the Biblical one.

I don't argue for "interfering" in the lives of others. I'm much more interested in getting involved in the job that Jesus has given me as a Christian to build His church up in the truth both by encouraging believers and by sharing the gospel with others.

That's fair enough and that is clearly your position but it is not an exclusive one. While it might rankle, it is also entirely reasonable that all those who identify as Christian on the national census, and are identified by their church as members of that church, are also Christian by their definition and that of their church. You might not consider them thus, but that's not really your call is it?

The same is true for most major religions, so for example we refer to all those from a Muslim majority country, who identify as Muslim, as actually being Muslim. We don't question their faith even if most of what appears overtly as religious behaviour actually has more to do with tradition than faith in many cases.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

That's fair enough and that is clearly your position but it is not an exclusive one. While it might rankle, it is also entirely reasonable that all those who identify as Christian on the national census, and are identified by their church as members of that church, are also Christian by their definition and that of their church. You might not consider them thus, but that's not really your call is it?

The same is true for most major religions, so for example we refer to all those from a Muslim majority country, who identify as Muslim, as actually being Muslim. We don't question their faith even if most of what appears overtly as religious behaviour actually has more to do with tradition than faith in many cases.

I don't think we are going to get anywhere here unless you can see that, perhaps, Christians have some insight into what a Christian is, and how you can recognise one.

Maybe it will help to lift your perspective beyond Ireland. Even I concede, for the sake of argument that the majority of Irish people consider themselves as Christians despite having no engagement with the church, and despite their supposed belief having no relevance to their everyday life, does that match up with what we see around the world? The definition of Christianity you are pushing would be, at best, bizarre to the vast majority of Christians globally, and throughout history.

Maybe it is your idea of Christianity that is the unusual one?

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I don't think we are going to get anywhere here unless you can see that, perhaps, Christians have some insight into what a Christian is, and how you can recognise one.

Maybe it will help to lift your perspective beyond Ireland. Even I concede, for the sake of argument that the majority of Irish people consider themselves as Christians despite having no engagement with the church, and despite their supposed belief having no relevance to their everyday life, does that match up with what we see around the world? The definition of Christianity you are pushing would be, at best, bizarre to the vast majority of Christians globally, and throughout history.

Maybe it is your idea of Christianity that is the unusual one?

Ok, let's go elsewhere so. How does another Catholic country such as Spain work for you? Seems to be very much the same as Ireland from what I can see (from Wikipedia);

According to the Spanish Center for Sociological Research, 68.9% of Spaniards self-identify as Catholics, (46.4% define themselves as not practising, while 22.5% as practising), 2.9% as followers of other faiths (including Islam, Protestant Christianity, Buddhism etc.), and 27.7% identify as atheists (11.0%), agnostics (8.4%) or non-believers (8.3%) as of May 2019. Most Spaniards do not participate regularly in religious worship. This same study shows that of the Spaniards who identify themselves as religious, 27.2% never attend mass, 28.2% barely ever attend mass, 17.0% attend mass a few times a year, 7.6% two or three times per month, 11.6% every Sunday holidays, and 2.1% multiple times per week.

Although a majority of Spaniards self-identify as Catholics, most, especially those of the younger generations, ignore the Church's moral doctrines on issues such as pre-marital sex, sexual orientation, marriage or contraception. The total number of parish priests shrank from 24,300 in 1975 to 18,500 in 2018, with an average age of 65.5 years. By contrast, some expressions of popular religiosity still thrive, often linked to local festivals.

Seem familiar, or perhaps they're not 'real' Christians either? You might not realise it but your statement "Christians have some insight into what a Christian is, and how you can recognise one" is a tautology which applies equally well to yourself as anyone else that identifies as Christian.

theological

Census numbers are irrelevant.

The heart of the matter is different.

If the Bible says X, and if Jesus says X, if I am a Christian I should be able to affirm and accept X.

If I claim to be a Christian and I don't accept X, I don't listen to what Jesus says when He says X, then how can I say I'm following after Him?

This is the perspective where we are coming from. I don't care about the census numbers, I care about how Jesus speaks about what it means to follow Him in His Word.

We don't accept this definition you're providing, and to be honest, instead of going around and around and around again, it'd be great to discuss the topic in the original post.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Ok, let's go elsewhere so. How does another Catholic country such as Spain work for you? Seems to be very much the same as Ireland from what I can see (from Wikipedia);



Seem familiar, or perhaps they're not 'real' Christians either? You might not realise it but your statement "Christians have some insight into what a Christian is, and how you can recognise one" is a tautology which applies equally well to yourself as anyone else that identifies as Christian.

Yes, Spain does sound similar to Ireland in that respect alright. Raises the same questions though, doesn't it? I can only answer that they are 'real' Christians if they have faith in Jesus Christ - that is the consistent testimony of scripture, and of the church around the world and down through the ages.

I am truly baffled that you seem to think that someone can be a Christian if they don't believe what Jesus has said, or display any evidence of believing in him at all. As an evangelical Protestant that notion is utterly alien to me; I suspect you are not doing full justice to the Roman Catholic doctrines of faith either, but that would be for a Catholic to say.

In any case, it doesn't look like we will change each others mind at this point.

It strikes me that your presentation of Christianity depends on words having no fixed or objective meaning, and on the individual being the final arbiter of what is true. In that case, if I consider myself to be a Christian, and honestly believe it, then I am and no-one can tell me otherwise. The same ideas seem very relevant to the current debates on marriage and gender in our society.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

It strikes me that your presentation of Christianity depends on words having no fixed or objective meaning, and on the individual being the final arbiter of what is true. In that case, if I consider myself to be a Christian, and honestly believe it, then I am and no-one can tell me otherwise. The same ideas seem very relevant to the current debates on marriage and gender in our society.

Not at all. If I want to know what the well understood objective meaning of word is I reach for the dictionary. From Merriam-Webster

Definition of Christian (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
b(1) : DISCIPLE sense 2
(2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906
(3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961

or from Google dictionary

Christian
/ˈkrɪstʃ(ə)n,ˈkrɪstɪən/
adjective
1. relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings.
"the Christian Church"
noun
1. a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.
"a born-again Christian"

I would suggest that the common understanding of the word would match with my understanding perfectly well.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Not at all. If I want to know what the well understood objective meaning of word is I reach for the dictionary. From Merriam-Webster



or from Google dictionary



I would suggest that the common understanding of the word would match with my understanding perfectly well.

Never thought of the dictionary as an authoritative religious text, but ok

I could counter with the first definition in each of the examples you give there: "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ" and "relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings," but that would be a distraction. If the bible speaks to a topic, then what is says is final and authoritative for me, and for others like me. That is why, if I to know what a Christian is, I look to the bible.

Similarly, if I want to know what marriage or gender are, two others topics the bible speaks clearly to, I look to the bible. What are your thoughts on those topics, in light of what theological and I have said throughout the thread?

Steve456

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I could counter with the first definition in each of the examples you give there: "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ" and "relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings," but that would be a distraction. If the bible speaks to a topic, then what is says is final and authoritative for me, and for others like me. That is why, if I to know what a Christian is, I look to the bible.

Yes, you've made that very clear. But as you yourself pointed out earlier in the thread, there are other Christian views, some of which place more emphasis than you do on tradition, and others of which place more emphasis than you do on human reason. You said then that these are all options within Christianity - in other words that they are all Christian views. Have you changed your mind on this?

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Never thought of the dictionary as an authoritative religious text, but ok

I could counter with the first definition in each of the examples you give there: "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ" and "relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings," but that would be a distraction. If the bible speaks to a topic, then what is says is final and authoritative for me, and for others like me. That is why, if I to know what a Christian is, I look to the bible.

Similarly, if I want to know what marriage or gender are, two others topics the bible speaks clearly to, I look to the bible. What are your thoughts on those topics, in light of what theological and I have said throughout the thread?

Well, I'm an atheist so the bible wouldn't count as an authoritative reference at any level to me personally. From what I've seen over the years, Catholics here tend to frame a moral dilemma more in terms of 'what would Jesus do?' rather than reaching for the bible as a reference, the latter seeming to be more of a protestant trait. As an example, my mother in-law is a rather devout Catholic, never missing mass and having the stations at her house every so often. At the same time she voted to repeal the eighth and allow gay marriage in the firm conviction that this was the morally right course of action, even though the PP advocated against both. Now you might not consider her a Christian but I most certainly do, and would consider this to be quite typical of Catholics in this country of all ages.

ChrisJ84

Steve456 wrote: »

Yes, you've made that very clear. But as you yourself pointed out earlier in the thread, there are other Christian views, some of which place more emphasis than you do on tradition, and others of which place more emphasis than you do on human reason. You said then that these are all options within Christianity - in other words that they are all Christian views. Have you changed your mind on this?

Perhaps I've not been clear, and no I've not changed my mind. What makes someone a Christian is whether they have faith in Jesus. I reach that conclusion based on what the bible says - to put it simply, I believe it because it is in the Bible. A Roman Catholic might answer that we need faith in Jesus because the church says so; and if they do in fact have faith in Jesus then they are a Christian.

Whether scripture, tradition and reason are equally authoritative, and which of them should be primary and have final say, is a separate discussion.

Steve456

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Whether scripture, tradition and reason are equally authoritative, and which of them should be primary and have final say, is a separate discussion.

The discussion is about "The meaning of marriage (and gender!)". You have given your view on that, and explained that you base this on biblical authority. Pointing out that other people, with an equal claim to be Christians, give it a different meaning, is very much on point, and is part of the same discussion. And if you now mean to back away from your earlier view that that some Christians give significant weight to human reason and yet are still Christians, it would be more productive for you to do it explicitly.

ChrisJ84

Steve456 wrote: »

The discussion is about "The meaning of marriage (and gender!)". You have given your view on that, and explained that you base this on biblical authority. Pointing out that other people, with an equal claim to be Christians, give it a different meaning, is very much on point, and is part of the same discussion.

That's exactly the point that has been laboured here - to validly claim to be a Christian, you need to have faith in Jesus Christ. If we cannot agree on that, then we are not talking about the same thing.

Steve456 wrote: »

And if you now mean to back away from your earlier view that that some Christians give significant weight to human reason and yet are still Christians, it would be more productive for you to do it explicitly.

Not at all - I think all Christians give significant weight to human reason, myself included. But where it comes into conflict with the clear teaching of scripture, then that is what I submit to rather than my own thinking or preferences, and the scriptural teaching on marriage is clear. The scriptural teaching on the vital importance of a living faith in Jesus is equally clear.

Similarly, a Roman Catholic will grant greater (if not final) authority to tradition, i.e. what the church says. If I recall correctly the Catholic Church advocated for a no vote in the marriage referendum, with the expectation that Catholics would vote accordingly.

Giving final authority to our own reason is slightly different again, in that we can ultimately decide for ourselves what is right, what marriage means, and anything else that takes our fancy. In that case it seems reasonable to ask whether such people, who profess to be Christians, actually believe in Jesus and have faith in him or not.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

If I recall correctly the Catholic Church advocated for a no vote in the marriage referendum, with the expectation that Catholics would vote accordingly.

Which of course they didn't. At the same time the Catholic hierarchy haven't told them all they're not Christians as a result, nor are they likely to. Difficult to know whether the more hardened cynicism lies with the clergy or their flock on that one.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Well, I'm an atheist so the bible wouldn't count as an authoritative reference at any level to me personally.

Totally, but I have to be clear on that if we are going to have a productive conversation. I don't expect us to agree, but hopefully we can at least appreciate where each other are coming from, and the presuppositions we bring to the table.

smacl wrote: »

From what I've seen over the years, Catholics here tend to frame a moral dilemma more in terms of 'what would Jesus do?' rather than reaching for the bible as a reference, the latter seeming to be more of a protestant trait. As an example, my mother in-law is a rather devout Catholic, never missing mass and having the stations at her house every so often. At the same time she voted to repeal the eighth and allow gay marriage in the firm conviction that this was the morally right course of action, even though the PP advocated against both. Now you might not consider her a Christian but I most certainly do, and would consider this to be quite typical of Catholics in this country of all ages.

You're probably right there, my response would be to ask how we can know what Jesus would do apart from reference to the record of his earthly ministry and teaching, i.e. the bible. The only other options are to look to what the church teaches (the tradition route) or to look to make that call for ourselves based on what we judge to be loving, kind, charitable etc. (the reason route). As an evangelical Protestant I firmly believe that the best way is to look to scripture as our guide in these matters, but I fully recognise that others will differ.

Sounds like your mother in law takes these questions seriously and recognises that they are important, even if I would disagree with her conclusions. I think her example is also a helpful way to draw the various aspects of this together: If she has faith in Jesus Christ as her saviour then she is a Christian, and I truly hope that is the case. As to whether she is a member of the Catholic church in good standing, that is clearly a matter for the Catholic church to decide. As to her votes in the referenda, like everyone else she needs to do what she thinks is best, and it is a matter that is between her and God.

smacl wrote: »

Which of course they didn't. At the same time the Catholic hierarchy haven't told them all they're not Christians as a result, nor are they likely to. Difficult to know whether the more hardened cynicism lies with the clergy or their flock on that one.

Hard to disagree with that. As an outsider there does seem to be a pretty fundamental disconnect between the Catholic hierarchy and the laity, at least here in Ireland.

smacl

I suspect what you refer to as the 'reason' route is what is commonly referred to a behaving in a Christian manner. If we go back to Merriam-Webster we'll see the word Christian can also be used as an adjective when applied to one's behaviour.

Christian adjective
Definition of Christian (Entry 2 of 2)
1a : of or relating to Christianity
Christian scriptures
b : based on or conforming with Christianity
Christian ethics
2a : of, relating to, or being a Christian
Christian responsibilities
b : professing Christianity
a Christian affirmation
a Christian country
3 : treating other people in a kind or generous way
has a very Christian concern for others

The Christian response to a problem in this sense is to take the kindest, most generous solution regardless of whether it is the most correct for any given piece of scripture or doctrine. From this perspective, seeking to deny a gay couple to right to be married could be considered distinctly unchristian behaviour.

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

I suspect what you refer to as the 'reason' route is what is commonly referred to a behaving in a Christian manner. If we go back to Merriam-Webster we'll see the word Christian can also be used as an adjective when applied to one's behaviour.



The Christian response to a problem in this sense is to take the kindest, most generous solution regardless of whether it is the most correct for any given piece of scripture or doctrine. From this perspective, seeking to deny a gay couple to right to be married could be considered distinctly unchristian behaviour.

The question about any marriage isn't so much is there commitment recognised by the state but that it is recognised by God.

It's in the denominational liturgies but taken from the Bible..What God has joined together let no man separate.
The question is if God has joined them.
If it goes contrary to what He has said then the answer is No. He won't do the opposite of what He says.

Romans clearly says what homosexuality is and that it's judged by God as being wrong.
He won't go against what he says.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

I suspect what you refer to as the 'reason' route is what is commonly referred to a behaving in a Christian manner. If we go back to Merriam-Webster we'll see the word Christian can also be used as an adjective when applied to one's behaviour.

The Christian response to a problem in this sense is to take the kindest, most generous solution regardless of whether it is the most correct for any given piece of scripture or doctrine. From this perspective, seeking to deny a gay couple to right to be married could be considered distinctly unchristian behaviour.

This leads to the same problem as the earlier discussion on what a Christian is. You can't just appropriate the terms "kind" or "generous," but rather need to explain what being kind and generous mean, and what they look like in specific circumstances. Ultimately, we need to refer to some kind of authority to inform us in that.

For an evangelical Christian like me scripture sets the parameters and and is the final authority; similarly, it can never be kind or generous to say that God approves of something when the bible tells us he does not. It's a false dichotomy to say that we need to choose either the kind thing or the biblical thing - the two are necessarily the same.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

That's fair enough and that is clearly your position but it is not an exclusive one. While it might rankle, it is also entirely reasonable that all those who identify as Christian on the national census, and are identified by their church as members of that church, are also Christian by their definition and that of their church. You might not consider them thus, but that's not really your call is it?

How very post modern. Is it reasonable for a person who doesn't believe Jesus ever existed and who takes issue with everything he (or his creators) said.. to identify as a Christian? Given it's not your call to make either.

War is peace! Smacl can identify as a Christian!

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

This leads to the same problem as the earlier discussion on what a Christian is. You can't just appropriate the terms "kind" or "generous," but rather need to explain what being kind and generous mean, and what they look like in specific circumstances. Ultimately, we need to refer to some kind of authority to inform us in that.

So in the context of this thread, in what sense is it kind to seek to deny a gay couple, who might not even share your belief system, the right to get married? In what sense is it generous?

I would have thought that the terms kind and generous were well understood by pretty much everyone, but I'd be pleased to hear your defintion for these words.

For an evangelical Christian like me scripture sets the parameters and and is the final authority; similarly, it can never be kind or generous to say that God approves of something when the bible tells us he does not. It's a false dichotomy to say that we need to choose either the kind thing or the biblical thing - the two are necessarily the same.

Thing is, various interpretations of scripture have been used throughout history as an excuse for all kinds of barbarism. e.g. in the Albigensian crusade, the trinitarian Catholics used their interpretation of scripture as and excuse to massacre the dualist Cathars on the basis that they weren't 'real' Christians but in fact heretics. Various bunches of religious zealots have been using this as an excuse to slaughter those that disagree with their views throughout the ages. I say excuse, because it seems reasonable that in most cases there were other motives such as imperialist expansion or simple greed in play.

So when someone tells me their action is no more than following scripture, the cynic in me wonders whether they already have a preferred course of action and are selecting the bit of scripture that best suggests they follow that preference.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

So in the context of this thread, in what sense is it kind to seek to deny a gay couple, who might not even share your belief system, the right to get married? In what sense is it generous?

I would have thought that the terms kind and generous were well understood by pretty much everyone, but I'd be pleased to hear your defintion for these words.

As we've said above the bible presents marriage in clear terms and as something that has been given by God for the good of everyone, whether they are Christian or not. God is kind and generous and what he says is true, whether we believe it or not. It simply cannot be kind or generous to affirm something which contradicts that. It cannot be loving to say that God is pleased with or indifferent to something which scripture plainly says displeases him. Christians call others to faith in Jesus for that very reason.

I think we probably have very similar definitions of kindness and generosity. The issue here is what is kind or generous in a specific circumstance, and how we can figure that out.

smacl wrote: »

Thing is, various interpretations of scripture have been used throughout history as an excuse for all kinds of barbarism. e.g. in the Albigensian crusade, the trinitarian Catholics used their interpretation of scripture as and excuse to massacre the dualist Cathars on the basis that they weren't 'real' Christians but in fact heretics. Various bunches of religious zealots have been using this as an excuse to slaughter those that disagree with their views throughout the ages. I say excuse, because it seems reasonable that in most cases there were other motives such as imperialist expansion or simple greed in play.

Sure, people do all sorts of bad things for all sorts of reasons. And claiming that you have God on your side is a convenient excuse if you're trying to justify something; we've seen plenty of that on our own island.

But it doesn't follow that scripture can mean whatever we want, or that it means nothing. If words mean anything, then the biblical position on marriage is clear. Christians believe this as a small part of a complex, nuanced and fully developed world view that is informed and shaped by all of scripture, not selected parts.

smacl wrote: »

So when someone tells me their action is no more than following scripture, the cynic in me wonders whether they already have a preferred course of action and are selecting the bit of scripture that best suggests they follow that preference.

Why do you think evangelicals hold the view of marriage that has been articulated in this thread? You seem to be implying some kind of ulterior motive, and the cynic in me wonders whether demonising those who disagree with you might be a convenient way to stifle debate.

Steve456

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Why do you think evangelicals hold the view of marriage that has been articulated in this thread? You seem to be implying some kind of ulterior motive, and the cynic in me wonders whether demonising those who disagree with you might be a convenient way to stifle debate.

The topic is "Christian" views. It is not "evangelical" views, still less your personal view - these are simply examples of Christian views. Pointing out that there are other Christians who disagree is not "demonising" anyone, or implying that anyone has "ulterior motives". And the person who has to explain your views is you.

ChrisJ84

Steve456 wrote: »

The topic is "Christian" views. It is not "evangelical" views, still less your personal view - these are simply examples of Christian views. Pointing out that there are other Christians who disagree is not "demonising" anyone, or implying that anyone has "ulterior motives". And the person who has to explain your views is you.

What is a Christian?

theological

Steve456 wrote: »

The topic is "Christian" views. It is not "evangelical" views, still less your personal view - these are simply examples of Christian views. Pointing out that there are other Christians who disagree is not "demonising" anyone, or implying that anyone has "ulterior motives". And the person who has to explain your views is you.

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

What is a Christian?

Exactly. This is why this discussion isn't going anywhere.

To be a Christian means to be a follower of Jesus. The authoritative texts we have concerning Him are in the Bible and therefore when I ask what does Christianity look like I look to the Bible.

It isn't a post-modern free for all.

I was hoping that this thread could be used for exploring and discussing Christian views on marriage (as distinct from the megathread) but perhaps I was hoping in vain.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

My personal opinion is that marriage is a point in a relationship where a couple declare publicly that their relationship is committed, loving, permanent and exclusive. As such they are considered a married couple by the community and state for various social and legal purposes. Marriage is not dependent on gender, religious persuasion or intent to have kids. Judging from the recent referendum outcome, this is not only also the position held by the majority of people in this country but also by the majority of Christians in this country.

Just to add to the above, having come back from a fantastic family wedding at the weekend (not religious FWIW), is the connection between families that becomes established. Historically of course this used to be one of the principal considerations in many marriages. Today I think it is still significant in that it is a time when the extended family grows and I must say I'm delighted to have new and wonderful relatives. Seeking to deny any couple and their families this on a religious pretext seems to me to be selfish in the extreme.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Just to add to the above, having come back from a fantastic family wedding at the weekend (not religious FWIW), is the connection between families that becomes established. Historically of course this used to be one of the principal considerations in many marriages. Today I think it is still significant in that it is a time when the extended family grows and I must say I'm delighted to have new and wonderful relatives. Seeking to deny any couple and their families this on a religious pretext seems to me to be selfish in the extreme.

Glad you had a good time at the wedding smacl, and I think any Christian would generally affirm what you've said.

That said, Christians don't hold our view of marriage on our own authority, or because we find it preferable. We believe firmly that God has made marriage and given it to us for our good, and that we don't have the authority to meddle with it. So, when you say that Christians are being unkind or selfish, what you're really saying is that God is unkind and selfish.

That in turn points to humanity's fundamental problem, from the Christian perspective. We need to be changed and conformed to God's will, rather than trying to bend him to ours.

ShnApple

smacl wrote: »

Some more zealous Christians take this stance perhaps but most clearly do not. Most Irish people, the majority of whom are Christian, have the good grace not to interfere with the lives of others because it is an affront to their religious position. Now while you might denounce those Christians as not being Christians at all for taking a stance that opposes your own they might do likewise for placing religious zeal ahead of compassion.

Nah, most Irish people are definitely NOT Christian. They don't believe in God, or are not sure what to believe. They tick "Catholic" on the census form because they are traditionally Catholic, but they're in fact agnostic. If you don't pray, don't attend mass and only believe in the possibility of a God, then you are agnostic, not Christian.

On the other hand, many actual Christians (not all) believe that anyone who does not share their beliefs shouldn't be interfered with. Those are the people you're talking about. It's not that they'd embrace gay marriage inside their church (no one has a right to bend any religion to their will), but they see it as something that is seperate from the church. We wouldn't go and stop muslims or buddhists from getting married, so why do it to people getting married in a state ceremony. Many people also just didn't vote at all because they felt that way.

But... to say that the majority of Irish people are Christian in today's political climate couldn't be further from the truth.

smacl

ShnApple wrote: »

But... to say that the majority of Irish people are Christian in today's political climate couldn't be further from the truth.

I take the view that if someone considers themselves to be a Christian it is not really for me or anyone else to categorically state they're not a Christian. That's their call. If you look up the meaning of the word Christian you'll see one common definition is a member of a Christian church or someone who's been baptized. A person who identifies as Christian as a result of culture or tradition as opposed to strongly held religious belief is nonetheless a Christian.

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

I take the view that if someone considers themselves to be a Christian it is not really for me or anyone else to categorically state they're not a Christian. That's their call. If you look up the meaning of the word Christian you'll see one common definition is a member of a Christian church or someone who's been baptized. A person who identifies as Christian as a result of culture or tradition as opposed to strongly held religious belief is nonetheless a Christian.

A Christian is a follower of Christ. Most who claim to be Christian aren't. You can't claim to follow someone in the sense of master/ disciple ( which is what it's supposed to be) and not do what they say.

smacl

Alexis Brave Bun wrote: »

A Christian is a follower of Christ. Most who claim to be Christian aren't. You can't claim to follow someone in the sense of master/ disciple ( which is what it's supposed to be) and not do what they say.

In the context of the charter of this forum you're quite right

Charter wrote:

For the purposes of this board 'Christian' means broad assent to historic Christian belief such as is contained in the Apostles' Creed.

More generally however you're not, as religious identification is as much a function of tradition as belief in modern society. Say you've got a person who identifies as Christian. They're a member of a Christian church. Their church says they're a Christian. As such, they also meet one of the dictionary definitions of Christian common to every major dictionary. The specifics of their beliefs are their own business.

Looking at it another way, at what age do you think someone becomes a Christian. Some would no doubt say that it is when you are Christened, but babies are hardly followers of Christ and they certainly have no knowledge of historic Christian belief. So by your definition, you can't reasonably be considered a Christian until you've reached the age of reason.

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

In the context of the charter of this forum you're quite right



More generally however you're not, as religious identification is as much a function of tradition as belief in modern society. Say you've got a person who identifies as Christian. They're a member of a Christian church. Their church says they're a Christian. As such, they also meet one of the dictionary definitions of Christian common to every major dictionary. The specifics of their beliefs are their own business.

Looking at it another way, at what age do you think someone becomes a Christian. Some would no doubt say that it is when you are Christened, but babies are hardly followers of Christ and they certainly have no knowledge of historic Christian belief. So by your definition, you can't reasonably be considered a Christian until you've reached the age of reason.

For once we agree
Jesus said that many will say "Lord,Lord" but don't do the things He says.
You can't be a Christian if you're not willing to do what He says and that means living the life and meeting the standards He set out.
I've seen many people sit in seats in Christian churches for years and aren't Christians by these standards.
Saying you're a Christian doesn't make you one.Let me see your life and then I'll know if what you say is true.

smacl

Alexis Brave Bun wrote: »

For once we agree
Jesus said that many will say "Lord,Lord" but don't do the things He says.
You can't be a Christian if you're not willing to do what He says and that means living the life and meeting the standards He set out.
I've seen many people sit in seats in Christian churches for years and aren't Christians by these standards.
Saying you're a Christian doesn't make you one.Let me see your life and then I'll know if what you say is true.

And yet the state considers that as of over 80% of its citizens are Christians based on the simple fact that they identify as Christians. I tend to agree with you that these figures are wildly inaccurate by any definition beyond self identification. Whatever you can say about those sitting in a church seat not meeting your definition of Christian, the masses that have stopped attending masses are something else again. While I realise it is nigh on impossible to quantify, roughly what percentage of the population are Chirstian by your understanding of the word?