Anything Else

While this essay is not about marriage, I nevertheless wish to begin by considering the key biblical text that addresses marriage. This text, originally given in Genesis 2:24, is cited authoritatively by both Jesus (Mark 10:7-8) and Paul (Eph. 5:31). It essentially offers us a definition of marriage: a man must leave his father and his mother, must be faithfully devoted to his wife, and the two of them must be one flesh.

The final clause is, of course, highly interesting. It suggests the biblical description of the proper use of human sexuality according to its holy and undefiled purpose. Rich as this clause is in theological and ethical overtones, however, it is not my focus at the moment.

Nor is the middle clause, which gives us a concise biblical definition of marriage. Evidently, it is the committing of one’s self to another in faithful devotion that transforms one into a spouse. While only the man’s side of this commitment is overtly specified in the text, the commitment of the woman is almost certainly understood. This commitment is what identifies one individual as the marital property (I use this term advisedly—1 Cor. 7:4-5) of another human being. For the commitment to perform this function, it must be made publicly. For it to be solemn and binding, it must take the form of an oath.

As I say, however, this clause is not my primary focus. The implications of this clause are both interesting and ethically indispensable. They deserve defense and development. Nevertheless, my present purpose excludes that kind of careful treatment. Instead, I wish to examine the first clause, which states that a man is to leave his father and his mother.

First posted October, 2009. Discussion here.

Fundamentalists and evangelicals of my generation are generally not fond of rules, especially in ministry settings. Exactly why this is the case is an interesting study in itself. In the case of fundamentalists, perhaps it’s due to the fact that many of them grew up in rules-heavy Christian schools in an era full of glowing idealism about what these highly-disciplined, conscientiously spiritual environments would produce. The inflated hopes of those days were sure to result in some disappointments. And maybe the current rules angst is the result of a generalized disgust with the whole concept and all that seems connected to it. In defense of those who feel this way, it is only too easy to find examples of rules excesses and absurdities.

Whatever the reasons, young fundamentalists are often eager to cast “man-made rules” in a negative light and to argue from Scripture that these rules are dangerous at best, and downright hostile to Christian growth at worst.

My aim here is to offer a perspective that differs from that of many of my peers, but one that I believe answers better to both Scripture and experience.