Skip to main content

Ephesians 5:22-33

"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 Savior. 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."

    A short post.  Notice that Paul (i.e. God) tells husbands and wives and people in general to love and respect each other.  This means those people around us.  These are the people that make up our lives.  God does not tell us to keep searching for "the one" or for people who are easier to get along with or who are more loveable.  Why do we Christians run away from trouble every time we have an argument or a disagreement?  We need to love and respect each other, and that means action, not just feeling.  We need to put each other's needs and desires before our own and love the heck out of people.

    Secondly, the Bible never once commands us only to marry those with whom we have fallen in love.  The over-romanticizing of love is destroying American churches and our culture in general.  Marrying for love is not a bad thing.  I love my wife.  However, had I married a woman just because she cooked well and whom I respected for her motherly desire, I would be within the boundaries of Scripture; and Paul would give us the same instruction--love each other, respect each other, and put each other first.  Searching endlessly for that perfect man or woman results in disappointment and divorce.  Finding someone whose personality you enjoy, with whom you enjoy spending time, and whom you respect as a Christian brother or sister is what matters.  We must marry Christians only, and we are called to love all Christians, so naturally we'll love whomever we marry. But once you're married all else is cast aside and you are called to love and reflect Christ. 

    Perhaps I sound heartless.  I'm not.  But we need to be more practical and less romantic here in the American church.  We need to choose spouses based on principle and not feeling only.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...
Post a Comment
Read more

Anglicanism, Paedocommunion, & Being Reformed

I consider myself Reformed.  I was baptized as a baby in a PCA church.  I grew up in a Reformed microdenomination that allowed its member churches to subscribe to any of the Reformed confessions (we subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity).  In many ways, whether I like it or not, I still think and act like a Reformed Presbyterian.   Some, however, would seek to deny me that label.  I suspect there are many reasons for this, but paramount among them is that I hold to Paedocommunion (hereafter PC), which, for some reason, is absolutely the worst thing ever to these people.  Some would go so far as to say that PC makes me a heretic, but they all agree that I am certainly not Reformed .   My recent engagement with these opponents of PC has caused me to reflect on what it means to be Reformed and what it means to be a Christian.  This online jousting has dovetailed well with some of my recent study, particularly  An Apology of the Church...
Post a Comment
Read more