Welcome to An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed to keep up to date with what I'm writing. Alternatively, if you want to contact Peter in relation to issues of human sexuality, please use the contact form here. Thanks for visiting!
Giles Fraser in this morning’s "Thought for the Day" completely misses the main theology behind the BCP Marriage Service, and in doing so comes to the wrong conclusion.
Back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as the Book of Common Prayer was being put together, marriage was said to be for three purposes:
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
From this Giles decides that we should all be highly accepting of gay marriage.
Who wants to point out to him the fact that he missed out the most crucial bit of the theology? Beat ya all to it.
Paul takes the institution of marriage in Genesis 2 [show]Genesis 2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. When no bush of the field(1) was yet in the land(2) and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist(3) was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground-- then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat(4) of it you shall surely die." Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for(5) him." Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed(6) every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam(7) there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made(8) into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."(9) Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (ESV) Footnotes 1. [2:5] Or 'open country' 2. [2:5] Or 'earth'; also verse 6 3. [2:6] Or 'spring' 4. [2:17] Or 'when you eat' 5. [2:18] Or 'corresponding to'; also verse 20 6. [2:19] Or 'And out of the ground the LORD God formed' 7. [2:20] Or 'the man' 8. [2:22] Hebrew 'built' 9. [2:23] The Hebrew words for 'woman' ('ishshah') and 'man' ('ish') sound alike
and explains how the union of husband and wife signifies more than just the coming together of two humans. He teaches that within marriage the husband and the wife take on unique roles in the way that they together sexually signify Christ and his Church. Within marriage Paul argues, the husband signifies Christ. That is why he is first called to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He must give up all things for her in the same way that Christ gave up all things for his bride. The bride then serves her husband on the same grounds that the church serves Christ, not because of any patriarchal power structure but because the church understands that Christ has laid down everything for her.
The BCP marriage service echoes this understanding for it first calls on the husband in this manner:
Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her in sickness and in health;
Here the primary call to the husband is to love, but when the wife is addressed the charge is different:
Wilt thou obey him, and serve him, love, honour, and keep him in sickness and in health;
The distinction in the charges points to the Ephesians 5 [show]Ephesians 5 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. 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.(1) 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. (ESV) Footnotes 1. [5:27] Or 'holy and blameless'
teaching that the wife submitting to her husband, on the basis that he loves her by laying down all things for her, is a mirror of the church’s relationship to Christ.
This understanding leads Paul to the realisation that the consummation of the marriage creates a mysterious holy union between husband and wife that mirrors the union of Christ and the Church. The sexual bonding of the two as "one flesh" is not just a physical act but a spiritual one, for it has a deep signification in its activity. To put it as unsubtlely as one can, the act of a husband and wife achieving orgasm together is not just an indication of their physical oneness but points beyond them to the work of the cross in uniting fallen humanity to a holy God through the shed blood of the Son.
Within this signification, the uniqueness of the partners is key. The sexual difference of the man and his wife are the driving force behind the symbolism. It is their biological difference and the union of those differences that is the indicator of the greater union of Christ and the Church.
Sloppy "pick the bits you like, ignore the rest" theology of the kind Giles Fraser used this morning does the liberal cause no good at all.
Tags: Adversity, Book Of Common Prayer, Christ Loved The Church, Distinction, Echoes, Ephesians 5, Gay Marriage, Giles Fraser, Honour, Husband And Wife, Institution Of Marriage, Marriage Service, Power Structure, Procreation, Prosperity, Remedy, Seventeenth Centuries, Theology, Wrong Conclusion














June 19th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Giles Fraser missing the point, because of shallow, agenda-driven theology?
Surely not.
I’m afraid I have a very low opinion of Revd Fraser anyway. I have twice personally contacted him about his articles. On both occasions, his replies were rude, dismissive, and condescending, imbued with the kind of spiteful, petty moral superiority that he so often ascribes to those with whom he disagrees.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Congratulations. You are the first person I have ever heard who has discovered the teaching of Saint Paul on the female orgasm. I need hardly add that all your credibility is displayed in this discovery.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Peter, if I were you I would relax a bit and park the tendency to go on
about precisely what goes on when married people have sex.
Just because people in the surrounding culture talk
publicly about sex doesn’t mean Christians have to copy them and
do the same. The Biblical authors and most theologians do not
talk very explicitly about sex in this way, they are discreet and
allow room for people’s imagination; read Bonhoeffer in
‘The Cost of Discipleship’ on the tendency to seek for publicity
and human approval while praying.
Allowing some parts of people’s lives to be known only to God
is an important principle here, for the sake of humility. It applies
to prayer, fasting and giving. I think Scripture allows it for the details
of sex as well. It expects people to have sex within marriage,
but doesn’t provide a detailed instruction manual of what to do.
I’ve seen too much writing and been to talks where conservative
Christians try to use the claim that ‘Christians have a better sex-life’
or ‘are better lovers’ as an apologetic device. I’ve seen it used by
Hillsong Church and by a speaker at a university Christian Union mission.
Both examples were utterly cringeworthy. Of course, nobody
can verify (or therefore falsify) such a claim, so it’s not worth making.
Other than that, I agree that Giles Fraser is totally wrong about
this gay ceremony.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I don’t claim at all that Christians have a better sex life. What I do claim is that we understand what it’s all about and why it’s been designed to be so good.
And you, IMHO, totally wrong about the emphasis of Scripture on sex. Good sex is all over the Bible. There are even whole books within written to glorify it.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Peter, I have a quick question. In your mind, if a couple isn’t having “good sex,” does that mean their sex or their marriage is less holy? I can think of at least one post-gay couple I know of (well, the husband was post-gay) that were very honest about not having the best sex in the world… about there having to be a bit of coaxing involved and there being some general awkwardness. They had a great marriage on the other counts, though.
Also, if I may be frank, does the Biblical view of marriage ban all types of sex except vaginal intercourse? I’ve wanted to hear an answer to this for a while but I think some people consider it too risque. I think it’s important, though, because many couples find that satisfaction comes from methods other than those deemed “traditional.”
June 20th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Hmmmmmm.
I’ve never heard a good Biblical argument that says that the only allowed sex is the missionary position. If anybody thinks that’s the case, I’d love to have them spell out here why.
As for good sex, well that’s more to do with loving your spouse than getting it perfectly right. The Song of Songs sets us on the right path methinks.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:38 am
Well, I think in a much earlier post you mentioned something about how heterosexual sex was holy (in marriage, of course) because the intercourse represented Christ (the husband) entering the Church (his wife). I was just saying that it’s not uncommon for couples to get greater satisfaction from sex in which there is no “entering” at all.
And Song as Songs is all well and good, but let’s be honest… the couple defined in that obviously had quite a lot of sexual attraction to one another. That is lacking in many couples (I’m thinking post-gay here, but there are probably several ever-straight couples for whom it’s a problem as well). My question was not how a couple could go about achieving better sex, but if the amount (or quality) of sexual activity in a marriage said anything about the marriage’s validity. For example, I know an elderly couple (widow and widower) who married in their 70s. Is their marriage valid, even though surely by that age the sexual aspect of it is greatly diminished (if it exists at all).
June 21st, 2008 at 8:54 am
No, I don’t think the amount of sex makes a marriage more holy, but the willingness to engage in sexual activity (of all kinds) does.