Kyrie Eleieson. the marriage picture distorted: it is spiritual

20 giving thanks to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. 24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing marriageiconher with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. 33 Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.

Why is marriage so important? Why this apparent struggle to redefine what has been standard fare ever since the beginning? It is true that marriage isn’t really something that any State or government can confer, only God can. Nevertheless what the State does confer (i.e. a marriage license) has become the connotative symbol of what it means to be married in the United States of America (and the same holds true in various other States throughout the world as well). So for all intents and purposes SCOTUS’s decision to redefine what marriage has always been understood to be (i.e. a complementing union between a man and a woman) strikes at something core and fundamental of what has always underwrote what defines and creates flourishing societies; and this is the case because it reflects the rational and lovely order that God created in this world as the theater of his glory and as something that would ultimately, beyond all else, reflect his relationship to us in Christ.

And it is this to this point that I think is really under attack. I see what happened on Friday June 26th, 2015 as an attack by the Angel of Light. I see what is happening as spiritual; as reflective of an ongoing battle between the Kingdom of the Son of God’s love and the Kingdom of Darkness. It is a move of the Enemy to attempt to unravel everything that God has called good and very good, and an appeal to that original sin wherein he seduced Eve and Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit. He has not given up on that lie yet, and he will continue to seduce this ‘evil generation’ to plunge deeper into their darkened faculties unto the point where they are beyond feeling; beyond feeling the presence of God and his righteousness.

If marriage, according to St. Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) is a picture of God’s relationship to us as his bride in Christ; then it would make sense for the Enemy to go after the most beautiful picture of all. It would make sense that he would want to pervert and distort it to the point that its reality no longer has any real reality behind it except for the self-generated sort that finds its generation from within a ‘will’ that is dispossessed of God and possessed and driven by an insatiable desire to satisfy itself (as ‘god’). The Enemy continues on his quest to destroy what God has created for his glory, and he now continues to seduce not only the ‘world’ out there, but even the church of Christ itself. Kyrie Eleison!



This entry was posted in Cultural Christianity, Culture. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Kyrie Eleieson. the marriage picture distorted: it is spiritual

  1. Maybe.

    Personally, I do not see a scriptural basis for giving state registration of marriages more importance than state registration of pets, cars, and backyard firepits.

    Concern about the sacramentology of SCOTUS seems to rely on the state to order the inner life of the Church. That is an occasion for reform.

    Still, biblical apocalyptic may support an somewhat different critique of the way this society orders the inner lives of persons around money, in the SCOTUS decision on marriage as elsewhere. Cal?


  2. Bobby Grow says:

    No, not at all. I see this is a spiritual thing w/o a doubt. Like I noted I don’t see the State ultimately having power to marry, but in fact de facto that has become the reality. Anyway, things have dramatically changed, and things are on a radical slippery slope!


  3. Bobby, I believe that the medieval church in the West introduced registration of marriage in about the C12 as a social ministry to prevent bigamy, marriage within the degrees forbidden in Leviticus, and coerced consent from brides. At the time, no other institution could have pulled this off– all the ‘clerks’ were ‘clerical,’ and only the Church was in every community. A huge success! But since that time, things have indeed changed. And although we are surely on a slippery slope, I cannot yet tell whether it is running uphill or down.


  4. “I see this is a spiritual thing w/o a doubt.”

    I strongly suspect that Jonathan Edwards, the modern master of typology, would agree with you. But I do not quite see *how* he would agree with you. The Grand Army of the Republic is not marching on to free still more of the oppressed. Nor will General Lee return on his great white horse, Traveler, leading the Army of Northern Virginia to save the land. And no merely political narrative has the imagination or the gravitas.


  5. Bobby Grow says:

    I’m no Republican or “conservative” of that kind.


  6. Yes, I realize that. And anyway, conservatives who are also Republicans often have substantive disagreements with their party’s voters, candidates, and leaders. Indeed, a party of the right for America could take and will take other forms than the one we know. However, a Christian in politics, it seems to me, would not express his faith only in choosing a party, thereafter being an unthinking loyalist. Leadership in Christ is communicating gospel hope that more is possible than we imagined.


  7. Bobby Grow says:

    Indeed, Bowman, I agree, and that is where I am at … in the belief, the confession ‘that more is possible’! Amen to that!


Comments are closed.