We’re not always very good at recognising nuanced thought. To put it another way, we’re easy prey for false dichotomies. So let me try and make the nuance more explicit and the false dichotomies more visible. Quite literally.
While we are overly prone to the sinful idolizing of family life in our current culture it remains unbiblical to say that there is no priority/ "better treatment" to be given to marriage and immediate family relationships. Deut 24:5; 2 tim 3:4-5, 12, 5:4,8, 10, 14; Titus 2:4-5 remind of such priorities.
The men in Vaughn's congregation perhaps had the experience of their care of their spouse taking up much of their available time and emotional energy - in effect, their care for their wives may well have led to them stepping away from other acts of service.
Perhaps a false dichotomy could also lie in considering that correct priotisation of a spouse/ family necessitates loving others "less". It is simply that the call to love our immediate family (see above plus your list too) is quite distinct from our call to love our neighbours as ourselves (=how we'd like to be treated).
If I’ve read it correctly, your comment that: “Perhaps a false dichotomy could also lie in considering that correct priotisation of a spouse/ family necessitates loving others "less””
… has been the exact point of my last two posts. Loving your spouse well (which is never just theoretical but always enacted and rightly related to covenantal promises) does not require us to think that we:
a) have less love to give others (i.e., need to treat them worse than our spouse), or
b) ought to love others less (i.e.,ought to treat them worse than our spouse).
I don't actually think anyone has said a or b. The meme you initially responded to was saying treat your wife better than anyone else. The false dichotomy I referred to is that it could perhaps be argued that when the original poster of meme says treat her better/ prioritise her it also does not mean either a or b (which I thought was the premise you were assuming and arguing against in your original post).
You lost me with: "In a contemporary world (and church) which encourages very binary and retrenched thinking".
While the church encourages binary thinking - which is a function of God's design as evident in Genesis: night and day, dry land and sea, heavens and earth, man and woman, sin and obedience - the world hardly encourages binary thinking.
In the world there is de Bono's lateral thinking, the alphabet people's 92 genders, and an Australian Prime Minister who is trying to swing a referendum on the "vibe of the thing". None of those examples indicates use of binary thinking.
And then, while I get retrenched thinking in the church (a function of its Scripture and Articles and Liturgies and Doctrine and Creeds - and a good thing at that!), if you have retrenched thinking in the world it is perhaps an unfortunate outcome of being fissured into an echo chamber of your own making.
You lost me with: "In a contemporary world (and church) which encourages very binary and retrenched thinking".
While the church encourages binary thinking - which is a function of God's design as evident in Genesis: night and day, dry land and sea, heavens and earth, man and woman, sin and obedience - the world hardly encourages binary thinking.
In the world there is de Bono's lateral thinking, the alphabet people's 92 genders, and an Australian Prime Minister who is trying to swing a Yes/No referendum vote on the "vibe of the thing". None of which flags the use of binary thinking.
And then, while I get retrenched thinking in the church (a function of its Scripture and Articles and Liturgies and Doctrine and Creeds - and a good thing at that!), if you have retrenched thinking in the world it is perhaps an unfortunate outcome of being fissured into an echo chamber of your own making.
Very thought provoking and whilst I find myself identifying with you on some points , on others I’m working through . Much as in the same way I’m not a woman so to think act and feel as a woman does is out of my remit as may I suggest is yours as a single person who is not prone to the issues difficulties and blessings that married life affords .
Notwithstanding the above I’ve recently altered my entrenched view of women priests following a great talk on women in authority in the church at vineyard church Groningen.
My better half has listened to me read out your posts and she’s come up with a couple of analogies which may aid your nuance-seeking and others trying to get their minds round what your are attempting to portray .
A pie with equally divided segments or an umbrella as the overarching love of God which allows His love as raindrops through , falling in the same measure on those underneath but at slightly different times and intervals
While we are overly prone to the sinful idolizing of family life in our current culture it remains unbiblical to say that there is no priority/ "better treatment" to be given to marriage and immediate family relationships. Deut 24:5; 2 tim 3:4-5, 12, 5:4,8, 10, 14; Titus 2:4-5 remind of such priorities.
The men in Vaughn's congregation perhaps had the experience of their care of their spouse taking up much of their available time and emotional energy - in effect, their care for their wives may well have led to them stepping away from other acts of service.
Perhaps a false dichotomy could also lie in considering that correct priotisation of a spouse/ family necessitates loving others "less". It is simply that the call to love our immediate family (see above plus your list too) is quite distinct from our call to love our neighbours as ourselves (=how we'd like to be treated).
Hi Kate,
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
If I’ve read it correctly, your comment that: “Perhaps a false dichotomy could also lie in considering that correct priotisation of a spouse/ family necessitates loving others "less””
… has been the exact point of my last two posts. Loving your spouse well (which is never just theoretical but always enacted and rightly related to covenantal promises) does not require us to think that we:
a) have less love to give others (i.e., need to treat them worse than our spouse), or
b) ought to love others less (i.e.,ought to treat them worse than our spouse).
I don't actually think anyone has said a or b. The meme you initially responded to was saying treat your wife better than anyone else. The false dichotomy I referred to is that it could perhaps be argued that when the original poster of meme says treat her better/ prioritise her it also does not mean either a or b (which I thought was the premise you were assuming and arguing against in your original post).
You lost me with: "In a contemporary world (and church) which encourages very binary and retrenched thinking".
While the church encourages binary thinking - which is a function of God's design as evident in Genesis: night and day, dry land and sea, heavens and earth, man and woman, sin and obedience - the world hardly encourages binary thinking.
In the world there is de Bono's lateral thinking, the alphabet people's 92 genders, and an Australian Prime Minister who is trying to swing a referendum on the "vibe of the thing". None of those examples indicates use of binary thinking.
And then, while I get retrenched thinking in the church (a function of its Scripture and Articles and Liturgies and Doctrine and Creeds - and a good thing at that!), if you have retrenched thinking in the world it is perhaps an unfortunate outcome of being fissured into an echo chamber of your own making.
You lost me with: "In a contemporary world (and church) which encourages very binary and retrenched thinking".
While the church encourages binary thinking - which is a function of God's design as evident in Genesis: night and day, dry land and sea, heavens and earth, man and woman, sin and obedience - the world hardly encourages binary thinking.
In the world there is de Bono's lateral thinking, the alphabet people's 92 genders, and an Australian Prime Minister who is trying to swing a Yes/No referendum vote on the "vibe of the thing". None of which flags the use of binary thinking.
And then, while I get retrenched thinking in the church (a function of its Scripture and Articles and Liturgies and Doctrine and Creeds - and a good thing at that!), if you have retrenched thinking in the world it is perhaps an unfortunate outcome of being fissured into an echo chamber of your own making.
Very thought provoking and whilst I find myself identifying with you on some points , on others I’m working through . Much as in the same way I’m not a woman so to think act and feel as a woman does is out of my remit as may I suggest is yours as a single person who is not prone to the issues difficulties and blessings that married life affords .
Notwithstanding the above I’ve recently altered my entrenched view of women priests following a great talk on women in authority in the church at vineyard church Groningen.
My better half has listened to me read out your posts and she’s come up with a couple of analogies which may aid your nuance-seeking and others trying to get their minds round what your are attempting to portray .
A pie with equally divided segments or an umbrella as the overarching love of God which allows His love as raindrops through , falling in the same measure on those underneath but at slightly different times and intervals