When I read a heading from you of: "Well, This is a Little Awkward..." I anticipate the story to identify how a Prince Charming swept you off your feet; the wedding scheduled for late November.
Thanks Dani. I really appreciate your thorough exploration. I'd love to explore a bit more the idea of marriage as first ministry.
I'm in broad agreement with what you've said and Simon's article: the relationship between familial and congregational responsibilities are quite complex in scripture and in practice, and that there are dangers in being reductionistic and creating simple slogans. I think I also agree that they are two responsibilities laid side by side, but I really think the relationship between the two needs careful nuance and precision.
This is because scripture both:
1) highlights to the significance of belonging to the people of God and the significance of this moment of salvation history to urge proper attention given to the family of God (e.g. Jesus’ own family, Mark 3:31-24, prioritising kingdom work in the travel narrative Luke 9:59-62, the division Christ brings Luke 12:52-53, hating mother or father 14:26 [or loving Jesus more Matt 10:37), living as though unmarried 1 Cor 7:29, etc.)
2) and also 2) highlights the significance of created familial relationships to urge proper attention given to blood relations *even as a member of the family of God* (e.g. Jesus submits to own parents Luke 2:51 and ensures his mother is cared for even as he dies John 19:26-27, Jesus critiques the pharisees for getting around honouring parents through [apparent] devotion to God Mark 7:9-13, Paul navigating widow care speaks of a priority of godliness to own household 1 Tim 5:3-4 as well as a secondary priority of relatives and primary priority of own household in v8).
So there is a complex tension to be sure, but scripture doesn’t seem to flatten these into two parallel and equal responsibilities, or at least in a way that one can override the other – I think you and Simon would both agree with that.
But also, I think we do need to wrestle with the nature of being one flesh. This is, as you point out, a covenant between husband and wife, it that means there is something distinct about that relationship, which Malachi points to in order to critique the people of his day (Mal 2:15, though I appreciate there’s more going on in this passage). So, even though Paul calls all believers to love like Christ (Eph 5:1-2), there is a further and particular motivation for and description of the husband's exercise of this general command to his wife, which is the one flesh nature that points to the loving union of Christ to his church (Eph 5:28). Furthermore, for those elders who are married, because of the nature of family and of church labour, there is a correlation between how one cares for blood family and how one care for God’s church, which I don’t think is reversible (1 Tim 3:4-5, 12).
What does this mean. I’m not sure yet! That’s why I’d like to keep exploring it. As a start, I think it means it’s complex and requires wisdom and communication to fulfil both responsibilities faithfully before God. But if we set up a ‘trolley problem’ for it, I'm thinking it means if there was a family crisis and church crisis of equal proportions and significance and someone could only choose one, I suspect the blood family would take precedence. I’m not committed to that, but that’s where I’m leaning.
Do you have further thoughts? I’d love to hear some more of your reflections.
Hey Callan - just a quick note here to say thank you so much for your comment. I really appreciate the time you took to write it and it's got my brain ticking over :) I'm actually planning on writing a follow-up post in the next week or so which dives into a bit more of the nuance here and so will look forward to engaging with your thoughts as part of that!
My response is both to this article (and the follow up).
I absolutely agree that the meme should be called out; that what it states about marriage is wrong but also unhelpful (to husband, wife and single people). It makes an idol of marriage.
I mostly agree with your response, except to say that I do think that there is a unique call for love in the marriage covenant. Perhaps “better” is not the best word for it (!) but I think it is still an appropriate word. I am in no way offended by your assessment.
Finally, I couldn’t stomach all of Vaughan’s article; and it wasn’t even directed at me.
What grace we still need to learn as Christian brothers and sisters and God’s fellow image bearers.
Thankful for your continued thoughtfulness and grace.
Hi Felicity - thanks for your comments and encouragement :)
I do just want to reiterate, re-emphasie, reassure (all of the above!) that I absolutely DO think there is a unique call to love in the marriage covenant. I tried hard in this post and my follow up one does to make my conviction on that clear. My point was just to say that the unique love in marriage does not negate or diminish the call to love others faithfully (ie. not less well).
That is, a husband's call is to love his wife and his kids and his parents and his neighbour etc all as himself, but in distinctive ways appropriate to his individual relationship with them. But loving his wife (in the distinctive way as Christ loves the church) doesn't mean he thereby treats his kids or his parents or his neighbours worse than he treats his wife. He loves them (ie. treats them) just as faithfully and well as he would if he was not married. Christian live is not a zero sum game where there is a comparative difference on who gets loved more or qualitatively treated better than everyone else.
I hope that makes sense! Thanks again for your encouragement and kindness :)
I think the difficulty is that in English we only have one word for “love”! I think that the husband/wife love “looks” to our eyes and culture like “more” but that is not the whole truth - or indeed the purpose of that love. I refer you to Dani Treweek’s wonderful book on just this topic!
how i shutter to realize, i used to think this way. if only we could be bolder to say, Love Jesus more than anyone or anything! Thank you for pointing out the over simplification.
Yes, BEFORE you response to any quote you also need to know the writer. When you do you will find a man passionate to KNOW, Walk in true Obedience and Make God known throughout world . He handles and teaches the Word of God with fear, honor, and care. When you understand WHO he is in the depth of his soul you will realize the church needs MORE people like Paul Washer.
his quote is unbiblical. When a preacher pastor elder preaches about marriage and roles in church, he should always address both men and women responsibilities simultaneously!! Not address men only as tho the pastor's role is to whip the butt of men in front of the women in church so that they can see he is on their side. A preacher should always preach the word of God as it was intended, in fullness and in complete context of a subject such as marriage and roles of men and women. Never cut that short to one side or the other. Preaching about women is a preacher's responsbibility as well, not the role of an elder women in the congregation because maybe he doesn't want to anger the women in the body?
To preach other than that creates division within the body of Christ/The Church as it pits women against men while giving women a free pass from their biblical responsibility.
Preaching on this subject should NEVER be done one sided, NEVER!!! As it misleads the body of Christ and divides the body of Christ that men are responsible for this, and silent on Women, and therefore sets up a double standard!! Which the word of God does not do, as the whole council of God is always to be considered when preaching on any hot potato topics both within the church and those watching the church!!!
When I read a heading from you of: "Well, This is a Little Awkward..." I anticipate the story to identify how a Prince Charming swept you off your feet; the wedding scheduled for late November.
LOL. Sorry to disappoint ;)
Thanks Dani. I really appreciate your thorough exploration. I'd love to explore a bit more the idea of marriage as first ministry.
I'm in broad agreement with what you've said and Simon's article: the relationship between familial and congregational responsibilities are quite complex in scripture and in practice, and that there are dangers in being reductionistic and creating simple slogans. I think I also agree that they are two responsibilities laid side by side, but I really think the relationship between the two needs careful nuance and precision.
This is because scripture both:
1) highlights to the significance of belonging to the people of God and the significance of this moment of salvation history to urge proper attention given to the family of God (e.g. Jesus’ own family, Mark 3:31-24, prioritising kingdom work in the travel narrative Luke 9:59-62, the division Christ brings Luke 12:52-53, hating mother or father 14:26 [or loving Jesus more Matt 10:37), living as though unmarried 1 Cor 7:29, etc.)
2) and also 2) highlights the significance of created familial relationships to urge proper attention given to blood relations *even as a member of the family of God* (e.g. Jesus submits to own parents Luke 2:51 and ensures his mother is cared for even as he dies John 19:26-27, Jesus critiques the pharisees for getting around honouring parents through [apparent] devotion to God Mark 7:9-13, Paul navigating widow care speaks of a priority of godliness to own household 1 Tim 5:3-4 as well as a secondary priority of relatives and primary priority of own household in v8).
So there is a complex tension to be sure, but scripture doesn’t seem to flatten these into two parallel and equal responsibilities, or at least in a way that one can override the other – I think you and Simon would both agree with that.
But also, I think we do need to wrestle with the nature of being one flesh. This is, as you point out, a covenant between husband and wife, it that means there is something distinct about that relationship, which Malachi points to in order to critique the people of his day (Mal 2:15, though I appreciate there’s more going on in this passage). So, even though Paul calls all believers to love like Christ (Eph 5:1-2), there is a further and particular motivation for and description of the husband's exercise of this general command to his wife, which is the one flesh nature that points to the loving union of Christ to his church (Eph 5:28). Furthermore, for those elders who are married, because of the nature of family and of church labour, there is a correlation between how one cares for blood family and how one care for God’s church, which I don’t think is reversible (1 Tim 3:4-5, 12).
What does this mean. I’m not sure yet! That’s why I’d like to keep exploring it. As a start, I think it means it’s complex and requires wisdom and communication to fulfil both responsibilities faithfully before God. But if we set up a ‘trolley problem’ for it, I'm thinking it means if there was a family crisis and church crisis of equal proportions and significance and someone could only choose one, I suspect the blood family would take precedence. I’m not committed to that, but that’s where I’m leaning.
Do you have further thoughts? I’d love to hear some more of your reflections.
Hey Callan - just a quick note here to say thank you so much for your comment. I really appreciate the time you took to write it and it's got my brain ticking over :) I'm actually planning on writing a follow-up post in the next week or so which dives into a bit more of the nuance here and so will look forward to engaging with your thoughts as part of that!
Thanks Dani! I'll look forward to your next post and I will keep reflecting myself to hopefully add to the conversation to come.
This is great, Dani. Super helpful.
My response is both to this article (and the follow up).
I absolutely agree that the meme should be called out; that what it states about marriage is wrong but also unhelpful (to husband, wife and single people). It makes an idol of marriage.
I mostly agree with your response, except to say that I do think that there is a unique call for love in the marriage covenant. Perhaps “better” is not the best word for it (!) but I think it is still an appropriate word. I am in no way offended by your assessment.
Finally, I couldn’t stomach all of Vaughan’s article; and it wasn’t even directed at me.
What grace we still need to learn as Christian brothers and sisters and God’s fellow image bearers.
Thankful for your continued thoughtfulness and grace.
Hi Felicity - thanks for your comments and encouragement :)
I do just want to reiterate, re-emphasie, reassure (all of the above!) that I absolutely DO think there is a unique call to love in the marriage covenant. I tried hard in this post and my follow up one does to make my conviction on that clear. My point was just to say that the unique love in marriage does not negate or diminish the call to love others faithfully (ie. not less well).
That is, a husband's call is to love his wife and his kids and his parents and his neighbour etc all as himself, but in distinctive ways appropriate to his individual relationship with them. But loving his wife (in the distinctive way as Christ loves the church) doesn't mean he thereby treats his kids or his parents or his neighbours worse than he treats his wife. He loves them (ie. treats them) just as faithfully and well as he would if he was not married. Christian live is not a zero sum game where there is a comparative difference on who gets loved more or qualitatively treated better than everyone else.
I hope that makes sense! Thanks again for your encouragement and kindness :)
I think the difficulty is that in English we only have one word for “love”! I think that the husband/wife love “looks” to our eyes and culture like “more” but that is not the whole truth - or indeed the purpose of that love. I refer you to Dani Treweek’s wonderful book on just this topic!
how i shutter to realize, i used to think this way. if only we could be bolder to say, Love Jesus more than anyone or anything! Thank you for pointing out the over simplification.
Yes, BEFORE you response to any quote you also need to know the writer. When you do you will find a man passionate to KNOW, Walk in true Obedience and Make God known throughout world . He handles and teaches the Word of God with fear, honor, and care. When you understand WHO he is in the depth of his soul you will realize the church needs MORE people like Paul Washer.
Dennis, regardless of his good intent,
his quote is unbiblical. When a preacher pastor elder preaches about marriage and roles in church, he should always address both men and women responsibilities simultaneously!! Not address men only as tho the pastor's role is to whip the butt of men in front of the women in church so that they can see he is on their side. A preacher should always preach the word of God as it was intended, in fullness and in complete context of a subject such as marriage and roles of men and women. Never cut that short to one side or the other. Preaching about women is a preacher's responsbibility as well, not the role of an elder women in the congregation because maybe he doesn't want to anger the women in the body?
To preach other than that creates division within the body of Christ/The Church as it pits women against men while giving women a free pass from their biblical responsibility.
Preaching on this subject should NEVER be done one sided, NEVER!!! As it misleads the body of Christ and divides the body of Christ that men are responsible for this, and silent on Women, and therefore sets up a double standard!! Which the word of God does not do, as the whole council of God is always to be considered when preaching on any hot potato topics both within the church and those watching the church!!!
Thank you, that's a really good article. I helped me getting clearer on this issue.
Your work was profitable for me, Thank you for your time writing it.