The Doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ concerning marriage

The following is a reworking of an older post (Man and Woman), reworked because the earlier one was written before the Supreme Court ruling on June 26, 2015, and for the purpose of setting these details out in a purely teaching format.

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.      (Genesis 2:23,24)

And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (Matthew 19:4,5)

Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church.

(Book of Common Prayer)

In the two quotations from Genesis and from Matthew we have been given God's word concerning marriage, and specifically, in Matthew, the words of Jesus Christ Himself. The purpose of this article is to examine and highlight what He Himself taught when He was physically present in this world. As you can see, Jesus quoted from Genesis, but deliberately modified it with the word "Two" (or "Twain" in the older English of the KJV), thus ruling out polygamy for His followers. What we have, therefore, from the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, is His word that marriage is between one man and one woman. He follows that by saying that “some have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake (v.12).” Christians have always understood this to mean there are two states of life for believers. One is marriage, and the other is complete abstinence from sexual relations, whether one remains open to marriage in the future, or lives as a lifelong celibate by vocation. Aside from these two states of life, marriage or complete abstinence, no third alternative exists for anyone who seeks to follow Christ and be His disciple, that is, a Christian.

We have been given, in Christ’s doctrine, the teaching of sacramental marriage, that is, that marriage is God's own work. For, He follows it directly in the next verse with the words, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (v.6)." Sacramental marriage is what we celebrate and bless in the Church, because it is the work of God Himself: "What therefore God hath joined together..." Not simply the Church, not simply the power of the state, not simply a covenant between a man and a woman, but God Himself makes the man and the woman one flesh.

And, indeed, it is clear from both Genesis and the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew that two people of the same sex cannot be married in the eyes of God. The Hebrew words in Genesis are unmistakable. The word for "Woman" and "Wife" (as quoted above) are one and the same word: Ishah (אִשָּׁה). The word for "Man" is Ish (אִישׁ). The same applies to the Greek original in Matthew. The word for "wife" is Gyne (γυνή), from which comes the English word "Gynecology," and which means a woman of any age, and also means "wife." Furthermore, this follows the words from Jesus' own mouth: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female..." making the following words obvious in meaning: "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh." Sexual complementarity, something two people of the same sex do not have and cannot have, was created by God for marriage as a sacramental bond, to produce children and establish the family.

We can well understand why the Bible translators used the word "Wife" rather than "Woman" in both Genesis and Matthew. In English, to say that a man shall be joined to his woman might suggest something other than marriage to lazy ears, even though it is clear from the context that marriage is the only possible understanding of the words. But, in this day and age, we need to know that in Hebrew and in Greek the words for "Woman" and "Wife" are the same, with the meaning of a married couple derived from the context.

I was made aware of some celebrity championing same sex "marriage" with the argument that its advocates do not want to change the definition of what marriage is. That statement constitutes a factual absurdity. Of course it is a redefinition. In the whole history of the world every civilization has known that sexual complementarity - male and female - are of the very essence of what marriage is. It has never been understood any other way. From the teaching of scripture we see why: It is literally a part of God's creation, and not a man-made institution. Its roots do not come from jurisprudence. It is a part of human nature itself, as anthropology confirms (this celebrity went on to bring up Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement as if there is a connection between those important accomplishments and this new same-sex “marriage” idea. But there is no genuine connection, none whatsoever; only what some want to create by the power of suggestion rather than by facts, reason and logic).

One might as well argue that a triangle has the right to define itself as a circle, and that such an expanded definition of the word "circle" would not change the nature of circleness. If the word "circle" can mean also a triangle, then we have lost the meaning of the word. Such a definition is too inclusive to be meaningful. If the cause of including recognition of a triangle as a circle is fortified by the ruling of a court, all that would happen is that Mathematics teachers could no longer teach geometry, that is, not legally, because words would have lost their meaning. 

The revelation of Christ’s own teaching is not subject to change, whether one calls it “evolving” or “being led by the Spirit.” The Holy Spirit will not contradict what Christ has taught, because God will not contradict God. The truth is settled forever. 

Touchy points

After reading this, someone may say: "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" In the last few days we have seen that people are concerned about divorce-annulment-remarriage among the clergy, and about contraception. Fr. Kirby and Ed Pacht have weighed in on the first of these issues, and I want to weigh in here. This post will address the first, and in a day or two I will really get myself into deep doo-doo by, once again, addressing the second.

Divorced and remarried clergy

It is a fact of life that a couple can be invalidly married in the eyes of God. I chose those words carefully, because in the absence of bigamy they are married in the eyes of the state and of society, and that is a legal fact. Indeed, if such a couple later is determined to have had a marriage that was, by the standards of the Church and her Lord, null, the children are by no means bastards. They are legitimate, because the marriage was a legal fact, and the Church does not declare otherwise.

To most Protestants marriage never gets beyond the legal definition, and therefore they have no conception of annulments. Unfortunately, this is also somewhat true in the minds of many of the Orthodox, although the real teaching of Orthodoxy on this matter is impossible to determine, and has different versions in different places. By many in Catholic churches of the west, both Roman and Anglican, the notion of annulment is badly misunderstood.

Like Fr. John Hollister, I dislike the word "annulment." He is right, and as he stated in a comment: "I would go just one step further and relegate the term 'annulment' to the rubbish bin, replacing it with 'declaration of nullity'. Using 'annulment' too often suggests erroneously to the uninstructed that the Church is arrogating to itself the authority to undo something which Our Lord Himself had previously done."

Here we need to turn to the scriptures:

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Matt.9:1-9

(If anyone doubts how seriously Anglicans have taken these words, he needs to look at the Church of England in the year 1936, when the king was forced to choose between a divorced fiancee and his crown. In the final analysis, it all boiled down to one constitutional issue: The king was going to excommunicate himself upon marrying Wallice Warfield Simpson.)

The fact that a man and woman exchange vows which result in the work of God makes marriage a sacrament for Christians. This is not even debatable unless we presume (as many do) to redefine the correct meaning of the word "sacrament." The result of a man being joined to his wife creates a divine response, that is, Form, Matter and Intention result in a condition for which the Lord used the words, "What therefore God hath joined together." Therefore, if the sacrament was not valid, the Church may decree nullity. But, it cannot annul in a proactive sense, as if changing reality. Despite the attempt by one Gene Robinson of the Episcopal "Church" to create such a thing, there is no sacrament of separation and divorce. Bishops cannot annul marriages that are valid; they may investigate to see if a marriage was invalid, and make a judgment based on the facts.

The most common reason given is a lack of Intention. However, to use the words of Jesus, quoted above, called the Matthean Exception, in a loose and simplistic manner, is not justified. The Lord did not refer to isolated acts of adultery that might follow a valid marriage, but to a marriage that is itself "fornication." That is, that it is no marriage in the eyes of God. An isolated act, even as grievous as adultery, does not mean that the marriage was invalid, but rather that it was violated and trust was betrayed. Only a pattern of such behavior could demonstrate that one party never had the right Intention to make the marriage valid. (In cases I am aware of, where some Roman Catholic bishops have used deficiency of Form as their reason, their annulments have been null, not the marriage. Such false annulments are a disgrace.)

The question about Decrees of Nullity is not whether the Church may make such judgments, but rather can that authority be abused? The obvious answer is yes. In the matter of the clergy, we are faced with a more complicated problem. I cannot help but feel compassion for John, who asks a very honest question:"All this...which disturbs this poor layman as I may have to make a decision somebody because one of these men could end up theoretically as my bishop (or yours) by the stroke of another bishop's pen. If we have struggled and sacrificed for 30 years only to produce divorced bishops we are in no position to criticize our neighbors and that raises the question 'what the h... are we all doing here?' Why not have stayed in ECUSA?"

Let us assume that someone ends up with a bishop who was divorced, found to be free of impediment by a Decree of Nullity, and remarried. Let us add the complication, theoretically (theoretically, as I am not aware of any real life case I can condemn with confidence or evidence) that his remarriage is rightly a scandal, and that everyone can see through the case as a sham annulment to justify adultery.

Here we would have two related problems. The first problem has to do with sacramental validity. On that subject, the teaching of the Church is very clear, that a sacrament is not rendered invalid because of an unworthy minister. To teach otherwise is to fall into the heresy of Donatism. When St. Paul warned St. Timothy, "Lay hands suddenly on no man," (I Tim. 5:22) and when he listed the character requirements for postulency (I Tim 3, and Tit. 1:5-11), it is quite obvious that he never questioned the validity of unworthy men should they become ordained. Rather, he instructed Timothy on how to avoid the creation of a monster; a real life minister (be he deacon, priest or bishop) who ought never to have been ordained, partly because that ordination is real, and indelible. The Church would have to apply the remedy of discipline, but such cases always leave wounds and scars. The bottom line regarding sacraments is stated in Article XXVI. Of the unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty by just judgement, be deposed.

But, this does not answer the real cry I hear in John's question.

The extra weight that is rightly placed on our backs as clergymen is there because, in addition to our sacramental role, our manner of life before the world and before the Church could destroy our credibility and therefore take away our ability to teach. Worse, our lives, as publicly known, might even teach error, and they may do so to the peril of souls. And, they may send a false message despite our doctrinal orthodoxy. That is the message of the third chapter of St. Paul's first Epistle to St. Timothy. When St. Paul says that a man who desires the office of a bishop must be "apt to teach," the context indicates that his public reputation must not destroy his ability to represent Christ. Otherwise, he cannot teach effectively, partly because he has lost all moral authority.

Perhaps the Anglicans of fifty years ago might seem severe today. After all, at that time any divorce at all in a man's past, or that of his wife, was enough to render ordained ministry beyond his reach anywhere in the entire Anglican Communion. This may have had more to do with community standards than with actual morality. Should a man be considered unfit for ordination because of a marriage that fell apart many years earlier, perhaps even before his conversion, and that was really and truly not a valid marriage? On the other hand, what does fairness have to do with it? Is this life of ordained ministry supposed to be fair? Can it be fair?

I have no authority to pontificate, but neither can I give my hearty approval to everything that may go on in bodies that are associated with, or even part of, the Continuing Church jurisdictions. But, I would hope that more consideration be given to the basic cry that is in John's question than merely a legal and technical one, even one that is theologically accurate. What John wants from all of us in the ordained ministry is an example to follow, and one that children can learn from. He wants an example that commands the respect of Christians in other churches and also of unbelievers. It is a matter of compassion and of responsibility that we hear that cry, and that we not seek to defend ourselves rather than caring for the sheep. And, yes, perhaps some of the men in ordained ministry should ask themselves if their life is a scandal, whether the answer is fair or not.

Of the rights of Pig

Or Legal Fiction

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

Lewis Carroll, The Walrus and the Carpenter from Through the Looking Glass.

Thus saying the Walrus showed aptitude for a certain kind of jurisprudence. He was well on the way to developing a position which extends the mere question of whether pigs have wings to the more important issue of the right of pigs to flight by their own power. After all, a careful reading of the answer given by the Walrus to the oysters, in Lewis Carroll's famous poem, clues us in to the fact that the Walrus had great potential to become a lawyer by profession.

Therefore, his question really meant, when translated into the language of law: "Does the Constitution not guarantee to pigs the same right as it does to birds, bats and winged insects? Will not the best and most exquisitely tortured logic aid in the discovery of this right, deeply embedded in the spaces between words, clearly vague, in the Constitution?"

Of course the whole issue of the nature of pigs, and whether indeed they have wings, and just what they would be able to do with wings if they had them, is of no concern to the Walrus. His concern, is, instead, an understanding of rights which is up to date, and the application of that understanding to pig-flight rights specifically. Nature, and the work of God are not relevant. This is because he holds an essentially atheist view of the rights of man- or in this case pig- which is not the correct understanding of what the American Founding Fathers meant by the very word "rights"- and yes, I know he is an English Walrus; but lawyers are lawyers, whether wigged barristers or well-suited attorneys.

In the Walrus' view, rights are created by men, and produced specifically by the government as acts of law. The idea that God has placed them in nature is completely alien to him (which is possibly due to his having too much about oyster breakfasts on his mind). He has assumed that the entire notion of rights is grounded in societal evolution, as the creation of created beings rather than of the Creator. Therefore, rights are what we say they are, not what they actually are as part of nature

If I am right about the Walrus, then it is very easy to believe that he could entertain, as well, a completely false notion of the institution of marriage. He would not understand it as God's own work, but would wrongly conclude that it is a product of society. He will not see that it is grounded in nature itself, as the work of God; he will think it is a man-made institution, and that it has evolved in history, and that it can be transformed by law because times have changed.

By failing to see that rights and marriage are not the products of society, law and government, he will believe that legislation or arbitrary judicial activism can change them into whatever he and his colleagues dictate. Likewise, the question of whether pigs have wings is secondary to the right of pigs to use wings. But, if nature cannot aid pigs to fly because God has not given them wings, then Mr. Walrus, esquire would be quite mistaken about the whole matter of rights altogether.

My argument against a pig’s right to fly is in line with the understanding of rights which the Founding Fathers put forth as the very basis of their reasoning both for Declaring Independence and for the Constitution. Before I proceed to argue against the Walrus or any lawyer who contends for the right of pigs to use wings (or for why Adam may marry Steve), I must point out that we should reject both extreme views of the men who gave us both American Independence, and later the Constitution.

In one school of thought they were all devout Christians basing their views on the Bible; in the other, they were all Deists who espoused anti-Christian pagan philosophy. Both of these points of view fail to give an accurate picture: In fact, they were among the most educated men of their generation, and were expressing an understanding that included the whole body of civilized thought from antiquity to modernity, aided by a unique strain of pure and genuine American character. (A young country? Perhaps; but never a child. When western civilization came of age, the result was the Constitution of the United States.)

They drew upon the Bible, the philosophy and history of the ancient world, and the experience of centuries of European weal and woe. Some were Christians; some were Deists, or at least very difficult to define, especially Jefferson. But, what they held in common, a view which makes sense from the standpoint of the whole Christian Tradition, is that rights deserve the protection of law and government because they have been given by God, and exist in His world as facts.

This means that their idea of rights was based upon "Nature and Nature's God" instead of upon the power of human governments. This alone gives justification to the belief that any government that becomes "destructive of these ends of right ought to be overthrown." This is the foundation of American philosophy, and it gives recognition to God as the Author of anything which justly can be called a "right." It was revolutionary conservatism, as strange as that may sound, because it was the conclusion of all that was held to be true over the whole history of civilization.

It means also that unless a right exists in nature, it does not exist at all. The only rights which governments are "instituted among men" to protect, are rights which are God-given. Whatever one may think of the religious beliefs of the individuals who were in the Continental Congress, and later the Constitutional Convention, this basic belief is impossible to defame as "un-Christian" pagan deism. In fact, it is, to borrow yet another phrase, "self-evident." Genuine rights belong to the creation of God, and exist really and truly as part of nature.

But, all of this goes over the head of the lawyers who argue for the right of pigs to fly.

The poor Walrus (if I am right about his professional aspirations to practice law) thinks that rights come from the law itself, that they are government inventions. He believes not only that they can change with the times, but that they must. He scoffs at the idea of Natural Law, preferring, apparently, a law that is essentially unnatural. I fear that, in addition to arguing for the right of pigs to fly by their own power, he will argue that a man may marry another man, a woman another woman, and perhaps, in time, that a man may even marry his horse. A right to marry according to one's preference is something that the State cannot justly deny; that is, once we wrongly assume that rights are man-made inventions through the power of law, and that marriage is an institution of societal evolution.

The Walrus has forgotten, if indeed he ever knew, that marriage was "instituted by God" and that it is part of nature. The story of Adam and Eve is meant to teach this very doctrine. And, as our Lord Jesus Christ explained it, it was the plan and work of God: "From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. ‘For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh'; so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together...". The laws which recognize and protect marriage are based upon the same concept of "Nature and Nature's God" spoken of directly in the Declaration of Independence, and which provides the rationale for the Constitutional Amendments which guarantee the protection of God-given rights.

The Walrus, should he ever appear for such a plaintiff as "Adam and Steve," would be correct about one thing however. The idea that two persons of the same sex can actually have a right to be married is worthy of the same consideration we must give to "whether pigs have wings."

Second marriage thread

In the thread that followed my article about marriage last week, most of the comments have focused strictly on sexual relations within marriage. That is important, but I want to open a thread in case anyone wants to discuss the sacramental theology of marriage that I brought out, especially in the last paragraphs, which I quote below.
____________________

Christian marriages have to them more than human commitment. The Holy Spirit works by means of this union. He gives grace through faithful spouses to further growth in virtues and sanctification. Daily activities and all of the changes of this transitory life, are the context of that ministry to one another over a period of years.

The husband and wife are God’s agents to one another, to aid salvation, and sanctification. Furthermore, all spouses are called to aid each other’s gifts and vocations in this world, and in a special and obvious way in their joint responsibility should they be so blessed as to become parents. Such a life, in turn, may often lead to a Christian couple being a witness to the world of the love between Christ and his Church (Ephesians 5:32).

My advice to Christian couples is to pray together often (which is best when it is initiated and led by the man), perhaps as part of the daily offices of prayer, according to the practices of specific church traditions. The end of marriage, as we know it, is that the husband and wife love one another as aids to everything good and eternal by the work of the Holy Spirit. Then the blessing applies. “That ye may so live together in this life, that in the world to come ye may have life everlasting.”

The End of Marriage as we know it

The Traditional Anglican service of Holy Matrimony from the Book of Common Prayer reflects the holiness of marriage with solemnity and dignity, including the final blessing: “God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, bless, preserve, and keep you; the Lord mercifully with his favour look upon you, and fill you with all spiritual benediction and grace; that ye may so live together in this life, that in the world to come ye may have life everlasting. Amen.”

The end of the marriage service was altered in 1979 for the book that is used by the Episcopal Church. Their book says: “…that you may faithfully live together in this life, and in the age to come have life everlasting. Amen.” Changing the words of this blessing has changed the meaning, even if it was unintended. This difference, signified by the word “and” instead of “that,” is unfortunately consistent with a wide gulf that radically separates two understandings of what marriage is.

Need for clear teaching

For those who have only a worldly concept of marriage, how the couple will live together has no relevance to eternity. Of course, the end of every marriage must come since everyone dies. But, the end for which a Christian man and woman marry does in fact have eternal significance. So then, how do we protect Christians from a worldly concept of marriage?

Not by silence. No longer can we simply assume that every Christian has learned properly, or that they even know that fidelity in marriage is a moral issue of grave consequence. Christians ought to be well acquainted with the commandments of God against fornication and adultery (and what is fornication, if not adultery before the fact?). And, also they ought to know that divorce is an evil thing.

None of these things should be controversial for any Christian who believes the things that Jesus said, and said clearly. Nonetheless, we have come to a time that requires us to teach Christians, even some devout Catholics and born again Evangelicals, to see the difference between ideas that prevail in this age, and the truth about marriage.

It is wrong to assume that people know how to live together in this life, as man and wife, simply because they are Church people. Pastoral experience has taught me, over many years, that we can no longer assume that children are being taught by their parents at home. Gone are the days when the Church can expect younger parents to be aware of their responsibility. If pastors and religious teachers simply assume they can build on a foundation already laid, they will often be in for a shock. It has not been business as usual for many years now.

And, since nature abhors a vacuum, bad ideas can be found wherever teaching has been neglected, especially in the minds of many who have already reached adulthood. Might the following things need to be spelled-out for some modern Christians, especially those under 40? I am sorry to say, yes they do. Experience teaches me this. What goes unsaid goes unlearned.

Preparing people for marriage highlights this in a special way. Certain things have to be taught, because when they go unsaid, the vacuum fills up with error. We cannot assume that Christians have no need to hear the following, or that the Church has no responsibility to teach them.

The end of marriage is, all too often, the gratification of desire. And, added to this insufficient understanding, uncouth practices are treated as normal and healthy by modern people. This is because they have been indoctrinated by the spirit of the times to accept almost any sexual practice, as if gratification is, itself, moral justification.

For example, it would be wrong for the Christian bride to find herself being treated as a “sex slave.” She should not expect a Christian husband to request or demand “service” that is humiliating and degrading, even if one such practice was popularized by a president in the Oval office, and falsely justified by his warped idea of how to study the Bible.

We should not assume that younger Christians know that marriage gives moral rightness to copulation, and adds blessing to wholesome pleasure, but that marriage is not a license for just any kind of sexual activity that has dawned on the human imagination. “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous.” (Hebrews 13:4, RSV)

To others, of all ages, the end of marriage may be larger than gratification, but still not good enough. Based on a need for love and companionship, and in some cases security, the end of marriage may be happiness based on what can be received. That may be bigger and nobler than gratification alone, and emotionally more rewarding.

Nonetheless, the desire to be made happy is insufficient as the end of marriage for a Christian. For, this kind of love may be in keeping with eros, and even with phileō. But, it falls short of agape. That is, though it may include all of the emotions we associate with romantic love, and with friendship (both good and necessary things in married love), it falls short of the love described by St. Paul in I Corinthians chapter 13.

A means of grace

Modern Christians need to be taught in order to truly understand the good things that God the Holy Spirit can give to a husband and wife through one another. Not every Christian is comfortable using a word for marriage that we, as Traditional Anglicans, use. That word is “sacrament.” It may be a waste of time to try to sell everyone simply on that word; but, we should not hesitate to make an effort to sell all Christians everywhere on some of the theological meaning of that word as applied to marriage.

First of all, to put it very simply, when an unmarried Christian man and an unmarried Christian woman say their vows before God and human witnesses, this constitutes a form of words that state the clear intention of entering into a union that is, itself, God’s own doing. The fact that marriage is the work of God himself is the teaching of Jesus (e.g. Matthew 19:6: “What God has joined together”). After the consummation, the joining is complete.

Contrary to the spirit of the times, since the body is holy, the occasions of coming together in intimacy have their place in grace and sanctification also. Happiness and pleasure do not, in themselves, contradict holiness. Always, respect for the body includes respect for its nature and power of procreation.

We need to consider the Greek word charis (often in the form charisma) that is usually translated “grace,” and in many places as “gift.” The New Testament usage of this word consistently refers to both special and extraordinary graces given by the Holy Spirit. St. Paul teaches Christians to desire the gifts that best fit the need or occasion (I Corinthians. 12:31), and this leads directly to the famous chapter on charity. We should want the graces or gifts that are most beneficial to others, consistent with divine love.

Christian marriages have to them more than human commitment. The Holy Spirit works by means of this union. He gives grace through faithful spouses to further growth in virtues and sanctification. Daily activities and all of the changes of this transitory life, are the context of that ministry to one another over a period of years.

The husband and wife are God’s agents to one another, to aid salvation, and sanctification. Furthermore, all spouses are called to aid each other’s gifts and vocations in this world, and in a special and obvious way in their joint responsibility should they be so blessed as to become parents. Such a life, in turn, may often lead to a Christian couple being a witness to the world of the love between Christ and his Church (Ephesians 5:32).

My advice to Christian couples is to pray together often (which is best when it is initiated and led by the man), perhaps as part of the daily offices of prayer, according to the practices of specific church traditions. The end of marriage, as we know it, is that the husband and wife love one another as aids to everything good and eternal by the work of the Holy Spirit. Then the blessing applies. “That ye may so live together in this life, that in the world to come ye may have life everlasting.”

A bishop then must be blameless

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

I Timothy chapter 3:1-13

After the comments to a previous posting, it has become obvious that more needs to be said about the requirement that a clergyman be "the husband of one wife." First of all, the time to bring up this subject and its relevance to our claims that we continue the practice of traditional Anglicanism, is long overdue. It is overdue because of the questions I raised: Would men with multiple marriages have been acceptable for ordination in the universally accepted understanding among Anglicans one hundred years ago? Since the answer is "no," what are we continuing? In a comment, my friend Fr. Charles Nalls amplified what I asked:

Merely parroting electronically and in print nostrums like we represent “Apostolic Christianity in the Anglican tradition. Our beliefs are stated on the pages of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer.” Or, how about, “[fill in your jurisdiction here] holds the ‘faith once delivered to the saints’ as handed down from the apostolic fathers.” Really? Without getting into the nuts and bolts of belief in the Continuum which would be a great discussion, I do think the Apostolic Fathers might generally be appalled by the general condition of things in the Continuum’s little corner of Christendom on a number of scores.

The Apostolic Fathers, yes, and also the average Anglican/ Episcopalian in the time when I was a mere boy and beardless youth.

However, it would be wrong to let certain misunderstandings be generated from my endorsement of a letter by Dr. Peter Toon (the real substance of that other post). For example, on the subject of divorced clergy, I am well aware that a good number of people are victims of divorce. A man who has been abandoned by an adulterous or even an insane wife, and yet holds to his integrity (and I am thinking of some actual real life cases), can provide a godly example, and need not be barred from ordination because of the wrong done to him. Nor would I say that such a man, abandoned long ago, granted an annulment, joined to a wife in a sacramental marriage, and then later sensing a call to the priestly vocation (to create a scenario) should be barred, certainly not absolutely. Yet, even here we need to be cautious. Once we embark down a path that differs from the standards of our fathers, we have already wandered into perilous territory. It may be hard to draw the line anywhere if we do not think everything through very clearly.

Looking at the third chapter of I Timothy, and the requirements set out for ordination, I will make a statement that has already caused an objection. Everything that St. Paul lists here is part of what he has identified as the quality of being "blameless." In fact, it is that word that serves as the key to unlock the meaning of the text. And so, the objection has been raised that the requirement that he must be "apt to teach" has nothing to do with being "blameless." The problem is, the context must be understood to give the meaning, and so an interpretation that takes even a part of a passage outside its context simply cannot be right. Looking at the whole context, which describes the "blameless" man, it is this very key of blamelessness that explains just what St.Paul meant by the words "apt to teach." In fact, these words take on a very important significance as a result, one we cannot afford to miss.

As much as the bishop (and St. Paul seems to use this word by a "primitive" definition that includes the office of presbyter, the word "bishop" later being reserved for those few priests who actually enter, as Dix put it, "the apostolic college"1) should be able to teach from the standpoint of theological and scriptural expertise, St. Paul is speaking about the fitness of the man to teach with credibility before the eyes of others. How can a man who is a drunkard teach his congregation to be sober? How can a striker teach that we must be forgiving, kind and that we turn the other cheek? How can a man whose children live scandalous or criminal lives, teach the people to raise their children in the fear of God? How can a man known to be "greedy of filthy lucre" or covetous, teach about giving? How can the husband of several wives teach God's holy commandments? A man who cannot represent the sacrament of marriage, who cannot show forth its sanctity by a life either of celibacy or fidelity to one wife, is not "apt to teach" about anything to do with any of the sacraments, let alone about how to raise a family or about sexual morality.

The credibility problem in the Continuum needs to be addressed by this very passage. Some of the clergy are not apt to teach because they are uneducated. But, Among the educated, others are not apt to teach because their lives do not have that blameless quality of which St. Paul speaks. Obviously, he is not saying that a man must be sinless, since he possessed the humility to call himself the "chief" of sinners, "not worthy to be called an apostle," and "the least of the apostles." The text is about the problem of a life that creates scandal. No amount of legalism and clericalism is sufficient to repair the pastoral damage done when bishops, priests and deacons are not blameless, and therefore not apt to teach.

1. Dix, Dom Gregory, Apostolic Order

Even More on Marriage

The Most Rev. Mark Haverland, Metropolitan of the ACC, sent me a link to an old newsletter (April 2004) from St. Stephen's Anglican Catholic Church in Athens, Ga. Considering some of the discussion that has been going on in the More on Marriage and Annulments article I posted (which has included very good and stimulating insights from Canon John Hollister and Fr. Samuel Edwards), I am posting the link here to Archbishop Haverland's article. It is in PDF format, but PDF from Acrobat reader is free and easy to install. Furthermore, it is a newsletter that continues on with Parish information that is more than three years old. However, I am posting the link because the insights are well worth the little time it takes to read them. It addresses in quite frank terms the very real difference between what Christians know marriage to be, and what society in general has been doing to the whole meaning of the word.

I quote part of it here:

The claims of same-sex couples and polygamists to social and legal recognition as ‘married’ simply shows the incoherence that already is present. If marriage is simply a temporary arrangement for the mutual and private gratification of its participants, then its definition is entirely private and its redefinition is available to anyone who wants to use the term and claim the social benefits. Why should the rest of us subsidize such private and transitory arrangements?

In fact the deepest damage to marriage as traditionally understood has not been wrought by gay couples or by fringe Mormon groups. The deepest damage to marriage is the work of couples who want everything: the personal conveniences and enjoyments along with the legal and social advantages of marriage, but also freedom from any truly binding responsibilities, freedom to personal fulfilment above all other goals, freedom to drop a marriage that has become inconvenient or irksome, and even the freedom while married to break any and all of the promises and vows one made at its outset...

Again, you may read the rest here.

More on Marriage and Annulments

Last week some very important questions were brought up about the whole issue of divorced and remarried clergy. This was due to a case involving a very important clergyman in the Continuing Anglican movement about which I had never been fully informed (and don't want to be), but about which I was aware that an annulment had been granted years ago. Therefore, I want to clarify some points.

An annulment is not something that a bishop has the power to effect. It is not sacramental, and is not a charismatic power granted to a bishop that enables him to render a valid marriage null. He does not have the power to unmarry people. If an annulment has been granted, we ought to have confidence that the bishop who had the case investigated and then granted the decree of nullity, did so with complete integrity. The whole idea is not that he can make the previous marriage null, but that, upon investigation, he is able to determine that no marriage had taken place as far as the Church is concerned, meaning that there was no marriage in the eyes of God.

The element of a sacrament that is most important in these cases is Intention. Most decrees of nullity are based on conclusive evidence that a previous marriage, even though it was legal according to the state (which means that the children of such marriages are legitimate, since that is a legal matter), lacked the necessary intention, by one of the parties, to be considered a sacrament. This does not mean that, for the marriage to be valid, they had to understand anything to do with sacramental theology at the time; what it does mean is that they intended to enter into a life long union and to practice fidelity. The grant of an annulment means that the Church considers a subsequent marriage to be the first marriage in any case where the former spouse (spouse in strictly legal terms) is still living, rather than a remarriage.

Here are two problems that must be faced honestly.

1) Bishops can abuse this authority, and if they do so, it is their annulment that is null in the eyes of God.

2) Among Continuing Anglicans, there are quite an alarming number of clergy who have been though the process.

The people have a need for examples of godly living by the clergy, and a very special need for clergy to represent in their persons the sacramental life, and our theology teaches us that marriage is a sacrament. If, however, the clergyman has had an annulment, and has since then married in good faith, we have no grounds to treat him as somehow notorious.

I have helped bishops in two investigations. One involved a husband who wanted his wife to commit adultery so he could watch, and to engage in perverted acts to satisfy him. I refer to the "Clinton Preference," named after an ex-President of the United States. The fact is, such acts are not permitted by God; they are not what He had in mind, and not what is meant when it says that God makes a man and wife into one flesh. Any man who wants his wife to perform the "Clinton Preference" is treating his wife disrespectfully and abusively. Any man who wants her to prostitute herself so he can watch, has shown that he was incapable of the sacramental intention to be a husband. The lady in question received her annulment and was able to marry in good conscience. The other case involved a woman who, shortly after a civil ceremony on a beach, began to pull away from her husband, and eventually left him, then divorced him, never giving any reason (no reason appears in the court documents). He never knew if she had another lover; but the abandonment is, in the eyes of the Church, a form of adultery even without another lover. The man received his annulment in this case, and could in good conscience marry his intended (a very good word for our purposes).

In my former work, dealing with legal/medical matters, I came across a heart broken young woman who discovered, after being married a short time, that she did not have any true information about her husband's identity. He disappeared completely; and, after investigation, she learned that he was not the man whose name appeared on their marriage certificate (Maryland had no marriage licenses in those days, but did keep a marriage certificate on file in the Department of Vital Records). She had no idea at all who he actually was. I informed her that, by law, they were never married, and that, as far as we know, he may have commited bigamy. In any case, as far as the Church is concerned, false identity is grounds for annulment.

For the record, I have been married only one time in the eyes of the state as well as of the Church, so I do not know the pain of divorce first hand at all. My marriage is and always has been quite happy. From what I have seen, however, in the lives of people who are going through divorce, is that in most cases there comes a point at which one party wants reconciliation, and the other does not. At this point, pastoral ministry must be done with the greatest of care and of urgency, if possible, to hold a family together. Sadly, sometimes what must be determined is if one party is in a state of mortal sin by refusing to honor the vows that were taken.

This may or may not put minds at rest. I post this to help your understanding, knowing full well that it may cause questions to arise. If so, do not be afraid to ask.