Follow us @WheatnTweet!
An unintentionally poor analogy for marriage & relationships with God
By: Andrew S
Please let me begin this post with a disclaimer: Jeff Lindsay (of Mormanity, not of Dexter) totally doesn’t deserve this post, since he’s a pretty cool guy and he most likely wasn’t trying to go where I’m about to go at all…but I just can’t resist going here. He wrote a post, Marriage and Grace, wherein he says:
Marriage in both the New and Old Testaments is a metaphor for the relationship we should have with God. His love for us is like the love of a perfect groom for his bride. The requirement for loyalty and fidelity on our part is also similar to the expectations expressed in marriage vows. Marriage, after all, is a covenant relationship, a two-way covenant. In entering into that covenant, one accepts certain limitations and exclusions in life, promising sacrifice, service, and complete loyalty, and thereby obtains great blessings and promises (especially true if you’ve managed to marry someone awesome like I did–I still can’t grasp why I should be so fortunate, but that’s another story).
Going further into Jeff’s post, it was difficult to see what exactly his ultimate point was. He offers a paragraph as an example of what we should *not* expect marriage to be like:
Well, young couple, now you are married, married with God’s power, and since what God does last forever, we know that and marriage lasts forever, and so there’s nothing to worry about. No need to do anything, to exert any effort. No need to sacrifice or make any big changes in your life. Oh, sure, the changes will come naturally since you love each other, but there’s no sense trying to change anything about what you do, what you want, how you spend your time or money, etc.. God has done all the work that needs to be done in marrying you and nothing can change that. Once married, always married, you know. Now enjoy!
…Is this supposed to be a dig at some Christians’ views that “once saved, always saved?” Or that works come about as a natural result of the transformation of faith (and so you don’t seek them outside or externally)?
That caused me to think of what Jeff’s analogy could really be taken as saying. It was a bit comical.
So, here goes nothing:
How divinely-ordained marriages should work
Marriage is a metaphor for the relationship we should have with God. His love for us is like the love of a perfect groom for his bride. In just the same way that we are leagues beneath God’s level (and certainly not equal partners in our relationship, but reliant upon his grace), wives are leagues beneath their husband’s level, certainly not equal partner in the marriage, but reliant upon his grace to allow them to co-preside (or whatever). [OK, that's probably too evangelical a statement. Maybe it's not that we are leagues beneath God's level, but instead, the difference between us is a difference in degree of progression, and not of kind.]
The writers of the Bible understood that our covenant relationship with God, like the bride’s marital relationship with her groom in marriage, requires loyalty and effort on our part. It requires obedience and endurance to the end. Those in the covenant relationship can fall from grace (but of course, it’s only ever us who falls out of grace. Similarly, it is only the bride/wife who can fall out of grace in a marital relationship). The Bible teaches that plainly and explicitly. The covenant relationship with God, not just in the Old Testament but also in the New, requires our obedience and faithful following of God. Similarly, women must submit to their husbands.
How tragic that some teachers and pastors would in essence give advice about God that is potentially just as harmful as that hypothetical bad marriage advice.
…OK, enough of that. There was one line that Jeff had in his actual piece, however, that made me double-take. Since I REALLY don’t get what he’s trying to say with that line, I’ll add emphasis to it and include some other lines before and after as some context:
We believe that marriage can be forever. Yes, of course we’ve heard the verse about how marriage does not occur in heaven. There is also no baptism in heaven. These ordinances are earthly ordinances that must occur here, but both, when properly done and with the right authority, can bring lasting eternal blessings. Marriage is not a place for dating. It’s not a place for people changing their affiliation in faith or in marriage. The ordinances of change, both marriage and baptism, are both ordinances of sealing what should be a permanent relationship and must take place before one can really move forward in the glories of eternity.
What’s that bolded line supposed to mean (emphasis added)? So, is that saying that marriage is not a place if you happen to change your affiliation in faith? So, if you happen to have a faith crisis, then that casts doubt on your marriage?
…What is this supposed to be saying?!
I’ll be frank: I would love to have a concise explanation of our relationship with God. But I can’t help but feel that there are some analogies that either do injustice to the character of God, injustice to the character of our human relationships, injustice to the character of our relationship with God, or injustice to all three. So, let’s try to do justice to these by addressing the
Questions for Today
- What do you see the ideal marriage as? What are the goals? What are the challenges?
- What do you see the ideal relationship with God as? What is God’s “role” or place in the relationship, and what are our human roles?
- Is marriage a good analogy for relationships with God? Am I just reading a whole lot of paranoia into this?
OP:Andrew,
I have been married 47 years. It’s a good one, but not a ‘perfect’ one. I don’t know if I have ever seen a perfect one___it is a poor analogy to use for a relation with God.
Like this comment?
0
Andrew, I don’t have time to read Jeff’s post this morning, but I will take a moment to respond to yours. After enduring two very bad marriages, both solemnized in temples, I still think marriage is an excellent metaphor for a relationship with God. I also think that leadership is well described in parables about constructing buildings and watching over sheep. None of these analogies, which are reductions of a perfect construct to limited human terms, can be pressed too far trying to fit the analogy up (from human to explain the eternal).
And I agree with the bolded statement that you quote from Jeff. After one has made a covenant is not the time for one to dally about deciding about that covenant. I don’t think he’s suggesting that people remain static individuals; I think he’s commenting on how destructive it is for people to rewrite the basics of the covenant after giving their word.
Either in marriage or in discipleship, once we’ve given our word, it should be our word. It’s a matter of honor. I may be single for the rest of my life, but I still think marriage is an excellent analogy for my relationship with God. Thank heavens He is faithful.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
6
For now, I just want to make a side comment. This is completely irrelevant to the discussion (and doesn’t apply to 99.9999% of you, especially if your comments show up on site without a problem), but…
In order to comment here, you have to had at the very least a real-sounding email address. You don’t have to comment with your real email address (although we do like to contact people privately off-site if we have any concerns, and so sometimes we find that email addresses aren’t real after the fact), but if you have a clearly and obviously fake email address, then your comment may get stuck in the spam filter.
So, to the person who may be wondering why his/her comments never get through, please try a different email. I would email you about it, but your email address isn’t real.
We will be drafting a more formal comment policy soon so that everyone will be able to see exactly what’s what.
I’ll respond to comments later…
Like this comment?
1
Marriage is a profound and beautiful description of the relationship that God desires to have with us. Because he loves us infinitely, he wants us to love him with all of our hearts as well. He wants a covenant relationship with us that enables him to bless, comfort, and strengthen us as we face the challenges and tribulations of life.
Although no earthly marriage is perfect, God’s relationship with us is filled with perfect love and unending faithfulness. As both parties in a marriage center their hearts on God’s love, marriages can be strengthened and blessed.
I have been married for 42 years and have learned that the more my spouse and I love the Lord, the stronger our marriage is. God’s love blesses individuals and marriages when we seek to obey, follow, and love our Father and His Beloved Son.
Like this comment?
1
A general idea does come through, but Jeff’s article is very hard to follow in detail.
I wonder about its premise, though:
Marriage in both the New and Old Testaments is a metaphor for the relationship we should have with God.
Do Mormons really believe this? Does anyone? Marriage is used as a metaphor for the relationship between God or Christ and his chosen people or church, but not (that I recall) its individual members. Some explain the Song of Solomon as an allegory of the this kind, perhaps from abhorrence of the notion of Biblical erotica. However, if marriage to King Solomon, with his hundreds of wives and concubines, is the model, then it’s not clear that today’s “two-way covenants” are hitting the target.
Polygamy aside, the Old Testament’s view of marriage is very different from ours today, unsurprising given the vast differences in time, culture, and economics. There are stories like those of Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael, or Jacob, Leah, and Rachel. There are laws requiring marriage in specific circumstances, such as that obliging a man to marry his dead brother’s widow.
One explicit marriage metaphor is the divine command to Hosea to marry “a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms”. It is sort of a reverse application of the principle: Hosea’s marriage (as described in his book) is purely a message to Israel that it has been unfaithful. His children’s names warn of consequences.
In the New Testament, we do get Jesus as the bridegroom, but it again doesn’t seem to me to be about individual relationships. It also does not get pre-eminence over other metaphors. Herding sheep probably appears more often.
Later there are noteworthy passages like Paul’s grudging concession that it is better to marry than to burn, and the woman of Revelation who, given “two wings of a great eagle” fled into the wilderness to be “nourished for a time, and times, and half a time”. Overall, it’s a mixed bag.
Whether Jeff is right or wrong in his view of marriage is a separate issue, but I think he is reading it into the Bible rather than in the Bible.
Like this comment?
2
I agree with Badger,
The article says “Marriage in both the Old and New Testament” like there is a single, correlated idea of capital-M Marriage that exists cohesively throughout the entire Biblical record.
If marriage is the metaphor — I’d have to ask, “Which marriage?” — marriage in the Old Testament, which was the transference of the rights over a woman from her father/brother to a husband — Paul seemed to think that an imminent second coming of Christ pretty much made “marriage” a take-it-or-leave-it social arrangement. Which one is my relationship with God?
When I read the article — I thought that the exercise [of this metaphor business] really seems backwards to me.
It’s like we’re trying to use what our idea of “marriage” currently looks like to inform how we understand God’s relationship to humans — instead of grasping God’s relationship to humans and then letting that inform how we understand the relationship of “marriage” between us and other humans.
Like this comment?
3
This seems to be yet another post along the same lines as the previous, Andrew S, on your own blog, which seems to suggest yet again that people are not responsible for their actions or choices when they have a faith crisis, nor are they responsible for the *choice* of losing faith when confronted with something that shakes them. Yet again, I will respond that when someone makes a “faith change” or “faith affilation change”, they are responsible for that choice. They are responsible for breaking the commandments. They are responsible for breaking covenants. Nobody or nothing forced them into it. They were beguiled by the “facts” to make a poor choice as much as Adam and Eve were beguiled by facts. Once again, I will call upon you to stop acting like middle way mormons and post mormons are victims. They may have not asked to be shaken, but they are responsible for their choices. Please stop acting like people are forced to make choices.
Sincerely,
Your outspoken critic, Joe
Like this comment?
1
OK, I’ll bite. How’s this as a restatement of the premise?
“Marriage in both the New and Old Testaments is a metaphor for the relationship we should have with God. God’s love for us is like the love of a perfect bride for her groom.”
Like this comment?
1
re 7
Joe,
so you’ve joined me here at W&T. oh gosh :3.
unfortunately, there’s not really much to say here. It’s an impasse of opinions here. I think your opinions don’t really align with what we know about neurology and psychology. You (have no conscious choice but to) disagree. So not much else to say.
Like this comment?
0
I like to think of marriage as an equal partnership between two that are trying to build a family and future, and because of that, the analogy with God has limitations, as I can’t be on equal grounds.
For those who think the husband is above the wife, that would work with God as the Bridegroom, but I don’t view marriage that way.
I view God in the marriage equation more on the Triangle Model. The two lower ends of the triangle are the husband and wife, and God is the apex of the triangle. So the closer each individual gets towards God, the closer they are to each other.
I prefer my relationship with the Church as a metaphor to marriage.
Like this comment?
0
In both the old and new Testament the text itself constantly uses marriage as an analogy. So the answer would be both.
Like this comment?
0
[...] such a popular article last week, this week’s article at Wheat and Tares, An unintentionally poor analogy for marriage and rela…, seems to be a swing and a miss. I guess this is one of those things that you probably ought to be [...]
Like this comment?
0
The marriage metaphor has never fully worked for me for many of these stated reasons. I do think that the idea of covenant making and perfect fidelity is valid, though. But that’s as far as the metaphor works. There should be a minimum of fidelity required. I think maybe Jeff L is saying if you’ve made temple covenants and then fall away, it’s like being unfaithful to your spouse. That may be true in some cases, but not in others. We expect people to make temple covenants with little foreknowledge and great social pressure at a young and impressionable age, and it’s also a requirement to do so in order to do that other mandatory rite of passage for men: a mission. So, if temple covenants are like marital covenants, it’s like arranged marriage in your late teens that will shame your family if you don’t do it. Some do have the maturity to make those covenants, yet there were plenty I knew on my mission who definitely didn’t. I don’t think they are all equally accountable for lifelong fidelity to the church.
Like this comment?
1
Hawkgrrrl, I’ve thought a lot about that. My first husband, who left after 2 years, used to say that he didn’t think he would really be held accountable for not keeping temple covenants because he didn’t fully “get it.” He’d been on a mission, and it’s true he wasn’t as mature as some, but it always felt like an incredible cop-out to me. I think that’s why the church, at least where I’ve been and when I served as a YWP, is trying to do a better job of helping people grow up as youth so that we aren’t facing such a crisis in early marriage.
I’m especially fascinated lately by the idea that the Lord doesn’t really ascribe to the need for foreknowledge. I think that’s about faith and it’s a great divisor. From a secular standpoint, it’s most certainly very problematic, but he doesn’t seem terribly concerned about that. Still, I wonder if it isn’t the most efficient way to operate a kingdom. What do you think?
Like this comment?
1
#14 hawkgrrrl “We expect people to make temple covenants with little foreknowledge and great social pressure at a young and impressionable age”
This was definitely the case for when I went through the temple the first time. I was barely 20 and about to marry my fiance three or so days later.
I had always had issues with the treatment of women in the church. However, I trusted my parents and church authorities that the endowment would be a wonderful, uplifting experience. There was also an incredible amount of familial pressure since I was the oldest child and first to get married on both sides of my very Mormon family. I won’t go into details, but let’s just say after I went through the temple,I realized that I really did take issue with certain doctrines and my fears weren’t just in my head. Although I had read through all the material I could find about the temple and my concerns before I went through, I was not even remotely prepared. But even had I known what I was about to face, I don’t know if I would have been strong enough at the time to decide not to go. It would have been catastrophe for my family and I would have been likely shunned by those around me who would think I had committed some terrible sin that was preventing me from going to the temple.
A disclaimer: this is just my own personal experience. If you had a good experience in the temple that’s great. I’m not saying it’s wrong that you did.
Like this comment?
3
I think marriage is a great metaphor for a relationship with God, possibly in some unfortunate ways.
1) The relationship is completely unequal, in the same way the Mormon doctrine of marriage is unequal. As a mere member of the Church, I don’t have any say in how the Kingdom is run (a far cry from the original intention of “common consent”). Likewise in Mormonism’s ideal of a marriage, the wife doesn’t have any say. Sure the husband is supposed to counsel with her, but he “presides” — a term that means his word is final.
Indeed, Mormon doctrine holds God:Man::Husband:Woman. If you don’t believe that, you haven’t been paying attention to our liturgy. The wording of the temple covenant has been softened slightly, but it’s still no hallmark of equality…
2) The relationship is far from perfect. If you think your relationship with God is perfect, then that’s probably because you don’t really have one. Even in our scriptures the prophets (Enoch anyone?) question God. In our literature, the greatest moments of spiritual growth occur when we’re most angry with God. Indeed if we follow Jesus’ instructions in the New Testament, we’re literally fighting against God, who creates (natural disasters, diseases, famine) and allows (war, crime, poverty) the suffering we’re trying to alleviate.
Of course the analogy can only be taken so far — especially if you want to come out of it without hating God. The problem isn’t that it’s a bad metaphor; the problem is the fact that the metaphor is good enough to have been used by Paul, and again by us in our ceremonies. That the metaphor is good indicates that we have a long way to go before women and men enjoy full equality (and the self-actualization for which it’s a prerequisite) in our religion…
Like this comment?
1
I agree that we are disagreeing Andrew. That is why my opinion is presented here. To counter yours. :)
Like this comment?
2
Bonnie – interesting idea that the Lord doesn’t care about foreknowledge. Perhaps you can elaborate before I comment further. I’m trying to think of some specific examples post the Old Testament and am not sure I can. But in reference to the idea that immaturity and pressure can be a cop-out, of course I agree. But I’m not sure they always are. And I’m not convinced we are creating more mature young adults than before; on the contrary, a byproduct of helicopter parenting is kids who take less personal responsibility and mature later. The church seems very concerned about Peter Pan Syndrome.
Taylor – I think your experience is not uncommon. My own temple experiences were mixed. I reject the inherent sexism, although I see it as evidence of human influence rather than the divine order. But the fact is I’m living in the human race, so that stuff does affect me at times.
Like this comment?
0
That really was a bomb to drop without explanation, in a faith that talks and thinks a lot about prophecy, wasn’t it? What I meant was that in our own lives, the Lord doesn’t tell us what we’re getting into before we agree to things. I can think of a lot of personal examples where I was told I could choose but not what the choice would really entail. I might have paled at the idea. When we receive callings we may be told the scope of our responsibilities, but we have no idea if there’s going to be a civil war over some issue down the line that makes us want to pull our lower lip over our head. That will be the crucial experience for us, and that isn’t something God ever seems to describe beforehand: the kernel of our trial. I can’t think of anyone who had the kernel of his/her trial described by God before s/he agreed to it. It’s an act of faith.
Like this comment?
0
Bonnie – Yes, I agree with you that trials require faith and really so does all religious observance, because blessings only follow after we exercise faith, and if we only follow the dictates of our conscience we may take a worse course of action than what divine inspiration with its longer view would dictate.
Still, I don’t see God wanting us to enter covenants in total ignorance either. Temple covenants sort of parallel the covenants of Abraham and Jacob in that a blessing is being sought for themselves and their families. However, the difference is that in the church, we don’t really explain any of this, and is a teenager really in a position to be voluntarily seeking this kind of blessing and to understand the lifelong commitment of the covenant. I don’t think people should get a pass for keeping covenants, but I’m not sure all of them really entered the obligation freely and with a rudimentary understanding of what they were doing. The same is true of marriage, another covenant that should have a higher minimum age limit to enter.
Like this comment?
0
Absolutely agree. But some teens are remarkably mature and well-taught, so we can’t really restrict the covenant by age. We do our best to teach, and I think that’s what we’re getting from leadership is a request to really raise the bar.
Like this comment?
0