Singles in the Church

• • 83 Comments

I read Barbara Curtis' "Mommy Life" blog nearly every day (although I rarely comment there or anywhere lately).  This week she wrote a post about a divorced mom with five kids.

This mom says that she's been a "baby Christian" for fifteen years and had seen little or no growth in her life.  The letter that Barbara posted from the mom said that she's Roman Catholic, but did not say if she had been in that church her entire Christian life.  Her youngest child is four years old and her husband abandoned her when she was pregnant with that child.

Barbara's advice included looking outside the Roman Catholic church for food and roots.

I would join her in that advice (I'd love it if that single mom were to find this post and contact this single mom).

The reason is simple - support for single moms.

If a divorce person came to me and asked about churches, I would not recommend a church that condemns all divorce.  This divorced mom has had a rough walk already and it's going to get tougher.  It doesn't sound as though she had a husband who "washed her in the Word" (a Godly husband leading her).

I certainly would not recommend being (staying or finding) a church (any church) that will hold a divorce against her for the rest of her life.

The Roman Catholic church is not the only church that holds a "divorce debt" against a person for life.  This is not about the Roman Catholic church and whether they have right or wrong doctrine.  This is about divorced parents (or divorced non-parents) looking for forgiveness in a church (and there are many churches) that holds that debt against them.

Part of a research paper I wrote included, "How the Church Sees Singles".  It can be HARD for a single person to find a church where they fit in.  I would offer this advice to single people:  Don't be afraid to look for a church that will accept you and support you where your life has put you.

For the single mom that wrote this letter to Barbara Curtis - she's divorced.  Strike one.  If she dates, strike two.  If she finds her "someone", well...the church that she is currently in will not (I believe) marry that couple.  In the church that she is in, she has no hope...NO HOPE...to find love and her "happily ever after".

After fifteen years of  "no growth", this single mom needs to find a church where she will not only grow, she needs a place where she (and her children) can flourish - be accepted, loved and cared for.  Why would anybody discourage this?

Elie Wiesel, a holocaust survivor, is quoted in a speech to President Ronald Reagan:

I have learned the danger of indifference, the crime of indifference. For the opposite of love, I have learned is not hate, but indifference. Jews were killed by the enemy but betrayed by their so-called allies, who found political reasons to justify their indifference or passivity. What have I learned? When there is obvious injustice and principles are violated – when human lives and dignity are at stake – when your allies find reasons to justify their silence or indifference, neutrality is a sin.

There are too many churches who are either indifferent towards divorced moms, or worse.  If a single mom is in one of these churches, I'd encourage her to get out.  It doesn't matter what denomination we're talking about.

Share Button

83 thoughts on “Singles in the Church”

  1. If a divorced person came to me and asked about churches, I would not recommend a church that condemns all divorce.

    I had not considered it this way. An interesting angle. I guess I don't see divorce as necessarily being a show-stopper. It can be and often is in the case of remarriage. Still, her "status" is probably the least of her worries, from the sound of it.

    Working from the bridegroom / bride imagery of Christ and his Church, I took Barbara's advice to leave the Church as equivalent to advocating further divorce.

    I commented at Elena's blog on this, including this quote from Mark Noll on how Catholics view the Church.

    I know you understand the singles' situation in churches better than I. The only issue I could try to address was her feelings of abandonment, particularly by God. Of course, I generally hate just talking about stuff like this instead of doing something to help ... prayer seems to be all I'm asked to offer for her.

  2.

    I agree - her "status" is a minor part of the problem.

    Barbara didn't advocate leaving the church (body of Christ). She suggested looking other denominations within that body.

    I read part of Mark Noll's piece on your blog, including:
    Marvel and rejoice: we have become Christ.

    The Bible says that we are in Christ, not that we ARE Christ. I am not going to claim to be Christ - and by extension, God.

    Singles all over the world are feelings abandoned by the church, not the other way around. We leave the church because of neglect; it's not that we're neglecting the church because of our singleness.

    As far a divorce being a "show stopper" for another marriage - if it were not, there would be no "annullment" needed, correct?

  3. Marie

    I am that single mom that wrote to Barbara Curtis.

    I don't feel that God abandoned me and the only thing I think about my ex is that he is an SOB. My marriage was annulled because it was deemed not to have been a true Christian joining. (I would deem it a few things; none of them pleasant)

    I didn't mean (as I've seen posted on other blogs) that I was just after the warm fuzzies...I just wanted some reassurance that other people really knew God; knew for sure He was there. Striving for God and finding Him is nothing that can be "measured" or "recognizably attained." If you lose 70 pounds (good job Barbara!!!), then that's easy to see. If you get an A on an exam, it's in writing. If you're awarded a college degree, you have a measure of sucess. Not so with Christianity. Living as a Catholic (any Christian) can be hard...but it's even more frustrating if you've got the rules nailed down, but with not much but doubt in your heart. As I said, I want to either grow deeper in my faith or be free to abandon the rules. I just couldn't (can't) figure out why some people were able to draw close to God,and I was not.

    Hopefully, if you commited adultery, you wouldn't be looking around for a church that was "soft" on adultery. Same for divorce. I don't need the bar lowered; I need help in reaching it. And, no, fellowship is not really the strong suit of the Catholic Church...but it is the church built upon Peter, about which "the gates of hell shall not prevail"...and hasn't for over 2000 years. Only here can you partake of Christ in the Eucharist.

    If Christians of all stripes wanted to be truly a help and blessing to single mothers, then they should help them find a way to not be ushered out the door and away from their children. Since when did being a stay-at-home become a luxury instead of a choice? I will be forced out my own door in a matter of weeks (because my ex is so far behind with support) and I don't know how I'm really supposed to care for my family and my home; and have my house be anything but a pitstop if I'm working full time.

    We need to put the "sin" back into the language of society and stop accepting behavior that can only hurt in the long run...instead of overlooking everybody's sloppy behavior because we want to coax them to church. If I had had better guidance and higher expectations of a spouse (ie. not be unequally yoked) perhaps I wouldn't have made such a poor choice to begin with. If I had it to do all over again, the thing that would have mattered above all else was if he was a Godly man. (Being "washed in the word" is something I cannot even imagine. And, by the way, the men in this country won't change (they've got all that "free milk") until the women do.

    That turned into a bit of off-subject rant. I'm sorry. I appreciate the interest those of you have shown.

  4.

    I don't know Ellen, someone in my family managed to have the 5 previous marriages of his soon to be spouse "annuled" so that they could be married in the Catholic Church.

  5.

    Marie, welcome. I should note that because a church is accepting of singles does not make that church accepting of sin.

    Carrie, does that mean that marriage is for life, unless it isn't?

  7. Zelie Martin

    My mother was separated from my father fromthe time I was 18 months old all through high school and beyond. I do not believe that she EVER felt like an outsider in the Catholic church. Quite the contrary, she played organ for the choir and even traveled to Rome with them to sing for the Pope. She was the president of the band boosters at our Catholic High School and very much involved with many other activities in our church and school.

    Currently I know a woman who just went through a divorce and has found much healing in going through the annulment process. She is very much staying in the Catholic church where she has felt loved and comforted throughout the entire process by the community and by our priests.

    You have much misinformation and many misperceptions about the Catholic Church.

  8.

    Did either one of them date or remarry?

    If "healing" comes from the church's ability to say that the marriage wasn't "real" (or whatever anullment does) - is that denial really healing?

  10.

    Ellen, you know the drill. If you make anything less than glowing remarks about the Catholic church you are misinformed, anti-Catholic, etc.

    I was very sad to see that Barbara backed down from her comments about the RCC based on the usual tactics of Elena and her gang of Catholic thugs. It is sad to me that Protestants are so poorly informed about the false doctrines of the RCC that they are willing to "play nice" and accept the RCC because of the emotional blackmail that occurs by the Catholic "apologists".

    Sorry, I know your post wasn't about the RCC in particular, but this one fired me up a bit. I wanted to post about it but decided to just let it go.

  12.

    Zelie - I see that you didn't care to answer my question about remarriage.

    If the "healing" that occured meant denial of "sacramental marriage", well, that's still denial (can you please show me "anullment" in the Bible)?

    By "exhibiting wisdom" - do you mean that Barbara caved? If that's the case, you're right, that's not me.

  14. Zelie Martin

    As you reiterated that this wasn't about Catholic doctrines, I don't see the point of going tit for tat about annullments. It's enough to point out that the Catholic church is very pastoral to divorced persons and that previous assumptions that it was not were simply erroneous.

    BTW The Akron region has over 1 million people. Some of us are even acquainted! ; )

  15.

    Elena/Zelie: You are the one that brought up how "good" the Roman Catholic church is.

    Elena/Zelie: How many dead mothers of Roman Catholic saints (in Akron, OH) share your ISP and IP address?

    Elena/Zelie:  This must be how you aviod debates on other blogs - lie about your identity?

  16.

    I was very sad to see that Barbara backed down from her comments about the RCC based on the usual tactics of Elena and her gang of Catholic thugs. It is sad to me that Protestants are so poorly informed about the false doctrines of the RCC that they are willing to “play nice” and accept the RCC because of the emotional blackmail that occurs by the Catholic “apologists”.

    I know. That pesky "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" lines can get tedious after a while, can't they.

  17.

    Tony,

    Go through the NT and see how much time is spent on speaking out against false doctrines.

    There is no love in staying silent about the wolves in sheep's clothing.

    Really Tony, you should check out Unitarianism.

  18.

    Tony, it is not a lack of love that steers people away from false doctrine. It is love itself.

    That was the reason behind my post, my love and passion for singles. If they are not being fed or fully loved where they are, they should find another church.

    If they are in a denomination that holds divorce against them for life, they should take that into consideration.

    I'm going to play this trumpet: singles, singles, singles.

    I have a passion for singles.

    If your passion is for the Roman Catholic church, that's find. Mine is for people, and singles in particular.

    Tony, when was the last time you truly befriended a single dad?

    Tony, when was the last time you took a fatherless boy (or one whose father is not in the picture) out to a ballgame?

    Tony, does your family specifically reach out the families of single parents? How?

  19.

    Carrie, Elena/Zelie has taken offense at your comment about Roman Catholic thugs.

    Let's see...
    Elena/Zelie posts links to Protestant blogs, which Roman Catholics follow and multiple Roman Catholics post.

    We find multiple invitations to "help" Roman Catholic brothers and sister on Protestant blogs.

    We find the "fuzzy bunny crusade", set up for the express purpose of Roman Catholics getting together to target Protestant blogs...

    While "thug" may not have been the most accurate term, the intent to numerically join in order to intimidate appears to be there.

  20.

    I think that asking for a Biblical foundation for dogma is now considered "hatred".

    I suppose that for some it might be considered that way.

  21.

    If they are in a denomination that holds divorce against them for life, they should take that into consideration.

    Jesus holds it against them:

    ##
    Mark 10: 2-10
    Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

    "What did Moses command you?" he replied.

    They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

    "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

    When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
    ##

    So do you follow Scriptural doctrine unless it's inconvenient? This seems pretty straightforward.

    So there is nothing against divorce. Divorce is permitted in the Catholic Church. The problem comes when they get remarried. And as Jesus said: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

    So do you welcome brothers and sisters in a situation of persistent, unrepentant sin, or does charity dictate that you approach them and bring them back into the light?

  22.

    So do you welcome brothers and sisters in a situation of persistent,
    unrepentant sin, or does charity dictate that you approach them and bring
    them back into the light?/em>

    The false dichotomy is offensive.

    So do you follow Scriptural doctrine unless it's inconvenient? This
    seems pretty straightforward.

    Your pettiness is offensive.

    You left out one of the accounts of this story - the part where the "except for pornia" exception is given.

    Matthew 19:9
    And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

    Plus, Paul tells us that "... 15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances..." (keep in mind that historically, we know that all it took for a divorce to be legal was for the couple to separate.) "Is not bound" means "is not bound".

    Divorce is permitted in the
    Catholic Church. The problem comes when they get remarried.

    But that's okay - you all have a "loophole", right?

    You know that God is divorced, right? And He (Christ, part of the Trinity) is going to return for His bride, right? Is that "remarriage"?

    That's sort of sticky, isn't it? If Christ and the Father are one, part of the One is divorced and the other part is going to have a bride?

    I think that if adultery is involved, or the desertion by an unbeliever, remarriage is not a problem.

    (Divorce and remarriage...the other unforgivable sin)

  23.

    "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

    Then I guess that's the reason for the annulment tribunals. To determine if the sacrament existed.

    But that’s okay - you all have a “loophole”, right?

    No loophole. "Divorce" is a social construct. I can live apart from my wife. And should I become "divorced", I am still bound by the sacrament of matrimony.

    There is nothing wrong with being divorced. The problem is remarriage (or shacking up). It's all adultery. If you have a current sacramental marriage, it's an impediment to any future marriage.

    But heck, if you want to shop around for a denomination who approves of your particular sin, go for it. There are some denominations who are marrying gays.

    I guess when your dogma is arrived at by your own personal interpretation of the Bible, it doesn't really matter what church you go to, does it (or even if you go to church at all; community is not a requirement for you guys, is it.)

    And if you can't find any church who will support your personal interpretation, don't worry. You can always make your own.

    (Divorce and remarriage…the other unforgivable sin)

    There are no unforgivable sins (except sins against the Holy Spirit). But to be forgiven, you have to seek forgiveness, and vow to stop sinning. That means not having sex any more with your new spouse (unless you get a declaration of nullity).

  25.

    Elena,

    I apologize for the use of "thug". I was very cranky that day and actually came back later to ask Ellen to delete but let it stand after I saw your comment (as Zelie) and didn't seem offended.

    But your actions do have the appearance of thuggery as you seem to pop up with your friends anywhere the Catholic religion is being questioned and emotionally blackmail the person who has spoken out.

    If the gates of Hades couldn't prevail against the Catholic church then what are you guys so afraid of?

  26.

    Tony,

    Your understanding of Protestant beliefs is quite off as usual.

    As I said, someone in my family had 5 previous marriages annulled in the Catholic church. The "loophole" is that if you were not married in the Catholic church in the first place your marriage isn't recognized as legit. You know, only the holy mother church is allowed to authoritatively give out the sacraments or something like that.

    How is it Tony that the RCC can "annul" 5 marriages? Do you think any of those marriages were "legit" in God's eyes? You must see the hypocrisy there.

  27.

    Ellie/Zelie is "cutting me loose" - unless she takes yet a different name.

    Tony also wants to tell us about the Biblical basis for anullment, but not here (where, I suppose, the mandate for actual Scripture basis gets in the way).

    I have Roman Catholic friends and I have discussed this issue with them. Apologists seem to live in a different world than "average" Roman Catholics.

  29.

    Carrie, if doctrinal disagreements qualify as hatred and believing that the Roman church is wrong on doctrines count as "anti" - then count me in.

  30.

    Tony, the Bible has allowed for divorce without antin-Biblical traditions of men, like anullment.

    Do you hold that the Bible also holds some marriages bound? Are there "legit" divorces and "illegit" divorces?

    And how is determining the correctness and validity of the sacrament anti-biblical? Or isn't marriage a sacrament in your church. Not trying to be combative, I'm just curious.

  31.

    Your understanding of Protestant beliefs is quite off as usual.

    How can my understanding of Protestant beliefs be off? They're all different. Now I'll admit that I really have a hard time understanding what you believe.

    As I said, someone in my family had 5 previous marriages annulled in the Catholic church. The “loophole” is that if you were not married in the Catholic church in the first place your marriage isn’t recognized as legit. You know, only the holy mother church is allowed to authoritatively give out the sacraments or something like that.

    This isn't a correct statement.

    1640 Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God's fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.146

    This very clearly states that marriage between baptized people which is concluded and consummated can never be dissolved.

    There is no "Catholic requirement" for a valid marriage. If there was, Protestant converts who were married in a Protestant church would not have to receive a declaration of nullity (annulment) before being allowed to be married in the Catholic church.

    An annulment does not "dissolve" a marriage, it declares formally that a marriage did not exist.

    How is it Tony that the RCC can “annul” 5 marriages? Do you think any of those marriages were “legit” in God’s eyes? You must see the hypocrisy there.

    If someone were married 5 times, the only marriage that would need to be annuled would be the first one. The other 4 would automatically be invalid based on the defect of not being free to marry.

    There are a number of defects that would invalidate the sacrament. I have never served on a marriage tribunal, so I don't know all of them. But some of them are:

    Freedom to marry (not be previously married or non-released consecrated religious)

    Intent to marry (both parties want to marry; no "shotgun weddings")

    Openness to children (should neither party ever want children, the sacrament is invalid).

    Inability to consummate.

    Those are just a few.

  32.

    An annulment does not “dissolve” a marriage, it declares formally that a marriage did not exist.

    How do you declare a marriage "did not exist" when there was a legal union and a child produced?

  33.

    Genesis 2:24
    Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

    Tony,

    Do you think Adam and Eve were baptized? Would they qualify for an annulment?

  34.

    How do you declare a marriage “did not exist” when there was a legal union and a child produced?

    Because you don't understand the difference between civil and sacramental marriage.

    Do you think Adam and Eve were baptized? Would they qualify for an annulment?

    I don't know. Why do you believe it's relevant?

  35.

    I don’t know. Why do you believe it’s relevant?

    It is relevant to figuring out whether the RCC's idea of marriage is in-line with God's idea of marriage.

  36.

    It is relevant to figuring out whether the RCC’s idea of marriage is in-line with God’s idea of marriage.

    Seems that since the Catholic Church considers marriage as forever (except when there was never a marriage at all), it would seem she was closer to God's idea of marriage than the NCC.

    (From here on out, I'm going to refer to Non Catholic Christian Churches as "the NCC", or Non Catholic Church.)

    And do you understand the difference between civil marriage and sacramental marriage?

  37.

    it would seem she was closer to God’s idea of marriage than the NCC.

    Really.

    John Piper's position: ...all remarriage after divorce is prohibited while both spouses are alive."

    That's just one of many - and they don't mention an extra-Biblical proclamation that the marriage never existed. ("sacramentally", of course)

    And do you understand the difference between civil marriage and sacramental marriage?

    Yes. One of them was declared by a pope in 1215, the other was instituted in creation.

  38.

    From Wiki...

    Sacraments, as understood by the Roman Catholic Church, are outward signs, perceptible to the senses, instituted by Jesus and entrusted to the Church, as means by which the divine grace indicated by the sign is conferred, helping the individual to advance in holiness, and contributing to the Church' s growth in charity and in giving witness.

    1) Jesus didn't institute marriage. At the wedding at Cana He blessed what was already instituted in creation.

    2) The "rite" of marriage is not Biblically given to the church. For many, many years, the act of moving in together and declaring the marriage was enough.

  39.

    Tony, please give me a (New Testament) Scripture reference that separates civil from "sacramental" marriage.

    Please give me a (New Testament) Scriptural example of a civil (but not sacramental) marriage.

    Please give me an (New Testament) Scriptural example of a marriage that is clearly labeled sacramental (approved by the pope and officiated by a priest).

    Yes, this does bear on the handling of singles.

  40.

    Here's the problem - any time I compare actual Scripture with "tradition", I don't get any less convinced that Rome is wrong - I get more convinced.

  42.

    Ellen, I think you're talking to yourself. You just keep typing stuff, and don't give me a chance to repond to any of it.

    Do you want to stay on track? How about one thing at a time.

    There is no biblical reference to civil marriage, because it's not biblical. Civil marriage is a construct set up by the state outside of the Word of God.

    The state allows many people to be married who God would consider being impeded. Gays in Massachussets, for example.

    Would you consider two gays as having a valid marriage?

  44.

    Okay...

    Ellen, I think you’re talking to yourself. You just keep typing stuff, and don’t give me a chance to repond to any of it.

    Tony, my life doesn't tend to slow down over false doctrine. Sorry I had to do it all at one time.

    There is no biblical reference to civil marriage, because it’s not biblical.

    So marriage contracts (like the one that Jacob had with Laban) didn't exist?

    What sort of marriages to Muslims have? Atheists?

    Plus, there's no Bibical reference to a church mandated rite that must be performed by a church official in order for it to be "sacramental" (which doesn't apply anyway).

    Tony, you asked, "And do you understand the difference between civil marriage and sacramental marriage?

    Perhaps you'd like to restate the question, since you now say that one of the things that you asked about doesn't exist?

    Would you consider two gays as having a valid marriage?

    Since I believe in Scripture basis (not papal proclamation) it's easy for me to look in Scripture and say that God condemned homosexuality and wouldn't have approved of what "they" call "gay marriage.

    It's easy for me to look at Scripture to see that marriage has always been one man and one (or more, to be Biblically accurate) women.

    That's Scripture, Tony.

  45.

    Tony, the Mosaic Law included the "Civil Law", which regulated Hebrew society.

    You might want to reference the way that Hebrew Civil Law regulated marriage contractually.

    You might even be able to call marriage contracts that were regulated by Civil Lay, "civil marriages."

  46.

    Carrie, do you understand the difference between civil marriage and sacramental marriage?

    Tony, the civil marriages that the Bible regulates, or the ones that you say don't exist in the Bible?

  47.

    Tony, I promised myself I'd go to bed at 10:30 (my time), but I'll make a statement.

    "Sacramental marriage" is a tradition of man.

    "Civil marriage" is regulated in Scripture.

    "Biblical marriage" seems to not be spelled out much in the Bible, but does include a few "must haves"
    - leave and cleave
    - sexual obligations
    - food (he provides, she prepares)
    - a roof over the family's head
    - clothing (he provides the material, she makes it into clothing)

    I can find no point in the Bible does it says that a marriage "rite" is needed, or that the church need be involved.

    I've actually done a fair amount of studying on the issue. For a pretty extensive look at Old Testament Hebrew (and others of that period) marriage contracts, I'd recommend "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context" by David Instone-Brewer. I don't agree with some of his theology, but his history is accurate. Very good source material.

  48.

    Ellen: I'm probably going to regret this, but I'm going to try and have a civil discussion with you about this. You're really going to have to try and put your obsession with the Catholic Church aside for a bit so we can focus on the important stuff. I'd like to get some terms defined, and I'd like us to agree on them.

    Sacramental marriage: A marriage covenant blessed by God, lasting until the death of one of the spouses.

    Civil marriage: A marriage contract approved by the state. May or may not also be a covenant blessed by God.

    Can we agree on these definitions to begin with? No comments about the Pope. No comments about traditions of man. No comments about being biblical or not. Let's just agree on these definitions, or name them something else that we both agree on. But let's define the concepts of a marriage covenant blessed by God, and a marriage contract blessed by the state.

  49.

    Carrie, do you understand the difference between civil marriage and sacramental marriage?

    I understand your definition of the two. However, I am not interested in personal definitions of marriage but am trying to discuss what GOD considers marriage.

    You still didn't answer my question. Where Adam and Eve married or not in God's eyes? I would hope that you would say yes.

    Since they were the first two people on the earth and there was no Catholic Church or government to marry them, then I am not sure that their marriage would fall under either of your present-day definitions. If you would say they had a "sacramental" marriage approved by God then I don't understand where things changed in the NT to require the Catholic Church to sanction the marriage.

    Anyway, these are the types of things that Ellen has already asked and elaborated on very well. I don't want to interfere with the discussion because three may be a crowd here. So I will just follow along.

    Ellen: I’m probably going to regret this, but I’m going to try and have a civil discussion with you about this. You’re really going to have to try and put your obsession with the Catholic Church aside for a bit so we can focus on the important stuff.

    Ellen is not obsessed with the Catholic Church. I would say however that she is "obsessed" with sound biblical doctrine.

    Tony, your definitions of everything come from Catholic doctrine, not necessarily the Bible. How about if you stop telling us what the RCC says about marriage and actually see what the Bible says about marriage and THEN see how that compares to RCC doctrine.

  50.

    Carrie: I'm trying to understand what your concept of marriage is, first. If you want to engage me in this discussion, I'm going to ask you to drop the Catholic obsession also. I'll ask you to refrain from making bold sweeping statements like: "Tony, your definitions of everything come from Catholic doctrine, not necessarily the Bible." like there is some sort of dichotomy between the two, and Catholic doctrine is never Scriptural, which is simply not true.

    Adam and Eve were indeed married. Adam declared his intent when he said: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, [j] ' for she was taken out of man." Genesis 2:23. (I've given the link to the New International Version of the Bible. If you and Ellen don't approve of that translation, let me know and I'll be happy to shift to the one of your choice. But pick now. Silence will give consent. You and Ellen also have to agree on the translation before we all start the discussion. This makes sure we're all "on the same page" so to speak.)

    I didn't read about Eve giving her consent to the marriage, but like many things in the Bible, this one is going to be assumed. I'm not going to assume it never happened because it was not recorded.

    God walked in the garden with them. We know their marriage was blessed by God because the Bible says so. It was the first sacramental marriage.

    I've gotten a little ahead of myself. Can you agree with the terms I've asked Ellen to agree to? I'd like all of us on the same page with regard to what we are calling things, and not muddy the water by not acknowledging concepts clearly, and giving them terms we all agree with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments links could be nofollow free.