R
RichAckerman
Guest
“Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair.”
~G.K. Chesterson
The above comment raises interesting questions. It easily brings up the meaning of what Christ intended when the Church was described as His Bride. Psalms 19:5; Matthew 9:15 & 25:1; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34-35; John 3:29; Revelations 21:9.
This sanctified relationship is best described at Ephesians 5:25-33. The description of the ‘marital relationship’ between Christ and His Church is not mere theory, but is an objective description of what is expected of the relationship between these two ‘betrothed.’
The term ‘love affair’ almost doesn’t fit. It is almost tawdry.
The Chesterson quote introduces an unnecessary subjectivity into the relationship between Man and God. It invites the error of unmet expectations into a relationship that is otherwise made clear by historical fact.
God does not always come through and give me the attention I want, or perceive myself to need, on any given day — nor should I expect Him to, for He teaches and disciplines me according to my actual needs and the covenant we made. Sometimes, the relationship requires that I give my life up to Him and “repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42.
If I do not believe in the covenant, I should not be in the relationship, much in the same way that those who are not willing to stick to their marital vows should not be married and bring judgment upon themselves for such failures. Matthew 5:31-32. But, that I should believe, I am required to bring my ship back to the safe harbor of His Love, Word and Compassion for me, as I would with my marriage and the love that it holds for me.
How can one please God if we do not know what to expect from him? Are His set of expectations merely “theory”? No, he expects us to keep his commandments and live by them much in the same way couples live out their vows. John 14:15-24.
When viewed from a humanistic stance, the expectation that one’s religion might be viewed as a “love affair” carries with it all of the potential for self interest as a governing force. My love of Christ must be submissive and humble. As I learn from my submission to His Church, I also learn patience, commitment and humility in my own affairs. Ephesians 6:5-9. Acts 20:19; Colossians 2:18-23.
It is no secret that marriages, love affairs, and the entry into any covenant must be based on trust, honor, dignity and like factors. Conversely, such relations require much work, are not always perfect because of the people involved and relationships require daily tolerance and forgiveness.
One other thought that comes to mind is one which relates to the definition of marriage. The purpose of marriage is so that the couple might become one flesh. We look to our parents, or at least want to look at prior generations, to learn about what makes for a good relationship. Perhaps this is why we were given the Commandment to honor our parents. Exodus 20:12; Matthew 15:1-6. Indeed, we look for the “things that made it work” for our relatives and friends who have been married for decades. Psalm 45:16-17.
Would I look for a community of believers that had stayed together consistently for 2000 years, or would I want one that is unproven or shown to have splintered? The building blocks for a marriage ought to be based on the objective history of what has kept other marriages together.
Religion faces many of these same challenges. The quality or reliability of the response, on the other hand, can be looked at on an historical level. We often ask ourselves, “Did the couple last?” or we say, “Wow, that couple really made it. They’ve been through a lot and still love each other.” What of us who have not forgotten the true love that we have for the Faith we had as children? What of that love that is rediscovered, but tempered with years of experience and life before coming back to the beloved?
Or, if I want to look for good or bad examples of relationships, what shall I say of the persons who continually switch love affairs or who are always trying to change their spouses? Is this not what Luther did? He didn’t love the spouse he married (i.e., the Catholic Church).
Indeed, Luther seized upon the weaknesses of a long marriage and, instead of reforming, chose to be a home-wreckers. Such efforts were egged on by Zwingli and Calvin. They tried to find new wives for Christ. Instead of reminding the cheaters (particular religious leaders of the Catholic Church at the time) of their vows, the “Reformers” focused on the destruction of the 1500-year-old marriage which had survived many an attack before Luther.
Luther, in a spiritual form of domestic violence, redefined his covenant and created a view of the “love relationship” between Man and God that splintered and resulted in a lack of unity between thousands of denominations since. Prior to his “love affair” there was a bond among believers, and the unity had survived for more than 1500 years. These relationships were not merely theoretical, they were confirmed by history and the happiness, sorrows, and challenges of the persons who lived in the relationships that form the basis for our Faith today.
By analogy, it cannot be forgotten that couples need time alone, they often need time to heal spiritual wounds, they need time to reform their relationship so as to bring it into conformity with their vows. Is a “date-night” not the time for ‘rekindling the fire’ and creating and enjoying memories as to why we love each other in the first place? God wants ‘date nights’ with us as well — it’s called prayer. Reform, however, cannot be confused with changing one’s vows. The vows remain the same, but are renewed through peace, reformation, and time.
~G.K. Chesterson
The above comment raises interesting questions. It easily brings up the meaning of what Christ intended when the Church was described as His Bride. Psalms 19:5; Matthew 9:15 & 25:1; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34-35; John 3:29; Revelations 21:9.
This sanctified relationship is best described at Ephesians 5:25-33. The description of the ‘marital relationship’ between Christ and His Church is not mere theory, but is an objective description of what is expected of the relationship between these two ‘betrothed.’
The term ‘love affair’ almost doesn’t fit. It is almost tawdry.
The Chesterson quote introduces an unnecessary subjectivity into the relationship between Man and God. It invites the error of unmet expectations into a relationship that is otherwise made clear by historical fact.
God does not always come through and give me the attention I want, or perceive myself to need, on any given day — nor should I expect Him to, for He teaches and disciplines me according to my actual needs and the covenant we made. Sometimes, the relationship requires that I give my life up to Him and “repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42.
If I do not believe in the covenant, I should not be in the relationship, much in the same way that those who are not willing to stick to their marital vows should not be married and bring judgment upon themselves for such failures. Matthew 5:31-32. But, that I should believe, I am required to bring my ship back to the safe harbor of His Love, Word and Compassion for me, as I would with my marriage and the love that it holds for me.
How can one please God if we do not know what to expect from him? Are His set of expectations merely “theory”? No, he expects us to keep his commandments and live by them much in the same way couples live out their vows. John 14:15-24.
When viewed from a humanistic stance, the expectation that one’s religion might be viewed as a “love affair” carries with it all of the potential for self interest as a governing force. My love of Christ must be submissive and humble. As I learn from my submission to His Church, I also learn patience, commitment and humility in my own affairs. Ephesians 6:5-9. Acts 20:19; Colossians 2:18-23.
It is no secret that marriages, love affairs, and the entry into any covenant must be based on trust, honor, dignity and like factors. Conversely, such relations require much work, are not always perfect because of the people involved and relationships require daily tolerance and forgiveness.
One other thought that comes to mind is one which relates to the definition of marriage. The purpose of marriage is so that the couple might become one flesh. We look to our parents, or at least want to look at prior generations, to learn about what makes for a good relationship. Perhaps this is why we were given the Commandment to honor our parents. Exodus 20:12; Matthew 15:1-6. Indeed, we look for the “things that made it work” for our relatives and friends who have been married for decades. Psalm 45:16-17.
Would I look for a community of believers that had stayed together consistently for 2000 years, or would I want one that is unproven or shown to have splintered? The building blocks for a marriage ought to be based on the objective history of what has kept other marriages together.
Religion faces many of these same challenges. The quality or reliability of the response, on the other hand, can be looked at on an historical level. We often ask ourselves, “Did the couple last?” or we say, “Wow, that couple really made it. They’ve been through a lot and still love each other.” What of us who have not forgotten the true love that we have for the Faith we had as children? What of that love that is rediscovered, but tempered with years of experience and life before coming back to the beloved?
Or, if I want to look for good or bad examples of relationships, what shall I say of the persons who continually switch love affairs or who are always trying to change their spouses? Is this not what Luther did? He didn’t love the spouse he married (i.e., the Catholic Church).
Indeed, Luther seized upon the weaknesses of a long marriage and, instead of reforming, chose to be a home-wreckers. Such efforts were egged on by Zwingli and Calvin. They tried to find new wives for Christ. Instead of reminding the cheaters (particular religious leaders of the Catholic Church at the time) of their vows, the “Reformers” focused on the destruction of the 1500-year-old marriage which had survived many an attack before Luther.
Luther, in a spiritual form of domestic violence, redefined his covenant and created a view of the “love relationship” between Man and God that splintered and resulted in a lack of unity between thousands of denominations since. Prior to his “love affair” there was a bond among believers, and the unity had survived for more than 1500 years. These relationships were not merely theoretical, they were confirmed by history and the happiness, sorrows, and challenges of the persons who lived in the relationships that form the basis for our Faith today.
By analogy, it cannot be forgotten that couples need time alone, they often need time to heal spiritual wounds, they need time to reform their relationship so as to bring it into conformity with their vows. Is a “date-night” not the time for ‘rekindling the fire’ and creating and enjoying memories as to why we love each other in the first place? God wants ‘date nights’ with us as well — it’s called prayer. Reform, however, cannot be confused with changing one’s vows. The vows remain the same, but are renewed through peace, reformation, and time.