Eyes Wide Open

7 responses so far ↓

• 1 Chuck // Jun 21, 2007 at 11:14 am

  Concerning Marriage and Divorce; wonderful…personal and unique story. And possibly an anomoly? Is the necessity of a “seamless life memory” enough?

  I’ve been through a divorce…a long time ago. A long time ago when I was young…dumb…stubborn…but faithful. The memories are still there…albeit faded and somewhat forgotten. But it doesn’t “mess up” my life story…it’s a chapter of my life story…regrets and all.

• 2 Michael // Jun 21, 2007 at 3:38 pm

  Chuck, great questions and insightful comments.

  I can’t say that Scot’s “story” sheds much insight to what happens when a marriage dissolves, but I did find his contending for the value of “memory” to serve as an advocate for the permanency of marriage, on the front side and, even more so, in the middle of the marriage equation. In other words, if I am conducting pre-marital counseling, a story such as this is one way to help a couple look into the looking glass and catch a glimpse of what it means for two individuals “to become one flesh.” As for how it applies to the middle of the equation, I think memory, as it is described here, gives folks like you and I reason to pause and consider why it is we make the decision to stay in our marriages just one more day; to make the sacrifices, to believe that one day we will look back and be eternally grateful for the “seamless life memory,” which, by the way, takes some time to create.

  Divorce makes you tear out pages of your life, sometimes chapters, long chapters, or many chapters. It messes up the story, the story that makes two people one… that’s a good argument for not divorcing.

  The “story” narrative to describe our lives is one that has become quite common recently. Using story narrative, the Gospel is then described as God’s story in and through Jesus intersecting with our story, which I suppose re-writes the ending, eh? I believe God’s original intent in creation was to have a seamless story, we just happened to screw it up (original sin) and still do. So, if we were to follow Paul’s understanding of the effect of salvation (if anyone is in Christ, they are a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come), we are actually living in a brand-new story. And yet, even though we know that in Christ the old has gone, the “old” is somehow still there (as you have described). I do not believe divorce “messes up” the grand-story (thanks be to God in Jesus), but I would say divorce (along with anything that falls short of God’s original intent) is one example of how the pages of the original storyline were torn; only to find that Jesus makes a way to glue those pages back in the book and redeem the story, even your story, in such a way that only He can do.

• 3 Larre // Jun 22, 2007 at 10:04 pm

  I’m confused. Why do we even need to contemplate reasons beyond “because the Bible says so”? What if there are no rational non-Biblical arguments or confirming life experiences beyond GOD said do it or don’t do it, i.e., baptism and communion? Have we gone from sola scriptura to sorta scriptura? Using the thesis of this argument, i.e., the minimization of bad memories and ripped-out chapters of life, I would argue that the Apostle Paul (or anyone else for that matter) should have never accepted the faith (I’m guessing he may have had just a few bad memories that he might need to throw overboard).

  This seems to be a subtle example where we have given ourselves the right to evaluate God based on our own experience or perception of rationality and reason. We (myself included) seem to have fallen into the trap where God is only BIG when He does what we would have done had we been “god for the day.” Thanks be to GOD that HE is much much bigger than that.

  Of course, I could be wrong.

• 4 Michael // Jun 22, 2007 at 11:01 pm

  I was waiting for you to chime in!

  I think we can do better than the “because the Bible says so,” and by that I mean the same thing I would say to a parent (myself included) who always answers their kid by saying…”because I told you so.’ Should it be enough? Sure. Is it? No way. Even Paul himself moved beyond scripture to persuade people to Christ when necessary (see Athens). I think Scot is doing the same thing with this particular story. He is not attempting to create extra-biblical truth claims, he is using a narrative and tradition to support the “Because the Bible says so” position concerning the permanency of marriage (of which I would think you hold the same position). Far be it from me to have any special gnosis on the complicated topic of marriage and divorce. I’ve been on the receiving end only in how it affected my own family growing up. As I alluded to in my response to Chuck, I’m not sure the ‘memory’ argument contributes anything helpful for those who have been through divorce, but it certainly adds to the discussion in the context he described. (It also begs for a separate discussion on how “tradition” influences our belief and practice)

  The thesis of his argument (memory) was used in a context to contend for the permanency of marriage and I do not think he was trying to extend it to other contexts to which you refer, though perhaps I missed something-

• 5 Larre // Jun 23, 2007 at 5:11 pm

  Well, it was a heart-warming story.

  I agree that he did limit the context. In the first paragraph he set it up as simply “a personal argument against divorce.” Nothing more, nothing less.

  My reaction was, in part, based on what I perceived as an implied undercurrent that scripture alone is not enough. The message I got (and maybe I inferred wrongly) was that scripture is even more true (or maybe even, now true) when it’s bolstered by outside or experiential evidence, in this case, pragmatic evidence. This, by the way, is the topic of Book I, Chapter VIII of Calvin’s Institutes.

  A question about your reply. Are you saying that, “because Michael or Larre told you so’ is the authoritative equivalent of “because the Bible told you so” and as such, are each subject to the same scrutiny and evaluation? I would suggest that maybe the guiding principle here is not Paul in Athens, but rather, Paul in Berea.

  I also think (and I know you would agree) that it’s healthy to highlight obvious disagreements when they become apparent (this, of course, has implications on your previous post concerning expectations). You believe “we can do better than . . . ‘because the Bible says so.’” In contrast, I believe we can never do better than “because the Bible says so.”

  Again, I could be wrong.

• 6 Michael // Jun 25, 2007 at 11:28 am

  I whole-heartedly embrace Scripture as the church’s first and final authority in all area of faith and life. My comment is rooted in our understanding of how we communicate the truth claims of Scripture and I am not advocating that we need to look elsewhere to validate scripture (via pragmatic or experiential evidence). You might ask Scot himself what he is implying in that statement, but I didn’t read into it in the same way.

  In Berea, Paul was in the synagogue with Jews who took seriously the examination of scripture. In Athens, the context was COMPLETELY different, and so Paul took another approach. The ‘because the Bible tells me so” argument holds no water with them whatsoever and they have no scripture to “examine diligently,” so he uses other external evidence to point to the very same end-result of repentance and faith. What he said to them connected with them in such a way that they replied, “we want to hear you again on this subject.”

  All I am saying is if “because the Bible says so” is our literal answer to every subject, then we can cease all exposition of the Word and all study of Scripture. Instead, we can get together, sing a song or two, say a prayer, and simply read the text with the concluding statement: “This is the word of the Lord. Now let’s go eat doughnuts!” No, what Jesus did with parables and what Paul did in both Berea and Athens are different ways of saying “this is what the Bible says.” Each method adjusted according to context, but in the end, the same truth. Both are due equal scrutiny. The “because I said so” answer to our children simply highlights the importance of expounding upon that answer. They may not always like or agree with that answer, and we may not always find the context allowing for further exposition of that answer, but where there is opportunity to teach, we ought to do it.

  This entire exchange, the interpretation of one another’s written word and sharing of thought, is wonderful. Interestingly, it re-enforces the fallibility of human words and communication (and re-enforces what I am trying to say), so let’s have breakfast!

• 7 Larre // Jun 25, 2007 at 2:47 pm

  We’re getting closer. I think we’ve been talking about two different things.

  I used the phrase, “because the Bible says so” as a a concept of authority. I think you were using it as a method of explanation. I certainly didn’t intend to mean that we don’t go take a look at what the Bible says. In fact, that would be not doing what the Bible says. I hope I didn’t imply that.

  Let me clarify the reference to Berea. I raised it simply because it established a hierarchy of authority. The truth of our words are evaluated by the truth of scripture. They’re not equal in authority, nor is it the other way around - “[L]et God be found true, though every man be found a liar.” Romans 3:4.

  Athens is clearly an example (a Biblically-ordained one at that) that extra-Biblical evidence is fair game in the limited context of evangelism.

  I don’t know about parables. Weren’t they used to hide the truth (Matthew 13:10-17)?

Leave a Comment