A friend of mine who prides himself on his research propensities is trying to tell me so. Though in this case I am not quite sure what his research consists of; it seems that he mainly finds nothing conclusive about the traditional view.
He seems to put the 613 commandments of Torah first. Do none of these forbid this, is it only situational, such as with the Balaam-advised Moabites where the bitter fruit of turning away from the Lord was in actual evidence? Even Abraham, Isaac, and Rebekah - the first and second generation of the father of faith saw the importance of like-minded wives for their children. Though even then, Rachel had to be broken free from idolatry. There is the Deut 7:3 admonition, but only Canaanites are the problem? How legitimate is it to jump from non-marriage of Canaanites to non-yoking with unbelievers?
Regarding the II Cor 6:14 verse at hand, his reasoning is that his new Buddhist wife is respectful with a servant's heart and actively encourages (helps, reminds etc) him to keep the Sabbath (and presumably other elements of his faith). Compared to his ex-wife who though messianic was quite at least verbally abusive to him. His reasoning seems to be that he felt unequally yoked before, but not now.
He believes she has no desire or inclination to pull him away from the Lord, even that in things such as mentioned that she may or will help him draw closer, so it is ok. Yet even geographically he has moved away from fellowship, and long commuting to his new high-learning-curve job plus help with her new business leaves no time and energy for gathering at least in short term.
Maybe he thinks he is taking a high road with respect to his altruism towards this lady. Apparently it was her family's idea for him to ask her to marry him. I have a sense that at some level he must be disillusioned with the women of North American culture. Though he is very charismatic and has plenty of female friends, including still one he almost married.
Also not seeing an imperative for a ceremony in scripture he has dispensed with that too. I don't know/remember if he has made things legal in the sight of the law, but since he has made his commitment in the sight of the Lord perhaps that is a moot point. Like Joshua and the Gibeonites I believe he now must honour his commitment. Interesting that the Gibeonites were made servants on behalf of the temple (to encourage towards worship?) in a levitical town and that they also were part of the group of exiles that came back to Jerusalem to build the wall.
I grieve for him, perhaps I grieve most that he did not seem to feel the rest of the Body was worth consulting for wise counsel. Only now, maybe a couple months later is he starting to tell people his news. While I love the people in our movement and it brings certain important correctives to the Body, it does seem we have some extra pitfalls to be wary of among us. I had never considered that something like this could be one of them, but when some people become so disillusioned by what they were once taught that they trust nobody but themselves, results are unpredictable and it can be a recipe for disaster. Father, let no one else stumble over this, and let us be careful of letter-only law!
What could make him see it? Is it too late, or what should my discussion objective be? If they later have a celebration/ ceremony, is it at all fitting to attend and support a commitment already made because once made it should not be broken? Is it comparable to making a common-law relationship official (legal and/or covenantal)? Anybody have a philosophy on the ethical concepts relating to asking 'permission' vs asking forgiveness?
He seems to put the 613 commandments of Torah first. Do none of these forbid this, is it only situational, such as with the Balaam-advised Moabites where the bitter fruit of turning away from the Lord was in actual evidence? Even Abraham, Isaac, and Rebekah - the first and second generation of the father of faith saw the importance of like-minded wives for their children. Though even then, Rachel had to be broken free from idolatry. There is the Deut 7:3 admonition, but only Canaanites are the problem? How legitimate is it to jump from non-marriage of Canaanites to non-yoking with unbelievers?
Regarding the II Cor 6:14 verse at hand, his reasoning is that his new Buddhist wife is respectful with a servant's heart and actively encourages (helps, reminds etc) him to keep the Sabbath (and presumably other elements of his faith). Compared to his ex-wife who though messianic was quite at least verbally abusive to him. His reasoning seems to be that he felt unequally yoked before, but not now.
He believes she has no desire or inclination to pull him away from the Lord, even that in things such as mentioned that she may or will help him draw closer, so it is ok. Yet even geographically he has moved away from fellowship, and long commuting to his new high-learning-curve job plus help with her new business leaves no time and energy for gathering at least in short term.
Maybe he thinks he is taking a high road with respect to his altruism towards this lady. Apparently it was her family's idea for him to ask her to marry him. I have a sense that at some level he must be disillusioned with the women of North American culture. Though he is very charismatic and has plenty of female friends, including still one he almost married.
Also not seeing an imperative for a ceremony in scripture he has dispensed with that too. I don't know/remember if he has made things legal in the sight of the law, but since he has made his commitment in the sight of the Lord perhaps that is a moot point. Like Joshua and the Gibeonites I believe he now must honour his commitment. Interesting that the Gibeonites were made servants on behalf of the temple (to encourage towards worship?) in a levitical town and that they also were part of the group of exiles that came back to Jerusalem to build the wall.
I grieve for him, perhaps I grieve most that he did not seem to feel the rest of the Body was worth consulting for wise counsel. Only now, maybe a couple months later is he starting to tell people his news. While I love the people in our movement and it brings certain important correctives to the Body, it does seem we have some extra pitfalls to be wary of among us. I had never considered that something like this could be one of them, but when some people become so disillusioned by what they were once taught that they trust nobody but themselves, results are unpredictable and it can be a recipe for disaster. Father, let no one else stumble over this, and let us be careful of letter-only law!
What could make him see it? Is it too late, or what should my discussion objective be? If they later have a celebration/ ceremony, is it at all fitting to attend and support a commitment already made because once made it should not be broken? Is it comparable to making a common-law relationship official (legal and/or covenantal)? Anybody have a philosophy on the ethical concepts relating to asking 'permission' vs asking forgiveness?
