ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 39,618
- 29,196
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
This thread became depressing pretty quickly.
I've read 2 Corinthians 6 several times, and here's what I can't find in the text: Christians shouldn't have kind of relationship with non-Christians (friendships, romantic relationships, etc).
Here is what I do see however, Paul employing temple language to people living in Corinth--which had a thriving economy based around temple prostitution which benefited greatly from Corinth's two ports which saw a great deal of traffic in the ancient world. Temple language is, in Paul's writings, almost unique in Paul's letters to Church in Corinth. That shouldn't be considered an accident. Paul contrasts the people of God as God's temple in contrast to the pagan temples in Corinth and uses this language specifically to condemn engaging in temple prostitution. "Unequal yoking" is specifically within this context. St. Paul is not condemning Christian-nonChristian interpersonal relationships (and there's certainly nothing in the text that specifically has to do with romantic relationships): he is instead speaking of that Corinthian problem, Corinthian Christians chasing back to their former way of life when they were pagans, or participating in pagan rites either explicitly or implicitly. Consider Paul's treatment of eating food that has been sacrificed to idols (e.g. in 1 Corinthians 8). Eating food that was sacrificed in a pagan temple is, according to Paul, fundamentally irrelevant; since idols represent completely imaginary gods eating food sacrificed to an imaginary god is meaningless--but it may have meaning for some for whom eating such foods would, in their conscience, be a return to their former paganism.
These were problems in Corinth.
Taking this and instituting a moralistic "Do not have any kind of [romantic] relationship with a non-Christian" is an abuse and misuse of the Scripture and serves only to reinforce a tribalistic attitude among certain Christians of "us vs them".
If we want to talk about practical real world issues that can arise from interfaith relationships that is one thing. But this becomes hardly a Christian/non-Christian issue, but continues to be an issue for Christian-Christian relationships as well.
Let's consider a Presbyterian-Baptist marriage. This may not seem like such a difficult thing at first, but what happens if the couple have children? One parent being Presbyterian naturally desires that the children be baptized; the Baptist having a completely different opinion on the meaning of Baptism believes children can't be baptized and thus the child must wait until she or he has reached a certain age in order to make the decision themselves after making a personal profession of faith. So which is it? Baptize the children or no?
So when we approach actual real world relationship dynamics there is a valid conversation to be had--and many in such relationships make it work, they find a way.
Also, to whoever brought up the whole male headship nonsense: Seriously? It's 2015.
-CryptoLutheran
I've read 2 Corinthians 6 several times, and here's what I can't find in the text: Christians shouldn't have kind of relationship with non-Christians (friendships, romantic relationships, etc).
Here is what I do see however, Paul employing temple language to people living in Corinth--which had a thriving economy based around temple prostitution which benefited greatly from Corinth's two ports which saw a great deal of traffic in the ancient world. Temple language is, in Paul's writings, almost unique in Paul's letters to Church in Corinth. That shouldn't be considered an accident. Paul contrasts the people of God as God's temple in contrast to the pagan temples in Corinth and uses this language specifically to condemn engaging in temple prostitution. "Unequal yoking" is specifically within this context. St. Paul is not condemning Christian-nonChristian interpersonal relationships (and there's certainly nothing in the text that specifically has to do with romantic relationships): he is instead speaking of that Corinthian problem, Corinthian Christians chasing back to their former way of life when they were pagans, or participating in pagan rites either explicitly or implicitly. Consider Paul's treatment of eating food that has been sacrificed to idols (e.g. in 1 Corinthians 8). Eating food that was sacrificed in a pagan temple is, according to Paul, fundamentally irrelevant; since idols represent completely imaginary gods eating food sacrificed to an imaginary god is meaningless--but it may have meaning for some for whom eating such foods would, in their conscience, be a return to their former paganism.
These were problems in Corinth.
Taking this and instituting a moralistic "Do not have any kind of [romantic] relationship with a non-Christian" is an abuse and misuse of the Scripture and serves only to reinforce a tribalistic attitude among certain Christians of "us vs them".
If we want to talk about practical real world issues that can arise from interfaith relationships that is one thing. But this becomes hardly a Christian/non-Christian issue, but continues to be an issue for Christian-Christian relationships as well.
Let's consider a Presbyterian-Baptist marriage. This may not seem like such a difficult thing at first, but what happens if the couple have children? One parent being Presbyterian naturally desires that the children be baptized; the Baptist having a completely different opinion on the meaning of Baptism believes children can't be baptized and thus the child must wait until she or he has reached a certain age in order to make the decision themselves after making a personal profession of faith. So which is it? Baptize the children or no?
So when we approach actual real world relationship dynamics there is a valid conversation to be had--and many in such relationships make it work, they find a way.
Also, to whoever brought up the whole male headship nonsense: Seriously? It's 2015.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
