Interesting……I have never heard that idea before. I think it’s a bit like some of the Christmas traditions which originated in paganism and later people thought of some Christian symbolism to match the tradition. (Please let’s not start a discussion on Christmas traditions) There is nothing biblical about that comparison, however Christian it might sound.
Your comment, Blank Slate, shows that you are not aware of from where the ‘giving away’ idea came from and that it is still practised today in far too many countries. In these places the bride is sometimes dressed in finery and the couple are surrounded by friends and family with all the attendant pomp and ceremony.In most situations the bride Is ‘traded’ for money and/or or given away to be a virtual servant to her husband’s family. The thought of a woman being property is nothing new and is how so many cultures have always perceived the whole marriage relationship.
It’s very sad that within the so-called Christian world this tradition has persisted and been sanitised to be a sentimental happening. Even in the ‘nicest’ way, it is still the thought of a young woman going from the care of her father to the care of her husband without the corresponding thought of a young man going from the care of his mother to the care of his wife.
I'm sorry, I really am. I've never met the woman. I've only corresponded with her briefly but, to be honest, I simply don't believe she is that ignorant of the bridal imagery shot through the whole of Scripture, from beginning to end, from the first marriage to the last -- the wedding feast to end all wedding feasts. Does the Marriage Supper of the Lamb mean nothing to her? Does it not even ring one tiny, tinny little distant bell? Really?
This is why I believe Steve Hutchens is right to call Egalitarianism a heresy. If they win, we lose the Fatherhood of God, from which all human fatherhood derives. And we miss the second important image in Scripture - The Bridegroom and His Bride, the Church for whom he gave his life. It's lost, and with it the Gospel.
Period. End of Story.
1 comment:
“I'm sorry, I really am. I've never met the woman. I've only corresponded with her briefly but, to be honest, I simply don't believe she is that ignorant of the bridal imagery shot through the whole of Scripture, from beginning to end, from the first marriage to the last -- the wedding feast to end all wedding feasts. Does the Marriage Supper of the Lamb mean nothing to her? Does it not even ring one tiny, tinny little distant bell? Really?”
But who, according to scripture gives the bride away? Who owns the bride to give her away? In the first ‘wedding’ with Adam and Eve it was God. Fair enough – God has the right to bring Eve to Adam! But when it comes to the wedding feast to end all wedding feasts – who gives away the church? This is Liz’s point. The church gives herself to Christ, willingly, not because she is brought by someone else. The concept of ‘giving away’ the bride you might claim back to Genesis, but Liz’s point is that, in cultures over time it has become an issue of the bride being property. If you disagree with my assessment of wedding imagery in scripture please provide a biblical ref for me to check out! ;-)
“This is why I believe Steve Hutchens is right to call Egalitarianism a heresy. If they win, we lose the Fatherhood of God, from which all human fatherhood derives. And we miss the second important image in Scripture - The Bridegroom and His Bride, the Church for whom he gave his life. It's lost, and with it the Gospel.
Period. End of Story.”
I do not know of anyone who is trying to remove the Fatherhood of God. Liz has certainly not suggested that. To me it is a concept that I love (Romans 8:15)! Nor do I think that what Liz is saying is undermining the Biblical imagery of marriage. If it is then you should be able to find a biblical reference that promotes the concept a bride being ‘owned’ and ‘given away’ to transfer ownership.
You cannot make the statement that Egalitarianism is heresy from the information above. I too would be concerned if someone had wanted to remove the Fatherhood of God or throw out the marriage imagery in the Bible, but this has not been done. Also, Liz does not equal Egalitarianism. The point being that even if Liz had said theses things (which she has not), she is not representative of all Egals and so her words are hardly evidence for Egalitarianism being heretical.
Post a Comment