In a Godward direction: Being and Doing: A Response to an Essay on Mar... http://blog.tobiashaller.net/2015/05/being-and-doing-response-to-essay-on...
1 of 10
More
Next Blog»
Create Blog
Sign In
T H E S E R I O U S A N D S O M E T I M E S S AT I R I C A L R E F L E C T I O N S O F A P R I E S T, P O E T, A N D P I L G R I M — W H O K N O W I N G H E H A S N O T O B TA I N E D T H E G O A L , PR E S S E S O N I N A G O D WA R D D I R E C T I O N .
soli deo gloria M AY 3 0 , 2 0 1 5
Being and Doing: A Response to an Essay on Marriage
M Y L AT E S T W O R K
A few weeks ago, John Bauerschmidt, Zachary Guiliano, Wesley Hill, and Jordan Hylden published a response to the report of the Task Force on the Study of Marriage (TFSM), titled “Marriage in Creation and Covenant,” henceforth MCC. This essay appeared on the Anglican Theological Review website along with three responses from Scott MacDougall, Kathryn Tanner, and Daniel JoslynSiemiatkoski. The three responders took up some of the serious problems with MCC and I commend their essays to your attention. As one of the authors of “Essay 1" (Biblical and Theological Framework) in the TFSM report, I had hoped for a better level of engagement than MCC demonstrates; it is largely and off-handedly dismissive, but also mistaken in some of its characterizations of content, leading me to the conclusion that the MCC authors do not actually understand the argument. I have long been an advocate of the position that one can only truly have a meaningful discussion when you can state your interlocutor’s position in language she can recognize and affirm. MCC fails that test, even to the slight extent it engages with Essay 1 at all — the authors spend most of their time disagreeing with the essay on history, and I leave it to the author of that essay to address their concerns. MCC to a large extent follows the method of questioning motives and form rather than engaging deeply with the content of the TFSM report. Interestingly enough, this seems to me to reflect the deeper issue of what constitutes marriage: MCC expounds a thesis about the form of marriage as a male-female bond that serves as an icon of the relationship between Christ and the Church in a constructive sense (I hope I’ve understood and stated their thesis correctly); whereas the TFSM focuses on the content of the marriage relationship as expressed in the vows, and in the spouses’ living out the loving mutual self-offering inherent in those vows, as an iconic realization of the relationship between Christ and the Church. Some might say, What’s the difference? We are dealing, to some extent, with the old perceived conflict between being and doing. (It also likely reflects the distinction in the honor given to icons as dulia rather than latria. Some, it seems to me, want to exalt marriage to a place it does not belong. However, in the present context, this also reflects the old difference of opinion as to what constitutes marriage: consent or coitus. Which gives me the opportunity to correct a misapprehension of
Think about this or the print edition as a Confirmation gift or for a newcomers' class M Y CONT R I BUT I ON TO T HE LISTENING PROCESS
from Seabury Books / Church Publishing Inc. available at Amazon.com, and at Google Books. Comment on Reasonable and Holy.
"a book that honors the Word of God, the faith once delivered, and moves it into our cultural context."—The Episcopal New Yorker "seeks to meet opponents on their own ground, assessing their arguments carefully and refuting them courteously....
6/16/2015 6:34 PM