In our church we have a Spanish-speaking congregation, who join in on Sundays (where we have songs and readings in different languages and simultaneous translation) but who also have their own Spanish-language service on a Tuesday evening. We have been given funding for a Spanish speaking pastor, but also seek to integrate ministry across the congregations. So I preached at the service last night—and did so in Spanish! This is my sermon, in English and Spanish, and I conclude with some reflections on the challenge. The reading was Gen 2:15–25.
Today, I am going to be courageous! I am going to try to speak to you in Spanish, and I am going to talk to you about marriage! So please be kind to me! (and forgive my pronunciation…)
The subject of marriage is very important—in the West, we have a crisis of marriage. Young people are not getting married, and fewer than ever are having children. As a culture, many have lost confidence in married and parenting.
When Jesus was confronted with a practical problem about marriage—the question of divorce and remarriage—his response was fascinating.
Instead of answering the question head on, he went back to the real question behind the question that was being asked. What is marriage? Why do we have it? And what was it for? To answer these questions, he went back to God’s intention in creation. So we are doing the same today.
When we read the story in Genesis 2 about the creation of the first woman, we must notice four things.
1. Different by design
Sex difference—the differences between men and women—is intentional, not an accident and not a mistake.
I am going to tell you something shocking—something surprising. Men and women are different! Our bodies are different! Men are usually taller and stronger than women! My wife finds this very useful when she needs something from a high up shelf in the kitchen!
Men have, on average, 40% more strength in their upper bodies. That makes a difference for people walking home late at night in the dark.
Our minds are different. We very often think in different ways. Our speech is different. Women on average use twice as many words in a day as men…! (I have to be careful here!)
In our culture in the West, many people hate this idea. They think it leads to oppression and inequality—and they are right, it has. But this leads them to deny that there is any difference.
That is why we see so much about ‘women can do what men do just as well’ in all our news stories. Women can play football; women can lead in business; women can be politicians.
But the problem with this, with trying to prove that women can do what men do, is that then men are setting the agenda. And we are not allowing women to be what they want, what they are good at!
We should instead celebrate that men and women are different. The French have a saying ‘Vive la difference!’ (Perhaps you have a similar saying…?)
But we must treat these differences with care. Men are taller than women; but not every man is taller than every woman. Differences need not create stereotypes.
2. Marriage is wonderful
(My wife told me to say that…no, I am joking!)
In Genesis 2, we find that marriage is intended to be a wonderful gift from God.
God has created the man—though perhaps we should not yet use the word ‘man’ for him. He is called ‘Adam’, and the writer is making a joke for us. He is formed from the dust of the earth—Adam from the Adama in Hebrew—perhaps we should call him Polvito or Terrón or Barrito!
He has been created to ‘be fruitful and multiply, to rule the earth’—God is inviting him to share in his own rule over the world.
But he cannot do it! “It is not good that the man is alone”—not because he is lonely—he has God as his friend—but because he cannot fulfil the vocation that God has called him to without the help of another.
What is really interesting is that there are lots of ‘others’—which is why God brings before him all the animals. But there are none who are ‘suitable helpers’ for him—until he creates the woman.
And when he does, Adam responds with a cry of delight—here is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone. A wonderful cry of recognition!
We need to listen to this carefully, because for so many today, marriage does not feel like a good gift.
Many feel trapped in marriages without love. Many amongst us have experienced the harm that a marriage partner can cause, or the legacy of a broken relationship. Children have experienced parents who have not cared for them—or even have harmed them.
So we must be clear—God’s intention is that marriage is to be a good gift for us.
Now, this does not provide an instant solution to the problems that some of us have experienced. But it does provide a direction for us. God intended marriage to be a good gift—and in Jesus, he wants to make that real again for us.
He wants to bring healing and forgiveness, so that we will discover again this good gift from God.
3. We are created equal
Despite our differences, Genesis 2 says that the man and the woman were created equal.
Some have claimed that, because the man was created first, he is the most important, and the woman came second. In some cultures in the world, this is literally true—women will walk behind their husbands in public.
But this cannot be what God is teaching us. You see, in the creation of the world, it is what comes last which is best! Once God has made the world, and the sun and the moon and the stars, he leaves the best thing till last—the creation of humanity!
Some people say when God created man, he was just practicing, ready for his masterpiece—woman!
But this cannot be true either! God wants Adam to have a ‘suitable helper’, an equal partner, someone who will be to him equal and opposite, like the banks of a river between which the water flows.
The animals can be ‘helpers’, but they are not ‘suitable’, because they are not Adam’s equal.
Someone once said: “The woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.”
The differences God gives are for us to use to serve one another, not to dominate one another.
And this allows us to celebrate difference, because it need not threaten our equality. In fact, learning to live with our differences, and enjoy them, it a vital part of a healthy marriage.
Marriages are difficult, and not felt as a gift, when we have not both recognised our differences, and celebrated them, and when we do not recognise our equality.
4. Marriage is not the Messiah
Marriage is a good gift from God. It was always part of his intention for humanity, to enable us to flourish and be fruitful in all sorts of way.
But marriage is not the solution to all our problems! In fact, if you get married expecting all your problems will be solved, and that your partner will meet all you the desires of your heart, then you will be disappointed, and you will be too much pressure on your partner.
There are two reasons for this.
First, we were made to worship God alone, and find in him alone the answer to our deepest desires. Marriage is good—but marriage is not our saviour! Jesus is!
And we can see this in the Bible. We have started at the beginning—with the creation—but we need also to look at the end—to the New Creation in the Book of Revelation.
There, we are told that, when Jesus returns, when the New Jerusalem comes down from heaven to earth, when ‘there will be no more crying or death or pain’, this will be ‘the wedding feast of the lamb’.
Jesus will be our bridegroom, and we will be his perfect bride.
In other words, human marriage points to something much bigger and much more important—the marriage of God’s people with God himself, which only happens because Jesus died for us and rose again for us, to bring us his healing and his forgiveness.
To mend our broken hearts and broken relationships, and make all things new.
And this leads to the second reason.
Jesus was single—he never married, and he never has sex—and yet he is the one who lived life in all its fulness.
Most people will marry, but for some, God calls them to live faithfully as single people, and we who are married need to honour and celebrate this. God calls them to a fruitful life, not through marrying and having children, but through testifying faithful to his love, and seeing others come to new birth because of this.
We are different by design. Sex difference between men and women is no accident.
Marriage is intended to be a good gift from God, not a problem to be solved.
We are created different but equal.
And marriage points to something much bigger—the day when we will know God with all the tenderness and intimacy that marriage can provide.
May God fill our hearts with healing, hope, and patience as we wait for him.
Sermón para Amor y Esperanza sobre el Matrimonio
¡Hoy voy a ser valiente! Voy a intentar hablarles en español, ¡y les voy a hablar sobre el matrimonio! ¡Así que, por favor, sean amables conmigo! (y disculpen mi pronunciación!)
El tema del matrimonio es muy importante; en Occidente, tenemos una crisis matrimonial. Los jóvenes no se casan y cada vez menos tienen hijos. Como sociedad, muchos han perdido la confianza en el matrimonio y la paternidad.
Cuando Jesús se enfrentó a un problema práctico sobre el matrimonio —la cuestión del divorcio y el nuevo matrimonio— su respuesta fue fascinante.
En lugar de responder directamente a la pregunta, volvió a la verdadera pregunta que subyacía a la pregunta planteada.[volvió al verdadero interrogante que profundiza la duda planteada] ¿Qué es el matrimonio? ¿Por qué lo tenemos? ¿Y para qué fue creado? Para responder a estas preguntas, volvió a la intención de Dios en la creación. Así que nosotros hacemos lo mismo hoy.
Cuando leemos la historia en Génesis 2 sobre la creación de la primera mujer, debemos notar cuatro cosas.
1. La Diferencia es Diseñada
La diferencia de sexo —las diferencias entre hombres y mujeres— es intencional, no un accidente ni un error.
Les voy a contar algo impactante, algo sorprendente. ¡Hombres y mujeres somos diferentes! ¡Nuestros cuerpos son diferentes! ¡Los hombres suelen ser más altos y fuertes que las mujeres! ¡A mi esposa le resulta muy útil cuando necesita algo de un estante alto en la cocina!
Los hombres tienen, en promedio, un Cuarenta por ciento más de fuerza en la parte superior del cuerpo. Eso marca la diferencia para las personas que caminan a casa tarde por la noche en la oscuridad.
Nuestras mentes son diferentes. Muy a menudo pensamos de maneras diferentes. Nuestro habla es diferente. ¡Las mujeres usan, en promedio, el doble de palabras al día que los hombres…! (¡Tengo que tener cuidado aquí!)
En nuestra cultura occidental, a muchas personas les disgusta esta idea. Piensan que conduce a la opresión y la desigualdad, y tienen razón, así ha sido. Pero esto los lleva a negar que exista alguna diferencia.
Por eso vemos tanto en las noticias que «las mujeres pueden hacer lo mismo que los hombres». Las mujeres pueden jugar al fútbol; Las mujeres pueden liderar en los negocios; las mujeres pueden ser políticas.
Pero el problema con esto, con intentar demostrar que las mujeres pueden hacer lo mismo que los hombres, es que entonces son los hombres quienes marcan la pauta. ¡Y no les permitimos a las mujeres ser lo que quieren, lo que mejor saben hacer!
En cambio, deberíamos celebrar que hombres y mujeres somos diferentes. Los franceses tienen un dicho: «¡Viva la diferencia!» (¿Quizás ustedes tengan uno similar?).
Pero debemos tratar estas diferencias con cuidado. Los hombres son más altos que las mujeres; pero cada hombre no es más alto que cada mujer. Las diferencias no tienen por qué crear estereotipos.
2. El matrimonio es maravilloso.
(Mi esposa me dijo que dijera eso… ¡no, estoy bromeando!).
En Génesis 2, encontramos que el matrimonio está destinado a ser un maravilloso regalo de Dios.
Dios creó al hombre, aunque quizás no deberíamos usar todavía la palabra «hombre» para referirnos a él. Se le llama «Adán», y el autor está haciendo una broma. Él fue formado del polvo de la tierra —Adán, del hebreo Adama— ¡quizás deberíamos llamarlo Polvito, Terrón o Barrito!
Fue creado para «ser fecundo y multiplicarse, para gobernar la tierra». Dios lo invita a participar de su propio dominio sobre el mundo.
¡Pero no puede hacerlo! «No es bueno que el hombre esté solo», no porque se sienta solo —tiene a Dios como amigo— sino porque no puede cumplir la vocación a la que Dios lo ha llamado sin la ayuda de otro.
Lo realmente interesante es que hay muchos «otros», por eso Dios le presenta a todos los animales. Pero no hay ninguno que sea «ayudante adecuado» para él, hasta que crea a la mujer.
Y cuando lo hace, Adán responde con un grito de alegría: «Aquí está la carne de mi carne y el hueso de mi hueso». ¡Un maravilloso grito de reconocimiento!
Necesitamos escuchar esto con atención, porque para muchos hoy en día, el matrimonio no se siente como un buen regalo.
Muchos se sienten atrapados en matrimonios sin amor. Muchos de nosotros hemos experimentado el daño que puede causar una pareja o las consecuencias de una relación rota. Algunos niños han sufrido la negligencia de sus padres, quienes incluso los han lastimado.
Por lo tanto, debemos tener claro que la intención de Dios es que el matrimonio sea un valioso regalo para nosotros.
Esto no ofrece una solución inmediata a los problemas que algunos hemos experimentado, pero sí nos da una guía. Dios quiso que el matrimonio fuera un buen regalo, y en Jesús, desea que esto vuelva a ser una realidad para nosotros.
Él desea traer sanación y perdón para que redescubramos este valioso regalo de Dios.
3. Somos un Complemento Creativo
Hombre y mujer son creativamente distintos, pero iguales en valor.
A pesar de nuestras diferencias, Génesis 2 dice que el hombre y la mujer fueron creados iguales.
Ahora—algunos afirman que, como el hombre fue creado primero, es el más importante, y la mujer fue la segunda. En algunas culturas del mundo, esto es literalmente cierto: las mujeres caminan detrás de sus maridos en público.
Pero esto no puede ser lo que Dios nos enseña. Verán, en la creación del mundo, ¡lo último es lo mejor! Una vez que Dios ha creado el mundo, el sol, la luna y las estrellas, deja lo mejor para el final: ¡la creación de la humanidad!
Algunos dicen que cuando Dios creó al hombre, solo estaba practicando, preparándose para su obra maestra: ¡la mujer!
¡Pero esto tampoco puede ser cierto! Dios quiere que Adán tenga una «ayudante adecuada, idónea», una compañera igual, alguien que sea para él igual y opuesta, como las orillas de un río entre las que fluye el agua.
Los animales pueden ser «ayudantes», pero no son «adecuados», porque no son iguales a Adán. Alguien dijo una vez: «La mujer fue hecha de una costilla del costado de Adán; no de su cabeza para dominarlo, ni de sus pies para ser pisoteada por él, sino de su costado para ser igual a él, bajo su brazo para ser protegida y cerca de su corazón para ser amada».
Las diferencias que Dios nos da son para que las usemos para servirnos unos a otros, no para dominarnos.
Y esto nos permite celebrar la diferencia, porque no tiene por qué amenazar nuestra igualdad. De hecho, aprender a vivir con nuestras diferencias y disfrutarlas es una parte vital de un matrimonio sano.
Los matrimonios son difíciles y no se sienten como un regalo cuando no hemos reconocido nuestras diferencias, ni las hemos celebrado, y cuando no reconocemos nuestra igualdad.
4. El matrimonio no es el Mesías
El matrimonio es un buen regalo de Dios. Siempre fue parte de su propósito para la humanidad: permitirnos prosperar y ser fructíferos en todo sentido.
¡Pero el matrimonio no es la solución a todos nuestros problemas! De hecho, si te casas esperando que todos tus problemas se resuelvan y que tu pareja satisfaga todos los deseos de tu corazón, te decepcionarás y ejercerás demasiada presión sobre ella.
Hay dos razones para esto.
Primero, fuimos creados para adorar solo a Dios y encontrar solo en Él la respuesta a nuestros deseos más profundos. El matrimonio es bueno, ¡pero el matrimonio no es nuestro salvador! ¡Jesús lo es!
Y podemos ver esto en la Biblia. Hemos comenzado desde el principio, con la creación, pero también debemos mirar hacia el final, a la Nueva Creación en el Libro del Apocalipsis.
Allí se nos dice que, cuando Jesús regrese, cuando la Nueva Jerusalén descienda del cielo a la tierra, cuando «ya no habrá más llanto, ni muerte, ni dolor», esto será «el banquete de bodas del Cordero».
Jesús será nuestro esposo y nosotros seremos su esposa perfecta.
En otras palabras, el matrimonio humano apunta a algo mucho más grande e importante: la unión del pueblo de Dios con Dios mismo, que solo se da porque Jesús murió y resucitó por nosotros, para traernos su sanación y su perdón.
Para sanar nuestros corazones y relaciones quebrantadas, y renovar todas las cosas.
Y esto nos lleva a la segunda razón.
Jesús era soltero; nunca se casó ni tuvo relaciones sexuales, y sin embargo, fue él quien vivió la vida en toda su plenitud.
La mayoría de las personas se casarán, pero a algunas, Dios las llama a vivir fielmente como solteras, y quienes estamos casados debemos honrar y celebrar esto. Dios las llama a una vida fructífera, no a través del matrimonio y la maternidad, sino a través de un testimonio fiel de su amor y al ver a otros nacer de nuevo gracias a ello.
Uno. Somos diferentes por diseño. La diferencia sexual entre hombres y mujeres no es casualidad.
Dos. El matrimonio está destinado a ser un hermoso regalo de Dios, no un problema que resolver.
Tres. Fuimos creados diferentes, pero iguales.
Cuatro. Y el matrimonio apunta a algo mucho más grande: el día en que conoceremos a Dios con toda la ternura e intimidad que el matrimonio puede brindar.
Que Dios llene nuestros corazones de sanación, esperanza y paciencia mientras lo esperamos.
Amen!
Reflection
My Spanish is not good enough to write well, so I wrote my sermon in English with a view to simply using Google translate—but then passed it to a native Spanish speaker to check for style and naturalness. She made no corrections (except for rephrasing something that was repetitive in English); Google translate works well these days. I am at level 55 at the time of writing on Duolingo in Spanish, and there were only a few words here that I did not understand for myself.
I should add that, though this sermon gives some outlines of issues around sex difference, creation, and marriage, I am making a lot of assumptions here as I am drawing on other theological work I have done. Some of that is explored in more depth in my Grove booklet: What is Sex For? which you can buy here.
I also made use of AI at a couple of points. I wanted to have memorable headings, so I asked for four alliterative headings in Spanish for the points I wanted to make (which I gave in English), from two different AI platforms, and adapted these. I also wanted to explain the pun in Hebrew of the adam coming from the adamah, and AI advised me against making a pun in Spanish, but did suggest the three terms Polvito, Terrón, and Barrito, from polvo (dust), tierra, (earth), and barro (clay) respectively. Despite AI advice, the congregation loved these, and laughed loudly!
However, part of the reason for that is that I wrote in English constantly bearing in mind that it would need to be translated. So I avoided anything complex grammatically, and in particular avoided using too many distinctly English idioms. I would not normally preach in the style of my English writing—but perhaps I should experiment with this. The emphasis was on simplicity and clarity, and that is never wasted in preaching. Colloquialism can be engaging for those who relate to them, but can exclude those who don’t belong to your own specific language group—and we do have subsets of language groups defined by class, education, geography, sex, and occupation.
Having to write a script raises the usual questions about preaching from a script, rather than from notes, or from speaking without any notes (at the other end of the scale) which I have previously explored here. Having a full script allows you to craft your language, and thus be economical with your words, but reduces your ability to engage. Preaching with no notes allows you to engage, but the danger is that you are not economical with words. Experimenting at both extremes helps develop both skills, so that you learn in preaching to both engage and be precise.
The biggest challenge was thinking about culture, and the issues that marriage raises. Most of those listening were from Central and South America, and have fled the drug wars in their home countries. I could not therefore assume that they were immersed in Western culture as most of our main congregations would have been, and their perspectives on issues around marriage might be very different. So my main concern was not to assume too much.
The biggest thing which was different from preaching at our other congregations was the level of response and engagement from the congregation. We had a running dialogue of interaction! When I said something they agreed with—particularly the first points about sex differences and the good of marriage, there were very loud choruses of ‘Amen!’ They laughed loudly at my jokes—which was nice; the women especially like the idea that they were the pinnacle of creation!—and even commented to their neighbours about what I said as I was preaching. In my fourth point, perhaps the most challenging of the four, it was noticeable how much quieter and more subdued they were.
Interestingly, I noticed (especially when practicing at home beforehand) that, even though speaking in a second language in which I am not fluent, it was much easier to be excited about things in Spanish than in English! The natural poetry and rhythm of the language allows you to be more expressive. That probably explains a lot about Latino culture…!
Because of having a Spanish-speaking congregation, and Spanish-speaking members of the congregation, I have been investing half an hour to 40 minutes a day learning Spanish on Duolingo. It makes it worthwhile when they are so appreciative of anyone making the effort to speak their language; and the vulnerability of working in another language is a powerful bridge-builder in relationships.
Buy me a Coffee
Brilliantly put.
Might you extend the argument by reflecting more directly on the sacramental nature of marriage, and the claim of Vatican II that the home should be seen as a domestic Church?
I don’t think I agree with marriage being ‘sacramental’ in that sense—and I think ‘church’ means something slightly different, though I think it is a great sentiment!
Yes. There is confusion in the Vulgate translation of mystery as sacrament
and – quelle surprise – in the metaphor in Ephesians 5:31–32 .
The metaphoric statement there, is ‘Genesis 2:24 is Christ and the church’.
A conceptual metaphor usually employs a known thing to illustrate an unknown – or we might say ‘mysterious’ – concept.
So the mystery is in the relationship between Christ and the church, not in the marital relationship of husband and wife.
Or in this case, I suggest the mystery is also in how the Genesis 2:24 union illustrates the relationship with Christ and the church.
And of course, in the context of Ephesians it’s how the Gentiles are going to be included in the gospel promise.
Well, this is interesting. ESV agrees with you on this, ‘This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.’
But I am not yet clear that this is what the Greek says: τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν· ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν
Most translations agree more with NIV: ‘This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.’
(Curiously, the Italian agrees more with ESV).
Marriage is a covenant (Malachi 2:14), which I take to mean a contract in the context of a relationship (hence far more than a business contract). As to whether marriage is also a sacrament – a question which divides Catholic and protestant – I suggest that it is useful to begin by revisiting what is meant by ‘sacrament’ in this context. What do you have in mind, please?
The error arose from Jerome’s Vulgate, where the Greek mysterion was translated with the Latin Sacramentum.
For Anglicans, the dominical sacraments are specifically those rites that Jesus commanded of us: to baptise; and to ‘do this in remembrance of me’ in breaking bread.
I know that, Ian – I was asking Peter Forster what he had in mind by ‘marriage is sacramental’. To me, sacraments have something of the supernatural in them, which I do not see in marriage – only the very highest of the natural.
Ian,
This is an interesting comment. Do you believe these Anglican rites are Sacramento in the Roman sense of actually conveying what to protestant orthodoxy they only symbolise?
I know our own Rector wears his priestly garments for communion and infant baptism.
There are no ‘priestly garments’ in the Church of England…?!
Hi Anthony,
There are several confusion about this. In English covenant contains the concept of a binding legal agreement but the Hebrew berith has as a broader semantic domain – it can simply mean ‘agreement’.
Furthermore although it might seem strange, the section of Malachi you cite is the only time that human marriage is seemingly specifically referenced as being a covenant.
But there are two problems with that – some see that God is referring to his own covenant with Israel -and the Masoretic text available to translators is badly damaged at this point. That is why English translations give various renderings.
Anthony,
In other words in ancient Israel marriage was a social contract. There was no involvement of the temple synagogue priest or elders.
I suggest with the brief teaching on marriage in the NT we have read into mundane marriage far more than the text of scripture can support.
But isn’t there a paradox there Colin?
On the one hand, marriage is an almost purely social contract.
On the other, Gen 2 roots it profoundly in the purposes of God for humanity.
And even in the OT it serves as a model for God’s relationship with his people…?!
One biblical reference to marriage as a covenant, in the absence of any apparently contradictory scriptures, is enough.
I am aware that the Hebrew of Malachi is far from fully clear (Is it ‘I [YHWH] hate divorce’ or is it ‘he who hates, divorces’?), but is not the Masoretic text based on multiple older versions? And is not LXX a moderately good guide to its meaning?
Marriage might be a sacrament (I don’t think so) but weddings definitely aren’t. If you get married in a registry office with a committed atheist local official presiding over the ceremony it doesn’t affect the validity of your marriage or its moral consequences for your Christian life one bit.
I agree, Adam.
Hola! It’s tempting to feel that in troubled times being married and having families and children is too much risk. But as you say, God commands ‘be fruitful and multiply’. In Babylon the defeated Hebrews were told to: Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city…
As Charlie Kirk has said: “Get married. Have children. Build a legacy. Pass down your values. Pursue the eternal. Seek true joy.” So we’re to commit to flourishing and being an asset to our communities, but like Daniel, on God’s terms not theirs.
For a number of reasons it is often difficult for young men and women to find each other, marry and have children, so we need to pray particularly for this.
It becomes difficult if people do not go to church; if they do not have community life; if they do not have dances. But no-one is preventing people having any of these things. One of them will suffice.
This is interesting advice, writtten in the light of the problems you mention, by a Catholic friend in Australia who remarried at a mature age after his first wife died: “How to get married”
https://catholicweekly.com.au/how-to-get-married/
Very interesting. Did you know that most of the HTB-connected churches in London actually do this very proactively?
Some years ago someone described HTB as “hunt the bride.”
I laughed out loud at that!
But why not? isn’t this something we ought to be doing in our churches…?
So it should be, in spades. I never cease to be amazed at the lack of long term thinking. I pleaded 25 years ago with all our contemporary fine young Christian women that they should frequent very large good churches, to maximise their chances. It is odd that they of all people should need to do such a thing, but the point is – how many men of appropriate quality were there on the market?
On this as on so many other topics, I can plead till I am blue in the fact that people see the big, longterm picture. Sometimes they do. But why don’t they? The longterm picture is the only picture.
It would be fine if everyone went to church and to dances. (Not to nightclubs which are an infernal device to block out conversation and comprehension and maximise darkness and anonymity which is akin to secrecy.) There is nothing stopping them doing so, so it is not a problem, but it is often spoken of as though it is.
Also several cultures are healthy with close and large families and you are flogging a dead horse if you are trying to find a spouse in cultures that are not.
Isn’t that the precise opposite of Paul’s advice? He seemed to see marriage as a hindrance.
how depressing
Also as a Duolingo learner of Spanish, I wonder how large the Spanish vocabulary has to be to be able to preach a whole sermon?
I am currently on level 55 on Duolingo (though just switched to Turkish for next week’s trip…!) and there were very few words in the sermon on Spanish that I did not know.
How does that compare with your level? Did you read the Spanish text?
When I lived for a few months in Germany in the 1990s, having got an O-level in German in the 1970s, I found I was well able to craft what I wanted to say in post offices, shops etc, but this ability rebounded because the response came at full speed in fluent German, which I did not have the vocabulary to understand. Apart from the word endings, the grammar had stayed with me.
My father learnt (and taught) French to fluency, and learnt street German while serving in the forces of occupation not long after the war. It was fascinating to hear him speak of the different ways in which he approached the task. But I am not a natural linguist, and kudos to Ian Paul for taking Spanish on.
Spanish is much easier than Italian, and easier to pronounce—though Italian is a much more beautiful language! (Sorry Spanish speakers!)
I learnt French at school, and have kept it up, but for beginners I think is even harder.
My German is slight.
Interestingly, if you speak these four plus English, you are covered for about 90% of Europe and 40% of the world! Just need to add Arabic, Mandarin, and Hindi and you are done…!
I agree, by the way, that AI can now do translation pretty well. I recently scanned an out-of-print book written in German, put the scan into an OCR routine, manually corrected the output where necessary, and threw the result at Google Translate. I was impressed.
Accent also matters. I’ve just come back from Cameroon, where I thought to myself that my French was better than I realised, until a colleague pointed out that it’s simply that French with a Cameroonian accent is easier for an English speaker to hear.
Copying accents is the heart of it.
Did you know that if you speak English to a French person with a French accent they find it easier to understand?
I really enjoyed reading this sermon, Ian. Obviously lots of thorough biblical studies underlying it but is also pastorally warm insight into the matters the everyday person is considering today,
and communicated in such language. Thank you for sharing.
Thanks! I should have added the biblical and theological background…will edit.
…and have now done so.
What a lovely use of Duolingo!
Duolingo has its detractors. But I have found nothing else that so neatly combines:
a. building vocab
b. beginning to understand grammar
c. incentives for daily discipline.
It is just very easy to use regularly. Do you use it?
It is clear from the account in Genesis 2, giving God’s reasons for creating Eve, what marriage is primarily for: intimate and lasting companionship. Children are a normal and happy result of this – as God intends in Genesis 1 – but He smiles on the remarriage of widows beyond childbearing age.
[Men and women] often think in different ways… In our culture in the West, many people hate this idea. They think it leads to oppression and inequality—and they are right, it has. But this leads them to deny that there is any difference. That is why we see so much about ‘women can do what men do just as well’ in all our news stories… the problem with this, with trying to prove that women can do what men do, is that then men are setting the agenda. And we are not allowing women to be what they want, what they are good at!
It’s not men setting this agenda, Ian, it is feminists. They are taking on the male curse of work as well as the female curse of childbirth. This might be freedom from male leadership, but it is hardly freedom in the deeper sense. And, as society goes ever further off the rails, feminists respond by intensifying their scapegoating of men. When did you last see a positive role model for men in a TV soap or advert? The women are smart and attractive and the men are almost all wimps or bullies.
In a fallen world, what should be the relation between husband and wife? For his self-sacrificial provision and leadership, the husband should be the wife’s hero; and for her inner beauty and for the mystery by which she turns the ecstasy of sexual union into children to continue his line, the husband should deeply cherish his wife. It is not hard to see how this can all be turned into idolatry in pagan cultures (fertility religion!) and into unrealistic expectations and consequently marital breakdown (in secular culture). But that is what God intends.
I am well aware of this feminist agenda!
And the irony is that women are far less happy than they were in the 1970s. There is even a name for this!
AI tells me: The most common name for that claim in academic literature is “the paradox of declining female happiness” (sometimes “women’s declining happiness paradox”). It comes from a widely cited 2009 paper by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers titled The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness. They argued that, despite major gains in education, income, and opportunity since the 1970s, women’s self-reported happiness had declined relative to men in several datasets.
There are a lot of posts on TikTok from mature women about how the younger generation of women have been tricked by this feminist agenda.
Ian: I don’t think young men are all that happy today, either. The collapse in marriage *and relationships has led to an epidemic of loneliness as well as a cratering birth rate, and the spectre of men in their late 20s still living with their parents. Jordan Peterson has, of course, written and said a great deal on this, focusing chiefly on the trials of young men, but he has also commented on the conflict and pull that youngish professional women also feel, wanting high status work (and money) but also wanting children. What many are discovering is that the more motherhood is postponed, the less likely it is going to happen at all.
The two are intertwined. Each gender will be happier when the other gender is happier. It’s a single interrelated economy.
You’d almost think God planned it that way.
There is nothing paradoxical about it, for it is entirely predictable and was entirely predicted. It just doesn’t fit the narrative. Where exactly does this narrative come from? Governments who want more tax? States who want more control of people’s private families? Women who want it all for selfish reasons? A combination of all 3?
The picture is far worse even than any of us fear. See for example Baskerville, Taken Into Custody.
Excelente, Juanito. I shall now call you ‘Barrito del Barrio’.
I taught myself Spanish out of interest years ago and ended up teaching it. For a long time I did my daily Bible reading in Spanish and have watched a vast number of Spanish videos on YouTube.
I agree with you on the beauties (and challenges) of Italian. One of the videos I saw was of a young woman who teaches Italian to Latin American immigrants to north Italy, of which there are many.
I am fascinated to hear there is a Spanish-speaking church in the Nottingham area. I have heard there may be 3 million Latin Americans in Spain, and I wonder if this has brought life to Spanish Protestantism.
Every blessing on your time in Turkey.
Having spent nine years is Spain, ministering under the auspices of the C of E and having subsequently been aware of one of my former congregations having jumped ships into IERE (La Iglesia Espanola Reformada Episcopal (apologies for the absence of a tilde’ over the “n”), I would love to know what James means by “Spanish Protestantism”. For his information, I would not hesitate to say that it is virtually devoid of an Anglican counterpart in the country.
Incidentally , for the many aficionados of SSM debates in this blogsite, I think I’m right in saying that Spain legalised SSM before the UK!
Um, I meant people in Spain who are Protestant- which includes evangelicals. Anyway, the internet answered my question – about 2% of the Spanish population and over 4700 churches, and much of this fed by Latin American immigration. These figues point to much growth in redent years, since the Reformation had little impact on Spain and Protestant groups were historically small in Spain.
Your methodology for how to communicate your thoughts in Spanish gave me food for thought about how to communicate clearly in English!
Yes, I think it has me too!
“In ancient Israel marriage was a ‘social contract”! Really? Ian is right to challenge this, specifically with reference to Genesis 2. Genesis 2 is an integral aspect of the Torah, the Law of Moses. Moreover, many parts of the OT draw intimate parallels between the Mosaic Covenant and marriage. For example, Hosea is a superb example of the correlation between covenantal breakdown and marital inf1delity.
we were made to worship God alone, and find in him alone the answer to our deepest desires. Marriage is good—but marriage is not our saviour! Jesus is!
Indeed. I drove from England to Cardiff at the weekend for Welsh National Opera’s Flying Dutchman. Wonderful music, but the idea that redemption comes from the love of a good woman is characteristically Wagnerian drival.
“In ancient Israel marriage was a ‘social contract”! Not sure, a ketubah, to this day, is a completely unilateral act: the acquiring of a wife in Israel; and its dissolution, the get, is again a completely unilateral act. Only the husband can agree to it. Hardly a contract.
Your Spanish is fine, Ian.
How then do you explain the surviving papyrus Se’elim 13 from around Rabbi Akiva’s time, a Jewish statement of divorce by a woman?
Anthony,
Yes, Manuel is mistaken. It was a contract, several written ones have been found. And under this contract the wife could unilaterally announce a divorce but she could not remarry without a certificate from her ex-husband.
This is understandable – there was no state registration of marriage and without the certificate the divorced woman and her new husband could both be accused of adultery. The first husband must evidence that she was free to go.
You are correct to point out the certificate, but it is to be wondered what weight that would carry in 1st century Palestine.
As a prospective subsequent husband I would certainly want to check with the first husband that we had the ‘all clear’ – whatever note she had written for herself!
The Jewish judges decided that they could punish (including physically, if needed) the husband until he “voluntarily” wrote the divorce certificate, assuming that they agreed that the husband would not fulfill his vows in the ketubah.
Donald,
Indeed – and it still happens in contemporary orthodox Jewish communities.
Have you a Talmud reference please?
Good article and marriage should be about respecting differences with your partner and working together as a team, not expecting them to do everything you do. As women have more careers and mothers have more full time jobs than they used to, so some men now are the predominant carers for their children, some dads being house husbands and doing domestic chores and taking their children to school when the mother is at work
Yes, but you are now accepting this as fine, without looking critically at how it came about. It produces exhaustion and saps the complementarity which accompanies romance, also sapping quality time with children. This is progress, right? The government loves the extra taxes. One could almost think they planned it.
I think you have missed the point. Simon is describing a situation where one parent has a job and the other does not. The difference from the ‘norm’ is that it is the husband who is at home with the children. Now, clearly there is a distinction between the mother and father in the care of infants. After weaning there is no fundamental difference in the capability for childcare or ‘housework’ between male and female which prevents a man from doing this. It may be the case that women are on average more empathetic than men, which can be a help when dealing with a child’s traumas. However, it is only on average. There are men who are more empathetic than their wives.
My cousin’s husband was stay-at-home, at least from the time their two children were at school. This enabled her to become quite a senior civil servant in the Home Office before she retired. He was a poet. The children do not seemed to have suffered at all from this experience. Now adults, they are doing rather well for themselves.
Difference, and complementarity, does not mean distinction except, of course, for the important, distinct roles that male and female play in procreation.
And this is exactly the point I make! Men are taller than women; not every man is taller than every woman.
But men are still taller than women. And research shows that woman want to have more children than they do. And competing with men in traditional male occupations by and large makes women unhappy.
So why are they doing it?
Yet David has shown that in his cousin’s husband’s case, he was a poet, she was a high earning civil servant, so it made sense for her to continue to work full time and him to be a stay at home dad. So in some scenarios like this women can compete in traditional male occupations if their husband is prepared to do the domestic role a mother traditionally did once the children have passed infanthood
But that bears no relation to the current popular narrative ‘We must have equal numbers of women and men in senior roles.’
No you don’t need equal numbers of men and women in senior roles, nor do you need equal numbers of stay at home fathers as stay at home mothers. Such relationships do work for some couples though
can you give some specific examples of jobs where woman are unhappy due to competing with men?
Women in every sport would be unhappy competing with men. And most women in business lose out to men, because many of the qualities needed to succeed are ones that (psychologically) are more suited to.
In all my life, I have never met a woman bricklayer, plumber, decorator, bin person, or road sweeper.
Jordan Peterson highlighted well the absolute nonsense of the supposed ‘gender pay gap’.
1. There are very many jobs to which the sexes are not equally suited.
2. The sexes differ in their desire for part time rather than full time work.
3. Childbirth and child rearing.
4. Peri/menopause and the volatility it brings – is it kind to pretend in employment that something so major is not happening, even a bit, but that rather, somehow, the 2 sexes are equivalent in this?
5. Post childbirth and child rearing, women will then be behind those who worked full time in the same years.
6. Desire for specific jobs, which have different pay levels, is not the same for both sexes.
7. The idea of a gender pay gap presupposes that all adults under 67 of both sexes comprise the job market. Yet this is an uneducated view, since that has been the case only very recently, for a small minority of history.
Blindly, the one-dimensional idea is to try and equalise participation of the 2 sexes in all jobs without looking at any of the other legions of dimensions.
The 1960s/70s saw equalisation of pay for doing the same job/work. The former system was built very sensibly on the family unit being one single thing directed to mutual interest of a collective.
Those cultures which now sensibly see things in that way (Indian corner shops…) flourish as a result.
Ian/Christopher
It is not only recently that women have worked as well as men. For millennia most women worked as long and as hard as men did in order to survive. Only the emerging upper class and later middle class afforded women leisure. And even then Queens raised armies and went to war. Nor were there women’s jobs (albeit some exceptions such as spinning in the home). Women worked alongside men in farming, in factories and down mines.
You seem to have a rather romanticised view of history.
I don’t think I looked at the topic of adults working or not working as a norm in history. I looked at the presupposition that for male and female in the job market one should be gender-blind.
The present circumstances are different. Previously adults needed to work if their family was to survive. Now, adults still need to work to get by but only because the authorities have set up the system thus to milk more tax, not because it is actually economically necessary. We had already long ago evolved to the point where one modest salary is fine for a happy family, so that is not only possible but real and actual. But it was snatched away; did not have to be. Mind you, there was not previously the presupposition of everyone needing luxuries, foreign holidays etc..
Christopher
In most cases both parents still need to work to provide the essentials and then many people are on universal credit (or whatever has replaced it) simply because employers do not pay a fair wage and are very happy to be subsidised by our taxes. These people do not have the luxuries of foreign holidays. These are the people who often need food banks and who could never buy a property (which would be OK if there was a suitable provision of council property to rent). And, to add further stress, working women are spending more time with their children than stay-at-home mothers did in the 1970s.
The first word-association you make with ‘children’ is ‘stress’?
Was the country less prosperous when there was a one-wage family? Did it at that time fail to perform all the tasks needed to be done by the workforce?
Just as with feminism, you are talking about problems which are not only bad but unnecessary/self-inflicted. But if we already know the solution and (worse) that solution is well known in living memory, so that there is not a problem in the first place, then – there is not a problem in the first place.
Complemenarity runs into many, many areas beyond procreation. Most areas, in fact.
Take the Polish or Indian cultures. By and large, the men can build and the women can keep house. These are exactly the same cultures that are happy, successful and with close families. To whose number we add the UK culture as was. These correlations are either coincidence or more likely not. Then we add the benefit of knowing one’s role in a larger picture. Of following closely one’s parent of the same sex. Everything is right with the one way of doing things and everything wrong with the other. And in either way of doing things there is ample scope within a lifetime where child rearing takes up only half the adult years to fulfil potentials and exercise abilities. It is not as though Indian and Polish women are low achievers. Quite the reverse. We see the right way: we should walk in it. Otherwise it is the tragedy if we had it and we threw it away. But the government and state are to a large extent to blame for fostering the ills of feminism.
As for there being no decision making structures in a household, and that being seen as somehow an improvement, how can the resultant inconclusive discussions fail to waste half one’s already diminished free time?
Wherever feminism is found, family chaos is found. Coincidence? And wherever family chaos is found, the cries of unnecessarily damaged precious children and of blasphemously binned spouses rise to heaven.
Hi Ian,
I cannot connect with the thread, so I post this here.
You say “ But isn’t there a paradox there Colin? On the one hand, marriage is an almost purely social contract. On the other, Gen 2 roots it profoundly in the purposes of God for humanity. And even in the OT it serves as a model for God’s relationship with his people…?!”
Isn’t this a central confusion about metaphors?
The ‘seed is the word of God’ but seeds do not possess any spiritual qualities.
This is how we got the transubstantiation of the Mass? Bread in some way illustrates Christ but does not possess any spiritual properties in and of itself.
And human marriage does not possess an ontological aspect in an of itself but can illustrate the nature of the relationship between Christ and the church. (Confusion about this has led to the mistaken teaching about divorce and remarriage in the church.)
Paul’s teaching in Ephesians is central to new covenant teaching – that you enter the new covenant by means of a marital affinity relationship (not by a birth relationship) coming into the husband’s family by means of faith and taking his name and therefore the church collectively comes into the seed of Abraham’s promise by ‘marrying’ the seed of Abraham Jesus Christ.
It is the two become one Jew and Gentile that Paul references six times in the letter.
And although we have holy matrimony in the Anglican Church – we don’t have holy shepherds. Yet shepherds are used to portray both the Father and the Son. And seeds are fairly central to humanity, but I don’t see them on a special shelf in our local garden centre.
What is being suggested – and it is widely understood to be the case – that the conceptual source domain (e. g. marriage and seeds) not only illustrates a more mysterious target domain (the relationship of Christ and the church and the word of God respectively) – but somehow properties from the target domain reverse into the source domain,
This is rather like quantum physics where one particle moves and another particle 1,000,000 miles away moves in the opposite direction. Einstein called it spooky action at a distance – SPAD.
Whatever is thought about SPAD — it is not how metaphors work.
These misunderstands about metaphors began with the early disciples and have caused difficulties in the church, particularly about the Mass and marriage — it poses the question as to why scripture uses them.
But it’s the same question as to why God chose to reveal himself in Hebrew to a small obscure people group on the east of the Mediterranean.?
Having to write a script raises the usual questions about preaching from a script, rather than from notes, or from speaking without any notes (at the other end of the scale)
If you have ppt slides then they act as prompts, whch is probably optimal. Nobody should ever read an essay out loud, because written and spoken rhetoric are different; at the very least you should tune the written version first.
It is perfectly possible to read a well written script for oral engagement. See my sermon at Oriel College on Revelation 12.
“Modesty is the greatest of my attributes…”
Modesty is the Everest in the Himalayas of my talents.
I can’t believe that someone so brilliant at everything can be as modest as moi.
As I recall, Prince Andrew (for it was he) was once asked about the importance of humility, and he replied that it was important to be humile at all times.
Interesting perspective on marriage. I wonder how different cultures view its purpose.
Well, many practical things change radically from one context to another. But in my experience the core principles of sex difference and the importance of parenting are actually shared across many cultures—though not popular in the West just now…
why then did Paul seemingly discourage marriage ? And why do most clergy ignore his advice today?
Because he was speaking rhetorically to those who appeared to have shunned marriage and sexual relations, and is building bridges with them.
This is a good example of the need to remember that the NT letters were not written *to* us, but to other people in a different situation from us.
Because he thought Jesus was returning soon and there wasn’t any point in marriage and procreation, unless you were tempted to be unchaste. In which case get married and have some prophylactic sex. But still don’t bother with children. It’s a fairly negative view of marriage, but deeply dependent on it’s context.
Jesus wasn’t keen on the whole marriage/children/family thing either.
The children who flocked to him, to his and their mutual delight, would have been inconsolable to hear the dodgy and definitely untrue message that he ‘was not keen on the whole children thing’.
St Paul seems to be very worried about people being told to deny their sexuality: he thinks it’s a problem for single people (1 Corinthians 7), it’s a problem for married couples who are abstaining (1 Corinthians 7) and it’s a problem for young widows (1 Timothy 5). He doesn’t seem to be worried at all about them not making babies or failing to fulfil the command to multiply and fill the earth, because he doesn’t (as far as I can see) mention it despite having ample opportunity to do so.
I don’t see that. He specifically said that if you marry a lot of your time and effort is spent on your family. He also emphasised time was short, though we know today in reality it wasn’t. He seemed rather negative about it, certainly didn’t encourage anyone to marry, the exact opposite of today.
Paul thinks it is more important to spread the gospel but that if you marry then you have not sinned and remain blessed by God. And, for the avoidance of (deliberate?) misunderstanding, by ‘marry’ he meant to someone of the opposite sex.
Paul was writing in the context of a church persecuted by the world, meaning persecuted by the prevailing culture. Husband and wife were then likely to face financial difficulties associated with ostracism and, worse, be separated by prison or death. That’s not a great situation into which to bring children. It raises two questions: Did this persecution still go on in institutionally Christian countries? (Yes, I say – the true church was always a minority and see Leonard Verduin’s wonderful book The Reformers and their Stepchildren’ for more examples than you thought possible.) And what would Christians in Iran or North Korea say about Paul’s advice? Let’s listen to them before drawing conclusions and arguing over them.
Christopher
Jesus is on record as welcoming children how many times? At any rate, of course he welcomed followers. That’s not the same as encouraging them to procreate.
He wanted people to be eunuchs for the Kingdom, remember.
So you think the gospel writers should have recorded another identical story for each occasion Jesus welcomed children?! Neither they nor other chroniclers record identical repeat stories about anything.
Just imagine how often Jesus will necessarily have interacted with children and their parents. Loads of times. Will he have sometimes loved and sometimes hated the children? No. Will he have been a byword or scandal if he ever did show hatred or impatience towards them. Probably, but on the evidence, he is the least likely person to fall in that category.
Christopher
You’re assuming that because something isn’t mentioned more than once, it must have happened lots of times?
At any rate the Jesus of the gospels was fairly consistently anti family.
I’m *assuming* that *because* something is not mentioned more than once, it *must* have happened lots of times?
So likely.
We are surely not returning to the bad old days when my answers to you were a litany of incorrect understandings?
Many things in life happen lots of times, and historians generally mention those particular things once only. That was my point. Not even close.
Thank you Ian
Would love to think your sermon [easy to read and most ‘orthodox’] would be read [maybe in the form of Q&A?] in Church of England Primary [Cof E] Schools and Secondary Schools [Aided Schools – full text] – most unikely I expect.
However, i plan to make every attempt to share it with 4 grandchilren and pray, including 2 members of our staff team who have roles with our church primary school.
Please let me know [ not to to fall into copyright etc.] if I simply only need to ack. your name etc., many thanks
Many congratulations for preaching in Spanish – very impressed. I have enough trouble preaching in Yarkshire.
I don’t think there is a Google translate option for that, is there?
In my “God’s own country ” mere use of the tounges of men” is below the necessary Holy bar height…. the language of false prophets.
“Tounge of the angels” only please…
If there is a crisis in marriage, it’s not because people don’t want to get married. One of the effects of gay marriage has been that the argument that marriage is an outdated and patriarchal institution etc. (that used to have some currency in the 1990s) has pretty much disappeared from the public discourse. Indeed popular culture is much more informed by tv shows like First Dates, and Married At First Sight, which are full of people explicitly wanting to get married. Arguing that people ought to get married isn’t going to help if that’s not the problem. Likewise if people aren’t having as many children as they want, the problem isn’t not wanting children, but some other barrier.
I struggle to agree with your interpretation of Genesis 2. If the purpose of marriage is to produce children, this is oddly missing from the text. The command to be fruitful and multiply is part God’s act of creation in Genesis 1, it is after all also a command given to the fish and the birds. Genesis 2 doesn’t mention this command at all. If the idea that it is not good for man to be alone isn’t about loneliness but about making babies, then the ending of Genesis 2 doesn’t make sense. We ought to end with some babies, instead we get a man united to his wife becoming one flesh. Being one flesh means caring for each other profoundly. St Paul makes this point in Ephesians 5 saying no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their own body, which is why the idea of creating one flesh helps us understand the Church being the body of Christ. We are part of the body of Christ, and He loves and cares for us. Being one body, one flesh is the profound mystery we’re trying to explain, not men and women being different.
I couldn’t let the comment on single people pass without saying something. Are you saying are called to be fruitful in faith in a way that is distinct and different or more than married people are? It sounds like you’re hinting we’re all supposed to get ordained and get preaching…
Marriage is just the same as it has ever been, so the only way that it can be more or less ”in crisis” at a given time is through the chatterings of the chatterati. Who, by coincidence, are always those who proclaim it actually is in crisis, when all the while normal people are enjoying its fruits. It is a core characteristic of chatterati to accept the premises of a culture, which premises are often self contradictory and have been deliberately planted.
Not sure I’d say Ian is one of the chatterati (even if he does get invited into the tv and radio studios from time to time).
How could he be? – critical thinkers and chatterati are like chalk and cheese.
Ian: “in the West, we have a crisis of marriage”
You: Chatterati “are always those who proclaim it actually is in crisis”
You are confusing three different things:
(1) Statistical change;
(2) A change within marriage itself;
(3) Crisis in marriage being a talking point more at some times/places than others.
Ian clearly means (1), and my topic was clearly (2). (1) and (2) are not even close. Marriage (i.e., (2)) remains just as fine as it always was and always will be. But people’s perceptions of it (3) and people’s treatment of it (1) are volatile.
Marriage has been around for a very long time. But it has never been ‘the same’.
Right. But its core characteristics have been, otherwise you would not have been able to write the sentence you just wrote. That you did write it proves that we are talking about something actual and definable.
Most social constructs are actual and definable. Take money. But definable doesn’t tell us anything beyond how someone has defined something in a specific context and at a particular time. A definition isn’t a revelation of truth.
But I was not talking about a word at all, but about a reality. That reality (how families are made and how they prosper) has been the same through time, otherwise a different word should be used for it. Not only has it been the same through time, but it could not very well not be.
Ian re your examples of women in jobs, sport is hardly relevant as they don’t compete against each other and are largely differentworlds. I’m pretty sure most sportswomen are very happy.
As for your other examples I know of female decorators and plumbers. Wasn’t there a recently elected MP who was in the process of training to be a plumber and had jobs already lined up? Interesting that you can only name jobs which are physical in nature. From what I have seen women can be very successful and content in their various jobs and careers. If some are not it’s often due to the bad behaviour or attitudes of their male colleagues, rather than an inability to do a good job.
You’re thinking of Hannah Spencer – the new Green MP from Manchester – who is definitely a plumber with her own business.
What is marriage for? Here is Thomas Cranmer’s answer:
holy Matrimony… is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church… and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.