« Matt Redman | Main | Forthcoming Films ... »

July 11, 2007



I think my answer to the question in your title is 'no... but...'

I think we need to be pro-communion, which is to be pro-church as you say; not pro-marriage or pro-family per se.

Neither Jesus nor Paul seem to be pro-marriage. Jesus didn't marry (did his disciples?) and Paul says it's better to be single unless you 'burn with desire.' A lot of the Fathers of the Church were single people who lived lives of poverty, and even now in the Older Traditions clergy (certainly bishops) are single (perhaps widowed in some traditions).

If we are pro-communion, then we are relational, we are pro-community. Marriage, and the family are both good, wholesome expressions of this, as is church (all, of course, in an ideal world).

I think the Church can sometimes ignore single people, and people called to live lives of celebacy, and make them feel under-valued. This especially in younger church communities where lots of people are marrying and having children.

So I am hesitant to encourage the Church to use the language of Marriage any more than it already does. I think that misses the bigger picture, and can make Marriage an end in itself, rather than one of several appropriate manifestations of communion-in-action.


A bit off topic but... it seems like Hauerwas thinks EVERYTHING is a deeply subversive act.

Andy Goodliff

I think for Hauerwas any christian practice is, or should be, a deeply subversive act, because its come from different set of convictions to the world. After christendom (incidently a title of one hauerwas book) we need to recover the subversive of the politics of Jesus

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad