Some group I’ve never heard of is asking that the next Vice President be a ‘True Christian’, given that neither Presidential candidate counts, apparently. It brings up the old whine about marriage again, unsurprisingly:
The group isn’t suggesting names but is citing criteria for a perfect candidate, including that it be someone who is against abortion and for defining marriage as “a union between one man and one woman.” It plans to send the petition to the presidential candidates.
I don’t like that definition particularly, but part of my dislike is because it’s so wishy-washy. Historically marriage hasn’t been like that in many places and times, so what these loons are using isn’t historical precedent but their religious teaching. That’s fine, I guess, but if you’re going to commit to these things then you should commit:
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matthew 5:31-32
So marriage is between one man and one woman for life. And don’t think that you can get away with adultery:
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:9-11*
Worryingly even not getting divorced doesn’t seem to be much protection there:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Matthew 5:27-28
That’s a pretty tall standard to live up to there. Or to quote a less Biblical scholar, Tony Hancock, “Stone me!”
*Yes I know, Christ’s arrival allowed us to put away some of the excesses of Old Testament behaviour, so we can just revile adulterers rather than actually killing them.
5 Comments
You’re correct. We cannot live up to God’s perfect standard.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%207:1%20-%208:17;&version=31;
Oh, and yes, I think it’s silly to try to insist on a “True Christian” for any political office. We should rather seek those who are wise which would rule out 90% of our political class. Better would be to improve the wisdom of our voting public, particularly in reference to the concept of unintended consequences of government action.
I believe there are too many issues to narrow a VP choice to those two criteria, although I’d guess a large percentage of Republicans already meet them but are not “perfect” candidates. But I agree your argument “for life” has strong support in the Bible. The Catholic church supports that position as well, and a lot of Protestants have a hard time with it. Well, a lot of Catholics do too. That’s why they have the annulment process, which has some strict requirements that if met, actually declares your marriage never existed.
I’ve always found the annulment thing rather legalistic. I’ve been married over a decade, so I’m guessing it doesn’t apply anyway. but even if I’d decided the day of the wedding that I’d made a horrible mistake, or my wife realized what a wastrel I am, claiming that the marriage never existed is just silly.
Basically I believe what an annulment says is if the person you married turns out to be quite different after marriage than before, you could say “this isn’t really who I thought I was marrying.” And sadly I believe there are a lot of people who get married before they think though how they as a couple will work out various issues of life to ensure good compatibility, who probably don’t deserve an “escape clause.” But if a gal’s gentle prince charming turns out to be an abusive husband, she could make the case “this abusive person is NOT who I intended to marry.”
Wiki states it this way: “Therefore, an annulment of a marriage is much more analogous to a finding that a contract of sale was invalid, and hence, that the property for sale must be considered to have never legally transferred possession, than analogous to a divorce, which is more like returning the property after a consummated sale.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment
I agree it’s not a real clear or easy to understand concept. You do need to go through a series of steps and provide proof, so it’s not an easy “out” or automatic decision.
I wouldn’t dispute that at all Matt, in fact that’s exactly what I had in mind; it’s a legalistic thing. That’s fine for a legal arrangement, but for the religious side of marriage that just doesn’t seem valid.