Tuesday, August 23, 2011

HESUS JOY CHRIST / Matthew's One Too ! Discussion of verses 13 & 14, and verse seven

Since I get such a kick out of blathering on about this stuff, I'm continuing the discussion of the animation HESUS JOY CHRIST / Matthew's One Too!

Verses 13 & 14 from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter Three, New International Version

13 Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor,

14 Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud,

Verse 7 from the animation text, written by R David Foster

7 Emily became Sharon, who became Sherry, who became Irene .

Verse 7 Discussion NIV Bible text verses 13 & 14

As mentioned earlier, in the discussion of Marcelle, in verse three, there are matriarchs that overshadowed any marriage interest. Marcelle was both a marriage interest and a matriarch, as she endured Jacqueline, Marysse and Dorcas. Ideally, there can be only one marriage interest who must also be a matriarch, so as to be approached as everything from a child, through an adult, to a parent. Many relationships retain a matriarch separate from the spouse, and this gives rise to a dreaded Mother-In-Law, but one may not serve two masters or else they will hate one and love the other.

So throughout my venturing into a marriage relationship, there were four matriarchs, counting as three generations of matriarchy – Emily, my mother; Sharon my older married cousin, who became a mother figure; Sherry, a friend, who as a 'daughter' and a 'sister' was the prominent female interest for a good number of years; and finally Irene, who was an interest married with the matriarch. Irene was mother, friend and child to me.

So Marcelle was a lesser matriarch, over Jacqueline, Marysse and Dorcas, yet under the matriarchy of my mother. Sharon, without any of her own doing, became a competitor to my mother for the role of a matriarch. I levered myself away from my mother with Sharon as the fulcrum. Sharon did not choose this role, and never deliberately wanted it, but by her nature she found herself in the role. I became aware of the nature of matriarchy by the similarities and differences between how my mother and Sharon acted with me. Sherry did not choose me as a boyfriend, and I never sought that role, but inadvertently I became a 'patriarch' in her life, if not just another prominent male influence. I respected her specific need for a male friend she could trust to not take advantage of the role. She gave me the role of adult friend, although sometimes slipping into a child-parent frame of mind. I felt honoured that she would make time for me and this satisfied my need for a matriarch. The relationship matured from child-parent to adult-adult and sufficed for me for a time as adult-child. Irene approached as a child, when I was free from a controlling matriarch, if you do not count the health system as a matriarch. She inadvertently became a matriarch, all the time only deliberately acting as a child or an adult. She did not intentionally deliberately act as a parent, so I gave her the role of matriarch even though she did not take it or act as one.

So a child must become an adult, and then accept the role of parent as it is presented to them. The child must arrange the stars in their sky when they become an adult, and navigate as a parent. The issue though, is whether the parent will always be a parent. Sure, they may always see themselves as such, but the child, in their path to adulthood and ultimately marriage, must cast off the matriarchy of their mother, if there is to be an infinite commitment to their spouse. This does not mean they will disrespect their parents, but that they will maintain an adult-adult relationship out or respect and honour for their parents. And not only respect for their parents, but for the respect and honour of their parents' relationship with each other, as husband and wife. No one would argue that all too often the man enters into a marriage like relationship for the purpose of sex. I assert that all too often the woman enters into a marriage like legally binding commitment for the purpose of children, and puts the children above the spouse in their priorities, which not only denies the spouse, but overpowers the children and unduly influences the children's relationships with their spouses. So a son may not deny his mother in favour of his wife, and this limits the necessarily unlimited marriage relationship of the son.

Furthermore, a father may unduly influence his daughter, who may not respect her parents' marriage by maintaining an adult-adult relationship with her parents. If we are to follow Christ, deny ourselves and take up our cross, in pursuit of marriage, than we must make our spouse our parent, friend and child, and place our marriage relationship above all other family relationships, if only out of respect for the relationship between our parents. Wherever it says that a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his spouse, I believe the corollary is true as well – that a woman will leave her father and mother and be joined to her spouse. This is for the integrity of the marriage relationship. If there is not to be one dominant over the other, than the spouses must come together as equals, without one family tagging along for the ride rather than the other.

If there is to be a marriage of equals, than the the spouses not only share equal rights, but equal responsibilities. If a husband must take up his cross, than the wife must take up her's as well. If the husband must deny his family, than the wife must deny her family as well, for the sake of the balance of whole and part, female and male, in the sacred One of the marriage relationship. If the husband must suffer condemnation, execution and rebirth for the sake of his marriage relationship, then the wife must suffer condemnation, execution and rebirth for the sake of her marriage relationship. If the mother must invest, release and witness the destruction of her children, than the father must invest, nurture, release and witness the rebirth of his children.

The book, The Theology of the Body , by the late Pope John Paul II, is said to be a ticking time bomb in today's church. It has also been said that Christopher West, who has been explaining the meaning of the Theology of the Body, both in presentations and writings, is lighting the fuse on the bomb. The impression the book gives is that the sexual revolution of the nineteen-sixties did not go far enough in opening up our awareness of love, commitment, and marriage. Suffice it to say that there is far more to marriage than just sex and babies. There is far more to sex than genitals! There is far more to babies than motherhood!


Sunday, August 21st, 2011


No comments: