Obituary for my mother

Naomi Joyce Tavani, born August 31, 1926, died peacefully in hospice care in Pasadena, CA on December 5, 2011. Beloved wife of Nicholas J. Tavani, who preceded her in death 5 years ago. They had been married since June 25, 1951.

A retired management consultant who pioneered specialization in consulting medical professionals, she also held credentials as an ordained minister very active in church life. She provided spiritual encouragement and counsel, especially to women, and, like her father, gave of her substance to help people in need, being especially generous to Christ-centered missions. Her generosity was amplified by her hospitality as she opened her home to family, friends and strangers for many a festive occasion and home-cooked meal.

She especially enjoyed music, playing both piano and trumpet. A Bible-reading, praying woman of faith (her favorite symbol was the "praying hands"), she often would quote Philippians 4:13, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

With her husband, she raised three sons. Her oldest son oldest son, Dr. Nicholas J. Tavani, Jr., with his wife, Donna, have 6 sons: Nicholas, Michael, Stephen, Daniel, Matthew, and Jonathan. Her second, Stephen D. Tavani, with his wife, Linda, have 2 daughters: Sierra and Nikola. The youngest son, Craig R. Tavani, with his wife, Tine, have 3 children: Vincent, Marcus, and Sonia. One brother survives her: Eli Spinosi; she was preceded in death by her father, Michael, and mother, Marie; and by her brother, Ralph, and four sisters, Patty, Tabitha, Anna, and Ruth.

Memorial services on each coast are being arranged. Remembrances may be e-mailed to Nick Tavani at ntavani@gmail.com.

Aslan's Country is Home

My mentor at Immaculata, Sr. Sheila Galligan, wrote the following in her book on conversion in the works of C.S. Lewis entitled, SLOW-PACED WE COME:

The allusions to the image of homecoming are particularly effective in THE LAST BATTLE. To cite but one example, we read that when Jewel [the unicorn] discovers that Aslan's country is the fulfillment of his heart's longing he bursts forth in joy (LB, 162):

"I have come home at last! This is my real country! I belong here. this is the land I have been looking for all my life, though I never knew it till now. The reason why we loved the old Narnia is that it sometime's looked a little like this ... ."

Jewel, of course, has steadfastly "turned" toward Aslan and home throughout the story. He refused to believe in the false Aslan [Tashlan] and in his own way seeks to keep the others on the right path.

Our hope in heaven in which I am finding great consolation

The day after my mother went home to "Aslan's Country," I had the privilege to teach a class in which we discussed THE LAST BATTLE by C.S. Lewis.

I went as usual to the class that I teach every Tuesday at Immaculata University. It was the final class session before our final exam next week and we were discussing this final book in the Chronicles of Narnia. I must admit that my emotions were very near the surface and I had to be very careful to keep my composure during the course of teaching all evening. However, the reason I opted to go teach was because the subject matter touched precisely on what my faith needed to focus on at this time - our hope of heaven in which I am finding great consolation.

Naomi Joyce Tavani, R.I.P

My brother, Stephen, called me on Monday about 4:30 in the afternoon. He told me that he had good news - our mother was no longer in pain.

My mother

My mother is in need of prayer. I am in need of praying. Let us pray.

LOVE IS LOVE.

In a lecture delivered at St. John's College, Paul Ludwig spoke on the question, "What is Agape?" There is much that he had to say, and I hope to discuss this more as time goes on. For now, however, I want to share some words from his conclusion as written in the published form of his lecture:

Love just means love. There is no special love designated agape or charity. The only distinctions that can be made in love pertain to better and worse objects of love, i.e. seeking one's own good in better and worse ways.

This is similar to my father's model of LOVE. I hope to write more on this.

MAKING SENSE OF MARRIAGE:

DEFENDING D.O.M.A. IS NOT DUMB

(as revised in consideration of comments from an on-going conversation)

Craig R. Tavani, March 2011

Many people in our society struggle in their relationships with others and I mean to come alongside them, as much as it is possible, in their struggle to help them find true resolution. It makes me mad that civil law is sometimes not so civil, nor legality congruent with morality. My hope is that clear communication will create more cooperative community in which we all can love and live. I am not arguing theology here, even though there are theological implications. All I want to establish is that the word "marriage" must be better defined in public discussion. I am disgusted with the damage divorce causes in society. Considering that 100% of divorces begin with marriage, one would think that we would want to come to a better understanding of marriage in order to address the problem of divorce! It seems that many agree that the marriage relationship is a good thing, therefore it would be good to come to some common understanding about what marriage means.

My father spent most of his life counseling people to help them in their own particular relationships – most of my understanding of relationships has been formed by what my father taught me. I have found his teaching to be true in that I have been able to apply it to my own marriage as well as in what I have tried to teach my own children. Perhaps others who have not fared so well can benefit from my personal experience. Perhaps I can benefit also from continuing to be in conversation with those whose experience may radically differ from my own. I am passionate about right relationship and am willing to risk much (including reputation) for the sake of right relationship. It does me no good to "win" arguments if such a "victory" settles nothing. I would rather live the truth in love and let my life be apology enough for what I believe. However, I play only to an audience of one – God; everyone else is on stage with me, working out what we believe in what we do together, no one superior nor inferior in whatever role each may play.

I care that couples in relationship with one another relate well enough to be healthy and happy and helpful to the larger community which forms the environment for their relationship. We may disagree on what is healthy and what constitutes happiness and to what degree some relationship may be helpful, but let us agree to hope for some agreement. Community comes about through communicating that which those creating community have in common. The culture of a community provides the context for comprehending and evaluating what is being communicated. Laws codify cultural values, common agreement that objectifies subjective understanding; morals modify individual behavior to adjust to living in relationship with others. Both law and morality serve right relationship which always has first priority. Humanity is wholly a matter of relationship, not law nor morality.

Relationship happens between the two persons having that relationship with one another. A right relationship is when one is communicating with another person while giving full consideration to the good of the other while trusting the other one to be doing the same for oneself. The problem comes about when those two demand that others recognize their particular relationship to be marriage. On what grounds do they make their demand? How is one to apply any one definition to one's own relationship so that one fully benefits from that relationship if it is indeed a marriage?

What changes when a couple becomes married? Think of marriage as a covenant rather then a contract – in marriage a man and a woman who have been in some relationship prior to marriage, commit their whole lives to one another uniquely and exclusively so that one's life is fully focused on the whole good of the other's life.This relationship cannot be re-negotiated and ends only at death.(Divorce, disruptive as death, is an evil abomination.)

All law is founded on right relationship, without which no law could last. Right relationship happens only when those in relationship freely act in regard to one another. This is why there is a difference between submission and subjection; individuals entering into a relationship with one another submit "me" and "you" to "us." Too often, however, one or the other makes demands that transgress relationship by attempting to subject the other to oneself. Rather than the mutuality of "us," the relationship devolves to either "me" or "you." Mutual submission to one another makes for a much more peaceful relationship that selfish subjection cannot accomplish.

No law is superior to right relationship. Relationship is prior to any law, which is why the law is so concerned about defining relationships so that those in society can properly recognize those in relationships. Changing the law does not change the relationship, but merely redefines how those relationships will be recognized throughout society. Society is made up of individuals living in communities. Community is created through communication. Communication is possible only when individuals can come to hold meaning in common. Contradictory meanings cause communication to breakdown and can have as a consequence a fracture in community. Society cannot long last in such a situation.

A social contract cannot account for how relationships continue beyond the terms of contract. The problem with any contract, social or otherwise, is that it must be periodically re-negotiated. What standard of conduct determines proper behavior during such re-negotiation? Those living in the communities that constitute society must take full responsibility for negotiating the terms of the social contract. This is why it is important that we practice communicating well with one another so that the negotiation can be peaceful rather than violent. What makes an contract binding is that individuals enter into it through their own free will; without freedom, any contract would be null and void. A social contract may assume freedom but its constitution does not comprehend it.

The following understanding of love forms the foundation for my own concept of marriage. I am expressing it as precisely as I can using Greek terms for love - eros, philos, storge and agape - to describe what I mean. The mature man or woman is fully aware of oneself as either male or female. Such mature self-awareness figures prominently in how one loves another. It is immature to ignore one's own being male or female for in doing so one runs the risk of doing other than good to one's beloved. Here is how my father defined marriage:

"A usual, normal marriage is one in which a man and a woman exchange verbal and behavioral commitment to each other, who meet the requirements of their culture, and who share sexual relations with one another. Elements of this dyad may be missing, deviant, or otherwise different due to cultural diversity. However, we still have a marriage. It may be fractured, yes, but still a marriage. With this established, the marital dyad can be assessed as whole, or, if deteriorating, as fractured, and with continued deterioration, as disintegrated."

This definition is found in my father’s essay, “FROM FRACTURE TO FULFILLMENT: A Clinically Proven and Therapeutically Practical Concept of Marriage.” The essay really gives hope to couples struggling in their marriage.

“Marriage,” according to one correspondent, “relates to the unification of plurality.” I think it is worth discussing the notion of plurality in understanding what happens in marriage. This is common ground for considering how we might best define marriage as being a unique relationship between two people. In my view, part of the plurality to be unified is the plurality of male and female. It seems that a number of people want society to validate same-sex relationships. This issue has been conflated with the issue of how marriage is to be defined. I separate the two issues so that conflation does not lead to confusion.

One may recognize that two people of the same sex are in a relationship. However, if one recognizes marriage as being a relationship only between a man and a woman, then a relationship between two persons of the same sex is not recognizable as marriage, but something else, whatever that may be. This is most problematic if one is a judge and the two want to enjoy the privileges that come with marriage, but cannot have access to them unless the judge recognizes their relationship to be marriage. On what basis will the judge decide whether or not to grant recognition? It is on the basis of law.

Relationship is prior to law, as is freedom. Legal definitions serve to clarify what is covered under the law, including how relationships are to be understood so that judgment can be made with consistency throughout society. The law may provide consequences for irresponsibility but no law can carry out the relationship itself; it is the persons who are in those relationships who are responsible for the relationships. Societal structure should support right relationships but the relationships themselves are something only individual persons can create and continue to carry on responsibly.No society can survive an irresponsible citizenry. Although legal definitions may help clarify understanding so that communication and judgment make take place, marriage is more than a legal matter. If two persons who want to be married are unable to take responsibility for that marriage, no law can make them married and certainly cannot keep them married.

Rights accrue to the individual person who is then responsible for each relationship which one creates with another person. Any law should be designed to justly mediate recognition of the individual's rights. Defining marriage legally is an effort to facilitate judgment concerning how to recognize a certain type of relationship in order to determine the status of persons in that relationship under law.The rights of a married person accrue to those who are in a marriage relationship. These rights may or may not be exclusive to marriage; rather than demand a redefinition of marriage merely to gain access to certain rights, it may be more productive to analyze which of these rights need not be exclusive to married persons. This requires careful discernment and demands the cooperation of everyone in community.

The phrase "loving, stable relationship" describes what every human relationship should be. Every marriage should be a loving, stable relationship, but not every loving, stable relationship can be called a marriage. If marriage is understood to be a relationship between a man and a woman, then some other coupling of persons cannot be called a marriage. It is this point of contention that must be considered and given the highest priority in coming to commonly understand how the law should define marriage. Everything else follows from this.

I suspect that sexual attraction is too often the reason why coupling takes place to begin with. Such attraction, however, does not justify the consummation of that coupling. The couple would be wiser to develop a relationship that can be sustained beyond the act of consummation. It is irresponsible to engage in a sexual relationship with another person without being willing to sustain that relationship beyond sex. Such responsibility is associated with maturity. Recreational sex is immature in that it is self-centered and pleasure-oriented. The marriage relationship is more than a cover for recreational sex. A mature man and woman may or may not engage in sexual activity (the process during which procreation may happen) and still be married. Marriage is much more than sex.

Humans, as sexual beings, are capable of responding to erotic experience. However, the responsibility of such capability evolves with maturity. As humans mature, they come to learn how to express themselves erotically in fuller consideration of another person's erotic experience rather than just their own. Thus does eros (experienced love) yield to philos (mutual love) and storgos (learned love). Agape (expressed love) is love that wholly considers the good of the other to the extent of sacrificing oneself for the other. Maturity matters more in marriage than in any other human relationship. In marriage can be found the fullest expression of human love, approaching even the love of God. Every human is born capable of erotic love, but only with maturity can a person learn to love beyond one's own erotic experience. The most mature love is agape, most perfectly realized in the love of God. Marriage makes most sense as a mutual means for a man and a woman to become fully mature with one another. I believe that humans are created in the image of God and maturity makes manifest that image. This image is male and female. Marriage therefore makes a man and a woman together more like the image of God than either of them can be separate from one another. This is a mystery that is known only because it is revealed through the Word of God. To argue the point further apart from speaking of Scripture would only be frustrating if not fruitless.

Contemporary society has come to a place in history where social norms have become so scattered that there seems to be no common standard of community by which to mediate disputes between individuals. If every person does what is right in one's own eyes, than community cannot continue. Without norms, abnormality rules. I find it significant that what seems to bother certain people most is that normal marriage is limited to a relationship between only a man and a woman. Redefinition will, in their minds, legitimate their deviance from that norm. If such deviance derives from something deeper down inside those persons, then mere re-definition will not alleviate the pain of abnormality. Law is like a bandage that can only dress a wound but cannot heal it. To resort to re-defining marriage is a revolutionary idea. It overthrows the norm by which right relationship can be recognized. Apart from the normal definition in which marriage is understood to be a relationship between only a man and a woman, to call some relationship "marriage" is nonsense.

At this moment in American history the law is defined in the Defense of Marriage Act, specifically confining marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman. DOMA codifies a definition of marriage into law. To call DOMA "nothing more than lip-glossed bigotry" is not putting forth an argument. To go on to call the argument of others bigotry and racism is not putting forth argument. To continue ranting rhetorically is not putting forth an argument.Rather than insult those who cite DOMA as a valid legal definition, some other citation should be offered that gives a definition specifically for marriage.

Some may demand that the law be revised, but others may demand that the law remain as it stands. Therefore, those in society must work to come to some agreement – this is the work that goes into productively creating community. Insulting those who are not in agreement with one’s own position is counter-productive. Imposing on them an opinion they have not expressed is counter-productive. Going on rhetorical rants rife with mixed metaphors is counter-productive. Too many on all sides of the issue of how to define marriage are guilty of all these things and more. I do not mean to be one of them. There are two kinds of judgment – discernment that one uses to make distinctions, and decision that brings events to some conclusion. The latter kind of judgment passes a verdict which, when accomplished at the supreme level, cannot be gainsaid. It is this supreme judgment that one cannot reserve for oneself as a mere human individual. Each of us, however, must practice wise discernment. Right relationship is a matter of life and death. Let us choose life.

POSTSCRIPT

In this essay I have been careful about conflating my discussion of marriage with discussion of same-sex relationships. I did so because it confuses the issue. However, my brother, Dr. Nicholas Tavani, wrote the following which addresses the gender issue in terms of genetics:

Let's talk genetics for a moment. XX and XY are distinctly different, and normal, findings defining genetic female and male. (I am well aware of gender determinants beyond this level but let's keep it here for a moment.) Rare variants, such as XXY, etc, exist and are always pathological. Now, since everybody's got a genome, it seems like this distinction would play a role in everyone's definition of marriage. Marriage, then, was established by God, and describes the unique relationship between a couple - one a human with XX and another with XY chromosomes, genetically speaking.

I want to emphasize that one should expect any conversation about marriage to consider the genetic fact that human persons have either an xy-chromosone or and xx-chromosone pairing. Overlooking this ignores what could very well be significant implications for marriage.

Humans were designed so that a man and a woman can come together to reproduce themselves. This is the natural basis for normal marriage to be a unique relationship only between a man and a woman. Any other definition of marriage would be abnormal.As my brother Nick has written,

“There is, literally, no future progeny for anything but a man and a woman reproducing themselves as nature (and nature's God) intended and exquisitely, specifically, and inexplicably by natural mechanisms alone, designed human bodies for. This is an irrefutable fact of nature and the natural basis for traditional marriage, with millennia of successful experience and history. The world has been populated this way, and this way alone. Alternatives, then, must be assumed to mean, ultimately, death to the human race, the ecology we are part of, and the planet. Thus it is, and brings with it - even as a miniscule minority - a culture of death prevalent today.

“While families vary widely across and within cultures and history, none have been or are sustained by the suggested alternatives. On the contrary, these alternatives survive (I hesitate to say thrive for a subgroup which, as a subpopulation, shows more pathology – including suicide, etc. – than an equivalent general population cohort) 'within the household", as it were, of a much larger parenting population allowing, and supporting, them as parents would a child – out of respect for, and love of, all human life as made in the image of the Creator. This simply, works!”

Is abnormality the consequence of genetic predisposition toward an unhealthy condition in combination with certain kinds of environmental stress? Both nature and nurture seem to be involved. How then is one to be responsible for one’s own maturity? What my brother wrote pushes the discussion from abnormality into the realm of deviancy. To be abnormal may be consequent to some natural condition, but it is a question of deviancy when one considers certain ways of overcoming abnormality. Redefining marriage is socially deviant in that it is an attempt to re-norm the created order. How much are others to be held responsible for one’s abnormality? What is the proper way to meet the challenges of abnormality? All such questions come into play in the discussion of marriage.

Abnormality makes sense only in reference to a norm. So it is with deviancy. It may be said that deviant abnormality produces evil perversion when the norm is blatantly disregarded in favor of some contradictory standard. How we are to define the norm is the critical issue here. The norm of humanity is the image of God. Maturity means growing in perfection in order to fully express that image. I freely admit that I fall short of that norm – we all do. The challenge for those who fall into some abnormal category, whatever it may be, is to learn how to live so that one may become mature. Since all humanity is called to live in community with one another, it behooves all of us to work with one another to help meet and overcome the challenges of abnormality. The challenge is best met in pursuing right relationship with one another.

It is a daunting task that is admittedly impossible without God's gracious cooperation. There are those who do not consider such divine cooperation to be a real possibility, but who nonetheless refuse to give up hope that the challenge of abnormality can be overcome. It is inconvenient to have to work so hard to create community. The rebel would rather resort to radical revolution and rip apart the fabric of civil society; such demanding debauchery only denudes the citizenry, leaving them nothing with which to cover right relationship with one another. On my part, it is my hope that my faith in God is true and can move me in love to discover how my own cooperation can contribute to the greater good of the whole community in which I live.

The confession of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is the express image of God. All humanity – men and women alike, created male and female in the image of God – is called to come together in Christ Jesus as the Bride of Christ – thus is marriage explicitly a metaphor for God's desired relationship with humanity. Tolerating difference does not mean accepting what is unacceptable. Given that all of us deviate from the perfect standard of God in Christ, no one can call someone else deviant without confessing one's own deviance as well. True community is normed by love. Perfect love has been made manifest in the person of Jesus Christ. That love reaches out even to those who refuse to acknowledge the love of God in Christ. That love reaches out to the most extreme deviance imaginable. This is the gospel of grace that overcomes any challenge to the norm set by God. This is the light that no darkness can overcome. This is the truth that sets us free.

See http://tavani-family.blogspot.com/2008/07/from-fracture-to-fulfillment.html.

For further discussion of my father’s paradigm for love, go to http://tavani-family.blogspot.com/2008/08/paradigm-foundational-to-understanding.html;

see also http://tavani-family.blogspot.com/2008/07/diagnosis-of-love.html

FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN:

MARRY FOR THIS REASON

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking,

“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”

And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning

MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON

A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE,

AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?

So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to

GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND HER AWAY?”

He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart

Moses permitted you to divorce your wives;

but from the beginning it has not been this way.

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality,

and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man to his wife is like this,

is it better not to marry?”

But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement,

but only those to whom it has been given.

For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb;

and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men;

and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

Matthew 19:3-12

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep,

and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

…

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;

and let them rule … over all the earth … .”

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created them male and female.

...

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone;

I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every living creature,

and brought them to the man to see what he would call them;

and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

The man gave names to all living creatures,

but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept;

then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.

The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man,

and brought her to the man.

The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh;

She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife,

and they shall become one flesh.

And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

…

When the woman saw that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes,

and that the tree was desirable to make one wise,

she took from its fruit and ate;

and she gave also to her husband with her,

and he ate.

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew they were naked;

and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day,

and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?”

He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden,

and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.”

And the LORD God said, “Who told you that you were naked?

Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”

Genesis 1:1-4, 26-27; 2:18-25; 3:6-11

… you do not know which day your Lord is coming.

But be sure of this … you … must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.

For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood

they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until that day that Noah entered the ark,

and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away;

so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Matthew 24: 42, 44 and 37-39

… they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh …”

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth,

and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

…

Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and … offered burnt offerings on the altar.

The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself,

“I will never again curse the ground on account of man,

for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth;

and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.

“While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter,

And day and night Shall not cease.”

Genesis 6:2-3, 5; 8:20:-22

And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”

Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,

but to them it has not been granted.

For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance;

but whoever doe not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.

Therefore I speak to them in parables; because

while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, not do they understand.

In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;

YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;

FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,

WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,

OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE SEEN WITH THEIR EYES, HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,

AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,

AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.”

Matthew 13:10-15

UPON FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Those who want to enter into marriage with one another ought to know what marriage is. Ignorance concerning the nature of that relationship can be harmful to that relationship. The marriage relationship is much more than what it is called. I have clearly spelled out what I believe marriage is. I believe many if not most marriages fail because those entering into the relationship they are calling marriage fail to do the work necessary to sustain that relationship. Such failure may be due to some inadequacy of either person in the relationship, and often stems from ignorance rather than malice. However, it is malicious to promote as marriage what is not marriage - this is to let a lie be the basis for a law. Justice cannot be served without truth.

My quotation of Scripture is for others to understand how my understanding of marriage has some basis beyond my own erotic or neurotic or despotic opinion. Words mean something. It is NOT ridiculous to question what the word "marriage" means. It IS ridiculous to dismiss truth as mere religious opinion without offering some counter-argument that gives grounds for legal rights. What does ground law? If not truth, than all law is nonsense.

A man and a woman become husband and wife in fully knowing one another physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. From such fullness is derived our definitive understanding of the marriage relationship. Failure to achieve fulfillment does not in any way detract from this definition which determines marriage. This norm remains the standard by which to measure what is normal and what deviates from the norm. To name some deviant relationship as normal is devious indeed.

Neither intimacy between two persons nor sexual interaction between persons of the same sex is the issue (I hope I need not explain that intimacy is not the same as sexual interaction). Marriage is the issue. What of persons of the same sex who want to be intimate with one another while also engaging in mutual sexual activity? I do not know what one is to call such a relationship. I do know that I cannot call it marriage. Anatomical design seems to designate what goes where and why. Some openings are designed to be entered, other openings are designed as exits. Why is this so hard to understand? True sexual union takes place when a man enters a woman, not when some other act is substituted. Why must what is "weird" overrule what is otherwise, that is, what is normal?

The standard of marriage has been set by nature - male physiology fits quite nicely with female physiology (let's simply say that tab A is designed to fit into slot B ... use your imagination). The union that makes the marriage relationship unique is more than mere metaphor. It should be obvious that the sexual union which consummates marriage is impossible when the two persons claiming to be in a marriage relationship are of the same sex. Whatever two people of the same sex might do with one another, it isn't truly sexual union. Any definition of marriage which does not take this into consideration is deficient.

It is not a question of being "allowed" to marry! It is ridiculous to act like one is married if one is neither a husband to a wife nor a wife to a husband. Such an act is an imposture! It is a lie! It sets up the relationship for failure. My father developed his definition of marriage to overcome failure in relationship. Consider this from his essay:

The dissolution of a relationship does not include being relieved from the responsibility that goes with the privilege of exercising the power to establish the relationship in the first place. For example, with the privilege of creating a friendship comes the responsibility that makes it impossible to ignore the other's person without consequently fracturing that friendship. Fractures are characteristic of, not the exception to, all human systems. Theoretically, all fractures in these human social systems can be healed. In practice, this rarely occurs. Some continue to worsen until the system no longer holds together and the relationships no longer continue to contribute to the cohesion of the group. This process of "ungluing" is the reverse of that which brought the relationship together. It accounts for a human condition that does not occur suddenly but is instead drawn out over time.

It is possible, and preferable, that a couple stay together and work out their problems together. Coming upon hard times is no ground to say a marriage is fractured beyond repair. Despite that such circumstances are often bitter and frustrating as well as emotionally and intellectually exhausting, a fractured marriage is still a valid marriage. A valid marriage constrains the pair to maintain their responsibilities towards one another so that each may derive the privileges therefrom. A spouse who is committed to the marriage relationship imagines, thinks, and behaves in a covenantal way. Relationships are created and maintained by two persons. It is doubtful that there are very many marital problems in which one party is totally innocent, that is, one did not contribute in any way to the delinquency of the mate. If both parties "will to do the will" of the laws involved in creating productive relationships, disintegration of a union may be stopped and reversed.

The focus of my father’s essay is the the question, “What is marriage?”

There really is no definitive agreement on the nature of marriage. We simply assume that, since we all use the term "marriage," there exists a common meaning. As long as we are not confronted by problems related to its meaning, these remain confused and confounding issues. The consequences are severe. If the validity of a marriage cannot clearly be articulated, there will be both uncertainty and disagreement about what divorce is and how the dissolution of a marriage actually comes about. How can any clear guidelines be provided for the role of persons bogged down in such a quagmire?

A simple conceptual definition is inadequate. In order to identify a valid marriage, we must progress to an operational definition to describe the composite reality we call "marriage." This beginning point is what is to be established. An operational definition is necessary for marriage so that we can measure the components of this phenomenon which we treat as a single entity. This will help us in determining the time when a marriage indeed exists, as well as the factors which can disintegrate the marital relationship.

The model developed embodies what is asserted to be universally characteristic of marriage in both recorded human history and myriad cultural settings. Identified in this model are three components - coitus, commitment and culture. These components are in dynamic relation to each other through their paired elements: in coitus are the elements of procreation and pleasure; the elements of commitment are word and work; and in the cultural component we have elements that are regulatory and religious.

BIOLOGICAL: Coitus (procreation & pleasure)

interfaces with Culture & Commitment

PSYCHOLOGICAL: Commitment (word & work)

interfaces with Coitus & Culture

SOCIAL: Culture (regulatory & religious)

interfaces with Commitment & Coitus

Flowing from this model is the operational definition which establishes a basis for determining a valid marriage. A usual, normal marriage is one in which a man and a woman exchange verbal and behavioral commitment to each other, who meet the requirements of their culture, and who share sexual relations with one another. Elements of this dyad may be missing, deviant, or otherwise different due to cultural diversity. However, we still have a marriage. It may be fractured, yes, but still a marriage. With this established, the marital dyad can be assessed as whole, or, if deteriorating, as fractured, and with continued deterioration, as disintegrated.

It should be self-evident that we are all born strangers. We hold the power to modify that initial relationship through communication. From stranger, we may go on to acquaintance to casual friend and on to close friend. Out of nothing we create a unique relationship. Just as we can create and nurture our social relationships, we also can act to dissolve those very same relationships. After creating a close friend relationship, we can use our decision-making capability to modify it, and, instead of cultivating the friendship, cause it to deteriorate, even going on to change the relationship to enemy. But we can never be a stranger to that other one ever again.

My father concludes his essay with these wise words:

In being committed to maintaining their marriage, a husband and wife must continually seek how they may enrich, encourage, enjoy and enhance one another. While it only takes one spouse to ruin the marriage, it takes both to maintain a healthy and holy marital relationship. This model has proven to be a practical clinical tool for diagnosing a developing, healthy or troubled relationship. Especially helpful is its usefulness for developing a comprehensive therapy to maintain ro restore an adequate and successful marriage. Marriage vows are sacred to self and society. Using this conceptual model of marriage may help husbands and wives facing struggle, strain and separation to keep honoring their vows together.