Friday, August 29, 2014

The Frigid Spouse

Having just spilled much ink on the Death of Desire we now turn to the 'death of a vow'.  Or to the 'violation of a vow' at the very least.  A matter of considerably more import.  A matter that is much more prevalent.  And a matter with greater consequences.

IOW, having spilled much ink on the 'frozen eunuch', we will now spill some ink on the 'frigid spouse'.  But not a lot of ink.  Unlike the silent majority, I have spilled plenty on this topic in the past.

So we now turn from the eunuch who cannot be married- to the frigid spouse who may be better off  unmarried.  We turn from those who cannot be One Flesh- to those who often prefer not to be One Flesh.

To use the Pauline euphemism,  from those who cannot "touch" to those who often wish not to be "touched".

To belabor the point, we now turn from the physically impaired to the spiritually impaired.  From the disabled to the dreadfully disobedient.  From the sick to the selfishly sinful.

And it seems that many people would take issue with that final distinction.  It seems that I have to buttress my point about 'depriving a spouse being a sin'.
It seems that few folks will use that word in this respect. Few folks will use the "s" word when speaking of disrespecting a vow.

Folks like those in the recent outing of a frigid spouse in Elle.  A matter brought to my attention by a recent link to Lindsay's Logic.  A matter well discussed by the outspoken and logical Lindsay.
And a matter well discussed by the far more outspoken Dalrock (H.T. Nate).  But not even they, nor the comments on their blogs use the "s" word in this respect.

It seems that many sensibilities have been seared in this Age of Autonomy.  In this Age of Entitlement.  In this Age of Niceties. This age where few would call a sin "a sin".

Yet we clearly know that this 'depriving' violates their Marriage Vow.  A vow that was made in good faith.  And that breaking or even "delaying a vow" is a sin (Deut. 23:21).

Typically, this vow was to "have and to hold" in perpetuity (we are not talking about holding hands here, children).  To have and to hold in "sickness and in health".  In good and bad hair days.  In smelling good or smelling bad days (Job 19:17). 

Indeed, this vow was made with the delightful understanding of 'coming together' when the desire of either one of the partners was present. Whether significant interest of the 'significant other' was present or not.

Yet, was this vow truly upheld in spirit? Was there true mutual submission there?  Or is this submission clouded with superficial excuses?

Instead, we see in that Elle 'spreadsheet' many other excuses.  Excuses that clearly don't fly with the spirit of that vow.  Sinful excuses.
Excuses that may lead the 'less significant other' to pornography or adultery- 1 Cor. 7:5.  But more so, may lead the 'less submissive other' to far greater judgement.

And instead,we see in Lindsay's Logic- comments that evade her coherent logic. And even one fantastical comment that denies that 'one might have a valid desire when the significant other might not'.  IOW, that 'desire must be mutual or that desire doesn't exist'!

As well, we see other comments that  reflect the prevalent 'my body is my own' mentality (with the attendant comment that 'my wife's body is her own'). Comments that continue to reflect that old Edenic desire for autonomy. Comments that reflect a mentality quite contrary to the Marriage Vow.

Regardless, even if we don't grant that this 'non-depriving mentality' was intrinsic in the Marriage Vow- can we grant something else?  Can we grant the Golden Rule here?  A rule that seems universal?  Can we universally grant that 'we wouldn't want to be deprived in that very same way'?

But this is a Christian blog right? A blog where the Bible is our benchmark.

So what about our benchmark to 'love our neighbor as ourselves' (Lev. 19:18, Matthew 19:19)?  Yet this spousal love is an even greater love that is mandated.  Just as Christ shows a far greater love to his bride.

Indeed, Christians grant something greater.  We grant that the Marriage Vow is a model of our vow with Christ, right (Ephesians 5:22-33)? 

So, dear reader,  I am imagining a heavenly marriage in which we were to respond with a similar lack of passion towards Christ.  A similar disdain for intimacy.  A similar frigidity.  What sort of offense would Christ take at this frigidity?  And what would our frigidity look like in Heaven?

But am I just imagining things here, folks?  Won't that previous frigidity of ours be retained to some degree in Heaven? And  won't our intimacy with our heavenly spouse, be somewhat of a reflection of our intimacy with our earthly spouse?

And will the King not say unto those depriving their spouses, 'As you did not do it for your spouse, you did not do it for me' (cf. Matthew 25:40, 45)?
Or do you think that our previous frigidity will be completely obliterated in our future intimacy with Christ?  Do you think that our previous lack of compassion will bear no reflection on our future glory?

Those are things that I am considering, as I prepare to record a highly recommended sermon by Jonathan Edwards.  As I prepare to recite a highly evangelistic sermon for my evangelical blog.  A sermon that speaks of the "immense intimacy" that the saints will share with their heavenly spouse. 

An "immensity" that Edwards concedes will be commensurate with our "capabilities" (a far larger category than our mere "abilities").  An "immensity" that will be suitably commensurate with our earthly 'spreadsheet'.

An "immensity" that will be commensurate with how well we 'spread the sheets' for our earthly spouse- Col. 3:23.

No comments:

Post a Comment