Marriage And The Perfection of Reciprocity

Part I of V

Is the proper End of Man love’s fullness?  Is it in reciprocity’s perfection? Is Marriage amid many men and many women? Just amid One & One?

Reciprocity’s peculiar realization of singularity amid the Masculine / Feminine arrives within the egalitarian milieu of Edenic syntax per the Christian metaphysic.

Can reality’s landing zone of singularity within the perfection of love’s reciprocity in fact justify a landing zone amid the Masculine / Feminine?

Can we in fact define such a thing as “a” human nature ↔

Define Human ↔

1. http://disq.us/p/1myouin  2. http://disq.us/p/1myow7u

3. http://disq.us/p/1mypdb9  4. http://disq.us/p/1n1pe0o

On Non-Theism such a question lands, obviously, in that which is necessarily and eternally open ended. Biology is one slice of that and, in isolation, affirms that same eternally open ended topography. Then, just as obvious, the metaphysical topography of the Imago Dei avoids that lack of closure in and of the illusory and, instead, arrives at ontic-cloure as irreducible transcendentals press in.

All of that is simply the two landscapes of Non-Theism and Theism, of the failure to traverse (…on the one hand…) and of the successful traversal (…on the other hand…) of the ontological convertibility of the necessary transcendentals (…as per https://www.metachristianity.com/reason-reality-golden-thread-reciprocity/ which looks at the means and ends of that Golden Thread of Reciprocity…) and is, on its own, enough to end the conversation with respect to whether or not we can in fact speak of ontic-closure.

Precision with respect to the Questions/Premises on the table:

A. Do We Genuinely Believe, Know, & Affirm That Love Is Reality’s Irreducible Ethic?
B. The Non-Theist must be willing to open up his own premises to actual scrutiny for whether we travel upstream or whether we travel downstream, where love is concerned all Non-Theism(s) find that love itself is by necessity lost, finally, to non-being at some ontological seam somewhere.
C. The question on the table is with respect to the realities within the contingent being, with respect to the frail and the mutable vis-à-vis all things Adamic. The illusory just won’t do.
D. Both the Non-Theist and Theist here mean to speak, not of Non-Being, but of Being. Nowhere does this press upon us more relentlessly than in the elemental and irreducible processions constituting Love and Logic, or Reciprocity and Reason. Therein the “Non-”of Non-Theism becomes manifestly infinite.

Intimacy speaks of that which fully reciprocates and in all its forms the fuller the love the fuller that giving-away of one’s very life and being amid the “other” and, just the same, the fuller the love the fuller that receiving into one’s very life and being amid the “other“. Two brief observations: 1. the syntax of such can of course carry a conversation into the interfaces of God & Man as per the proverbial self/other, and so on, and, 2. the syntax can also carry a conversation into the current topic, namely the interfaces amid the proverbial “Adamic” in the setting of Marriage.

That said, it is obvious that in all its forms (…parent, child, friend, spouse, and so on…) love houses such progressions – *however* – there is a fullness of intimacy amid the entirety of being which is one thing or reality and which is not some other thing or reality, and that “form” of love’s intimacy is what Scripture’s singular metaphysic terms Marriage. We arrive necessarily in a discussion of nothing less than Ontology, Heavy Metaphysics, Knowledge, and Divine Communique as all Necessary Transcendentals stream from the metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility – from the Trinitarian Life vis-à-vis reality’s only Blueprint for love’s timeless reciprocity – termed Imago Dei.

We are speaking, then, here, not of God and Man, but, rather, of the fullness of love within marriage here inside of our own contingent and mutable lives as that concept of fullness of love carries us into the concept of and reality of the perfection of reciprocity. With God we find *no* limit to His Self-Giving in the sense that for “God” to in fact “do so” is for that which is in fact “The Necessary & Sufficient” in all vectors to “do so”.

So, again, we are speaking here not of God and Man, or of God-In-Man / Man-In-God (…that *is* a discussion within the Christian metaphysic, but it is not (exactly) *this* discussion…), but, rather, of another ontic-category of Fullness vis-à-vis the term and metaphysic of “love & marriage”.

Therefore here, then, the syntax of, “…..Intimacy speaks of that which fully reciprocates and in all its forms the fuller the love the fuller that giving-away of one’s very life and being amid the “other” and, just the same, the fuller the love the fuller that receiving into one’s very life and being amid the “other…..” speaks towards something “like” the following which begins to take shape in our syntax:

There is a limit to my own self-giving. I have myself to give. The maximum “…giving-away of one’s very life and being…” which I can pour out, of my own self, is my whole self.

There is a maximum “…receiving into one’s very life and being…” in the other self or in another self should that self in fact be the (genuine) recipient of my own giving of my whole self.

& therefore….

The fullness of reciprocity necessarily entails, then, One + One. Not only that, but, given the non-expendable transcendentals of the Whole of the Adamic, all such transcendentals necessarily convert into contours of all that is the fully Feminine and the fully Masculine.

& therefore….

Should perfect reciprocity be a proper end of man then we immediately perceive the incredible and misplaced ego in the Man who declares himself able to give away that proverbial “one-whole-self” – namely himself of course – to many other selves and yet still expect to find love’s fullness of reciprocity fully realized. The reason the New Testament syntax begins to echo Eden’s syntax with the One + One there becomes glaringly obvious as all other combinations can only survive in the company of some degree of self-ish-ness.

Reasoning through to lucidity: If love is the highest ethic (…and it is…) and if perfect reciprocity is a proper end of man (…and it is…), then – it is true that the highest intimacy lands in *two* who in the perfection of reciprocity become *one*. A and B ceaselessly beget C. To put it another way: self and other ceaselessly beget the singular us or the singular “one-another“. It is uncanny but A is not B and B is not and C is neither A nor B even as ontological singularity arrives. Again we are speaking here of the contingent being, of the Adamic and *not* of Trinity but nonetheless it is, still, uncanny.

That *form* of love is what Scripture’s singular metaphysic terms Marriage and we find that only *dilution* of fullness awaits all other combinations, all other progressions, all but that uncanny Blueprint of *two* becoming *one*. The ontological topography there reflects an image as it were of love’s necessary, irreducible, and timeless reciprocity vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life in Whom it is also the case that A is not B and B is not C and C is neither A nor B – in nothing less than an Ontic-Singularity. [Mapping Reality via https://www.metachristianity.com/thoroughly-trinitarian-metaphysic/ ..]

In fact D. B. Hart and many others in various ways allude to the Trinitarian Life with referents such as the “…eternal one-another…” in mapping reality’s concrete furniture in and by Being Itself / God.

A Problem Arises:

Part of the “Eureka” which is given as a “metric” by which to “find-our-way” by some is that there is now a new ethic emerging which displaces an old ethic, because it’s new, and, then, on the other side of that blind-foist, we find another blind-foist as all of it is turned 180 degrees by some proverbial Theists and, so, this or that old ethic is the “metric” by which to “find-our-way”, because it’s old.

The proverbial Non-Theist foists “What-Is-Said” while too many (proverbial) Theists foist “What-Was-Said“. However, each in their own right do no better than the other as both of those sum to nothing better than Command-Full-Stop as the definition of The Good and of The Beautiful, and so on.

Shouting “New!” and shouting “Old!” both equate to intellectual dishonesty and ethical laziness. The fact that Scripture defines Sinai as FAR LESS than God’s Eternal Ideal for Mankind is coherent with the fact that Scripture defines The Whole by something far, far beyond Sinai. Whereas, the Non-Theist’s explanatory stopping point seems forever immersed within the illusory.

As it turns out, “New” is not so new after all. Added to that is the fact that neither the fact of and shout of “Old” nor the fact of and shout of “New” merit the rational mind’s embrace.

Each still may or may not have a valid argument, however, reality’s irreducible substratum — God — or what some refer to as The Always and The Already — necessarily precedes and outdistances all such contingent Start/Stop points (…as per https://www.metachristianity.com/absolute-reference-frame-pure-act-incarnation-time/ ..). Hence all such contingent Reference Frames or Start/Stop points are, if left in isolation, merely carrying us to a place in which the premise is again a replay of earlier concepts embraced by the norms of various “days” ad infinitum. Hence “new” isn’t justified given the history of human peaks/nadirs and even more “ontic” (…so to speak…) is this: “new” with respect to any slice of Privation is a logical impossibility. We must be more careful for “It’s New” isn’t enough to justify any X and for all the same reasons that “It’s Old” isn’t enough to justify any X.  On pain of circularity – on pain of the illusory – our metrics must both precede and outdistance all such normative shifts. Reducibility, contingency, and mutability just won’t do as any ontic category of a cosmically and finally illusory Good contradicts and therein offends observational reality and therefore offends reason, logic, and love.

The necessary transcendentals which permit us to even suggest that “Man” has any such proper ends as The Perfection of Reciprocity at once compels Traversing the Trinitarian Life in Defining Love’s Ontology and that therein, at some ontological seam somewhere, disqualifies all Non-Theistic paradigms in that proverbial Reach for that Golden Thread of Reciprocity (…as per the earlier link to https://www.metachristianity.com/reason-reality-golden-thread-reciprocity/ ..). “IF” such irreducible transcendentals exist “THEN” it is God from start to finish for the obvious reason that any sort of Half-Narrative and/or Half-Ontic becomes impossible (….the reason why is simply because to attempt to claim the reality of an “ontological cul-de-sac” is to attempt to claim the reality of a metaphysical absurdity…).

In all of this we come upon reality’s only Blueprint of love’s timeless reciprocity and upon reason and upon the fullness of ontic-means and ontic-ends as the eternal Processions of the Trinitarian Life (God / Trinity / Being Itself ) provide us with the following ontology:

The irreducibly rational just is ontologically seamless with the irreducibly beautiful which just is ontologically seamless with the irreducibly moral which just is ontologically seamless with love’s indestructible self-giving — which is itself seamless with the Divine Mind — which is itself seamless with Infinite Consciousness amid Divine Simplicity – which compels us into a thoroughly Trinitarian Metaphysic – and we are thereby compelled into an Adamic landscape wherein the perfection of Reason just is the perfection of Consciousness, which just is the perfection of Love, which just is the perfection of Being.

The Perfection of Reciprocity carries us into Love’s Ceaseless Self-Giving within all things Adamic — and such carries us, whether we travel upstream or downstream, into the Imago Dei, and such carries us, whether we travel upstream or downstream, into the immutable contours of the Trinitarian Life, into the very means and ends of Being Itself — into God.

Part II of V

“…..if reason’s primordial orientation is indeed toward total intelligibility and perfect truth, then it is essentially a kind of ecstasy of the mind toward an end beyond the limits of nature. It is an impossibly extravagant appetite, a longing that can be sated only by a fullness that can never be reached in the world, but that ceaselessly opens up the world to consciousness. To speak of God, however, as infinite consciousness, which is identical to infinite being, is to say that in Him the ecstasy of mind is also the perfect satiety of achieved knowledge, of perfect wisdom. God is both the knower and the known, infinite intelligence and infinite intelligibility. This is to say that, in Him, rational appetite is perfectly fulfilled, and consciousness perfectly possesses the end it desires. And this, of course, is perfect bliss…

…the concept of being is one of power: the power of actuality, the capacity to affect or to be affected. To be is to act. This definition already implies that, in its fullness, being must also be consciousness, because the highest power to act — and hence the most unconditioned and unconstrained reality of being — is rational mind. Absolute being, therefore, must be absolute mind. Or, in simpler terms, the greater the degree of something’s actuality, the greater the degree of its consciousness, and so infinite actuality is necessarily infinite consciousness. That, at least, is one way of trying to describe another essential logical intuition that recurs in various forms throughout the great theistic metaphysical systems. It is the conviction that in God lies at once the deepest truth of mind and the most universal truth of existence, and that for this reason the world can truly be known by us. Whatever else one might call this vision of things, it is most certainly, in a very real sense, a kind of “total rationalism.” (D.B. Hart)

We come, then, to the question on the table with respect to the realities within the contingent being, with respect to the frail and the mutable vis-à-vis all things Adamic as per something in the ontic-zip-code of this: Love’s Timeless Reciprocity ↔ Self/Other ↔ the convertibility of the Necessary Transcendentals.

Being vs. Non-Being & Reality vs. The Illusory

Those affairs of Non-Being / The Illusory are quite contrary to our own observations, our own concerns, and our own ethic. The path to lucidity just is the path to unicity wherein both the irreducibly rational and the irreducibly moral are in fact an ontic-singularity with respect to Love, Reason, Reality, and The Golden Thread of Reciprocity. 

Paradigmatically speaking, such is a radically different explanatory terminus than we find in any Non-Theism. The Golden Thread of Reciprocity is affirmed by natural theology, is perceived by reason, is seen by Non-Theism, but Non-Theism must foist a metaphysical impossibility in order to claim her given that in that paradigm irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory. Whereas, in the pursuit of coherent definitions with respect to the fundamental nature of reality it is the Christian metaphysic whereby reason affirms that the “A” and the “Z” of reality in fact carries the rational mind into an ethic of irreducible and self-giving reciprocity – such that it is the case that “GOD” or “Ultimate Reality” is in fact love.

“…For God to pour himself out, then, as the man Jesus, is not a venture outside the trinitarian life of indestructible love, but in fact quite the reverse: it is the act by which creation is seized up into the sheer invincible pertinacity of that love, which reaches down to gather us into its triune motion…” (D. B. Hart)

Reductio Ad Absurdum ↔ Reductio Ad Deum

An immutable and cruciform love housed within the ceaseless and Self-Giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum vis-à-vis Infinite Consciousness logically forces an unavoidable Reductio Ad Deum. Such contours carry reason towards reality’s irreducible substratum within love’s timeless reciprocity amid those uncanny Trinitarian processions housed in “Being Itself” (…again as per https://www.metachristianity.com/thoroughly-trinitarian-metaphysic/ ..). Timeless Self-Giving with respect to “Being Itself” forces our hand. The “term” and “definition” with respect to “GOD” thereby referents, in fact, nothing less than the immutable love of the Necessary Being vis-à-vis love’s timeless and self-giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum.

That is the proverbial umbrella beneath which all other definitions in fact live and move and have – obtain – their “being”.

The many variations of Non-Theistic and Deistic brands do not merely lack the following ontology in their search for closure, but, rather, such metaphysical landscapes in fact necessarily expunge it — whereas — in relation to the following ontological closure — there is only one genre — ever — which has entered the consciousness of mankind and which has satisfied reason’s demands for lucidity from A ↔ Z — as per the following:

Timeless Self-Giving is not the Contingent, but the Necessary, just as that same Ceaseless Diffusiveness of Self is not the Mutable, but the Irreducible. That thoroughly Trinitarian Metaphysic finds Reason’s Terminus in and with the Non-Malleable topography of the Christian’s A ↔ Z ~ which just is the Trinitarian Life.

In and by and through *those* paradigmatic explanatory termini we find amid love’s timeless reciprocity the peculiar syntax of Self-Giving as the referents of “Ontic-Continuum” and “Metanarrative” weigh in and, again, thereby referents nothing less than the immutable love of the Necessary Being vis-à-vis love’s timeless and self-giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum —

“…..the cross of Christ does not determine the nature of divine love, but rather manifests it, because there is a more original outpouring of God that – without needing to submit itself to the order of sacrifice that builds crosses – always already surpasses every abyss of godforsakenness and pain that sin can impose between the world and God: an outpouring that is in its proper nature indefectible happiness…. For God to pour himself out, then, as the man Jesus, is not a venture outside the trinitarian life of indestructible love, but in fact quite the reverse: it is the act by which creation is seized up into the sheer invincible pertinacity of that love, which reaches down to gather us into its triune motion…” (D.B. Hart)

Again: That is the proverbial umbrella beneath which all other definitions in fact live and move and have – obtain – their “being”.

The Egalitarian One-Another

Within and of all things Adamic it is in and by and through the express paradigmatic explanatory termini explored so far that we find the egalitarian “one-another“, an egalitarian “self/other“, an egalitarian realization of singularity in “self/non-self” and the form of love’s “begetting” through reciprocity’s embrace there in “The Edenic” with respect to all things Adamic.

All such vectors there (…in “The Edenic“…) are declared to be good (…condoned and a slice of the Good but not the Whole of the Good…) even as we find reciprocity’s peculiar realization of singularity termed Adam/Eve vis-à-vis an uncanny unicity amid Self/Other. Such streams from the Trinitarian Life in and through “Let Us Create Man in Our Image…” ↔ But wait ↔

Eden is neither Privation nor God’s Eternal Ideal and, therefore, we find in Eden *two* outward facing Doors / Trees (…the one into Privation and the other into God’s Eternal Life, His Final Good for all things Adamic).

Well what then?

Said Imago Dei first becomes and then awakes and all within an ontology which finds *two* outward facing doors with respect to “ontic-change”, one into God’s Eternal Ideal (…Tree / Life, the “Whole” Good and not that earlier condoned slice of the Good which Scripture referents as ‘Eden’….) and the other into various landscapes of another Tree (…less than Ideal, slices of Privation, that which is Privation itself, that which is tolerated, that which finds His Wide Open Embrace in and through yet another *two* outward facing Doors/Trees all over again as all lines converge in Christ yet again….).

The Immutable Trinitarian Life ↔ Reciprocity ↔ Self-Giving converge in the Egalitarian One-Another. We find that in fact love begets yet more love as all definitions of the Imago Dei begin and end in the triune God as love’s Self-Giving subsumes reality’s irreducible substratum.

A Few Areas of Overlapping Ontic Real Estate:

Reciprocity’s peculiar realization of singularity amid the MasculineFeminine arrives within the egalitarian milieu of Edenic syntax. That milieu, according to the definition of Scripture’s metanarrative, of course undergoes a radical “ontic-change” in traversing Genesis 1 ↔ Genesis 3 ↔ John 3 as such contours are fractured and vectors of enmity emerge, and, also, it is the work of *Christ* — of All-Sufficiency’s Own Self-Outpouring — by which we find an Open Door through which He begins restoring not only that egalitarian syntax but far more.

…There is, hidden or flaunted, a sword between the sexes till an entire marriage reconciles them. It is arrogance in us to call frankness, fairness, and chivalry ‘masculine’ when we see them in a woman; it is arrogance in them to describe a man’s sensitiveness or tact or tenderness as ‘feminine.’ But also what poor, warped fragments of humanity most mere men and mere women must be to make the implications of that arrogance plausible. Marriage heals this. Jointly the two become fully human. ‘In the image of God created He them.’ Thus, by a paradox, this carnival of sexuality leads us out beyond our sexes… (C.S. Lewis —from A Grief Observed)

It is not an entirely unexpected realization that the only lucid path from A to Z without the willful annihilation of love’s necessary metaphysic is the path which we find, in unmistakable clarity, defined by Christendom’s thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic vis-à-vis Trinity. That is to say that if Pantheism or if Allah or if Non-Theism – and so on down the “ontic-line” – then the singular metanarrative of “Love and Necessity” literally cannot be written, and – in fact – cannot be at all.

While the explanatory termini of Ruse, Hume, Carroll, Rosenberg, and others speak to the finally illusory vectors of “Moral Facts”, what wew in fact mean to referent is not Non-Being but, rather, of Being.  Therein when we speak of Truth “qua Truth“, as they say, we don’t referent such illusory trades and equivocations as found within the explanatory terminus of Non-Theism. In the Christian metanarrative we find in and by and of and through the Trinitarian Life nothing less than love’s timeless Self-Giving and irreducible Diffusiveness of the Ontic Self with respect to …being itself… and — thereby – The Always and The Already, that which is ceaselessly Beneath and Above – namely “Love & Necessity” arrives as an ontic *singularity*.

To be Truly Human is to be, or to become, by whatever means, Fully Human. Non-Theism has no such means, no such closure. It is that pesky and weighty bit about *Fully* wherein all lines converge or else diverge. There is talk of such Truly/Fully when we begin to speak of *Christ* of course, however, that brings in all sorts of other topics (…in part as per https://www.metachristianity.com/absolute-reference-frame-pure-act-incarnation-time/ ..).

The Divine Decree of the Imago Dei 

The Immaterial (whatever that is) is not, and cannot be, made up of, and therefore reduced to, covalent bonds vis-à-vis Material (whatever that is).  Perseveration with/upon Biology-Full-Stop when discussing the Imago Dei is (therefore) entirely misguided. “God-Breathes” does not means God has lungs, and so on. It’s a curious thing to observe A. so many of our Non-Theist friends carefully set up all of his or her Metrics and Calibrations there in a sort of Physicalism (or whatever) and then B. go about trying to fit the Christian’s entire metaphysical landscape into those Metrics and Calibrations only to then C. find it surprising or else odd that there is “difficulty” within “lining up” their respective “surfaces” (…of course a select few are knowingly doing so and therein such intentional re-defining of another’s premises amounts to nothing more than the proverbial Dog and Pony Show…).

Therefore: The Corporeal’s ontological history of becoming and the Imago Dei’s ontological history of becoming are not and cannot be wholly ↔ interchangeable given the sorts of ontic real estate each respectively traverses.

There’s a reason the Corporeal is found lifeless outside of Eden. Made of the ground.

There’s a reason the Breath of God births Life, the Imago Dei. Still outside of Eden.

There’s a reason it is only then that the Adamic and the Edenic converge.

There’s a reason Eden cannot remain, is not God’s Ideal, and has two *outward* facing Doors/Trees, each necessitating a radical “ontic-change”.

Overlapping real estate once more:

Reciprocity’s peculiar realization of singularity amid the Masculine / Feminine arrives within the egalitarian milieu of Edenic syntax. That milieu, according to the definition of Scripture’s metanarrative, of course undergoes a radical “ontic-change” in traversing Genesis 1 ↔ Genesis 3 ↔ John 3 as such contours are fractured and vectors of enmity emerge, and, also, it is the work of *Christ* — of All-Sufficiency’s Own Self-Outpouring — by which we find an Open Door through which He begins restoring not only that egalitarian syntax but far more.

Part III of V

Submission Competition

Andy Stanley of Northpoint Ministries has a series called “What Happy Couples Know” (…four parts at http://northpoint.org/messages/what-happy-couples-know/ ..) and the following is an excerpt from part two:

“….[submit]… I’m so glad it bothers you and …I’m just going to leave it up here to bother you. In fact, some of you would say “Aha, that’s why I quit going to church. That verse, right there, is why I quit going to church. That whole idea is why I don’t like Christians.” I am so glad you are watching or listening or in church today… this is so transformational and I love talking about this. Our English Bibles are translations from Greek text and there were groupings of Greek text all over the East. And the oldest text, the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament, the oldest manuscripts of the Apostle Paul’s letters, interestingly enough, if you took this verse and you translate it literally here’s what it would say. It would say: “Wives, to your own husbands as to the Lord.”

There’s no verb in this statement, in the oldest Greek manuscripts. There’s no verb. The word “submit” isn’t there. Now, before I explain why it’s not there, I want to explain something else, and this is so important. When the Apostle Paul’s first century audience heard him teach about women submitting to their husbands, and I’ll tell you where the verb came from in just a second, when the first century audience heard the Apostle Paul talk about women and wives submitting to their husbands, where as we go “What?” and “Huh?” Their response was “Duh,” not “Huh.” They weren’t like “What?” They were like “Well yeah, tell us something we don’t know.” They had no choice. This wasn’t new information. This wasn’t even a big deal, this was common ground. This didn’t surprise anyone in Jesus’ audience and ladies, believe it or not, no one was offended because men in that culture, both the Roman culture and Greek culture, and then the Jews had a version of this, men in that culture had something that’s referred to as “Patria Potestas”. These two words put together meant they had legal jurisdiction over their children and they had legal jurisdiction over their wives. Essentially their wives belong to them.

So, why no verb  in the oldest Greek text? Why isn’t there a verb  in this verse? And the answer is, the verb  comes from the verse before. And this was a typical kind of Greek grammatical way of doing things, that you make a statement with the verb  and then in the next statement you just infer the verb. You don’t include it, you just take your verb  from what came before. That submit, the verb submit, is actually inferred from the verse that came before. So, we should ask “What was the verse that came before that gives us the verb for this verse?” And my friends, you’re looking up here, this is a game changer. Here’s what Paul said before he told “Wives submit to their husbands.” Here’s the verse that sets the tone for everything that follows, here’s our verb  “Submit to one another out of,” and there it is again, every time the Apostle Paul tells us to do something he points us back to Jesus.

So when Paul says “Wives submit to your husbands.” That’s like “Right, because if we don’t he’ll sell us, he’ll trade us, he’ll have us arrested, he’ll accuse us of some crime and there won’t be any witnesses, eye witnesses to show up to dispute the claim. And of course we submit to our husbands.” So this was not a big deal to them, but here’s the cool thing, it’s a big deal to us. And the reason it’s a big deal to us is what comes later in the text.  Not the Old Testament, not the 10 commandments. Jesus.

“As God through Christ has done something extraordinary for you, you are to demonstrate that same kind of love in your relationships with each other, including romantic relationships, including marriage. You are to submit to one another out of reverence to Christ.”

In other words, the submission (guys get ready) is mutual. And this word “reverence” is a sense of awe. In other words, in light of all that God has done for you, in light of the awe that comes with “Oh my gosh, you forgave me, you’ve died for my sins, you’ve forgiven me in spite of myself, and all the times I’ve gone back on my promises.” All that awe is to be translated, not simply to church attendance and not simply to singing worship songs to the invisible God in the sky, that energy is to be translated into love for others people.

This is why Christian marriage is a submission competition….

Part IV of V

Obtaining The Actual “The-Metric” In Any Narrative

or

The Part, The Whole, The Sub-narrative, & The Meta-narrative

Most misinformation in this arena stems from failing to see the obvious: In the both the OT and the NT landscapes we find Judges (…the leaders of Israel…) and Prophets and Teachers both of Men and Women and, therein, it becomes immediately apparent that, on Scripture’s definitions, we cannot Start/Stop at [Male/Female Full-Stop].  If that were the case then God <i>could not and/or would not</i> move through [Female-Full-Stop].

The Start/Stop termini clearly, then, precede and outperform one’s sex (male or female) just as, per the OT narrative, the Non-Jew, the Prostitute, and so on are all included in the lineage of Christ and therein we find that Race is, also, unable to function as any sort of Meaning-Maker (…at least according to Scripture’s Metanarrative…).

“A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man…” (1 Corinthians 11:7)

What is too often left out is the affairs of Privation (…on the one hand…) and the affairs of the fact that nothing in Scripture lives and/or dies on ONE verse or on “a” verse (on the other hand).  Just as Privation is “Context” that cannot be expunged, so too is the Whole of Scripture also “Context” which cannot be expunged.

Race and Sex are, in the OT and NT, unable to provide us with Meaning-Makers vis-à-vis Start/Stop points as both are in unmistakable fashion tossed aside by God when something else, something higher presses in.

1 Corinthians 11:7 there needs to keep going and carry things to the A and Z of how Scripture defines the Male/Female relation with the following sorts of questions:

1. How is the Logos of God not also God?

2. Without the paradigm of the reality’s only Blueprint of ceaseless self-giving amid self/other (…the Trinitarian Life…), how is one to demonstrate a justification of both irreducible value and irreducible equality?

“….neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God…. (I Corinthians 11:12)

Even more enlightening is the fact that Paul tells Christen Women to prophesy with authority in church in one verse while in another verse Paul is telling Christian Women not to talk in church.  Women are Prophets of God in Church and can say to all the Men, “Thus Says G-O-D” and, also, Women cannot talk in Church.  Here we find the same OT lines of Judges / National Leaders alluded to earlier.  One must simply stop and think for about five seconds. This isn’t complicated.

There are no “contradictions” given the fact that the context both of Privation and of Scripture’s Metanarrative carry all vectors through to coherence.  What is the Corinthian culture of shame and honor? Do we even care?  Or do we just stop thinking, stop reading, and boldly declare some sort of silly comment such as, “See! Paul is confused! Proof of Woman-Rule! But then Proof of Woman-Be-Ruled! See! That’s proof of No-God!”

But, the actual question is this: Is that the Start/Stop point which arrives from pulling in all data from all points?  Of course not.

Tedious and, so, a better way:  We read the whole book, from A to Z and recall that each [“a” verse] premise is in fact a slice of a much larger, wider, narrative and hence of a much broader Metanarrative as all sub-narratives are from the get-go unable to outreach or out-define the definitions of the far wider Metanarrative.  Without the right *metanarrative* the verse which such fallacies are quoting actually cannot “say” anything at all.

Scripture’s [~Pro-ABC Metanarrative~] cannot – by simple force of logic with respect to round squares – contain any [~Anti-ABC content~]. In the OT and NT we find that the affairs of one’s Sin and of one’s Race and of one’s Sex are both preceded and also outdistanced by Start/Stop termini which themselves clearly precede and outperform all such frail and contingent lines, lines which are in and of themselves unable to function as any sort of Meaning-Maker.  And we are not surprised by Scripture’s convergence at such a locus/focus because that is what we expect given that, by force of logic, Meaning necessarily flows downhill, streaming from the Necessary and Immutable and into the Contingent and Mutable.

Part V of V

Briefly, before closing, a few examples of a not uncommon dialogue:

Dialogue 1 of 2, between “A” and “B”, as it were:

[A] It is true that my wife’s body is my property.

There is this question: Is that a balanced and proper “read” of “Scripture’s reply” to the question of, say:

[B] “What is the relational milieu of Husband/Wife? Whence all the premises which reveal that my own body is my wife’s property?

Well, to start, is [A] in fact *true*? Sure. Yes. Okay. Is [A] a proper reply to [B]? Well no – Of course not.

Are there female Prophets, Judges, Teachers, and Mouths-Of-God in both the OT and the NT? Yes, of course.

Do the Masculine & Feminine each carry, house, and deliver *identical* transcendentals? Of course not.

The “read” inferred by [A] is anemic and misguided with respect to [B].

Recall that given the question in [B] of “What is the relational milieu of Husband/Wife? Whence all the premises which reveal that my own body is my wife’s property?” – the reply in [A] of, “It is true that my wife’s body is my property” must add the rest and go on and keep speaking.

Why? Isn’t [A] *true*? Well, sort of, and for obvious reasons [A] is NOT any kind of “answer” to the question which [B] asks, which is the relational milieu of Husband/Wife. “Sort-Of” must add the rest vis-à-vis the fact that “Sort-Of” must go on and keep speaking.

As in, say, this brief dialogue between the “Part” and the “Whole”, as it were —

Dialogue 2 of 2, between Mr. Part & Mr. Whole, so to speak:

Part: The-Metric is that Scripture tells wives to submit to their husband. Scripture states that it is Being-Female which places the The-Limit and is The-Metric ↔ therefore ↔ there are no women prophets nor women teachers nor women judges nor “Non-The-Metric” dispensing “God Says X” to the world in any Formal Role assigned by God.

Whole: False.

Part: But….but that’s true.

Whole: No, it is not “true” in the sense you’re implying. Scripture tells the Man to submit and serve ↔ and ↔ it tells the woman likewise, and the OT and NT are populated with speaking-women dispensing “God Says X”” in Formal Roles assigned by God. “The-Metric” escapes your lens.

Part: Well yeah but that still says implies sexism: the woman has to submit, women cannot say “God Says X” in any Formal Role assigned by God. *That* is The-Metric.

Whole: Only if you take the proverbial one-verse lens, or the proverbial one-chapter lens. You have to take the Whole that is the Singularity of Scripture’s A ↔ Z. Once again, “The-Metric” escapes your lens.

Part: But… well yeah but…. but…

Whole: No buts.

Part: No, what I means is, but…. But…

Whole: No buts. There is no such thing as a “half” or a “part” of “a”narrative which is “True” in the sense you’re foisting. There is no such thing, in that sense, as a “part” of Scripture. “Sexism” is non-entity. Once again, “The-Metric” escapes your lens.

Part: But…. but woman is the glory of man… that’s why her body is the husband’s property…!!

Whole: actually ↔ the husband’s body is the property of the wife ↔ as glory outreaches glory ↔ as in Christ ↔ man is not independent of woman ↔ as woman came from man ↔ so also man is born of woman ↔ leaving all Glory in something *else* as our Ontic of A ↔ Z. Once again, “The-Metric” escapes your lens.

Obtaining The Correct Lens:

The Non-Theistic fallacious “Part” is forever falling down because of its difficulty with a. the concept of sub-narrative vs. meta-narrative and b. its premises are forever doing the following:

[1] They fallaciously equate what the Christian metaphysic defines as a. Privation to what it is not, namely b. Wholeness.

[2] They fallaciously equate a. the Privation of God’s Will to what it is not, namely b. the Actualization of God’s Will.

[3] They fallaciously equate a. the Privation of The Good to what it is not, namely b. the Actualization of The Good.

Again — Obtaining the Correct Lens:

Notice the obvious: the “Whole” rationally refuses any “answer/reply” which does not make the intellectual effort to add in all ↔ vectors ↔ vis-à-vis “submit one to another”, and, for all the same reasons, the “Whole” rationally refuses any “answer/reply” which does not make the intellectual effort to add in the Entire ↔ Speaking ↔ Women ↔ [SET] ↔ populating scripture ↔ and to add in the [SET] of ….and the [SET] of ….and so on ↔ and so on.

That is the Why/How of obtaining Scripture’s ↔ Actual ↔ “The-Metric“. One must read all lines through the proper *Lens*.

Overlapping real estate once more:

Reciprocity’s peculiar realization of singularity amid the Masculine / Feminine arrives within the egalitarian milieu of Edenic syntax. That milieu, according to the definition of Scripture’s metanarrative, of course undergoes a radical “ontic-change” in traversing Genesis 1 ↔ Genesis 3 ↔ John 3 as such contours are fractured and vectors of enmity emerge, and, also, it is the work of *Christ* — of All-Sufficiency’s Own Self-Outpouring — by which we find an Open Door through which He begins restoring not only that egalitarian syntax but far more.

In Closing

In closing we will (…intentionally so as to retain what each step has discovered…) state once again those initial contours of love’s perfection of reciprocity mentioned at the start:

The syntax of, “…..Intimacy speaks of that which fully reciprocates and in all its forms the fuller the love the fuller that giving-away of one’s very life and being amid the “other” and, just the same, the fuller the love the fuller that receiving into one’s very life and being amid the “other…..” speaks towards something “like” the following which begins to take shape in our syntax:

There is a limit to my own self-giving. I have myself to give. The maximum “…giving-away of one’s very life and being…” which I can pour out, of my own self, is my whole self.

There is a maximum “…receiving into one’s very life and being…” in the other self or in another self should that self in fact be the (genuine) recipient of my own giving of my whole self.

& therefore….

The fullness of reciprocity necessarily entails, then, One + One. Not only that, but, given the non-expendable transcendentals of the Whole of the Adamic, all such transcendentals necessarily convert into contours of all that is the fully Feminine and the fully Masculine.

It is from within the margins vis-a-vis the whole wherein we find the necessary Ontic by which the relevant Epistemic in fact emerges and it is that Traversal or that Transposition (…as per https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/05/lewis-on-transposition.html …) in and by and through the convertibility of the necessary transcendentals where we come upon the affairs of that syntax of whole/wholeness 

Given the reality of this or that whole we therefore unavoidably arrive — at some seam or at some point or at some ontic-array of loci — at the syntax of  Degree.  It is there where we begin to discover closure as the epistemic of degree flourishes only upon the proverbial coattails of the whole.

Therein we come again to Genesis’ uncanny Trinitarian Life vis-a-vis the Ontic of Ceaseless Reciprocity and, also, therein we come necessarily yet again to Genesis’ reflection of that very Image vis-a-vis the Imago Dei arriving in and by and through the fullness of reciprocity which necessarily entails the entire arena of One + One and, not only that, but, given the non-expendable transcendentals of the Whole of the Adamic, all such transcendentals necessarily convert into contours of all that is the fully Feminine and the fully Masculine.

& therefore….

Should perfect reciprocity be a proper end of man then we immediately perceive the incredible and misplaced ego in the Man who declares himself able to give away that proverbial “one-whole-self” – namely himself of course – to many other selves and yet still expect to find love’s fullness of reciprocity fully realized. Should the Man love her fully, perfectly, well then he cannot have another. And so too in the reverse. And, just the same, and for all the same reasons, we begin to find the same category of that misplaced ego in the Man who declares himself able to give away that golden thread of reciprocity’s fullness in and by Degrees vis-a-vis Fullness as we approach fully Feminine and the fully Masculine.

All of Me I Give To Thee — It is uncanny as we begin to discover all over again the reasons behind the New Testament syntax unmistakably echoing Eden’s syntax amid the One + One and, just the same, and for all the same reasons, the landscape there becomes obvious as all other combinations and/or degrees can only survive in the company of some degree of something akin to some form of self-ish-ness.

Reasoning through to lucidity: If love is the highest ethic (…and it is…) and if perfect reciprocity is a proper end of man (…and it is…), then – it is true that the most distal reaches of love’s perfection — of love’s intimacy — lands in *two* who in the perfection of reciprocity become *one* and, just the same, in all such progressions we find that Clarity’s reach pushes through to her final terminus in and by her own beautiful lucidity with respect to the fully Feminine and the fully Masculine.

A and B ceaselessly beget C. To put it another way: self and other ceaselessly beget the singular us or the singular “one-another“. It is uncanny but A is not B and B is not and C is neither A nor B even as ontological singularity arrives. Again we are speaking here of the contingent being, of the Adamic and *not* of Trinity but nonetheless it is, still, uncanny.

That *form* of love is what Scripture’s singular metaphysic terms Marriage and we find that only *dilution* of fullness awaits all other combinations, all other progressions, all but that uncanny Blueprint of *two* becoming *one* amid love’s fullest transposition amid all things Adamic. The ontological topography there reflects an image as it were of love’s necessary, irreducible, and timeless reciprocity vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life in Whom it is also the case that A is not B and B is not C and C is neither A nor B – in nothing less than an Ontic-Singularity. [Mapping Reality via https://www.metachristianity.com/thoroughly-trinitarian-metaphysic/ ..]

In fact D. B. Hart and many others throughout history have in various ways alluded to the Trinitarian Life and the Good in and of and by an  Eternal Diffusiveness of Self with referents such as the “…eternal one-another…” in mapping reality’s concrete furniture in and by what some term as The Always and The Already, that which is ceaselessly Beneath and Above — namely “Love & Necessity” as nothing less than a singularity — that which carries us into the very means and ends of Being Itself — that which carries us first towards and finally into God.

Recent Posts

Leave a Comment