Disciples Together, Constantly

I have a seminar class in which we’ve just finished reading the pictured book (order it from Amazon), by A.K.M. Adam (aka AKMA, see his website/blog). The final chapter was a bit of a deviation from the central theme of the book, but not altogether “other” than the rest of the book.

The chapter “Disciples Together, Constantly” caught us a little off guard at first, since the chapter was essentially a case for gay marriage and the title didn’t sound anything like that. But in retrospect the title made a lot of sense (you’d have to read the chapter to appreciate exactly what I mean . . . available in the CCU library soon).

One student remarked that it was the best case for gay marriage he’d read (not sure why he’s been running around reading these cases so as to be so discerning, but whatever...). The argument goes like this: God cares about our relationships with each other because God cares about our relationships with God. What makes our relationship with God one that he approves is our fidelity and constancy to God. Thus a human relationship achieves its ideal when we reflect those values of fidelity and constancy (note the word “constant” in the title).

Interesting angle, something with which we can all agree I’m sure. The big rainbow colored elephant in the description thus far is what to do with all those God-given genitalia. AKMA’s take on the natural law argument is not as well attended to as is his theology of human relationships in general. The central concern for AKMA is to focus on what constitutes a relationship’s falling short of the divine ideal. He states: “There are countless ways in which human relationships can fall short of God’s ideal, and these do not depend on the matter of who does what with whose genitals.”

Consider that what AKMA does is to expose the fact that Christianity tends to be so focused on the genital aspect of marriage as a big problem (the republican party rolls out this issue every time it needs to energize its voter base . . . engineering fear) that it breezily ignores what it is about a relationship that matters most to God. (I’m not even going to mention the divorce rates among this very same demographic . . . !)

I say “most” because it’s that part of our relationships which most represents human relationships to God: fidelity and constancy. That is, if a man or a woman is abusive or complacent in marriage, or not vigorously and daily, hourly even, attending to the maintenance and health of the marriage, daily sacrificing one self for the other, then it falls short of what is central in what God expects of our relationships in general, let alone of our marriages. And thus also such a failure compromises our relationship with God.

So read AKMA’s chapter and consider his presentation on the matter of human relationships, even if in the context of gay marriage. And ask yourself, how is it that people get bent out of shape about the genital aspect of marriage while all along accepting without question the failure to attend to the central elements of human relationships. Ask how it is that we so easily handle divorce (something the Bible refers to as a thing God “hates”) and how we tolerate impoverished relationships in which the partners fail to attend to each other’s needs and the needs of the marriage.

Apart from the fact that it is imperative for society that we get our relationships in order, it is imperative for Christian people to seek to reflect our relationship to God in every relationship we have through vigorous fidelity and constancy (neither of which are easy, but both of which are fundamentally necessary components in our relationships with God).