Diwali (divali/deepavali), known as the ‘festival of lights’ is a central festival of the Hindu religion. It is centered around the concept of the atman, an inner light which is beyond the physical body and mind. Awareness of this inner light brings about peace, transcendence, and an awakening to an unchanging infinite non-bodily nature. This ‘inner light’ is celebrated over a period of five days during which lamps and lights are prominently featured.

This festival is a deeply integrated part of Indian and Hindu culture, both in India and overseas. The prominence given to it within the community means that Christians with a Hindu background need to ask themselves important questions about the compatibility of their participation with Christianity.

It’s important to note that within Christianity there is also a belief in a light which can legitimately be said to bring peace, dispel darkness, give guidance, and bring a knowledge of the mysteries of the infinite etc.. This light is an essential part of the Christian faith. It is this light we read of when Simeon picks up the infant Jesus and declares him to be “a light to enlighten the Gentiles” (Luke 2:32), and the same light we see set out at the beginning of John’s Gospel. It’s the account found in John 1:1-14 which we’ll discuss today – and we’ll do so with special reference to Diwali and the Atman:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)
In words echoing the start of Genesis (Genesis 1:1-3), we see the Word, Christ, from the creation of the world – through whom all things were made. This same Christ is God, and within him alone is life. This life, which is within Christ alone, is the only light for mankind. So, the light of Christianity is not an internal light, but an external light; it is not of one’s own being, but of God’s own being.

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:5)
We are in darkness, and it is the light which shines into the darkness; thus we do not find the light within ourselves, for it comes from God and is of God where it shines into our darkness.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. (John 1:6-8)
See how even when God has acted in a man to bear witness about the light, still he is not the light? The light is not a part of man, the light is not a part of his being, the light cannot ever be found from within. The light which shines into the darkness is the light of God, Jesus Christ – a light for man not a part of man.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. (John 1:9)
Again, how can the light come into the world, if the light here discussed is akin to the atman? This claimed atman is a part of a man’s own being and self, which needs to be discovered – it is not the external light of God but an internal light of man. Clearly, atman cannot be the true light – and as the true light is the true God; then atman is a false god – an idol – and thus the festival is a festival of idolatry.

He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. (John 1:10-11)
That so many will spend so much effort in the worship of this false God, atman, the impostor pretending to be the light which enlightens man, pretending to be God, should not be a surprise. John 3:19 explains “the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.” Our evil deeds are great; consider we are even conceived in sin and raised in iniquity (Psalm 51:5), each one of us knowing the revelation of God (Romans 1:19) yet turning away from him to worship false gods and idols (Romans 1:25). Although God made us, we refuse to acknowledge him as the one God.

Note this well:

1. Christ is the only true light that shines into our darkness
2. This same Christ who is the true light of the world is also fully God
3. Sinful and wicked man created a lie that the true light is the atman, a part of man’s own being
4. Thus, the lie puts man in the place of God – the archetype of all idolatry

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13)
Regard the great grace of God, his immense mercy to mankind – for he has torn a people for himself, ripped us from the darkness of hell by the blood of Jesus Christ. It is Christ who is the light of the world, the same Christ who alone is the way, and the truth, and the life (John 14:6).

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
This very Christ, the only Son from the Father, who became man and took on our human flesh, also died for our sins and was raised again in glory. He alone is our light – and no other. Brothers, let us take great care never to give to any other the honour and glory which belongs to God alone. It is clearly the worship of a false God to celebrate, remember, parade, praise, or display this inner light of Atman to which Diwali refers.

356onehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F356%2Fdiwali-and-the-christianDiwali+and+the+Christian2010-11-04+04%3A09%3A20vincevincevincehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F%3Fp%3D356

The BBC are asking “Why would a straight couple want a civil partnership?” The question comes in the wake of the coming application by Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle to register a civil partnership rather than get married. They say they do not want to get married because “they do not want to be part of an institution from which gay and lesbian people are excluded”, but yet they “want to make a lifetime commitment to each other and they’d like greater legal and financial security than that offered by simply cohabiting”.

On the one hand, their reasons for rejecting marriage are technically false*; on the other hand, they do have a valid underlying point as to the provision of legal and financial security outside marriage.

There are actually two different things in question here:

• The first, legal provision of inheritance and taxation arrangements
• The second, the joining of man and wife as one flesh according to the institution of God.

Civil Partnerships:

The legal provision of inheritance and taxation arrangements does not need to be linked to questions of morality, gender, tradition or consanguinity. It is purely a civil administrative matter. Therefore, it should be open to all: married, unmarried, same-gender, opposite-gender, brother-sister, father-son, grandparent-grandson, three-signatories, or even ten signatories. There is no need to import any restrictions from marriage into this civil taxation and inheritance affair.

Why should two elderly sisters, perhaps being widowed or having never married, who live together and share their lives together, be forbidden the benefits they would be permitted were they unrelated? Why shouldn’t an elderly person being cared for full-time by his daughter not be able to benefit from tax benefits that would apply if she were his wife? Why should we deny inheritance and taxation arrangements to a Muslim man’s second wife because the marriage law only recognises one of them? All these problems, and many many more, can be solved by removing the restrictions which were needlessly imported from marriage into the civil partnership.

Marriage:

A marriage is defined by God as his joining together of man and wife as one flesh for as long as they both shall live. This is inescapable and immutable. Further, God has set forth various additional restrictions such as the prohibition of certain forms of consanguinity and the requirement of faithful monogamy. Thus, it is a contract concluded not with the state or by the power of the state, but by God and by the power of God. There is no need to join to this institution of God any form of state registration, taxation or inheritance arrangements – nor indeed should the state be involved in registering such marriages as this is the role of the church.

This proposal would see the deregulation of marriage, such that anyone could perform a marriage, but nobody’s marriage would be recorded by the state. Whether one is seen as validly married will be a matter for the church to determine, just as is the case with baptism. Indeed, it is already the case that some forms of marriage are not accepted as valid by some churches – as such the state registration of marriage is already failing. We do not see the need to maintain a government register or license for baptisms – and there is likewise no need to do so for marriage once the tax and inheritance provisions are moved into a separate civil partnership contract.

Those who wish to have such additions to their marriage should be free to sign an additional civil partnership for these benefits. Indeed, seeing that marriage is a religious affair, and civil partnership a state affair, it should be possible to contract a civil partnership with someone other than the person to whom you are married – if it should seem advantageous to do so. We should not discriminate against married people by restricting their use of the civil partnership tax and inheritance contract.

Conclusion

Let us grant freedom to both civil partnerships and marriage, that both are permitted to be what they are designed to be. One a civil taxation and inheritance arrangement (with no reference to relationships or religion), and the other a divine conjoining of man and wife by God (with no reference to the state or the law).

* The institution of marriage does not exclude ‘gay and lesbian people’; rather it is those who consider themselves ‘gay and lesbian people’ who reject the institution. Marriage does not legally require attraction or loving feelings between man and wife, as much as we dearly hope for them; so there is no impediment to ‘gay and lesbian’ people being married, provided they marry someone of the opposite gender. Remember, the word ‘love’ in the marriage vows is a verb not a noun – it is a promise and an obligation, not a statement about your current state of heart.

3413 comhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F341%2Freforming-marriage-and-civil-partnershipsReforming+Marriage+and+Civil+Partnerships2010-10-27+14%3A06%3A21vincevincevincehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F%3Fp%3D341

If you know only one thing about traditional wedding vows, it’s that they asked the woman to promise obedience. In fact, so much attention is paid to those words – and whether they are included or removed – that the rest of the sentence easily gets overlooked. This is the full vow the man makes:

I N. take thee N. to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.

It is made up of four parts:

• The ‘taking’ – by which the man promises to make the woman his wife (to take, to have, to hold)
• The ‘conditions’ – the things he agrees to endure with her (the passing of time, changes for better or worse, gain or loss of financial means, improvement or loss of health)
• The ‘manner’ – in what way he shall treat her as his wife (to love her, and to cherish her)
• The vow or oath – the troth (by which is promised constancy), until death part them, according to God’s ordinance

This discussion will focus upon the third of these, the ‘manner’ in which the man promises to be a husband to his wife – his promise to love her, and to cherish her. By these terms we describe the day-to-day basis of marriage, the very essence of the duty of a husband to his wife. To love, and to cherish.

When we come to understanding what this actually involves, we have a great help, because both of these terms come directly from the Bible. The first step then is to look at the Bible, and see how it explains this duty of a man to his wife.

The passage of scripture which gives rise to both is from the letter of St. Paul to the Ephesians; chapter 5, verses 25 to 33. I’ve included it below for ease of reference:

²⁵Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
²⁶ that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
²⁷ so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

²⁸ In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
²⁹ For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,
³⁰ because we are members of his body.
³¹ “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
³² This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
³³ However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Love your wife

Regarding the command to a husband to love his wife, there are two specific comparisons used. First, the love of husband to wife should be “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…”; and second, the love of husband to wife should be as he loves “himself”. The first of these is certainly the bigger challenge – for it throws out all concept of an equal partnership, a domestic arrangement, or give-and-take. It demands of the husband no less than the sacrifice of his life, giving himself up entirely for his wife. There are no loopholes: this is what God expects of a husband – to love his wife so much that he gives himself up for her – even as Christ gave up his life on the cross for the church. There is then no equal partnership, for the husband is not only commanded, but has promised, the very deepest self-sacrificial love for his wife – at all times, in all conditions, until death do them part.

Although the meaning of love like Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her is easy to apprehend, it is perhaps not easy to understand why Christ is the basis for the husband’s love in marriage – indeed, as Paul writes in verse 32, the link between man and wife and Christ and church is a profound mystery. Easier to understand, perhaps, is the second comparison: that a husband is to love his wife as he loves himself. This is based upon the union of two into one, that being joined by God, by no means is a husband justified in loving his wife less than he loves himself.

Cherish your wife

The argument that the two become one flesh being a reason a husband should love his wife as much as he loves himself also introduces the term ‘cherish’. It pops up in verse 29, as a description of what a man does to his own body. He nourishes and cherishes his own body (again, this is compared to the way Christ nourishes and cherishes the church). So, by the vow to cherish his wife – and by the requirement of God, a husband is bound to nurture, show kindness, and deep affection to his wife – even as he does to himself.

Particularly chastised by this are husbands who would chase after their own interests, neglecting their wives. This requirement to cherish means that it is never right for a man to decide his hobbies comes first, or his friends come first, or his work comes first, or anything else come before his duty to his wife.

In Conclusion

God places upon husbands a very great obligation, and one which contradicts a lot of modern thinking. The modern wisdom that makes husband and wife interchangeable roles misses the very great duty God places upon a husband.

Notice, God does not make the love or cherishing of a husband to his wife conditional upon the action of the wife, the attitude of the wife, the means of the couple, the happiness of the marriage, the health of either, or any other factor. God requires a husband to love his wife entirely, cherishing her as he does himself, at all times and in all seasons.

When it comes down to it, a husband’s love for his wife need not be driven by emotional affection. Nor need it be driven by attraction. The love a husband is to have for his wife is required of him by God himself, uncompromisingly. Although we dearly hope that all marriages are based upon mutual affection, yet, it is important to realise that God does not base married life on continued affection but on obedience to his law. If the husband’s love is required of him by God, then he has no excuse to reduce or cease his love, if unhappily he no longer feels as happy, attracted or comfortable with his wife.

Finally, there has been a tendency for society to talk of sexual fidelity, the avoiding of adultery, between partners as the key component of marriage. It certainly is a key component of marriage, and one required by God himself; yet, as we have seen, it is by no means the only thing required by God. God does not just require a husband to avoid adultery – another key component is his demands that the husband love his wife, always, unconditionally, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

3084 comhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F308%2Fto-love-and-to-cherishTo+love+and+to+cherish2010-09-27+14%3A42%3A50vincevincevincehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F%3Fp%3D308