Conception

So, have you ever been talking away to someone about a subject and suddenly discovered that while you thought you were both talking about the same thing, in reality you were both talking about something completely different? Usually you come to this realization as the result of an embarassing faux pas on the part of one or the other of you. Depending on the relative importance of the subject matter, you might laugh. Hilariously, if you've really made some big mistakes.

On the other hand, I was thinking the other day about how this can really impact our communication. I've come into a lot of contact lately with people from other countries; not just other countries, but markedly different cultures. And I began to think about how we use words to describe concepts that do not necessarily have direct one to one translations. This leads to conversations where the conversants are both think they are talking about the same thing, but they are talking about very different things.

Let's take the idea or concept of marriage. To those who come out of western European culture, the word "marriage" conjures up a fairly specific paradigm which involves a man and a woman meeting, courting, having a period of engagement and then going through a ritual which sometimes involves a Christian church or sometimes just a ritual with a clerk of the state. In any case, when speaking with people of recent western European decent you may be relatively certain that you are both on the "same page," so to speak.

There are cultures in the world, however, where marriage is viewed somewhat differently. Where the rituals that surround it are different. In some cultures the decisions are made entirely by the parents of the so-called "bride" and "groom." They are then brought together for the first time (sometimes) on the wedding day. The rituals have nothing to do with a Judeo-Christian-Muslim ethic. The rituals are much more (what we would consider) tribal or primitive (which sounds pejorative, but I have no other words to use) in nature. Once those rituals are completed, the couple is then married.

Now, let us consider what might happen if someone from this culture were to find themselves suddenly in our culture, without any of their family here. They meet another person of the opposite gender also from their culture and they complete (as best they are able) the rituals of "marriage." Certainly we all would agree that in the eyes of the state they are not married because that requires a marriage certificate and we understand that. But that is not what I'm talking about here. When these people refer to themselves as being "married," are they? In their understanding, they are, in fact, married. They have completed the rituals just as surely as LightHusband and I did when we got married 17 years ago in the Old West Church. The only missing ingredient is the stamp of permission from the state, I'm talking about the idea or concept here. So (minus the state issue), are they married? Or not? What is it in fact that makes this couple "married?" Do we look at them and see a married couple or two people just shacking up?

I'm asking that question for an important reason. Because as you can see, ideas about marriage don't always translate one for one across cultural boundaries. We think they do, but they really don't. Neither do ideas about sexual mores within and without marriage; even among Christians from different cultures and different times. And these ideas have changed dramatically throughout history, even during the years when the texts of the Bible were being written. So my point is this, if we can get this confused about just one simple idea like marriage, it's just possible that we've gotten a lot of other ideas from the Bible muddled up as well. I'm not saying that it's all nonsense, but I am saying that when we hear someone spouting "absolute Truth," we need to start asking ourselves a lot of questions about what they are saying.