“Love Beyond Cards and Candy: A Biblical and Socio-Rhetorical Reflection on Valentine’s Day”

Posted by expedition44 on February 15, 2026

Every February 14 many Christians and non-Christians alike pause to celebrate love—often through candy, flowers, heart-shaped cards, and candlelight dinners. But beneath the commercial veneer lies a rich tapestry of history, cultural adaptation, and theological meaning that invites careful reflection for the church—one rooted not simply in sentiment, but in Scripture and the long witness of Christian faith.

1. The Historical Palimpsest of Valentine’s Day

Some scholars would identify at least three such figures known in martyrologies, with one tradition holding that a Roman priest named Valentine in the third century defied an imperial edict against Christian marriage to marry couples in secret—a testament to his defense of Christian marriage and pastoral courage.

By the fifth and sixth centuries, February 14 was established in the liturgical calendar as the feast of St. Valentine, though the medieval church did not associate this date with romantic love until much later. In time, festivals of courtly love and poetic traditions such as Chaucer’s Parliament of Fowls would fold romantic symbolism into the date long after its ecclesiastical origins ended.

It is essential sociologically to recognize that Valentine’s Day—as celebrated today—is a layered cultural artifact: part hagiographic remembrance, part medieval romance, part commercialized modern ritual. None of these layers originate in biblical revelation, yet all reflect ways humans seek to articulate love within their cultural context.

2. Scripture and the Semantics of Love

Most people are aware that the Bible does not mention Valentine’s Day; nowhere is it regarded as a holy day per se. Its absence places the observance in the category of Christian freedom described in Romans 14:5–6, where Paul writes that believers may regard certain days differently, and whether one observes them or not, it should be “in honor of the Lord.”

What Scripture does offer is a rich, nuanced theology of love. In biblical Greek there are multiple terms for love—agapé (self-giving, covenantal love), philia (brotherly affection), eros (romantic desire, depicted especially in Song of Songs), and storge (familial love). While eros itself does not appear in the New Testament theological lexicon, the Song of Songs—a book of the Hebrew Bible—celebrates sensual and relational love within the covenant of marriage.

The apostle Paul’s famous discourse in 1 Corinthians 13 reframes love as a moral and spiritual virtue defined not by transient feeling but by patient covenantal commitment, self-giving service, and endurance. Jesus Himself states the core of the law: to love God with all one’s heart and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Mark 12:30–31).

This emphasis locates the core of biblical discourse not in romantic expression alone, but in covenantal fidelity, sacrificial love, and the self-giving love revealed supremely in Christ’s death and resurrection.

3. Early Church and the Appropriation of Culture

From a socio-rhetorical perspective, the early church was adept at incarnating its message within existing cultural frameworks without compromising its core message. The apostle Paul became “all things to all people” to win some to Christ (1 Corinthians 9:22).

Christian appropriation of certain dates or customs has always been contested. The church’s decision to commemorate saints and martyrs on specific feast days was not intended to canonize secular customs, but to sanctify memory in ways that pointed beyond worldly spectacle to Christ’s kingship and the communion of saints.

In this light, Valentine’s Day can serve as a cultural locus for Christians to articulate biblical love — not simply by embracing its commercial trappings uncritically, nor by rejecting all contact with culture out of fear of syncretism, but by discerning how Christ’s love reshapes human practices. As Paul counsels, “Test everything; hold fast to what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

4. Theological Reframing: Love as Witness

Rather than delegating Valentine’s Day to either celebration or avoidance, Christians can use the occasion as an invitation to reflect on biblical love as witness—not only within marriage, but within the body of Christ and the broader world.

A socio-rhetorical reading invites us to see Valentine’s Day less as an externally mandated Christian feast and more as a rhetorical opportunity—a moment when society’s focus on love can be redirected toward the love that God enacts in Christ. Such love is measured not by roses and chocolates, but by the sacrificial gift of Christ and the mutual love of believers that testifies to His presence (John 13:35).

Conclusion: Love in Context

Valentine’s Day is not inherently Christian because it emerged from early church commemoration or medieval romantic tradition. Nor is it inherently pagan because of its layered history. It is imperatively a moment for Christians to practice discernment, to ask how the gospel reframes the season of love, and to embody sacrificial, covenantal love in ways that reflect God’s love for the world.

As we remember St. Valentine—a figure united by courage and fidelity to Christ—and reflect on the biblical narrative of love from Genesis to Revelation, may our practice of love be shaped by agapé above all else, rooted in Scripture and enacted in service.

Discussion Questions

How does an awareness of the historical development of Valentine’s Day influence (or not) how we celebrate love as Christians?
In what ways does the biblical concept of agapé challenge modern expressions of romantic love?
How can Christians use cultural observances like Valentine’s Day as platforms for gospel witness without syncretizing their faith?
What does Song of Songs teach us about the place of romantic love within God’s broader design for relationships?
How might Paul’s teaching in Romans 14 apply to disagreements within the church over celebrating Valentine’s Day?

Bibliography

Armstrong Institute. “Valentine’s Day—in the Hebrew Bible?” (ArmstrongInstitute.org)
BibleInspire.com. “Valentine’s Day Biblical Meaning: What Christians Need to Know.”
“Valentine’s Day.” Wikipedia (overview of historical development).
Song of Songs. Wikipedia (literary and canonical context).

The Covenant of Marriage Communication – Conference Notes

Posted by expedition44 on February 12, 2026

Communicating as Covenant Partners: A Christ-Centered Theology and Practice of Marriage Communication

Introduction

Marriage is more than a social institution or emotional partnership—it is a holy covenant established by God, modeled throughout Scripture, and fulfilled in Christ’s relationship with the Church. Communication within marriage is not merely a set of skills; it is a sacramental expression of covenanted love, shaped by identity in Christ and sustained by grace.

In a world of transactional relationships and consumerized romance, Christian couples are called to something deeper: speaking truth in love (Eph. 4:15), bearing one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2), and reflecting God’s steadfast love (חסד, chesed) in how they listen, speak, and respond to one another.

I. Covenant as the Foundation for Communication

1. The Hebraic Concept of Covenant

In Scripture, covenant (ברית, berith) is not a contract; it is a relational pledge grounded in faithfulness and identity. It structures marriage not around feelings or performance, but around being–with–one–another under God.

Genesis 2:24—“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
One flesh implies unity in identity, purpose, and narrative—a shared life.
Malachi 2:14–16—God calls Israel my companion (רעיה, re‘iyah) in covenant, highlighting vow-keeping as essential to relational integrity.
Marriage communication reflects this same vow-oriented faithfulness.

2. Christ and the Church as the Ultimate Covenant Model

Ephesians 5:25–33 anchors marital love in Christ’s sacrificial love for the Church:

Self–giving love
Cleansing through the Word
Nurturing growth and flourishing

In this model, communication is not negotiable nor optional—it is an expression of covenant identity.

II. Biblical Models of Christ-Centered Communication

1. Jesus: Communicating with Presence and Truth

Jesus embodied communication that was:

Attentive — He saw and called individuals by name (Mark 10:21; John 4:27–30).
Restorative — He spoke truth that healed rather than harmed (John 8:1–11).
Sacrificial — His words pierced, yet offered life (John 6:60–69).

Application for couples:

Be fully present in conversation (no half-listening).
Seek truth to heal, not to win.

2. Paul: Words That Build Up

Paul repeatedly encourages the church to communicate with grace:

Ephesians 4:29 — “Let no corrupting talk come out … but only such as is good for building up.”
Colossians 3:12–14 — Compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience, forgiveness, love.

Application for couples:

Make speech an agent of edification, not accusation.
Aim for restoration and peace (Matt. 5:9).

3. Proverbs: Wisdom for Everyday Speech

Proverbs 15:1 contrasts gentleness with provocation:

“A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.”

Application for couples:

Choose tone and timing wisely.
Slow down before responding; give space for Spirit-guided reflection.

III. Avoiding Destructive Patterns: The “Crazy Cycle” and Other Traps

John and Stacy Edwards’ Love & Respect highlights the “Crazy Cycle”:

Wives want love, feel unheard →
Husbands want respect, feel dismissed →
Escalation ensues.

While their gender framing has sparked discussion, the core insight resonates with covenant communication: each partner deeply desires to be known, honored, and treasured.

Redemptive pattern:

Respond to hurts with clarifying questions rather than assumptions.
Affirm identity (“I hear you; your heart matters to me”), then seek understanding.

IV. Communication as Intimacy: Pillars for Practice

Drawing from One Extraordinary Marriage (6 Pillars of Intimacy):

1. Physical Presence

Not just being in the same room—being fully present and undistracted.

2. Emotional Space

Create an environment where vulnerability is welcomed, not weaponized.

3. Spiritual Unity

Pray together before you problem-solve together.

4. Intellectual Engagement

Value curiosity over defensiveness.

5. Relational Investment

Set rhythms (weekly check-ins, shared devotions) that speak covenant over chaos.

6. Communal Support

Accountability with trusted mentors or couples enriches communication health.

V. Tools That Serve Covenant Communication

1. Love Languages (Gary Chapman)

Understanding each other’s primary love languages—words of affirmation, quality time, acts of service, gifts, physical touch—enhances mutual empathy and expressive clarity.

**2. Rhythms from Sacred Marriage (Gary Thomas)**

Thomas reframes marriage as sanctification before satisfaction. Communication becomes a means to God’s glory, not just emotional comfort.

**3. Eternal Perspective from The Meaning of Marriage (Timothy Keller)**

Marriage reflects Christ’s gospel: steadfast, gracious, covenantal. Communication is therefore missionary—bearing witness in everyday speech.

**4. You and Me Forever (Francis & Lisa Chan)**

Focuses couples on shared Gospel mission, reducing self-absorption and enhancing sacrificial dialogue.

VI. Practical Communication Principles Grounded in Covenant Identity

1. Listen Before You Respond

Listening communicates worth and attention.

Practical tip:

Reflect back what you heard before responding.

2. Speak Truth in Love

Truth without love wounds; love without truth obscures reality.

Practical tip:

Use “I” statements and describe specific behaviors, not character labels.

3. Forgive and Seek Forgiveness

Covenant speech includes reconciliation language.

Practical tip:

Practice short, daily reconciliations to prevent relational drift.

4. Pray Before Difficult Conversations

Invite the Spirit to shape hearts before words are exchanged.

Practical tip:

Frame hard discussions with scripture (“Lord, make us quick to listen…” James 1:19).

5. Celebrate Small Wins

Acknowledging growth builds trust.

Practical tip:

Weekly “gratitude moments” during meals or prayer times.

Conclusion: Communicating as Covenant Worship

Communication in Christian marriage is not primarily a technique—it is covenant language. It reflects who we are in Christ and how covenant love shapes everyday life. Words become acts of worship, spaces of grace, and pathways of transformation when we speak and listen in the presence of God.

May our marriages echo the speech of Christ—patient, kind, humble, forgiving, and anchored in love that never ends (1 Cor. 13:4–8).

Discussion Questions

1. Covenant vs. Contract: How Does Ontology Shape Communication?

The Hebrew concept of בְּרִית (berith) frames marriage as a covenant grounded in identity and faithfulness rather than performance or emotional satisfaction.

In what ways does viewing marriage as covenant (rather than contract) reshape expectations during conflict?
How might this covenantal framework alter the way couples interpret silence, criticism, or emotional withdrawal?
How does Malachi 2:14–16 challenge modern consumerist assumptions about relational fulfillment?

2. Christological Communication: Imitating the Speech of Jesus

Ephesians 5 roots marriage in the self-giving love of Christ.

How does Christ’s communicative posture (John 4; John 8; Mark 10:21) inform a theology of attentiveness and truth-telling in marriage?
What does it mean to “cleanse by the washing of water with the word” (Eph. 5:26) in the context of marital speech?
In practical terms, how can couples ensure their words are redemptive rather than corrective alone?

3. The “Crazy Cycle” and the Doctrine of Sin

Eggerich’s “Crazy Cycle” describes relational escalation when love and respect feel absent.

How does this dynamic reflect the broader biblical doctrine of sin as relational fracture (Gen. 3)?
In what ways does pride distort listening and self-giving communication?
How might a theology of repentance interrupt destructive communication cycles?

4. Sanctification Through Speech

Gary Thomas argues marriage is more about holiness than happiness.

How can communication function as a primary instrument of sanctification?
Reflect on James 1:19–20 and Ephesians 4:29. What spiritual disciplines are necessary for obedient speech?
How might difficult conversations serve as means of grace rather than merely problems to solve?

5. Identity in Christ and Shared Mission

Drawing from Keller and the Chans, marriage reflects the gospel and participates in mission.

How does shared identity “in Christ” stabilize communication when emotions fluctuate?
What practices (prayer, shared Scripture, missional engagement) tangibly reinforce covenant identity in daily dialogue?
How does a shared eternal vision recalibrate trivial conflicts?

Bibliography

Chapman, Gary. The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts. Chicago: Northfield Publishing, 2015.

Chan, Francis, and Lisa Chan. You and Me Forever: Marriage in Light of Eternity. Colorado Springs: Claire Love Publishing, 2014.

Eggerichs, Emerson. Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004.

Keller, Timothy, with Kathy Keller. The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God. New York: Dutton, 2011.

Thomas, Gary. Sacred Marriage: What If God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Gregoire, Sheila Wray. The Great Sex Rescue. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2021.

Wright, Christopher J. H. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004.

Block, Daniel I. “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel.” In Marriage and Family in the Biblical World, edited by Ken M. Campbell, 33–102. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003.

TEDS Demise & Reformed Theology

Posted by expedition44 on April 10, 2025

One of the most well-known Evangelical Seminaries in the world has agreed to be acquired by a Canadian university and move to British Columbia, the school’s leaders announced Tuesday. The move comes after years of financial and theological struggles resulting in declining attendance at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School—known as TEDS—an Evangelical Free Church Seminary. [1]

To those that are in the theology world, this announcement comes as no surprise. Over the last 10 years Trinity (TEDS) and the Evangelical Free Church of America has moved towards a reformed bend in their theology which I and many others would say continues to be the source of their demise. [2]

The Baptist convention is also unfortunately figuring this out over the last few years. [3] Reformed theology leads to Calvinism and those that understand the dilemmas involved with accepting the tenets of these views arguably can’t reconcile them with a Biblical character of God. [4] Many educated young people have walked away from Christianity altogether not being able to reconcile the nature of a loving God with these theological views. This is particularly unfortunate to the rest of the non-reformed world because it is an identifier that those leaving the faith didn’t comprehend that there were several other constructs of Christianity besides reformed theology. [5] According to Barna, less than 31% of all Christians in the US consider their theology to have some kind of reformed perspective (TULIP), yet reformed theology attempts to convince the rest of the world that their view is the only Biblical view. [6] This notion is killing evangelical Christianity and making people walk away from Jesus. We need to do better.

There are several reasons why reformed theology has been identified as a less Biblical interpretation of the scripture. [7] Along with not reconciling the Biblical character of God in core views of the belief such as Penal Substitutionary Atonement and hardline views of eternal conscious torment there are many other objections. [8] Calvinistic soteriology can lead to a misapplication of scripture and a misunderstanding of its storyline, such as predestination as an example of a concept that is not clearly supported by scripture. Perhaps the bigger problem is trying to position the Bible to say what you want it to say rather than exegetically and faithfully reading it for all it is worth. [9] The doctrine of total depravity and/or original sin which states that humans are inherently sinful and incapable of choosing God, can be seen as a denigration of human nature and a disincentive for personal responsibility. [10] Other critics argue that Reformed theology confuses the gospel of grace by bringing the law into sanctification and hedging on eternal security. [11]

Over the last 10 years I have watched other respected graduates of TEDS also become concerned such as the esteemed New Testament scholar Scot McKnight. [12]

Graduates of TEDS include the disgraced evangelist Ravi Zacharias, Christian television host John Ankerberg, and Collin Hansen, editor-in-chief of The Gospel Coalition. Longtime professor Don Carson also was one of the founders of The Gospel Coalition (a reformed organization), helping launch the so-called Young, Restless and Reformed movement that led to a Calvinist revival among evangelicals, but is now seeing a great demise. [13]

In the end, the theology of the reformation is quite problematic and rather unbiblical by most scholars’ opinions. [14] Since the 1980s the reformed movement has thrived through the support of great rhetorical spokesman such as the convincing late RC Sproul; but the world isn’t buying it anymore. For the first 1800 years of Christianity those ideas were unfounded, and of late, generations x,z, and millennials aren’t buying it either.

Most Christians today aren’t accepting the spoon-fed dogma; we need the text to exegetically be in harmony with the overall lens of the Bible. We demand a better Biblical theology. And that is a very good thing! As the average Christians become scholars, they need to be taught better theology in the church from the pulpit, or they are simply going to leave the church to find a better way. The next generation isn’t going to just take “the pastor’s word for it” anymore, they are done with being duped by those they thought they trusted in the name of religion. If we can learn anything from the demise of one of the largest evangelical seminaries in the world this should be the point, we take away. Expedition 44 has long sense been a source of truth examining the overall lens of the Bible and how it should be viewed in harmony. The Kings Commision School of Divinity (https://tkc.education/) and several other great institutions such as AWKNG (Heiser’s School), The Bible Project. (Tim Mackie’s School), Eternity Bible College (Francis Chan’s School), Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s Peterson Academy and other similar institutions have changed the way that students engage. Did you notice what all of these schools have in common? They aren’t reformed! Out with the old (well newer -old reformational thinking), and in with the new.

Engage with the text. Dive in. Don’t merely be spoon fed. This is the core of the great commission – A deeper discipleship individually and communally.