Restart

The Manhattan Declaration

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

These words appear on the Home Page of the Manahattan Declaration.  This declaration was made public on November 20, 2009.  At this moment (0849 on 24 November 2009) there are 76,430 signatures.  I was signature 75,987.  In the time it took me to read the declaration over 500 persons had added their signatures.

I encourage you to do as I did.  Read the declaration.  Pray over it and seek God's guidance.  Read it again.  If God so leads you, sign it, and share it with your congregation.

• Manhattan Declaration Home
• Manhattan Declaration Text
• Manhattan Declaration Text with Original Signers
• Manhattan Declaration on Facebook
• Sign the Manhattan Declaration 

Yours in Christ,

John 

Moral Side of the News (Feb. 22, 2009) - Kentucky bill would ban unmarried couples from adoption

Homosexual advocacy groups are mobilizing to fight a bill that would ban unmarried couples from becoming foster parents or adopting children in Kentucky.  Senate Bill 68, which is nearly identical to a law Arkansas voters approved in November, would ban anyone "cohabitating with a sexual partner outside of marriage" from becoming a foster or adoptive parent.  That would include relatives of children removed from homes because of abuse or neglect.  "It would be an irresponsible bill because of the potential foster and adoptive parents it categorically eliminates," said Chris Hartman, director of the Fairness Campaign, a Louisville gay-rights group that opposes the measure.  But the Family Foundation of Kentucky supports the bill, said David Edmunds, a policy analyst for the group.  "It just seems to make sense," said Edmunds, adding that the group believes that children should be raised in homes of married couples.  If the bill passes, Kentucky would become the seventh state to ban unmarried couples from being foster or adoptive parents.  What do you think of this proposal? Is this discrimination as the Fairness campaign believes, or is it important that these children be raised by married couples?

Well done, Kentucky legislature - so far that is.

The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.  What is the main thing in this case?  The main thing is the welfare of the children being adopted.

Public policy should not be established based on anecdotes or feelings about a particular individual situation.  In this case, public policy should be based on sound research that produces the best situations possible for the children.

Let us look at some statistics. We all should agree that placing children in homes with a couple that has made a "permanent" commitment to one another is preferable than placing children in a temporary situation.  Research has shown that over 80% of couples who live together without marriage will not stay together.  Couples who live together before marriage are 50% more likely to get divorced after marriage.  When couples live together and then get married, only 12% have marriages that last more than 10 years.  Marriage is a high predictor of a life-long committed relationship and a positive situation for an adopted children.

Girls who are in homes where the adults are not marred are 3 times more likely to become pregnant as teens.  Children who are in homes where the adults are not married are 3 times more likely to be expelled from school, 5 times more likely to live in poverty, ten times more likely to be abused, and 22 times more likely to be incarcerated.

63% of youth suicides are in homes without fathers.  71% of the high school drop outs are from fatherless homes.  85% of youth in prison are from fatherless homes.

THE BEST SITUATION FOR ADOPTED CHILDREN IS IN A HOME WHERE THE PARENTS ARE MARRIED.

Homosexual advocacy groups seem unable to put aside their own agenda and thing of the welfare of children.  Their opposition to this bill in the Kentucky legislature can only be described as transparently self-focused.

The main thing in this case is the welfare of the children - not same sex marriage.  Advocates of same sex marriage need to take their argument into another area.

The Moral Side of the News (September 7) - Governor Palin v. the Press

Topic:  Senator McCain pulled off a big surprise by choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. After hearing her acceptance speech, what do you think of his choice: USA Today, CBS News, CNN, Wall St. Journal. How does her selection change the landscape of the election?

What do you think of the media coverage of her? Was it over the top or fair game: Politico, Cal Thomas.

Is her 17-year-old daughter’s unwed pregnancy a relevant issue: CJ’s Betty Baye?

I am very excited and pleased at Senator McCain's choice for a running mate.  We can judge the trajectory of both presidential candidates by their choices.  Senator McCain's creative and inspirational choice shows a conservative, young, family-oriented, "outside Washington" trajectory.  Senator Obama's choice in the third longest serving Senator (36 years, I believe) shows a business as usual trajectory.  The American people are already responding to "someone like us" - Governor Palin.

The mainstream (some would say, "downstream") media coverage of her personal life is predictable.  Conservatives know that they will be hit hard.  Let us look at some examples:

1.  Governor Palin's husband had a DUI arrest 22 years ago before they were married when he was in his early 20s.  That has been reported extensively.  Senator Biden's daughter (as an adult in her early 20s) had an arrest in 2002 that happened after a "night on the town" and a scuffle with police.  Who has heard about that?

2.  It has been reported that Governor Palin's church supports homosexual conversion programs.  The media has recently reported this and raised the question as to whether or not she will distance herself from her church's stand.  Senator Biden is a member of a denomination (Roman Catholicism) that teaches against abortion.  Many Roman Catholic bishops have said that Roman Catholics cannot support candidates who support abortion, yet Senator Biden support Senator Obama.

3.  The mainstream media and liberal commentators have been shocked that Governor Palin would consider running for Vice President with five children.  They encourage her to be a stay-at-home Mom.  Yet Senator Obama has two young children and his wife works outside the home.  Double standard?  I think so - for men and women, liberals and conservatives.

Don't you get tired of it?

The other issue is a private family matter.  End of story.

Yours in Christ, John 

Moral Side of the News (August 3) - More unmarried couples living together

Topic:  The number of opposite-sex couples who live together, less than a million 30 years, hit 6.4 million in 2007, show federal data released Monday. Cohabiting couples now make up almost 10% of all opposite-sex U.S. couples, married and unmarried: USA Today.

Is this progress, or is it a step backward?  Our society needs to get its act together and consider what type of life styles it needs to encourage.

I do not for one minute want the government regulating this private behavior, but we need strong and consistent voices reminding people of the damages such living arrangements do to families and children.  We should not simply adopt all trends and inevitable or positive.

We are becoming a culture where commitments are only viewed through the lense of what another can do for me at this moment.  "It feels good now" is not the moral measuring stick for a healthy society.

The Christian witness is consistent:  The healthiest family is one that is centered on the relationship between a man and a woman.

Yours in Christ, John

 

Moral Side of the News (June 15) - More couples cohabitating

Topic: An analysis of cohabitation, marriage and divorce data from 13 countries, including the USA, shows that living together has become so mainstream that growing numbers of Americans view it as an alternative to marriage.  The National Marriage Project study of a sampling of Western European and Scandinavian nations, Australia, Canada and New Zealand found that cohabitation elsewhere is far more common and indeed viewed as an option to matrimony. The study found that anywhere from 15% to 30% of all couples identified themselves as living together, compared with about 10% right now in the USA: USA Today. Does this trend concern you? Why do you think more people no longer consider cohabitation to be “living in sin?”  What do you believe are the long-term affects of this trend, particularly on children?

Every pastor knows that cohabitation or "trial marriages" are positive indicators for divorce.  A couple that cohabitates before marriage is more likely to divorce.  A couple that cohabitates in lieu of marriage is more likely not to remain together for life.

Why is this the case?  I believe that both practices not only devalue marriage, but show a contempt for long-term commitments in relationships.

I often want to ask persons who are cohabitating and come to me for marriage two questions.  First, what will be different after the wedding ceremony?  Second, what have they communicated to their children and other family members about the permanence of their commitment to family.  The behavior that many are modeling for children is worse than sad.  It does serious damage.

How many trials does one get?  How many relationships may be discarded in order to trade up?  How many problems do persons create and then walk away?  Do we want our children to live such a life.

The Christian witness is consistent.  Marriage is a special and elevated relationship that is the foundation for a healthy society and family.

Yours in Christ, John

The Moral Side of the News (June 1) - Divorce

Topic: According to Gallup’s 2008 Beliefs and Values survey, a record 70 percent of Americans now believe divorce is morally acceptable. That’s up from 59% in 2001, and breaking the previous high of 67% in 2006: Gallup. Focus on the Family says the growing acceptance of divorce is leading to the demise of the family and indicates that the church is not doing its job: Citizen Link. Do you agree? What about the other findings of the survey? A majority of Americans also believe that the following are morally acceptable: gambling, the death penalty, embryonic stem cell research, sex between unmarried men and women, medical testing on animals, having a baby outside of marriage, buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur, and doctor assisted suicide. The following are not morally acceptable, according to most Americans: abortion, cloning animals, suicide, polygamy and married men and women having an affair. Americans are evenly split on the morality of one issue: homosexual relations.

If I were to have my morality determined or confirmed by popular vote I would say of this survey, "Well, I won some and I lost some."  Fortunately, morality is not determined by polling data, but by God.

This survey contributes to the false data that is circulated about divorce in America.  The wording of the question is suspect in my mind.  It asks for acceptability in general.  I am certain that anyone of us could come up with scenarios where divorce would be acceptable and unacceptable.  Such general statements really do not inform us about divorce.  People tend to respond to surveys in a manner that would present their views and more acceptable to the interviewer.  We need to take this data in context.

Another false statistic about divorce is the popular notion that 50% of all marriages end up in divorce.  This data is created by comparing the number of divorces with the number of marriages in a given year.  To compare the data in this way is false.  What needs to be examined is the number of marriages in a given year that result in divorce at any time.  When this data is examined the estimate is that 42% of all marriages end in divorce.

This statement, however, does not mean that 42% of all adults will experience a divorce in their lifetime.  When we factor out single persons the percentage drops.

In addition, we know that the decision for the first divorce is the hardest one.  After the first divorce, divorce becomes emotionally easier.  A person who has been divorced is more likely to divorce a second time than it is likely that a person who has never been divorced, divorces the first time.

All this being said, we can estimate that one in three adults will experience a divorce in their marriage.  Is this a good situation?  Of course not, but it is better than one in two!

Education is indicators of divorce.  The higher the education level, the lower the rate of divorce.  Most of all, conservative values and religious belief indicate a lower level of divorce.  Religious conservatives are less likely to divorce than Secular Liberals.

Divorce is a hard decision.  Communities of faith must respond proactively as much as possible.  The problem I have discovered in the parish is that the pastor is usually the last to know, or at least he is the last to be invited to help the couple either save the marriage or to counsel the couple.

Yours in Christ, JOHN

 

Moral Side of the News (May 25) - California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage

Topic: The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June: LA Times. Do you believe that citizens have a “fundamental right” to marry? Does this ruling open the door to anyone who wants to get married, such as polygamists? Will this ruling revive gay marriage as an issue in the presidential race? USA Today

Several things disturb me about this ruling.

1. The arrogance of four judges.  Four California state justices over-ruled not only their three fellow justices, but the 61.4% of California voters who in 2008 by ballot defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.  These four persons inserted themselves about the democratic process and the California constitution itself.  The California constitution does not define marriage and, therefore, the definition is not a matter of constitutional interpretation, but the democratic will of the electorate.  Democracy was dealt a blow in the California Supreme Court.
2. The growing disconnect in our society between sex, marriage, and procreation.  Our society is loosing the long-accepted connection between sex, marriage, and procreation.  Sex is no longer seen as an important expression and sharing of the love and intimacy within a marriage from which children result.  Sex is becoming simply a recreational activity that may result in an inconvenient pregnancy.
3. The elevation of every urge to an inalienable right.  Not every urge is a legal or moral right.  Many urges are harmful.  The framing of the debate on same-sex marriage in terms of human or civil rights is a misdirection.  The debate really should be about the definition of marriage.  The California Supreme Court seeks to change the definition of marriage.  No major religion and no society has ever defined marriage as other than a sanctioned and committed relationship between a man and a women - even the framers of the California constitution knew that!
4. The interchanging of male and female roles in society.  A part of the leftist agenda is to destroy the understanding of the differences between men and women.  The Left seeks to ignore "the facts of life" in pushing its own agenda.

Every citizen of the United States has the same right to marry.  A person cannot marry another of the same sex (except in California and Massachusetts), more than one person, a person who is not an adult, a dead person (some one did that in France!), an animal, a plant, or an inanimate object.

No one can marry just anyone they want, either.  The other person has to agree.

Sometimes we do not get what we want.  Society has a responsibility to insure that marriage and families are well-defined.  I look forward to this debate as a part of the presidential campaign.

Yours in Christ, JOHN 

Moral Side of the News (May 18) - Defining fatherhood

Topic:  Kentucky's Supreme Court has ruled 4-3 that a man who fathers a baby during an affair with a married woman has no legal claim to fatherhood. Instead, the court said, the woman's husband is the legal male parent. Justice Bill Cunningham, who wrote one of the majority opinions, made clear that a key concern was to defend the status of marriage: CJ, TIME. In an editorial, the CJ said the ruling denies the rights of the child: CJ editorial. What do you think? Should biology be the major factor in defining fatherhood? Was Justice Cunningham correct in his defense of marriage?

I do not want to speak to the specifics of this case.  Obviously, there is a lot of moral, emotional, and spiritual confusion and dysfunction in the adults involved.

Justice Cunningham's opinion raises a question in my mind, however?  What kind of view of marriage is he defending?  In a convoluted way Justice Cunningham is undermining a traditional view of marriage that is centered on the loving relationship between one man and one woman and that nurtures the children from that relationship.  The Justice effectively says that convenience or current residence trumps biology.

Justice Cunningham may or may not realize it, but he has taken a step toward legitimizing same-sex marriage.  The biological father becomes a mere donor in the process.  Family becomes whoever is residing together at the moment.  The importance of the father's involvement in the child's growth is minimized, if it is recognized at all.

The Kentucky Supreme Court had to make a choice between two bad situations for the sake of the child.  They may or may not have chosen correctly in this particular situation.  We should, however, be concerned not only for this child, but for others who may be introduced into a situation for which Justice Cunningham's opinion may have set a precedent.

Yours in Christ, JOHN

The Moral Side of the News (April 27) - Is conservative religion killing us?

Topic:  In the April 21 edition of USA Today, columnist Oliver “Buzz” Thomas asks a startling question: Might our religion be killing us? Basically, he calls out Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews and conservative Protestants for having too many children. He says those religions that frown on birth control are killing the planet with overpopulation.  Thomas says “How should people of faith respond to this gathering environmental storm? First, we must stop having so many children. Clergy should consider voicing the difficult truth that having more than two children during such a time is selfish. Dare we say sinful? The average American might not listen to his elected representatives, but he darn sure listens to his pastor. Every week. This will be a hard message for pastors to preach and parishioners to hear, but without it we court disaster.” USA Today What do you think of Thomas’ ideas Is overpopulation a real problem?  Do we sin by not limiting ourselves to two children, or is the sin his view of children?

Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a liberal.  As most liberals he finds it inconvenient that he has to share this planet (and this country) with conservatives, and who find pregnancies, babies, children, and humanity also as inconvenient.  In his article Mr. Thomas, who identifies himself as a Christian minister, seems to suggest that "our" planet would be a better place without us - at least without those of us who are religious conservatives.

Let us look at some facts.  First, Mr. Thomas is in a panic over the "gathering environmental storm" called global warming.  Real science (not Al Gore science) suggests that the global warming panic is not a severe as the fear-mongers would suggest, that it probably is not primarily caused by humans, and is a part of a global cycle.  Economists have further found that the costly schemes designed to respond to the panic will at best delay the warming trend by only a year or two over this century - if there is a warming trend at all!  (By the way, scientists have noticed global warming on Mars.  Maybe we should fire off a shipment of energy efficient light bulbs to the red planet.)

Mr. Thomas' answer to the imagined crisis is to have fewer conservatives.  Well, let us look at our second fact.  Conservatives tend to reside in areas where the population is less dense.  In looking at the 2004 presidential election results by county, the counties that went for President Bush were one-fourth as densely populated on average (even with the exclusion of Alaska!) than the counties that went for Senator Kerry - even while Senator Kerry was winning 48% of the popular vote. (Steve Sailer, "Baby Gap")

What is more, in the 2004 election the states with the higher white (excuse me, I mean European American) fertility rates went for President Bush.  The sixteen states with the lowest white fertility rate went for Senator Kerry.

The third fact is that conservatives are happier than liberals, and parents are more likely to be happier than non-parents (The Joys of Parenthood).  The "happiness gap" is real.  Children tend to lend meaning to life in the long-term.  Persons who call themselves conservative are twice as likely to describe themselves as happy than persons who call themselves liberal.  Conservatives are twice as likely to be married; and twice as likely to attend church.  When religious and political differences are combined, the happiest group are religious conservatives and the least happy group are secular liberals.  Religious liberals and secular conservatives are about the same and in the middle.  Religious conservatives are also more generous than any other group.

What does this mean?  Establishing and family and having children is a statement of faith and hopefulness.  The desire to bring children into this world is a positive statement about this world.

The fourth and final fact is what Mr. Thomas does not say.  The birth rate of Muslims is higher than American religious conservatives, but this is an inconvenient fact for Mr. Thomas and many other liberals, who are anything but supporters of Israel and the United States.

My advice to Mr. Thomas is simple.  Children are not inconvenient.  Conservatives are not ruining his world.  Relax, get married (if you are not already), have some kids, go to church, and move to Kansas.

Yours in Christ, JOHN

Moral Side of the News (April 13) - Authorities raid Texas ranch of polygamous sect

More allegations of abuse have been revealed in the case of a polygamist sect whose Texas ranch was home to hundreds of girls and children. The ranch, owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was raided by state and federal agents this week after a 16-year-old called to report abuse. More than 400 children were taken into protective custody: CNN.  An affidavit unsealed by a Texas State District Court Judge said that officers had found records at the Yearning for Zion Ranch indicating one man had been married to more than 20 wives. Hundreds of state police and federal agents have been searching the compound: USA Today. Also, it turns out, that the FBI had an informant in the compound for four years: ABC News. What are your thoughts on this story? Should authorities have raided the compound much sooner? What do you think should be done with the children taken from the compound?

There is no question that the authorities acted properly and appropriately.  This type of abuse of women and children under the guise of religion is immoral.  The only issue is the timing.  Action should have been taken as soon as possible.  In the absence of more information I shall trust the law enforcement authorities.

It will be interesting to see what the liberal reaction to this government action against a "life-style choice" will be.  I have not heard much from the usual liberal voices.

I believe that polygamy is immoral and should not be tolerated in our society.  I am very willing to push for laws to limit marriage in accordance with my religious views.  Yet I am told by liberals that in the case of same-sex marriage, I am not allowed to bring my religious views into the mix.  I am told that this particular "life-style choice" is one that I should tolerate in the society in which I live.

Liberals also tell me that there is plenty of evidence for same-sex marriage in the Bible, yet there is by far more evidence of multiple-partner marriage in the Bible.  Liberals then tell me that the Biblical witness is outmoded and archaic.  If so, then on what basis do we limit any marriage in our society?

In a just and moral society, there are limits to marriage.  There is a need to protect children.  As Christians we should oppose the abuse of children in these polygamous situations and we should understand marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Yours in Christ, JOHN

Moral Side of the News (March 16) - Governor Spitzer of New York

Topic: The Elliot Spitzer affair raises a lot of moral issues. The then-governor of New York was caught in a federal probe of a prostitution ring and subsequently resigned from office: New York Times. (1) Some have argued that Spitzer’s private behavior should have little bearing on his fitness for public office: LA Times. (2) Why are powerful many so often brought down by scandal such as this? Why do they seem so willing to risk it all for sexual gratification: New York Times, Cal Thomas. (3) Some argue that prostitution is a “victimless” crime which should be decriminalized and regulated: Slate. What do you think? Should “the world’s oldest profession” be brought out of the shadows? (4) Why do some women such as Spitzer’s wife, Silda, publically stand by their men, in the midst of their humiliation? Should they? Or should they stay behind the scenes and let their husbands face the music on their own: New York Daily News, New York Post. (5) What does it say about our culture that the prostitute involved will now likely become a national celebrity: New York Times?

(1) I noticed during the Viet Nam War protests by some of my contemporaries, that there was on the left a willingness to separate public and private morality - that somehow the two could be compartmentalized.  I am not saying that all who protested the Viet Nam War (while I was volunteering for the Marine Corps) were devoid of personal/private morals; but many on the left were able to create this psycholigical wall between public and private morality - as if one did not effect and reveal the other.

What a stupid position to take - especially in this situation.  Governor Spitzer was the chief law enforcement officer of the state of New York who was swept into office with promises to clean up the mess in state government.  His private immorality led him into criminal acts and a public betrayal of those who trusted him.  Private morality does effect and reveal public morality.  Indeed, there is no artificial barrier between the two.  Governor Spitzer showed who he is behind the facade of crusading refomer.

Only the LA Times (in the opinion piece cited above) could celebrate "something encouraging in seeing even a self-destructive maverick spirit live on despite the best intentions of public scolds."  The LA Times opinion piece argues for a lowering of moral standards because of the record of the lack of 100% success.  I say "NO."  We should maintain higher standards and not evaluate morality based on successful adherance.

(2) My observations in life lead me to suggest that every powerful person needs the humility that only can come from living in relation to a being greater than all of us (God).  When we see ourselves as the arbiter of all things, there is never any balancing authority.  If I am all in all, then I make can make my own rules.  If, however, I live my life in relation to the true God who determines morality, then I stand humbly before him as a sinner.

I do want to raise a word caution to us.  Governor Spitzer was swept into office in an emotional response to him and what he promised.  This person-centered messianic movement is dangerous.  People who are the focus of their own political campaigns often begin to believe the propaganda.  Let us seek leaders who humbly come to us and see themselves as unworthy before us and God.

(3) Prostitution is not a victimless crime.  The life expectancy of a prostitute is much lower than the general population.  We can see a wide range of victims in this particular case - the prostitute (Kristen), the governor, his wife, and his daughters.  How a man with three daughters can do this is beyond me!  How self-absorbed he must be.

Just because someone is a victim does not excuse that person from responsiblity.  "Kristen" and the governor are victims of their own actions and decisions.  For any redemption to take place their actions and decisions must have meaning, and meaning only comes from consequences.

Our society is so quick to cover people in "victimhood" that we give cheap absolution for all harmful behavior.  "Kristen" and the governor should be seen for what they are:  two people who destroyed a family and damaged three young girls for their personal profit or entertainment.  Shame on them.

(4) Why do these wives put up with this stuff - at least initially?  Mrs. Spitzer, Mrs. McGreevey (wife of the former governor of Connecticut), and Mrs. Clinton did not deserve what they got.  On the one hand, they should have known they had married jerks.  On the other hand, how can you know something like this will happen?  My advice - take the kids and the check book and run.

(5) Unfortunately, our culture will bend over backwards to rehabilitate the people who have done the most damage.  "Kristen" will get a book deal, be interviewed by Oprah, and make career on reality TV.  Mr. Spitzer will get a book deal, be interviewed by Barbara Walters, and become a consultant. 

The people who deserve our compassion and support will get very little of it.  Mrs. Spitzer will get a book deal, be interview on "The View," and then fade into the background.  The three daughters will never be the same.

Postscript:  I don't think we have the last bit of information on this situation.  Mr. Spitzer will "flip" and start giving names.  The prostitution "service" has already been shown to cater to organized crime.  My question is "If the governor of New York is 'customer #9, who are #1-8?"

Yours in Christ, JOHN

Moral Side of the New (March 9) - Homosexual couple in Kentucky not allowed to adopt

Topic: A homosexual couple has been blocked in their effort to adopt a child – not because they are homosexual but because they are unmarried: Courier Journal. Sunrise Children Services, formerly Kentucky Baptist Home for Children, is one of more than 50 private agencies -- many of them faith-based -- the state uses for child and family services. Many offer their own foster and adoptive services for children in state care. Although Kentucky doesn't bar unmarried adults who live together, including same-sex couples, as foster and adoptive parents, it doesn't prevent private agencies from doing so, said Patricia Wilson, who became commissioner of social services in January. But Rep. Tom Burch, D-Louisville and chairman of the House Health and Welfare Committee, called it "bad policy," and said the cabinet should reconsider contracts with Sunrise and any other agencies that impose such restrictions. "I think they ought to abide by the state rules -- not their own rules," Burch said.  Who’s right here?

Mr. Burch makes an interesting statement.  First, he identifies the Baptist agency's position as "bad."  I wonder if he means that.  "Bad" is a moral judgment.  Is the policy immoral in his view, or just incorrect in his view? 

Then he says that the Baptist agency should "abide by state rules, not their own."  Does he imply that Baptist and other religious agencies owe their allegience to the state first and only?

Mr. Burch is apparently bringing his religious and moral views into the formation of policies.  This is exactly what conservatives are told not to do!

Maybe we need to start over from the perspective of what is best for the children in question.  Is it "bad policy" - to use Mr. Burch's terminology - to require an adopting couple to be married?  I would suggest that on balance bringing a child into a family where the two adults that head the familiy are married provides a much more stable environment for an adoption, than a situation where a couple have not made that commitment.

Could we create a scenario where a specific married couple would not provide a stable environment?  Of course, we could.  But I think everyone would agree that marriage is a greater predictor of stability than no marriage.  Adoption by a married couple is the optimum situation.

It was on this basis that the homosexual couple was denied the adoption.  Now, however, the "special interest groups" are using this issue not to focus on the needs of adopted children, but to advance a particular social (and moral) agenda.  The end goal is not the welfare of children, but the recognition of same-sex relationships as marriage.

Let us get back to the issue.  As a general rule, is it better for a child to have one male parent and one female parent, or is the sex of both parents irrelevant.  Men and women bring different "skill sets" to parenting.  A child has a better chance a being appropriately nurtured in an environment where one parent is male and one is female and the two are married.

Let us look what has happened to the African-American family and children.  From my experience and observation a significant problem especially for male African-American children that many (of even most) are raised in families with single-sex "parenting groups."  Females (mothers, grandmothers, aunts, and older sisters) in many cases raise children who do not have the benefit of the consistent presence of a male adult.

Again, you and I could create a where a traditional marriage is not a healthy situation for a child, but the preponderance of the social research will show that the optimum situation for the adoption of a child is a married male/female couple.  This view is also consistent with the underlying values of the Baptist agency.

My suggestion is this:  Have persons who desire to promote adoption of children by unmarried, same-sex couples to form an agency for that purpose.  Apparently the state will not oppose such an agency.  In my view we shall be taking a risk with the lives of children, but others may say that such a risk is worth the advancement of their own social agenda.

This couple could have gone to another agency.  I would guess their motivation was to make a point, not care for a child.  That is a tragedy.

The Moral Side of the News (Jan 13) - Divorce and Marriage

Topic: We think of the holiday season as a family time of good cheer and warm feelings. But, according to this story by ABC News, many couples find their relationships crushed over the Christmas season, resulting in a spike in divorces this time of year: ABC News. What can couples do, not just over the holidays, but throughout the year to strengthen their marriages so that they can survive periods of stress? Some states are passing “covenant marriage” laws designed to make divorce more difficult. Is this a good idea? Is no fault divorce part of the problem?

Any pastor knows that this time of year is particularly stressful on families.  The emotional expectations, the realization that life is not perfect, the financial burden of being able to buy everyone a nice gift, a review of the past year, and even "cabin fever" during harsh weather all combine to create a lot of stress for marriages and families.

Of course, divorces at this time of year are often the result of years of stress and unresolved issues; but the holidays do bring many issues to the surface.  We need an holistic approach to marriage.  To address many of the end of the year issues I recommend that throughout the year couples (and families) work toward their financial and spiritual health together.  The blessings of belonging to a church family where other couples can mentor and model healthy relationships are innumerable.  Worship, prayer, and small group fellowship are essential in maintaining a strong marriage.  A reasonable year round family stewardship plan is also essential and there are many good Christian resources.  I recommend Crown Financial Ministries as a reliable and reasonable resource.  Many churches have family financial seminars as a part of their Christian Education program.

Respect for marriage itself is important for the survival of individual marriages.  I favor any effort to strengthen the respect for marriage in our culture.

Yours in Christ, JOHN

Moral Side of the News (Nov 11) - Single Mothers

An increasing number of older single women are deciding to get pregnant and have children – without the benefit of marriage and increasingly, because of sperm banks, without the direct involvement of men. “Whether by choice or circumstance, the evidence suggests that more and more women are considering single parenthood. Unwed births among 30- to 44-year-olds rose 20 percent from 1991 to 2006, and last year alone, four in 10 U.S. babies were born outside of marriage even though teen pregnancies hit their lowest point in 65 years. Fairfax Cryobank, one of the biggest sperm banks in the United States, says its single-female clientele jumped 20 percent in the last decade and now accounts for 60 percent of its customer base”: Newsweek. What does this trend tell us about the value of marriage in our society? What about the children? Studies consistently confirm that children are better off with a mom and a dad. Is this another sign that we become too individualistic? What can churches/synagogues do to counter the “it’s-all-about-me” attitude?

We are entering the "Culture of the Disposable Male."  When families and marriages can be defined any way we want, then we can redefine families to suit our selves.

There is so much in our culture that is pushing aside the adult male and attempting to reshape a definition of what it means to be a man.  More women are in college than men.  The only safe joke is about a white male.  The whole "metrosexual male" thing confuses me.

Is motherhood by a single female a good thing?  Just ask the African-American population about their experience with families without men and households headed by only women.  The evidence points to the necessity for fathers.

Much of this trend may be attributed to the Liberal notion that essentially women and men are the same.  Men and women are not the same.  I would even go so far as to observe that children in a family not only need what both a man and a woman offer as parents, but the need for either the male or the female parent by the child varies over the stages of life.

We cannot escape how God has created us.  We have been created either male or female.  Biology, psychology, sociology, and the Bible show us that  each role in the family is necessary, distinct, and of great value.

Yours in Christ, JOHN

Moral Side of the News (Nov 4) - Parenting

American parents are more likely to set rules about television viewing for their children than they were a decade ago, a new federal report says: Washington Times. In addition, more parents are reading to their young children and encouraging their older children to take lessons in music, dance, language, computers or religion, the Census Bureau said in its new report, "A Child's Day: 2004." What do you make of this? Are you encouraged that more parents are apparently involved with their kids? What does this say about what’s available to watch on television?

BREAKING NEWS:  PARENTS ARE PARENTING!  I am always astounded when the liberal media discovers conservative values.  Who could be against this?

The only way to combat the poor (should I say, "bad") influence of much of what is offered on television is with good parenting.  The problem is, not every child has a good parent.  The entertainment industry has a responsibility to our society.  Unfortunately, I don't believe that industry will be part of the solution.

Yours in Christ, JOHN

Marriage - Chapter Eleven

Chapter Eleven

Music for the Marriage Ceremony

                   The pastor’s due counsel with the parties involved prior to marriage should include consultation with the organist or person in charge of music.  The musicians should work with the couple in all decisions of music selection.

                   The service of marriage in the Church is provided for couples who wish to solemnize their marriage in a service of Christian worship.  Concerning the selection of vocal or choral music to be performed in a service of Christian marriage, there is really only one simple rule.  If the music is not appropriate for a Sunday morning worship service, the music is not appropriate for a service of Christian marriage.  While there is a practice of using in weddings contemporary or popular love songs that express the romantic sentiment of the couple, such music is better suited for the rehearsal party or the reception.

                   Instrumental music of a wide variety is suited to the service of Christian marriage.  Especially encouraged is music of a celebratory nature that can capture the mood of the occasion.  The pastor in consultation with the organist/musicians is the final arbiter of the appropriateness of a musical selection for a service of Christian marriage.

Marriage - Chapter Ten

Chapter Ten

The Marriage Ceremony

The Order for the Service of Marriage

from the Book of Ritual of the United Methodist Church (1964)

This service may begin with a prelude and/or processional and conclude with a postlude and/or recessional.

When the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is requested, this service should be provided at a time other than the service of marriage.

At the appointed time the minister shall say:

                   Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the presence of these witnesses, to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony; which is an honorable estate, instituted of God, and signifying unto us the mystical union which exists between Christ and His Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified in Cana of Galilee.  It is therefore not to be entered into unadvisedly, but reverently, discretely, and in the fear of God.  Into this holy estate these two persons come now to be joined.  If any man can show just cause why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter forever hold his peace.

                   I require and charge you both, as you stand in the presence of God, before whom the secrets of all hearts are disclosed, that, having duly considered the holy covenant you are about to make, you do now declare before this company your pledge of faith, each to the other.  Be well assured that if these solemn vows are kept inviolate, as God’s Word demands, and if steadfastly you endeavor to do the will of your heavenly Father, God will bless you marriage, will grant you fulfillment in it, and will establish your home in peace.

                   __________, wilt thou have this woman to be thy wedded wife, to live together in the holy estate of matrimony?  Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honor and keep her, in sickness and in health; and forsaking all other keep thee only unto her so long as ye both shall live?

The man shall answer:

                   I will.

The minister shall say:

                   __________, wilt thou have this man to be thy wedded husband, to live together in the holy estate of matrimony?  Wilt thou love him, comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health; and forsaking all other keep thee only unto him so long as ye both shall live?

The woman shall say:

                   I will.

The minister shall say:

                   Who giveth this woman to be married to this man?

The father of the woman or whoever gives her in marriage shall answer as appropriate:

                   I do (Her mother and I do, Her family does, etc.).

The father of the woman shall be seated.

Scripture may be read at this point.  If the couple desires scripture lessons to be read, they may chose from the following:  Genesis 1.26-28, 31a; Isaiah 42.1-7; Isaiah 55.10-13; Isaiah 61.10-62.23; Isaiah 63.7-9; Matthew 22.35-40; Mark 2.18-22; Romans 12.1-2, 9-18; 1 Corinthians 13; Colossians 3.12-17; 1 John 3.18-24; 1 John 4.7-16.

Then the minister shall receive the hand of the woman and give her hand to the man and have the man repeat after him:

                   I, __________, take thee, __________, to be 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 pledge thee my faith.

Then the minister shall have the woman repeat after him:

                   I, __________, take thee, __________, to be 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 pledge thee my faith.

The man and the woman shall approach the altar.  Then they may give to each other rings, or the man may give to the woman a ring.  The minister shall receive the ring or rings and shall say,

                   The wedding ring is the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, signifying to all the uniting of this man and this woman in holy matrimony, through the Church of Jesus Christ our Lord.  Let us pray.

                   Bless, O Lord, the giving of these rings (this ring), that they who wear them (she who wears it) may abide in Thy peace, and continue in Thy favor; through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.

The minister shall deliver the proper ring to the man to put on the third finger of the woman’s left hand.  The man shall repeat after the minister:

                   In token and pledge of our constant faith and abiding love, with this ring I thee wed, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

The minister shall deliver the proper ring to the woman to put on the third finger of the man’s left hand.  The woman shall repeat after the minister:

                   In token and pledge of our constant faith and abiding love, with this ring I thee wed, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

If a unity candle is being used it may be lit by the man and woman at this time.  A solo or other musical interlude is appropriate.

Then the minister shall place his right hand on the joined hands of the man and woman and say:

                   Forasmuch as __________ and __________ have consented together in holy wedlock, and have witnessed the same before God and this company, and thereto have pledged their faith each to the other and have declared the same by joining hands and by giving and receiving rings (a ring); I pronounce that they are husband and wife together, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Those whom God hath joined together, let not Man put asunder.  Amen.  Let us pray.

                   O Eternal God, Creator and Preserver of all Mankind, Giver of all spiritual grace, the Author of everlasting life:  Send they blessing upon this man and this woman, whom we bless in Thy Name; that they may surely perform and keep the vow and covenant between them made, and may ever remain in perfect love and peace together, and live according to Thy laws.

                   Look graciously upon them, that they may love, honor, and cherish each other, and so live together in faithfulness and patience, in wisdom and true godliness, that their home may be a haven of blessing and a place of peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.

The congregation may join in saying the Lord’s Prayer or it may be sung at this time.

The minister shall say:

                   God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, bless, preserve, and keep you; the Lord graciously with His favor look upon you, and so fill you with all spiritual benediction and love that you may so live together in this life that in the world to come you may have life everlasting.  Amen.

The minister shall invite the man and woman to kiss and then introduce the couple.

Marriage - Chapter Nine

Chapter Nine

Marriage Counseling and Important Issues to Address

                   The pastor performs a marriage ceremony after due counsel with the parties involved. The decision to perform the ceremony shall be the right and responsibility of the pastor in accordance with the laws of the state and practices of the Church.

                   Marriage counseling will focus on the theological, spiritual, emotional, physical, financial, and social issues of marriage.  The session or sessions shall deal with any past issues or present expectations that could hamper the marriage.  The pastor assumes that the couple has read the booklet and may discuss issues contained in it.

                   Marriage counseling is intended to be a positive time for the couple to examine important issues.  Counseling should be approached with openness and in a prayerful manner.

Theological and Spiritual Issues

                   Before marriage couples should discuss religious issues.  This booklet has outlined the important Biblical foundations and understandings of marriage.  Reading a book, having an ordained minister preside, and holding the wedding ceremony in a sanctuary or religious setting, will not insure that a marriage will last.

                   Religious considerations are important.  One could say in this regard, "What you see is what you get."  Do not expect marriage to convert one partner to the religious views of the other partner.

                   Religion, or lack of religious affiliation, speaks to a persons ultimate system of values.  Religious differences can very well be the cause of conflict in a marriage and a family.  The more one's faith means to a person, the more that person needs a spouse with similar system of belief.

                   Conflict may occur when the husband and wife are of different religions, different denominations, different perspectives, or even different levels of adherence to religious values.  Religious differences (for example if one partner is Christian, and the other Jewish), could lead to conflict over which religious holidays are celebrated and how the celebration takes place; where the couple will worship, if they wish to worship together; and in what faith the children will be raised.  Pressures on the marriage for one partner to convert could come from either side of the family.  These conflicts and pressures could eventually lead to resentment and anger.  If a compromise is reached, it is never equal.

                   There can also be important differences when the husband and wife are Christian, but are from different denominations.  Worship styles and belief systems vary between denominations.  Though to a lesser extent, the same conflicts and pressure exist in this situation as in the case where the husband and wife are of different religions.  Such is the case as well with different religious perspectives (e.g. charismatic, fundamentalist, conservative, liberal, etc), and adherence (committed or nominal).

Emotional Issues

                   Again, the rule-of-thumb is "What you see is what you get."  Do not expect marriage to mature a person or help a person grow out of emotional problems.

                   Each person contemplating marriage should carefully look at their own family life and that of their prospective spouse.  The role models a person has for the relationship between husband and wife will either indicate the patterns a person will follow in his or her own marriage or will indicate the fears and concerns a person brings into a marriage.

                   Serious emotional problems should be addressed prior to marriage.  A spouse should know if his or her prospective partner has a history of emotional problems or has issues with which he or she needs to address.  Marriage often will worsen a person's emotional and psychological challenges.

Physical Issues

                   Physical and medical differences from types of diet to hereditary conditions are important points of discussion.  A prospective spouse should be aware of the challenges of any handicapping conditions and be aware of how to deal with them.  Hereditary conditions could have an impact on whether or not a couple decides to have children.  Other concerns such as dietary, smoking, and drinking habits may be overlooked during dating, but may cause conflict or concern within a marriage.

Financial Issues

                   Finances are the greatest source of continuing conflict in a marriage.  Bringing excessive debt into a marriage should be avoided.  The rule-of-thumb is "What is mine, is ours."  This applies to liabilities as well as assets.

                   It is strongly recommended that all couples should develop a disciplined and equal partnership in dealing with the finances of the family.  Furthermore, a couple marrying in their twenties should not try to obtain everything all at once. 

                   Here is a basic and general guideline for financial planning by a young couple:

1.   Determine who will be the bookkeeper for the family.

2.   Wait three days before making any large purchase.

3.   Do not open any new credit card accounts and close all current credit card accounts.

4.   Establish an emergency savings account with the first goal being the accumulation of $1,000 and the second goal being three two six months of expenses.

5.   Pay off all debts using the "snowball" effect - setting a monthly amount paying minimums on all but the smallest, then when the smallest debt is paid, using that amount to accelerate payment on the next smallest.

6.   Establish a savings account for purchasing a house.  Do not purchase a house unless there is 20% of the purchase price in the account.  When purchasing a house, get a 15 year fixed mortgage.

7.   Do not buy any new cars.  A car is not an investment.  A car begins to depreciate when you sign the purchase agreement.  Vehicles loose 60% of their value in the first four years.

8.   Establish a budget under the following guidelines:  For a couple with a net spendible income after taxes and tithe of $32,445 ($45,000 gross) 30% for housing, 13% for food, 12% for automobiles, 5% for insurance, 5% for debt reduction, 5% for entertainment, 5% for clothing, 5% for savings, 4% for medical and dental, 5% for investments, and 5% for miscellaneous expenses.

                    Children are expensive.  If a couple waits until they can afford to have children to have children, they will never have children.   Besides one another, the greatest blessing a couple can receive is to have children.  Raising children requires creative ways to budget resources, but by God's grace a family will thrive.

Children

                   A couple should enter into marriage with some general understanding about the timing and number of children, though there are always pleasant surprises along the way.  There may be children from a previous marriage that will be incorporated into the family immediately.  Custody and relationships with prior spouses need to be understood and approached in a mature and non-competitive manner.  Couples who cannot have children may want to adopt.

Social Issues

                   Several social factors will need to be considered prior to marriage.  Racial, ethnic, and language differences will need to be considered.  Religion has already been discussed, but couples should also discuss educational levels and expectations for themselves and any children.  Career choices are also important.  Entertainment and recreational choices also need to be examined.

                   The couple should seek social activities that bring them closer and support their marriage.  A special basketball game with the guys or an occasional night out with the girls may be a welcome change of pace, but activities in which the spouse cannot or will not share will create a sense of separation.  One must remember the two are made one.

Legal Issues

                   Each person should be open and disclose and past or present legal situations.  Though a "police check" is not suggested, it is important to be open and honest.  Any legal entanglements that could damage the marriage should be shared.

Expectations

                   No one wants to live in the past, but often times we do repeat the past in our relationship.  The past is our starting point.  Our expectations are the goal.  In between is the journey.  In order to commit to another person for the journey of marriage, one must have a good understanding of who that person is.

                   The best advice is:  "No surprises!"  Information shared prior to a marriage is much more easily understood, forgiven, and assimilated than the same information one-year or ten years later.  Secrecy suggests a lack of emotional commitment to a relationship.  Trust is critical to a marriage.  A husband and wife should have a complete trust in one another. Trust begins with an open and honest sharing of past issues and present expectations.

Expectations for Commitment and Fidelity

                   Recent studies have suggested that men and women bring into their marriages different expectations concerning fidelity based on roles each played in primitive society.  Men tend to place a high value sexual fidelity in their wives.  Men also tend to seek out younger women and sometimes numerous relationships.  Women seem to place a high value emotional fidelity in their husbands and will often seek unions with stable, powerful, established, older men.

                   Leaving aside the moral issues involved, one can see how these conflicting expectations arose in primitive society.  The primitive male sought assurances that the children of his mate were actually his offspring.  In addition, in a primitive society a family's children provided workers, hunters, and warriors. The dominant male of the family would seek to produce as many offspring as possible to increase the chances for survival of the family.  The seemingly contradictory goals of the primitive male, therefore, were sexual fidelity to him from as many unions with productive females as he could support.

                   The primitive female, however, sought assurances that she and her offspring would be secure.  She would seek out the strongest and most powerful male who would be emotionally committed to her and her children.  Even as the lines between roles of males and females become more blurred in modern society, we can still see these primitive values and expectations exerting themselves.  Men and women are different!

                   Christianity has a higher standard of conduct and commitment than simply what as evolved from primitive societies.  A Christian marriage is a partnership between a man and a women who are lovingly, equally, and fully committed to each other, having given themselves completely to the other in a Christ-like manner.

Expectations for Communicating Love

                   In The Five Languages of Love, Dr. Gary Chapman suggests that because of past experiences and examples within their own families, individuals express love and understand how love is expressed to them in different "languages."  He outlines five primary languages of love - Words of Affirmation, Quality Time, Receiving Gifts, Acts of Service, and Physical Touch.  It is important to understand the different ways in which love is expressed and understood by each partner in a marriage.  Learning to express your love to your husband or wife is critical.

                   One spouse or the other may understand love in terms of Words of Affirmation such as compliments, expressions of gratitude and appreciation, praise, or affirmation.  Positive words, both written and spoken, are highly valued by these persons and make them feel loved.

                   A partner in a marriage may understand he or she is loved through quality time or the giving of one's undivided and focused attention.  They may feel loved most in quiet times of togetherness or quality conversation.  Eye contact, not conversing while doing something else, refusing to interrupt - these communicate the spending of quality time.

                   Maybe a husband or wife will feel loved by receiving gifts.  Gifts are symbols of love and have emotional value beyond any material value.  A gift need not be expensive, but should be a gift of the self to the other.  Physical presence may be a gift in itself.

                   Acts of Service may be the way by which a husband or wife feel loved.  Acts of Service are those things that your spouse would like you to do.  These acts could be simple things such as letting out the dog, mowing the grass, or balancing the checkbook.

                   Finally, Physical Touch may be a means by which a partner understands he or she is loved.  Physical touching in a marriage range from sexual intercourse to holding hands.   A hug during a crisis, or an embrace in a moment of joy all speak love.

                   Of course, we can see that each language should be spoken and heard in a marriage, but each of us has a primary language.  It is important to learn the language of our husband or wife and to become fluent.  We must learn to say, "I love you."

Questions to Ask and Answer

Theological, Spiritual, and Religious

1.   Where will we worship and how often?

2.   What religious holidays will we observe and how will we observe them?

3.   How will the children be raised?

4.   How do we view God's role in our lives and marriage?

5.   How do we view the role of the husband and wife in making religious decisions?

6.   What external pressures will religious expectations cause on our marriage?

Emotional and Psychological

1.   What was the past family life of each person?

2.   What were the roles of the father and mother in the family?

3.   Are there any emotional or psychological issues in the past or present?

Physical and Medical

1.   Are there any physical conditions that may have an impact on the relationship?

2.   Are there any handicapping conditions for which a spouse will need special training?

3.   Are there any dietary differences?

4.   Does either partner smoke or drink excessively or have any addiction?

Financial

1.   Who is the bookkeeper?

2.   Are there any debts coming into the marriage?

3.   What are the financial goals of our marriage?

4.   Will we be one income or two now and when we have children?

Children

1.   How many children would we like to have and when should we try to have them?

2.   Are there any children from previous relationships and what impact will that have on every aspect of our marriage?

3.   Would we consider adopting children?

4.   What is the role of the husband and wife in raising children?

Social

1.   Do we face any challenges related to race, ethnic background, or language?

2.   What are our educational levels and could this be a source of friction?

3.   Do we understand each other's career pattern?

4.   What do we enjoy doing together?

5.   Are there any activities that would exclude or cause separation?

Legal

1.   Are there any present or past legal situations in which either persons finds himself or herself?

2.   Are there any previous marriages, alimony payments, or child support payments?

3.   Is there any situation that needs to be explained now before the marriage takes place?

What Your Grandmother Would Tell You

                   Premarital counseling in its essence is simple.  It is advice that your grandmother would give.

1.   What you see is what you get.

2.   What is mine is ours.

3.   Children don't fix marriages.

4.   Do not surprise me.

5.   Men and women are different.

6.   Learn to say, "I love you."

Marriage - Chapter Eight

Chapter Eight

Practices and Guidelines for Weddings by United Methodist Pastors

                   United Methodist pastors are pleased to contribute to the happiness of a bride and groom, their families, and their friends in a Christian wedding ceremony.  By doctrine, we consider a marriage as a covenant between a man, a woman, and God.  The wedding ceremony is a worship service in which two things occur - God is worshipped and the love between a man and a woman is celebrated and consecrated.  The services of the pastor are available to persons who seek such a blessing in the establishment of a new Christian home.

                   The guidelines are not intended to be unnecessarily restrictive or exclusionary.  Rather, we hope that they will assist the couple in planning and enhance their memory of this event.

Early Arrangements

                   The pastor should be contacted at the earliest possible time so that a tentative date may be selected and reserved for the wedding and rehearsal that does not conflict with the pastor’s schedule.  The couple should schedule the wedding at least three months prior to the projected wedding date.  This will allow the pastor to place the event on his schedule of activities and for all other arrangements to be made. 

                   As soon as the the pastor confirms the wedding date, the couple should set an appointment with the pastor.  This one-hour session is for the purpose of pre-marital counseling.  If the ritual or any administrative issues need to be discussed, a separate session should be scheduled.  The couple and the pastor will determine if additional sessions are needed.

                   If any musicians are to participate in the ceremony it is suggested that they be contacted as soon as possible.  The pastor is available to advise the couple in the selection of music.  Chapter 11 offers some written guidelines for wedding music.

                   It is the responsibility of the couple to insure that all legal requirements are completed.  The pastor performing the ceremony must receive the marriage license on the day of the wedding.  Usually a secretary shall complete the license and post it no later than the first business day after the wedding.

The Officiating Minister

                   The pastor is ordained and licensed to conduct weddings.  If the wedding is to be conducted by another pastor in the church's sanctuary, the host pastor shall extend the invitation to the pastor to be a guest.

                   Since the wedding ceremony is a worship service in which the presence and blessing of God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - are sought and experienced, no ministers, priests, officials scriptures, writings, or symbols of other religions or belief systems shall be a part of a ceremony conducted by the pastor or ministers of a United Methodist Church.  The pastor should not participate in any ceremonies involving ministers, priests, officials, scriptures, writings, or symbols of other religions or belief systems.

                   The exception to this policy would be ceremonies involving the Jewish faith.  In this case, the pastor should discuss and develop a means by which the Christian witness is not compromised, but enhanced by the Jewish perspective.  The couple planning such a ceremony should be allowed plenty of time for discussions between themselves and the pastor and rabbi.

Musicians

                   Musicians should contact the officiating minister and discuss any relevant issues prior to rehearsal.  Guest musicians should also familiarize themselves with the policies and guidelines regarding wedding music.

Rehearsals

                   Normally the larger the wedding party or more formal the ceremony, the more likely a rehearsal will be needed.  The couple will meet with the pastor prior to the rehearsal (or ceremony) to discuss the order of worship.

                   A rehearsal is normally held the evening before the day of the ceremony.  It is expected that the rehearsal will begin at the appointed time and last for one hour.  Though the officiating minister will try to be flexible, often times he or she has made other commitments and will need to complete the rehearsal in a timely manner.

Using Church Facilities

                   It must be remembered that a church's facilities are considered God’s house by the congregation, and the behavior of the wedding party should reflect this belief at all times.  The sanctuary is a special place to church members and should be treated with respect by all persons.  Appropriate conduct and attire show this respect.  Men should remove their hats while in the sanctuary out of respectful custom.

                   Smoking is not allowed in any part of a church's buildings.  Alcoholic beverages and other controlled substances usually are not allowed on Protestant church grounds or in the buildings.  No such substances will be allowed during the rehearsal or ceremony.  Out of custom food and drink are not allowed in the sanctuary.

                   Weapons of any sort are not allowed on a church's property unless they are properly secured in vehicles.  Exceptions to this rule are the weapons of law enforcement officers and the ceremonial weapons for military weddings.  The pastor of should be informed of any weapon and will make the final determination concerning the presence of a weapon.

                   An appropriate amount of decoration is suggested for the sanctuary.  Some churches request that the pulpit and lectern not be moved.  Placement of the altar and its contents is under the direction of the pastor or his or her representatives.  All decorations should be determined as early as possible and if there is any question the pastor should be asked as soon as possible.

                   A fee paid to the facility usually covers custodial services.  Any damaged items should be shown to a manager of the facility or church before the wedding party leaves the building.  Protective mats or plastic sheets must be placed under candles, potted plants, and watered greenery.  The florist should be notified of this requirement.    Rice poses a danger to birds and is not allowed.  Birdseed may be thrown outside the building, but the seeds need to be swept off of the walks and parking lot. Some wedding parties have begun the practice of releasing butterflies or blowing bubbles.

Minister’s Assistant

                   A minister’s assistant may be suggested for many weddings.  This assistant is responsible to the pastor with administrative tasks and with various small and unseen tasks during the wedding.  The minister’s assistant will be available at the rehearsal and the ceremony to help the officiating minister.

Wedding Consultants

                   Sometimes couples hire a wedding consultant to assist them in planning and executing their wedding. Such consultants may or may not be arranged through the church.  While these professionals are often helpful, the couple should remember that the officiating minister leads the worship service.  The officiating minister and the minister’s assistant will be happy to have the assistance of the wedding consultant, but the officiating minister and minister’s assistant will deal directly with the couple.        

                   The pastor or other officiating minister is in charge of the wedding ceremony and rehearsal.  If a wedding consultant is utilized, that consultant should make an appointment to coordinate his or her activities with the pastor and review all policies and guidelines.

Photographs and Videos

                   Most professional photographers and videographers are very capable and know what is expected of them during the ceremony.  The couple is encouraged to hire professional photographers and videographers.  These professionals know to consult with the officiating minister concerning their role during the service.

                   Family members are asked not to take photographs or to make videos of the service unless they are acting at the invitation of the couple and in consultation with the pastor.  Many professional photographers and videographers have an exclusive agreement that they alone will take pictures and videos.  Family members, though they mean well, do not know what is required of them and often cause a distraction during the worship.

                   The wedding ceremony is a worship service not a “photo-op.”  Photographers and videographers should be discrete in their work and not call attention to themselves.  There shall be no flashes or video lights used during the ceremony.  Any part of the ceremony may be re-enacted after the service.

                   Photographers and videographers should be respectful of the schedule of the worship and of others.  The timing of the service takes precedence over any photography.  The officiating minister is available for a reasonable amount of time after the service for photographs.

Locations Other Than Sanctuaries

                   The pastor may conduct weddings at locations other than church sanctuaries.  Homes, gardens, and wedding chapels may be used.  The pastor shall not conduct a worship service in a location that is not conducive to the worship of God or consistent with the Christian witness.

Marriage - Chapter Seven

Chapter Seven

This Mystery Is Great

Ephesians 5.21-33

                   ²¹Be under the authority of one another out of respect for Christ.

                   ²²Wives, be to your husbands as you are to the Lord, ²³because the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church - He is Savior of the Body.  ²⁴As the Church is under the authority of Christ, so also should wives be to their husbands in all things.

                   ²⁵Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself to her ²⁶so that He might set her apart as sacred to God having made her clean with the washing of water in the word, ²⁷so that He might dedicate the Church to Himself as honored, wearing nothing stained or wrinkled or damaged in any way, that she might be holy and faultless.  ²⁸So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies.  He who loves his wife loves himself, ²⁹for no one ever disregards his own body, but feeds and takes care of it, just as Christ does for the Church, ³⁰because we are part of His Body.

                   ³¹For a man leaves father and mother and is united to his wife, and the two are one body.

                   ³²This mystery is great, and I am connecting it to Christ and the Church.  ³³Still, each of you love your wife as you love yourself, and let each wife respect her husband.

The Foundational Statement

                   The basic statement about relationships in the faith and in the Church is found in verse 21.  Though translators have correctly connected this verse with the preceding section, it obviously is the basic statement that informs our interpretation of Paul’s instruction on the relationship between husband and wife.

                   Love, not authority, is the essential character of all Christian relationships.  Paul, however, encourages and mutuality of authority in all Christian relationships.

                   It is interesting that Paul does not encourage the individual to assume a position of authority over another.  Rather, Paul urges the believer to place himself or herself under the authority of the other.  The assumption of the servant role is done out of respect for Christ, Paul says. Paul describes Christ in Philippians 2 as the one who has authority, but who casts that authority aside and takes on the role of the servant for us.  Our relationships with one another are not governed by our seeking authority over the other, but in giving ourselves in service to the other as Christ did.

Wives to Husbands

                   Paul encourages wives to relate to their husbands as Christ relates to the Church.  This teaching is in the context of the mutuality of authority and service found in verse 21.  As the Church is under the authority of Christ, who is its head and servant, so too the wife is under the authority of the husband.  Wives are to respect their husbands, just as both respect Christ.

Husbands to Wives

                   Paul spends more time discussing the marital relationship in the direction of husband to wife.  One could assume that given the cultural context, it was this side of the relationship that needed the most instruction from a Christian perspective.

                   Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church - sacrificially, in giving of the self, discarding authority, and becoming a servant.  The husband honors his wife with this kind of love.

                   The love which is given to the wife by the husband is analogous, Paul says, to the husband’s love for his own body.  Indeed, the husband’s love for his wife is love for his own body, since in marriage the husband and wife unite into one body in marriage.

                   The quotation from Genesis is also a reminder from Paul of the authority of the wife over the husband.  It is the husband in this situation who goes to the wife and united with her.

                   This relationship, Paul writes, is a mystery.  The best parallel to the relationship between husband and wife is the relationship between Christ and the Church.  He connects the two relationships because of the mutuality of service and self-giving that are found in both instances.

Marriage - Chapter Six

Chapter Six

Men and Women in the Community of Faith

First Corinthians 11.2-16

                   ²I compliment you because you have kept me in mind in everything and you have held onto the traditions just as I handed them down to you.  ³But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of a woman is the husband, and the head of Christ is God.

                   ⁴Any man who prays or speaks a word from God with his head covered disgraces his head; ⁵but any woman who prays or speaks a word from God with her head uncovered disgraces her head.  It is as if she had shaved her head.  ⁶For if a woman does not cover her head, then she might as well cut her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to cut her hair or shave her head, then she should cover her head.

                   ⁷A man ought not to cover his head, for he possesses the image and glory of God; but a woman in the glory of a man; ⁸because the husband does not come from the woman, but the wife comes from the man.  ⁹The husband was not created from the woman; but the wife was created from the man.  ¹⁰Because of this a wife ought to have her husband’s authority resting on her head - because of the angels.  ¹¹Nevertheless, in the Lord a wife is not independent of a man, neither is a husband independent of a woman; ¹²for just as a wife comes from a man, so also is a husband born of a woman; and all things come from God.

                   ¹³Decide these things among yourselves.  Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?  ¹⁴Doesn’t nature itself teach you that for a man wearing long hair is degrading to him, ¹⁵but for a woman wearing long hair is her glory?  Her hair has been given to her instead of a covering.  ¹⁶If anyone has a mind to be argumentative: Neither do we recognize any other practice, nor do God’s churches.

                   Paul touches on the relationship between men and women in general and husbands and wives in particular in several of his writings.  Many of his Twentieth Century readers have responded to Paul’s views in a negative way - seeing him as outdated or simply wrong.  This negative response is based on a superficial reading of Paul’s letters and does not take into account his particular context.

                   In this chapter and the next we will look at two of Paul’s teachings about the relationship between husbands and wives and see how they inform us about the Christian view of marriage.  In this chapter we examine 1 Corinthians 11.2-16.

                   The question which arises while reading the passage is: Are Paul’s teachings local and temporal or universal and eternal?   The situation that Paul addresses - the attire of women who pray and prophesy in public worship - seems to be no longer relevant to us, but it certainly was relevant to the church at Corinth.  Paul wrote to address a problem or issue in the church that was threatening the church.  The situation is obviously local and temporal, but Paul’s response establishes some universal and eternal Christian principles.

                   While the primary focus of Paul is worship, our focus is marriage.  Paul’s discussion, however, informs us about marital relationships.

The Situation Outside the Church

                   The city of Corinth, because of its location in Greece, had an excellent harbor and was, therefore, a wealthy center of trade and travel.  Its wealth and the transient nature of much of its population helped give the city a reputation for sexual immorality and excess.  In Paul’s day, to call someone a Corinthian was to suggest that person was immoral and licentious.

                   Adding to the reputation of the city was the location of the temple to Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love, in Corinth.  The priestesses of the temple were actually sacred prostitutes.  Prostitution, both sacred and secular, was very prevalent in Corinth.

                   There were some irregularities in the church at Corinth related to sexual morality and marital relationships.  Prostitution was also an issue in the Corinthian church (1 Cor 6.9-20).  Possibly some former prostitutes, either sacred or secular, were members of the church.  Paul’s comments about worship can be taken in this context.  He is concerned in part that the women of the church might be confused with the prostitutes of the Temple of Aphrodite because of their attire in worship.

Women in Worship

                   Though our interest here is the relationship between husband and wife, Paul’s concern was the role of women in worship.  According to Jewish Law, women had no share in worship in the synagogue and the Temple.  Greek women at Corinth, if they were not functioning as sacred prostitutes, were also kept in the background in the pagan temples since worship was an activity for the men.

                   Paul walks a fine line with the church at Corinth.  He does not ban women’s participation in or leadership of worship that is a break from his Jewish heritage.  It is apparent that at Corinth some women were assuming leadership positions in the church.  Paul shows that he has no problem with this development in other cities, but in Corinth it is an issue.

                   Paul, however, sees the need to place some limits on the involvement of women in worship at Corinth, because of the special conditions that existed outside the church at Corinth.  For women too pray and speak at the Corinthian worship was fine with Paul.  At issue at Corinth was: Can the women of the church take part in and lead worship without a covering?  The issue is the attire of the women.  No matter what limits Paul places on women in worship, he still affirms their equality.

Covering the Wife

                   Paul draws on his Middle Eastern background when he requires the women of the Corinthian church to wear a covering for her head when praying or speaking in public worship.  Though Corinth was Greek, its people would have understood the significance of the covering because of the diversity of its cosmopolitan population.

                   In Paul’s day the covering or veil was a sign of subordination.  In the Middle East the yashma was worn over the head down to the feet with an opening for the eyes only.  A respectable married woman never appeared inn public without her yashma.

                   Not only was the covering a sign of subordination to the husband, it provided the married woman with security.  Wearing the yashma the woman would not be bothered and her modesty protected.  It was bad manners to look at a veiled woman.  It is possible that a young unmarried woman was allowed in public without a covering for her head, but when she was married she was required to have the full yashma.  For a wife to be uncovered in public would bring shame to the husband.  To take off the veil would be the same as taking off the wedding ring would be for us - if not more.

                   Paul, in his writings, assumes that the married state is normative and therefore he assumes the husband and wife relationship in his teachings.  Essentially, Paul instructs the women to behave in worship like respectable married women.  He instructs them to keep their covering intact so as not to act as a prostitute and bring shame on her husband.  Remember that some Christian wives did not have Christian husbands.

                   Paul argues that for a woman to uncover her head and face would be the same as if she had shaved her head.  Paul refers to the taking of a Nazirite vow in the Jewish religion that in part required the shaving of the head.  A married woman could not assume such a vow of her own volition without dishonoring her husband.  He argues that a wife indeed is her husband’s reputation or honor (glory).  In covering her head the woman was maintaining her husband’s good reputation.

                   Paul would certainly argue that the Christian women of Corinth had the authority, power, or freedom to go uncovered in worship.  His desire was that they exercise their Christian freedom responsibly.  He wanted them to confirm to the acceptable cultural standards of decency.  His appeal to nature is somewhat forced and is actually and appeal to common custom.

                   His attempt to argue that women should be veiled in worship “because of the angels” is also a stretch.  Since his scriptural foundation is the creation story in Genesis, this reference to angels probably relates to Genesis 6.1-2.

            Paul’s interest is not in placing the wife under the husband’s authority, but neither is his interest in changing the society around him.  Paul stresses the essential partnership, interdependence, and mutuality of the husband and wife (see also 1 Cor 7.1-7) who are in Christ.  He does this in the context of his opposition to divisiveness in the church and his interest in maintaining the good reputation of individual Christians and the church in Corinth.  This reputation is what set the church and Christians apart from the society around them. and was an important element in the proclamation of the good news of God in Jesus Christ.

Marriage - Chapter Five

Chapter Five

Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce

Mark 10.1-12

                   ¹And He left there and went into the area of Judea and beyond the Jordan River; and again the crowd gathered around Him; and He taught them, as was His practice.

                   ²Pharisees approached Him, and to test Him they asked if it is permitted for a man to divorce his wife.

                   ³In answer He said to them, “What did Moses command you?”

                   ⁴They said, “Moses allowed for a written notice for a divorce.”

                   ⁵Jesus said to them, “Because of your mean spirits this law was written for you; ⁶but from the very start of Creation He made them male and female.  ⁷For this reason a man will leave his father and mother behind and be united to his wife, ⁸and the two will be one body - not two bodies, but one body.  ⁹So whatever God has united a man should not separate.”

                   ¹⁰In the house the disciples again asked Him about this matter.  ¹¹He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against his first wife; ¹²and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

Matthew 19.1-12

                   ¹When Jesus finished these words, He left Galilee and went into the area of Judea beyond the Jordan River; and large crowds followed Him, ²and He healed them there.

                   ³Pharisees approached Him to test Him and said, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?”

                   ⁴Answering He said, “Have you not read that from the very start of Creation He made them male and female?”  ⁵He said, “Because of this a man will leave father and mother behind and be united to his wife, and the two will be in one body.  ⁶Therefore they will no longer be two, but one body.  So what God has united a man should not separate.”

                   ⁷They said, “Then why did Moses command a man to give a written notice for a divorce?”

                   ⁸He said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your mean spirits.  From the start it was not like this.  ⁹I say to you that whoever divorces his wife (except for sexual immorality) and marries another commits adultery.”

                   ¹⁰His disciples said to Him, “If this is how a relationship between a man and his wife is, then it is better not to marry.”

                   ¹¹But he said to them, “No everyone can practice this word, but only the ones to whom it is given.  ¹²For there are eunuchs who have been so from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by themselves for the Kingdom of Heaven.  Those who are able to practice this should.”

Luke 16.18

                   ¹⁸Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another wife commits adultery; and the woman who has been divorced from her husband commits adultery by remarrying.

Matthew 5.27-28, 31-32

                   ²⁷You have heard it said, “You shall not commit adultery;” ²⁸but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with desire for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

                   ³¹It is said, “Whoever divorces his wife must give her a written notice;” ³²but I say to you that whoever divorces his wife (except on the basis of sexual immorality) makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who has been divorced commits adultery.

                   These four passages from the Synoptics contain Jesus’ teaching on divorce.  These four passages from three gospels form the basis for the Church’s doctrine on this subject.

                   The Roman Catholic Church is the closest to Mark’s version of this teaching.  This tradition holds that there is no possibility of breaking the bonds of sacramental and consummated marriage.  Ecclesiastical rulings do allow for the annulment of a marriage when either partner was not a full spiritual participant.

                   The Orthodox Church follows the Matthean version and allows for the possibility of breaking the marital bond because of the adultery of one partner.  The innocent partner is allowed to remarry.

                   Anglican and Protestant churches vary greatly according to denomination and local practice.  Most of these communions hold that Jesus’ statements are not absolute but ideal.

The Context

                   There are three contexts in which Jesus’ teachings on divorce should be seen.  These are the Judaic religion in Jesus’ day, the Greek and Roman culture of Jesus’ day, and the early Church which preserved Jesus’ teachings.

                   During Jesus’ ministry there were two rabbinical “schools” - Shammai and Hillel.  The more conservative Shammai school believed that the Mosaic Law allowed for divorce in the case of the wife’s sexual misconduct.  The more liberal Hillel school felt that a man could divorce his wife for any shameful or disgraceful act committed by her.  An ultra conservative view is to be found in the community of Qumran, which taught that a man could divorce, but never remarry.  These views were based on Deuteronomy 24.1-4 that was originally designed to protect the wife.  In both Matthew and Mark the Pharisees what are testing Jesus are really asking to which rabbinical school He belongs.

                   The Gentiles of Greek and Roman culture during the time of Jesus did not have the restrictions on divorce that the Jews had.  For one, Roman women had the ability to divorce their husbands and remarry.  For another, there would not be as much economic pressure for a divorced woman to enter into a subsequent relationship.  Jewish women in Jesus’ day were forced to enter into another adulterous union in order to survive.  Gentile women had less need to enter another union.

                   The early church found itself influenced by both Jewish and Greco-Roman culture.  The Church had to interpret its message in the context of these two cultures.  For example, some scholars suggest that the permission for divorce based on sexual immorality (porneia) in Matthew is a reflection of the early Church’s struggle with the more relaxed endogamous and exogamous restrictions which the Gentiles had.  According to this view the early Church at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) sided with the Jewish endogamous and exogamous prohibitions as a minimum requirement for Gentiles to become Christians and banned “illegitimate marriage” or porneia.

Mark 10.1-12

                   Mark locates Jesus’ teaching on divorce as Jesus has begun his journey toward Jerusalem and the cross.  Mark has Jesus leaving Capernaum in the north, traveling south into Judea, and crossing to the eastern side of the Jordan River.

                   As usual a crowd gathers to hear Jesus and He begins to teach them.  Some Pharisees in the crowd approach Jesus in order to test Him.  Their interest is not to test His knowledge, but to determine to which rabbinical school He belongs - whether He is a liberal or conservative.

                   The Pharisees ask if divorce is permitted - specifically, if a man could divorce his wife.  The question is nonsense because among Jews divorce is an accepted practice based on Deuteronomy 24.1-4.

                   Jesus brushes aside this ridiculous question with a question of His own in response:  “What did Moses command you?”

                   They answer their own question and place Jesus in the position of either supporting or contradicting the Mosaic Law:  “Moses allowed for a written notice of divorce.”

                   Moses, indeed, allowed much more.  A husband could divorce his wife with a written notice of divorce.  The wife could remarry (and a man could marry a divorced woman), but the original husband could not remarry the wife he divorced.  There is no limit placed on divorce or remarriage.

                   Jesus then enters into a discussion of the rule for divorce and the meaning of marriage.  He moves the conversation from what is permitted to what is right.

                   Divorce is allowed because of the mean spirit of humanity, Jesus says in effect.  Divorce is not a freedom granted by God’s grace.  It is a judgment on our sinfulness and what we do to one another in our sin.

                   Jesus turns to the Genesis account to explain God’s intention for us.  The reason for the male/female union in marriage is the reunion of the created order.  It is God’s creative action and initiative to make the two into one.  The male/female union is not a consequence of sin but a part of God’s will.  To separate again the created order against God’s will is wrong.  Jesus places Himself in neither rabbinical school; and in fact, He is more conservative in upholding the principle of marriage in Genesis than even the Law of Moses in Deuteronomy 24.

                   The disciples are troubled by Jesus’ teaching and later ask him to explain it further.  Jesus contradicts the Law and social norms.  The Law in Deuteronomy permitted divorce and remarriage.  Jesus permits divorce but categorizes remarriage as adultery.  Social norms during Jesus’ day assigned responsibility for the divorce to the woman and allowed the man complete freedom.  Jesus finds remarriage by the wife or the husband equally to be adultery.  Certainly, divorce with the intent to marry another is adultery - if not physically, then spiritually.

                   Jesus moves the conversation from our desire to find ways to free ourselves to act in any way without any responsibility to God or others.  We need to follow God’s call to act in accordance with the gift of creation.  The call places a demand on us for we can no longer follow our will, but God’s will.

                   The question is: What is God’s will?  Certainly, we would agree that to enter and exit marriages on a whim does not lead toward the abundant life that God offers us in Jesus Christ.  Neither a legalistic “loophole” granting complete freedom to divorce and remarry, nor a legalistic requirement forbidding divorce, leads us to the life that God wills for us.

                   We all need to confess and repent of our sin and to throw ourselves on the mercy of God.  Divorce, in the context of faith in God through Jesus Christ, can be a confession that the partners have not lived in accordance with God’s will.  Divorce can be a sign of repentance by which the partners acknowledge their failures before God and others.  Divorce can set the partners free to experience the mercy of God anew.

                   Divorce is only a last resort after every attempt at reconciliation has been made and it is a step that should be made not for self but for the sake of others - the spouse and the children.  Remarriage should not be banned under a rigid legalism.  For the person of faith, divorce and remarriage should be weighed in the contest of the words and example of Jesus Christ who first loved us and gave Himself up for us.

Matthew 19.1-12

                   Matthew takes the story from Mark and makes some editorial changes which subtly change the message for his readers.  These changes take the form of additional material and a reordering of the text.

                   The setting for the confrontation in Matthew is similar to that in Mark.  Instead of teaching, Matthew says Jesus healed those who needed it.

                   The Pharisees ask Jesus if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason.  The additional for any reason suggests that they are seeking to discover to which rabbinical school Jesus belongs.  This may reflect a particular interest of Matthew.

                   Jesus does not respond directly, but enters into a brief discussion of the Mosaic Law on divorce.  Both the question and the response presuppose the permissibility of divorce.  Jesus, however, focuses on God’s will for marriage in Creation.

                   When Jesus says that man should not take apart what God has brought together, the Pharisees ask another question:  “Why did Moses command a man to give a written notice of divorce?”  In other words, if we are not to take apart what God has joined, why did Moses say we could?

                   Jesus responds that it is human sinfulness that created the need for divorce.  This is not God’s will according to Genesis.  Jesus avoids answering the initial question on the permissibility of divorce for any reason.  He states that the only situation in which divorce and remarriage are permissible is in the case of sexual immorality.  The sexual immorality or porneia could refer to the “illegitimate” marriages found in the early Church among Gentile converts.  Whoever divorces and remarries except for the reason of sexual immorality commits adultery.

                   The disciples suggest that this rule is too harsh and it is better not to marry.  The idea that it is better not to marry also reflects a view of the early Church that expected the return of the risen Christ at any moment.  Marriage would, in such a case, be an unnecessary union.  Jesus suggests, however, that not everyone can remain unmarried.  It is a gift to be able to remain unmarried until the coming of Christ.

                   Matthew then includes a teaching about eunuchs.  Since this passage is unique to Matthew, it could be that it was Matthew’s decision to connect it with the teaching on divorce.

                   Three classes of eunuchs existed at the time of the early Church - those born unable to have sexual relations, those rendered unable to have sexual relations (not an uncommon practice for government servants in the Middle East), and those Christians who chose not to have sexual relations or chose self-castration (e.g. Origen) as an expression of their faith.  Though the early Church did not discourage celibacy and welcomed eunuchs into its membership, self-castration was seen as a barrier to ordination.

                   IN this passage, Jesus upholds both marriage and celibacy.  The consistent theme in His support of these two seemingly opposite situations is God’s loving gift.  Jesus commands neither marriage nor celibacy.  Both are faithful responses to the love of God depending on how a person is called by God.

                   Jesus does treat marriage as a blessing.  He avoids making a rule for Christians about divorce.  The opportunity for remarriage is limited because remarriage tampers with God’s reunion of Creation.  In the case of a marriage destroyed by sexual immorality, remarriage is permitted for the innocent person.

Luke 16.18

                   Luke has taken this isolated saying on divorce, remarriage, and adultery and inserted it into his narrative.  It is not connected to anything that precedes or follows.

                   This saying of Jesus on divorce and remarriage goes beyond the Law in its restrictions.  A man is permitted to divorce, but not to remarry.  A woman who has been divorced is not permitted to remarry.  Jesus upholds monogamy and rejects successive polygamy.

                   The words of Jesus in Luke are similar to Paul’s instruction in First Corinthians 7.10-13.  Paul claims his teaching is not on his own authority, but is from the Lord.  Paul’s record is the earliest attestation of Jesus’ teaching, but Luke probably retains the more primitive form since Paul’s writing reflects and Greek setting whereas Luke’s context is Palestinian.

                   Paul charges wives not to separate from their husbands, or to either remain unmarried or reconcile if they are separated.  A man should not divorce his wife, nor a woman her husband.

                   Jesus in Luke’s gospel does not necessarily forbid divorce, but does forbid successive marriages or successive polygamy.  In doing so, Jesus was opposing a widespread practice in the Palestinian Judaism of His day.  This opposition by Jesus is consistent with Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’ identification with and ministry to the downtrodden, outcast, and poor of society.  Jesus’ opposition to this practice of divorce in His society would give the woman greater security in a world where divorced women were forced into difficult relationships in order to survive after a divorce.

                   The saying in Luke comes from the Old Testament or Jewish point of view.  Jesus’ comment is based on the assumption that the husband is the one who takes action to divorce.

                   In the Old Testament adultery involved sexual intercourse of a married or engaged woman with someone other than her husband or betrothed.  Death for both persons was the punishment for this violation of the seventh commandment.

                   The severity of the punishment suggests the seriousness of the act.  Not only was adultery viewed as a crime against the offended husband, but also it was a crime that attacked the familial foundation of society.

                   Jesus goes beyond the Old Testament and equates divorce and remarriage with adultery.  Jesus does not suggest that adultery can be justified in certain situations.  Marriage is too important for that attitude.

                   Jesus never regards adultery as an unpardonable sin (John 7.53 - 8.11).  Divorce and remarriage, therefore, never disqualifies a person from the love of God.   It is a situation in which God’s forgiveness and healing must be sought.

Matthew 5.27-28, 31-32

                   This teaching of Jesus appears in Matthew in a series of instructions on the law during the Sermon on the Mount.  In this expansion of the common source in Luke, Matthew shows Jesus not rejecting the Law but increasing its severity and thereby opening the Law to new interpretations.

                   In the society of Jesus’ day it increasingly became a gimmick of some men to enter into temporary (short) marriages, thus giving a man license at the expense of women while at the same time protecting him from the charge of adultery.  These men were maintaining the letter of the Law, but not the spirit.

                   Jesus first suggests that adultery is more than a matter of the Law; it is a matter of the spirit or the heart.  A man who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery.  Jesus makes the Law as strict as possible and by doing so uses it to defend women from exploitation.  Adultery (for a man) is more than having sexual relations with a married woman.  Adultery is looking with desire on any woman.

                   In the second section of this passage, Matthew shows Jesus condemning divorce.  The man, who was the only one who could initiate divorce in the Jewish religion, becomes guilty of adultery in the divorce.  The divorced woman had to turn for survival to another relationship that often did not include the status of marriage.  The man, in this very real sense, makes his ex-wife commit adultery.  In addition the one who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.  The man is absolved from responsibility only if the wife has been unfaithful.  The woman is not responsible in this case.

                   The Matthean Jesus is consistent with the teaching contained in chapter 19.  In this passage, Jesus makes the Law stricter.  He attacks the self-righteous of a man who feels that all is right as long as he keeps all the rules.  Jesus increases the severity of the rules in order for his listeners to look beyond them to examine the spirit behind the rules - the creation of healthy relationships in accordance with God’s will.

Marriage - Chapter Four

Chapter Four

A List of Don’ts

The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach 9.1-9[1]

                   ¹Do not be jealous of the wife with whom you are so close, or you will show her by your bad example how she should act toward you.

                   ²Do not give a woman your heart, or she will walk all over your life.

                   ³Do not go to a prostitute because you might fall into her trap without realizing it.

                   ⁴Do not keep company with a singer because you might be captured by her attempts to seduce you.

                   ⁵Do not stare at a virgin, so that you will not be shamed by the scandal she will rightfully cause you.

                   ⁶Do not give a whore your heart, so you will not lose God’s blessing.

                   ⁷Do not admire the sights in the city streets, and do not wander alone into the back alleys.

                   ⁸Keep your eyes off of a beautiful woman, and do not stare at the beauty, which belongs to another.  The beauty of a woman has fooled many.  Love has often been sparked by a glance.

                   ⁹Do not cuddle with another man’s wife, and do not buy her drinks.  If you do your hearts will grow close and you will be destroyed by your desires.

                   The United Methodist Church and most Protestant denominations do not recognize the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus) as scripture.  It is a part of a body of Jewish literature known as the Apocrypha.  The Apocrypha consists of Jewish religious writings, which were not accepted into the list of Jewish scriptures by the rabbis.

                   Ecclesiasticus was written in Jerusalem about 300 BC.  It is a collection of proverbs or wisdom sayings concerning how to live the good life.

                   These verses are included here because they would have been a part of the body of literature familiar both the Jesus and the early Church.  They give some practical advice on the relationships between men and women.

                   Obviously, the author writes from and man’s point of view.  We, however, can very quickly see the value of his advice and its universal application.

Jealousy

                   The first verse in this section suggests that there is wisdom in not allowing jealousy to creep into a marital relationship.  The intimacy of marriage requires trust.  Jealousy begins to break down the trust within a marriage.

                   This verse contains some subtle psychology.  Very often we suspect others of our own actions or thoughts.  The husband who thinks he has reason to be jealous and suspects his wife of breaking the bond of trust is revealing his own untrustworthy actions or thoughts.  It is through his jealousy that she will see her need to be jealous.

Giving Your Heart

                   As we read the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach, we come to realize that his view of life is pessimistic and negative.  Some of his advice must be spiritualized.

                   Certainly, in the marriage relationship we give our hearts to one another.  In Hebrew culture the heart symbolized the center of life - not just the emotions.  We give who we are - our essential beings - to the one whom we love.

                   This self-giving love is certainly Christ-like and essential in a Christian marriage, but this type of love must not be one that sacrifices the self in an addictive or compulsive manner.  The foundation of a healthy marriage is not in giving of the self to the other first, but in the first giving the self completely to God.  Only when we belong to God in love are we able to love as the one who first loved us.

Falling into the Trap

                   The first and third verses address prostitution.  These two verses are not specifically for married men.  They deal with sexual relationships.

                   The practice of prostitution reflected in the Old Testament contradicts the Biblical reasons for sexual relations - love, children, and mutual pleasure.  Prostitution was performed for either money or as a religious act in many religions, which surrounded the Israelites.

                   Common or “secular” prostitution developed early in Israel’s history.  There is some suggestion that prostitution was accepted without condemnation (Gen 38.14-15, Josh 2.4-16).  Most of the evidence shows, however, that prostitution was disapproved in the Old Testament (Gen 34.31, Lev 19.29, 21.7-9. Deut 22.21, and Amos 7.17).  By the time of Jesus prostitution was condemned in Judaism (Mt 21.32) and the use of prostitutes was not permitted by the early Church (1 Cor 6.15-16).

                   The common prostitute either waited for customers in public places or functioned as an innkeeper to whom men would come for food, lodging, and sexual satisfaction.  She would exploit her beauty with her seductive dress.  She would use persuasive language and maybe even sing.

                   Many of the religions surrounding the Israelites employed male and female prostitutes as a part of their practices.  Though the Israelites never adopted this religious expression, some Israelites must have engaged in sexual relations with the prostitutes of other religions (Jer 3.2).

                   Jesus Ben Sirach sees prostitution as both a moral and spiritual trap.  Prostitution violates the Biblical reasons for sexual relations, entraps the person, and causes one to lose a healthy relationship with God.

                   Related to the warnings about prostitution is the warning against keeping company with singers.  Songs had four basic purposes in the Old Testament cultures.  Songs were used in preparation for battle (war chants), worship, magical incantations, and in “merrymaking.”  Songs for war were a part of the Israelite culture.  Worship songs entered the religion of Israel later.  Songs for magical incantations were condemned in the Israelite religion.

                   Songs used in “merrymaking” were often practiced licentiously and were connected with the seductive talk of prostitutes.  Ben Sirach in verse four warns against this very practice.

Don’t Look at Virgins

                   Verse five warns against staring at a virgin.  By virgin Ben Sirach means a young girl at the age where she is capable of reproducing but who has not had sexual relations.  Virgin can refer to young men, but this meaning is excluded by the context.

                   This warning reflects the value and protection given to virgins who could reproduce children for the family, provide workers for society, and carry on the name and line of a family.  Stiff penalties were given to a man who violated a virgin (Ex 22.16-17, Deut 22.28-9).  Ben Sirach warns against the scandal, which accompanies the prolonged look, which leads to something more.

The Sights of the City

                   Verse seven does not directly apply to the marriage relationship.  It is a warning against the seductive sights and sounds of the city and the potential temptations, which Ben Sirach understood to exist in cities.  This warning against the city streets and back alleys should be understood in the context of the prostitutes and singers who would be more readily available in such places.

Don’t Look at Beautiful Women

                   Ben Sirach warns against lingering looks at a beautiful woman in verse eight.  He is concerned that such looks will lead to foolish behavior and the man will fall in love with the beauty that belongs to another and be tempted into adultery.

Cuddling Another’s Wife

                   Finally, Ben Sirach suggests that a man’s familiarity with another man’s wife will lead to destruction.  Verse nine argues that such familiarity is never harmless and will lead to love.

            Jesus Ben Sirach is concerned about the first step, which will eventually lead to embarrassment, scandal, destruction, or loss of God’s blessing.  This lesson is important for all of us: Stop and think.  The first step leads down a path, which will result only in harm.

---

[1]I have exercised some liberty in the translation of this passage.  There is a fair amount of interpretation contained within these translations, but they remain true to what I believe is the author’s intent.

Marriage - Chapter Three - Genesis 2.25-3.16

Chapter Three

The Fallen State

Genesis 2.25, 3.7-10, 16

                   ²⁵The two of them were naked, the man and his wife, yet they felt no shame.

                   ⁷Then the eyes of both were opened and they discovered that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.  ⁸They heard the sound of God Yahweh as He was walking in the garden at the breezy time of day; and the man and his wife hid from God Yahweh among the trees of the garden.

                   ⁹God Yahweh called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”

                   ¹⁰He answered, “I heard the sound of You in the garden; but I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.”

                   ¹⁶To the woman He (God) said, “I will make your pangs intense in childbearing.  In pain shall you bear children; yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”[1]

                   Verses 2.25 and 3.8 give us a glimpse of life as God would have it for us - life in paradise.  We find an intimate relationship between the man and woman.  We see them both naked - completely open to one another - without shame.  God is included in this intimacy.  The marriage involves three - Man, Woman, and God.

The Results of Sin

                   The sin of the Man and the Woman is that they break their intimate relationship with God.  They abuse their freedom that God has given them to go beyond their created boundaries and become like God.  Separation from God occurs in the disobedience of the Man and the Woman.

                   As a result of the Sin, not only is the intimacy broken with God but also it is broken between the Man and the Woman.  They do not become like God; they become less than human.  Once they were reunited, now they are separated.

                   IN the fallen state fear and shame replace intimacy with both God and the partner.  Power dominates the relationship between the Man and the Woman.  The Woman relates to the Man and dependent.  The Man exercises power as master.

                   The Hebrew writers in part used this story to explain the reality, which they say in their world.  This world is one which they viewed as fallen or corrupted.  It is a world which human sin has separated Creation from the Creator’s intent.  Relationships are separated from this intention as well.

What Does God Want for Us?

                   The important question arises for us: What does God want for us?  Specifically, in our marriages does God want us to relate to one another and to Him in accordance with the sinful world or in accordance with His creative intention?

                   Certainly we cannot ignore the fact that we live in this fallen world.  No matter how holy we wish to live, our holiness will be lived in the context of a sinful world.

                   Yet we are called to be in the world for the world’s sake, not to be of the world.  A part of our witness to the world is our difference from the world.  It is my contention, therefore, that our model for marriage is not the world’s which is a result of sin.  Marriages, which follow this model, are based on power and dependency, and characterized by a lack of true intimacy (physical, emotional, and spiritual), by hiddenness and fear, and by the absence of the Creator.

                   Our model for marriage is God’s creative intention.  God seeks marriages of complete intimacy for us.  These marriages link a man, and woman, and God and are expressions of the reuniting of the wholeness of creation and the wholeness of life in God’s love.

---

[1]The reader will forgive me for jumping from verse to verse.  I have only reproduced the salient verses in the story of the fall of humanity.

Marriage - Chapter Two - Genesis 2.21-24

Chapter Two

Reuniting the One

Genesis 2.21-24[1]

                   ²¹Then God Yahweh cast a deep sleep upon the man (Adam) and, when he was asleep, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot.  ²²And God Yahweh fashioned into a woman (‘Issa) the rib that He had removed from the man (Adam), and He brought her to the man (Adam).  ²³The man (Adam) said:  “This at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.  She shall be called woman (‘Issa) for she was taken from man (‘Ish).

                   ²⁴Thus it is that man (‘Ish) leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.

                   This first passage about marriage comes from a source which most scholars date in its current form from around the tenth century BC or about 1,000 years before Christ and approximately 3,000 years ago.  This well-known passage is a part of the story of God’s creative activity.

Reuniting Adam

                   As the translation displays there are two words for Man used.  The Hebrew word adam (man or mankind) is based on the root ADM (mda) and is closely related to adama (soil, earth).  Adam can be understood to mean created man or being.  It is Adam who is created in the image of God.

                   It is this Adam who is separated by God to create male (‘Ish) and female (‘Issa).  We should not draw too much from this examination of the words, however.  ‘Ish and ‘Issa appear to be related in the transliteration from Hebrew to English, but they are probably not to be closely connected.  In addition, though verses 21-22 say that from Adam woman is formed; verse 23 suggests that from ‘Ish comes ‘Issa.  The word for rib can also mean side.  Still the basic idea remains.  The original unity of the created being is separated into two parts.

                   The two parts of the whole are reunited.  This reuniting of the created being suggests that the relationship between husband and wife is more than a social institution.  It is part of the re-establishment of the wholeness of a human being.  Man is incomplete without a permanent and intimate relationship (emotional, spiritual, and physical) with Woman.  The same holds true for Woman.

Creating a Family Ex Nihil

                   The scripture says the man leaves his parents and clings to his wife.  This action reflects leaving the old for the new.  A new family is created where none existed before.

                   This model for marriage is both monogamous and matriarchal.  This “first” marriage is between one man and one woman only.  It is the man who leaves his parents and joins with the woman - even clings to her.  A permanent relationship is established through marriage.

Single Persons

                   Does this mean that single persons are incomplete?  Not necessarily.  It does mean that single persons need to seek their completion and fulfillment outside of marriage, but as with married persons, within the context of the grace of God.  Jesus suggests that there are those who are blessed with the gift of singleness and celibacy in order to better comprehend and participate in the Kingdom of God.  The single person, as we all do, depends upon God for his or her wholeness in life.  This blessing is not for everyone, and even though John Wesley would call singleness the “more excellent way” he eventually married.

God’s Role

                   God has an active role in the reuniting of the two into one.  Verse 22 says that it is God who brought the woman to the man.  It is God who makes the introduction.  God initiates the reuniting.  The relationship between a man and a woman is a part of God’s creative activity.  Marriages in which God does not play an active part will not be situations in which either partner will be brought into wholeness.

Divorce

                   This passage has implications for our view of divorce.  In a marriage in which God has been actively at work creating wholeness, divorce tears apart what God has created.  In a marriage without the presence and involvement of God, divorce is simply an admission of reality - there was not a relationship of intimacy, which brought wholeness and completeness to both persons.

Homosexuality

                   This scripture rules out homosexual relationships.  The wholeness cannot be given in a relationship between two of the same parts.  Wholeness comes only with the reunion of the complimentary parts of Creation.

            In the marriage of a man and a woman God reunites the two into one.  Both are blessed with wholeness of life.  God creates this relationship out of nothing, blessing the man and the woman by His love. 

---

[1]All translations from either the Hebrew or the Greek are by the author.

Marriage - Chapter One - Part Six

Betrothal

                   In the Bible betrothal means more than we understand it to mean.  We understand betrothal to simply be an engagement of promise to marriage.  In the Bible the betrothed parties were considered husband and wife (Gen 19.14, Deut 22.23-23, 28.30, Judg 14.15, 15.1, 2 Sam 3.14).  Intercourse with a woman betrothed to another man resulted in death, but intercourse with a woman not betrothed required marriage of the man and woman (Deut 22.23-28).  Betrothal could only be ended with a divorce (e.g., Joseph and Mary).

                   Betrothal means paying the price.  The betrothal period was the time between paying the marriage price and the ceremony.

                   The marriage price or gift from the husband to the bride’s father served many valuable social functions.  It established the prestige and social status of the giver and husband-to-be.  The marriage gift assigned value to the bride.  It symbolically transferred part of the life of the husband to the bride’s family, and it was a means by which the husband gave himself in exchange for the bride.  Finally, it was a seal of the covenant or promise of marriage.

                   We continue betrothal practices today through the giving of an engagement ring, wedding gifts, and the period of engagement.

The Ceremony

                   The ceremony, which marked the beginning of a marriage, was an event for the entire community.  The bride and groom wore special clothing, much of which sounds familiar to us - ornaments, garlands, jewelry, and a bridal veil.  Both the bride and groom had special attendants for the ceremony.  The ceremony was highlighted by the processions of the groom’s and the bride’s parties, music, and a feast.  At the end of the ceremony the husband would open his robe and take his wife into himself.  The couple would then be escorted to a special tent or room called the bridal chamber in which they would spend their first evening together.

                   Ceremony and ritual mark important events in our lives and allow us to remember a beginning.  In order to have meaning, though, ceremonies must reflect who we are and what we want to say.

Sexual Relations

                   In the Bible sex is fundamentally good.  Sex is a part of God’s creative action (Gen 2.21-24).  The Biblical reasons for sexual relations are expression of love, production of children, and giving of mutual pleasure.

                   Intimacy and closeness are important to the true meaning of sexual relations (Gen 4.1, 17, 25, etc.).  The word for intercourse in the Old Testament comes from the Hebrew root to know.

                   The Bible maintains that the only appropriate form of sexual relations is between a man and a woman in the context of a marriage (1 Cor 7.1-4 for example).  The Song of Songs portrays the passionate longing of two lovers for marriage and celebrates sexual pleasures within a marriage.  Homosexual relationships (and marriages) are forbidden in the Old Testament and this ban is continued in the New Testament.

                   In the Bible abstinence from sexual relations is required outside of marriage.  The New Testament allows for the practice of abstinence within a marriage only when both parties agree and only for a limited period.  The Old Testament suggests that the celibate lifestyle was only appropriate for those unable to function sexually (Deut 23.1).  In Matthew 19.12 Jesus says that there are those who choose celibacy in order to focus on the Kingdom of God.

                   These teachings are valid for us today.  Sexual relations between a man and a woman in the context of marriage are a part of the intimacy of that union and should be encouraged.  Sex in this context should not be source of guilt or shame, nor performed out of duty.  Sex within a Christian marriage is an expression of the intimate love of a husband and wife and as a part of the grace of God.

Adultery

                   Because of the nature of marriage and the role of women in the culture reflected in the Old Testament, adultery was seen as a violation of the husband’s sole possession of the wife and of his assurance that the children of his marriage were his.  The Old Testament prohibitions against adultery are directed at both men and women, but mostly toward men (Ex 20.14, Lev 18.20, 20.10, etc.).  Malachi 2.14 carries a condemnation of a husband’s faithlessness to the wife of his youth.

                   The Old Testament punished adultery with death.  The New Testament finds adultery to be a sin which may be forgiven (Jn 8.2-11); but Jesus teaches that adultery is more than an action.  It also occurs in our thoughts (Mt 5.20).  Remarriage after the death of a spouse was not considered adultery in the early Church (Rom 7.3).

                   The Biblical view of sexual relations conforms to its view of adultery.  Sexual relations are appropriate only within marriage.  Adultery is a violation of the physical, emotional, and spiritual intimacy of the marital relationship.

Divorce

                   There are examples of divorce in both the Old and New Testaments.  Divorce was generally permitted on the initiative of the husband (Duet 24.1-4, Hos 2.2, Mt 19.8).  There is some suggestion that the allowance for divorce was being abused during Jesus’ day.

                   The general reason for divorce was that some indecency or adultery was committed (Deut 24.1).  The Old Testament permitted divorce on the grounds of religious differences (Ezra 10.3), but the New Testament does not agree (1 Cor 7.12-15, 1 Ptr 3.1-2) and encourages spouses to remain with their non-believing partners.  The possibility of taking back the divorced spouse is extended in Isaiah 54.6.  Marriage of a divorced person is considered adultery in Matthew 5.32, Mark 10.11-12, and Luke 16.18.

                   Divorce is a prevalent reality in our culture and the Church must respond to it in healing ways.  Divorce should not be the standard for family life, nor should it be anything but the option of last resort.  Too often divorce is seen as an easy escape from dealing with important issues in a wounded marriage.

                   Yet, divorce is sometimes the only option in relationships, which have clearly become abusive in any way.  In these cases the Church needs to seek healing for all parties, but should also seek to defend the abused person.

                   Divorce is sinful in the sense that it is the destruction of a relationship - the most intimate of all human relationships - and that is what sin is.  Divorce, however, is not an unforgivable sin.  The sin rests in those who destroyed the intimate relationship and in those who fail to bring healing before, during, and after the divorce.

            This chapter has given a quick overview of marriage in the Bible.  The next several chapters will examine several scriptures in detail in order to give some depth to the discussion of marriage.

Marriage - Chapter One - Part Five

Monogamy or Polygamy

                   Monogamy is the general Biblical practice for marriage.  Monogamy is the most frequent form of marriage in the Old Testament and is assumed in the New Testament.  The first marriage in the Bible was monogamous (Gen 2.24).

                   Though monogamy is the Biblical norm, there are very visible polygamous marriages found in the scriptures.  Polygyny - the marriage of a man to more than one woman at a single time - appears in the Bible, whereas polyandry - the marriage of a woman to more than one man at a single time - does not.  Polygamy in the Bible is usually bigamy (two wives).

                   Polygamy appears to have been more widespread in ancient Israel and began to disappear as society developed.  Persons entered into multiple marriages in order to produce children (Abraham in Gen 16.3), to seal political alliances (Solomon in 1 Kg 11.1-3), for love (Jacob in Gen 29.18), and for lust (David in 2 Sam 11.15, 27).  Primarily, though, in primitive cultures of semi-nomads and farmers, multiple marriages were used to produce male children and thereby give the family workers.  The only social options available to fathers who wanted to produce more sons/laborers were either polygamy or divorce.  As the semi-nomadic lifestyle decreased, the practice of polygamy decreased and monogamy became more practical.

                   Not all was peaceful in multiple marriages.  Conflict and dissension in polygamous situations in the Bible are apparent, especially if the husband showed a preference.  Indeed, the Hebrew root of the word for second wife used in the Old Testament means show hostility.

                   There is one type of multiple marriage in the Old Testament, which is curious to us today.  This marriage is the Levirite marriage.  Levir means husband’s brother in Hebrew. In a Levirite marriage the brother-in-law would marry his deceased brother’s childless widow (Deut 25.5-10).  These marriages and sexual relations are a contradiction to the prohibitions on a man having sexual relations with his sister-in-law (Lev 18.16, 20.21).  They  were needed in order to prevent marriage by the widow to someone outside the family, to continue the deceased brother/husband’s name and lineage, to preserve the family’s estate, and to provide for the widow’s welfare in a culture whose only welfare system was the family (e.g. Ruth and Naomi).  There is some suggestion that this practice continued into Jesus’ day.

                   The New Testament shows that the early Church assumed that monogamy was the appropriate situation for marriage.   The entire Bible shows a movement toward this ideal.  Any other practice is in opposition to the consistent teachings of Christianity.

Marriage - Chapter One - Part Four

Who’s the Boss?

                   The Bible presents two models of authority in a marriage.  In a matriarchal marriage the authority rests in the wife/mother.  In a patriarchal marriage the authority rests in the husband/father.

                   There is significant evidence of matriarchal marriage in the Old Testament.  Indeed Genesis 2.24 suggests a matriarchal marriage with the man leaving his father and mother for his wife.

                   One type of matriarchal marriage found in the Old Testament occurs when the husband settles permanently in the wife’s home and the children remain in the mother’s control.  The marriage of Moses and Zipporah (Ex 2.21-22) suggests such an arrangement.

                   Another type of matriarchal marriage found in the Old Testament occurs when the husband visits the home of the wife periodically and the children remain in the control of the mother.  A variation of this pattern would be for the wife to reside near the husband with her children, but to have her own quarters (Gen 31.33, Judg 4.17-18).

                   Related to matriarchal marriage are the matrilineal and matronymic families.  In a matrilineal family the descent of the children is traced through the mother.  In a matronymic family the children’s names come by and through he mother.

                   The patriarchal marriage, however, is the dominant form in the Bible (Gen 36.9-42, Num 1.1-3.39, 26.5-62, Ruth 4.18-22, 1 Chron 1-9, and Ezra 2.3-61, 10.18-43).  Genesis 3.16 suggests that a wife’s subordination to the authority of her husband is a result of the human fall into sin and not a part of God’s plan.  Paul and other New Testament writers continue the patriarchal pattern (1 Cor 11.2-3, Eph 5.22-24, Col 3.18, and 1 Ptr 3.1-7).  Patrilineal and patronymic families are also the more common pattern.

            In our society we tend to value the equal participation of husband and wife in the decisions of a marriage and family.  Equality within a marriage, while the most healthy situation given our cultural context, is also the most difficult to maintain.  Shared responsibilities and roles based on the spirit of Christ help us deal with issues of authority, power, and control in a marriage.  Decisions must be made, and often times they are easier to make when only one person decides.  If, however, in a marriage both partners approach one another with the same self-giving love that is in Christ, then authority, power, and control are not the focus.  Rather both persons look first to the needs of the partner and the entire family.

Marriage - Chapter One - Part Three

Arranging Marriages

                   The normative practice in the Old Testament was for the father to initiate a marriage including the selection of the bride for his son (for example, Gen 24.4 and 34.8).  Sometimes a father would give his daughter for marriage to his prospective son-in-law as in Genesis 29.28, Joshua 15.16-17, and Judges 1.12-13.  The father’s role, of course, did not rule out the mother’s involvement or the presence of love in the marriage.  In exceptional instances the mother would arrange a marriage for her son (e.g., Gen 21.21).  There are also several occasions where a man takes for himself a wife (Gen 4.19, 6.2, 11.29, etc.).

                   We cannot help but notice in the Old Testament that wives were treated much like property in arranging marriages.  There are examples of purchasing wives (Gen 31.15, 34.12, Ex 22.17, etc.) or service in exchange for a wife (Gen 29.20-28).  Though Jeremiah 6.12 lists wives as a part of the property taken in battle, evidence of marriage by capture of a female during war is not very solid in the Old Testament.

                   In the primitive societies reflected in the early Old Testament period, daughters were a liability and infanticide of female children was apparently a common practice.  When females became scarce, they were often taken by force.  That there is no solid evidence for this practice on the part of the people of God in the Old Testament suggests that they held to a higher standard in the treatment of women.  Marriage by capture from other groups would have violated the endogamous limitations.

                   Old Testament practices show that the bride was a passive participant in the marriage transaction.  The New Testament, though it does not reveal what the practices of the early Church were, does show a high regard for women.  Indeed, within the Christian community there appeared to be an openness and equality between the sexes reflected in the leadership and participation of women in the church.  We can safely say that Christianity moved beyond the role assigned to women in the Old Testament.  Though they still had to operate within the cultural constraints of their day, men and women within the Christian community related to one another as equally as possible on the basis of their relationship with Christ.

                   Though families still play a subtle role in the choice of a spouse we are in the position now where there is more freedom for both partners.  Still, as persons of faith as we search for a spouse we must recognize the role of the family for a marriage creates more than a new relationship between a man and a woman.  In a real sense both families are united.

Marriage - Chapter One - Part Two

Limitations on Marriage in the Bible

                   The Bible places certain limitations on whom a person can marry.  These limitations are both endogamous (within a defined circle) and exogamous (outside a defined circle).

                   The exogamous boundaries on marriage in the Bible limit marriage to persons outside a certain kinship circle.  For example, Genesis 20.12 forbids marriage to close relations on the mother’s side.  Leviticus 18 and 20 exclude the marriage (or sexual relations) of a man with his mother’s sister, father’s sister, father’s brother’s wife, and brother’s wife.  The Bible forbids incestuous relations (and thereby marriage) by a man with his mother, stepmother, sister, granddaughter, stepsister, aunt, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, and mother-in-law.

                   There were outer (endogamous) boundaries for marriage in the Bible, also.  These outer limitations essentially exclude marriage outside the ethnic or religious group.  These limitations were sometimes ignored (for example, Samson rejected endogamy in Judges 14.3).  Endogamous limitations were often violently enforced.

                   Exogamy and endogamy appear in the Bible because the people of the Bible recognized the social and theological dangers, which were posed by marriage beyond either of these limits.  Violation of the exogamous prohibitions would threaten other relationships within the family and pose some biological threats to the community as well.  The family relationships (father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, and even relatives by marriage) are of greater theological and social value than the opportunity to marry or have sexual relations with a close family member.

                   We readily accept the exogamous boundaries of our culture which are Biblically based, but these boundaries were not always universally accepted by the greater culture which surrounded the people of the Bible - especially in the Old Testament.  Our culture endorses these prohibitions and finds them endorsed by contemporary psychology, sociology, biology, and ethics.

                   We tend to question the endogamous boundaries on marriage in the Bible because they appear to us to be racially motivated.  We tend to forget that religion and race were closely linked in the Old Testament.  Marriage outside the ethnic community threatened to undermine (and often did undermine) the faith of the community. The emphasis, then, was not racial purity, but religious purity.

                   In the New Testament there were no prohibitions on marriage between persons of different races.  Paul, however, prohibited marriage with unbelievers by the members of the church at Corinth ( 2 Cor 6.14-15).  Paul’s concern, especially at Corinth, was the pressures that threatened the faithfulness of the Corinthian Christians from inside and outside the church and those pressures included marriage to persons outside the faith.

            Should we follow Paul’s prohibition on marriage outside the Christian faith?  Certainly we can see the value of sharing a set of core values and beliefs with a spouse.  The real question should be: How much a part of my life is my faith in Jesus Christ?  If your faith in Christ is central to who you are as a person, you probably will not find lasting happiness with a person whom does not share that faith unless you compromise your faith.  Paul would suggest that such a compromise is not only unwise, but it gains nothing in the end.

Marriage - Chapter One - Part One

With this posting I begin a series on marriage.  The series is from the book on marriage that is available for purchase by following the link on the left column of this blog.

Chapter One

An Overview of Marriage in the Bible

                   The Bible story spans many centuries and many cultures.  Regardless of this broad span of history and social development, the Bible gives a relatively consistent view of marriage.  Marriage was a universal practice and an important part of the ancient Middle Eastern cultures found in the Old and New Testaments.

                   Biblical marriage is personal, spiritual, and sexual companionship between a man and a woman.  The purpose of marriage in the Bible was to provide children, to preserve the family lines, and to contain sexual passions.  Marriage was viewed as a covenant or alliance between tow families.

                   The Bible sees marriage as being ordained by God for the good of His people.  Proverbs 12.8 says that for a man, the good life consists of faith, home, children, and a good wife.  Proverbs 5.19 urges that love be a part of marriage and Ecclesiastes encourages a man to enjoy life with the love of one woman.

                   As we look at marriage in the Bible we should be aware of two pitfalls.  One pitfall is that we assume that there is only one type of marriage found in the Bible.  There were many types of marriage in the Bible and many marriages.  Not all marriages and types of marriage were healthy.  For example, in the bigamous marriages of Jacob to his wives, Leah and Rachel, and his relationships with his concubines, Zilpah and Bilhah, we find tense familial relationships to say the least.

                   The second pitfall we should avoid is to assume that we can transplant a Biblical blueprint into our contemporary American culture.  The Bible assumes a Middle Eastern culture, which was patriarchal.  Still, it is from the Bible that our culture has received the basic principles of equal value of all persons before God and in marriage.  In examining the Bible for an understanding of marriage we should, therefore, not look for a blueprint, but for guiding principles through which God will bless our marriages.

                   The Bible is a story of the human and divine interaction.  It is not primarily a code or list of platitudes.  In the Bible we can find ourselves - who we are and who we should be - in relation to God.  The Bible is the story of a dynamic relationship from the human perspective.  In this way we can see that the Biblical view of marriage carries for us not a checklist that leads to marital bliss.  The Bible contains the story God’s offer of abundant life - of which marriage is a part - and the efforts of persons to respond to that offer by faith within the context of their world.