Posted on 07/25/2004 1:39:37 PM PDT by familyop
FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--My mailbox is deluged weekly with fundraising letters from pro-family organizations that invoke the threat of same-sex “marriage” being legalized by liberal judges in various states.
As important as it is to stand for the truth, these groups are tilting at windmills as long as American Christians continue to have a less-than-biblical respect for opposite-sex marriage.
That point was brought home to me recently with astounding clarity. A young lady who my wife grew up with decided to divorce her husband of two years, with a young daughter relegated to being tossed back and forth in a joint custody arrangement. There was no abuse or adultery, but since marriage is hard when two people are young and broke, she decided they made, in her words, “better friends than marriage partners.”
As far as I know, the young lady has never made a profession of faith, does not attend church and does not claim to know Jesus Christ, so to no one’s surprise she sees no problem with a quickie divorce when things have not worked out the way she wanted.
It’s time we quit being “huffy” when a pagan acts like a pagan -- what else do you expect?
What disgusted me was the response of the young lady’s mother and grandmother, which is symptomatic of how lightly modern American Christians esteem marriage. Both the mother and the grandmother claim to be Christians and attend church regularly. The mother said very little except to offer her daughter a place to stay. The grandmother, however, was bolder. “I don’t believe in divorce,” she said, “but sometimes it can’t be avoided.”
Well, in this case we’ll never know if it could have been avoided. No one tried to counsel the young lady or her husband or share with them what God has to say about marriage.
As a quick review for the sake of convenience, God said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24, NASB). Expounding on the theme, Jesus added, “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6, NASB). Jesus went on to add that Moses gave the exception allowing divorce because of the hardness of people’s hearts. Therefore, the exception is not absolute and does not have to be followed.
God’s opinion on divorce of any kind is quite clear: Malachi 2:16 says that God hates divorce.
As God’s children, should we not also hate divorce? Of course we should, and we should seek to avoid it wherever and whenever possible. But the simple fact of the matter is that corporately we do not hate divorce, nor do American Christians avoid it any better than our non-believing fellow Americans. A 2001 survey by George Barna showed that the divorce rate among evangelical Christians is “statistically identical” as the divorce rate among the general population.
When marriage means that little to the people of God, why should the broader culture care what we think about the subject?
The pro-homosexual “marriage” crowd is the one making all the noise and actually having the courage to stick up for what they believe, as perverted as it is. They understand that the first rule of getting what you want from the government in a democracy is to make more noise than the other guy.
There is really only one way for Christians to respond to this nightmare and silence the critics of traditional marriage and proponents of homosexual “marriage.” It’s not easy. It’s not always fun. It takes everything a person can give all the time.
It’s called staying married, even when times are tough and you want out more than you want another breath. Beyond that, Christians should seek to glorify not themselves but God with their marriages.
If the broader culture should see the divorce rate among Christians go through the floor, they would know that there really was something different about us. Who knows what kind of opportunities this radical strategy would bring about for evangelism and national revival?
Right now, roughly a third of Americans say they support homosexual “marriage.” But in another few years, homosexual “marriage” will be the law of the land if Christians – too many of whom see no problem with easy, no-fault heterosexual divorce -- have not recovered a respect for marriage beyond sending the occasional check to a pro-family organization.
--30--
Samuel Smith is a student and a news writer at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.
Nobody can or wants to do away with divorce. (the orthodox church for example recognizes the need for divorce. You even have to go through an echlisiastical divorce to remary in the church. Divorce not anulment.)
The reality is that divorce laws need to be rewritten. Divorce laws were written with the notion of the man provideing for children and for an ex wife to get on her feet (or income if she was unskilled and unemployable). They were not written for the "at whim" structure they have now.
One step which was adopted by some states was the institution of a waiting period and/or a pre marital class.
The next step is to somehow get married people to realize what their married life expectations are.
Having done a few divorces for clients, it seems many men get married and expect change into married men. Many women get married and change into married feminists. They see zero risk in any marriage, if they misbehave or a whim strikes them, they take the kids take 1/2 or more and cash out "because".
Change will only happen when judges are willing to make it happen using the laws we have.
Courts now mandate mediation to avoid trials for division of property in a divorce. Why not USE the rules which a judge can mandate marital counseling? They are only collecting dust.
It is not theocratic to use law to AT LEAST TRY and repair a marriage rather than just go "oh well, next."
yes, I did. I thought someone would see it. You got it, right?
I thought it was subtle, but I know the standard of debate of FR is pretty good so somebody was bound to get it.
You said:
"Explain the difference between a restrictive moralist American theocracy and Iran."
I'll give it a shot. Here are three definitions of theocracy I just found on the web.
(1)
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.
(2)
1. Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity.
2. The state thus governed, as the Hebrew commonwealth before it became a kingdom.
(3)
1: a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided) 2: the belief in government by divine guidance
A theocracy does NOT mean a government INFORMED by traditional moral values as delineated in religious scriptures. In fact, the founders of this country, noted by their diversity in religious beliefs, and their detestation of state mandated religions, were enthusiastic and vocal in their support of the 10 Commandments and the necessity of virtue founded on religious belief.
A theocracy would be if only Baptists (or members of any other particular religion) were allowed to become elected (or probably appointed) officials, or were allowed to vote, and the Baptist (or whichever) creed was enforced on everyone.
We do not have a theocracy, and never have.
Here's some quotes from founders and Blackstone, considered the father of law by all:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society." John Adams
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. John Quincy Adams
"From the day of the Declaration...they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct." John Quincy Adams
"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being....And, consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will...this will of his Maker is called the law of nature. These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil...This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this... Sir William Blackstone
I wasn't being serious about divorce- it's just that my wife is divorced and has caught quite a bit of flack at church from the ladies' prayer circles. They don't know he held a loaded pistol to her head but do know other abusive elements and still insist she failed to "make it work", and that if he lied about being a Christian, it was her wifely duty to bring him to God.
And yeah, I resent that.
But I posted the divorce thing sarcastically. Of course people should try. But once the loaded gun is out, you ain't gotta try no more. Thank God she had no children with him. (it was 1 year only)
I totally agree that marriage is an effort. It is a trial of one's ability to choose what is right for another instead of onesself. It is sacred to me. I just don't want the state to enforce that on others in my behalf.
=\\\\
You said:
"How would you go about forcing people to adhere to the word of God? How would you keep the Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists from doing this to you?"
The basics of morality are all the same in the above religions, as in their scriptures and teachings. You obviously know nothing about them.
Your comment after that is stupid, childish, and reveals where your interests and loyalty really lie.
That's an interesting opinion you have. Could you back it up with any sources and reasoning other than your own wants and wishes?
was the personal attack really warranted in this case? So you think my argument lacked merit. So you disagreed. Where was the childish part again? I missed it. Where did I become childish or show my "loyalties"?
Are you saying that because I disagree with you, I serve another master?
I am sorry that you found my comment childish. It was meant to be lighthearted. I know it was out of context but this is a forum of grown ups (except for me) and I figured you could take it.
When people support and promote crap like homosexual marriage, one never knows when the humor begins.
Loyalties meaning your heart and your interests. When someone aggressively promotes homosexual marriage, supports homosexuality and its interests, and makes very hollow and irrational arguments attempting to use religion in that endeavor, I point it out.
Sorry you don't like it.
As far as who you serve, that's your business.
Instead we get libertarian strawmen that government should license any union at all. This side usually maintains that any and all relationships are appropriate. Then the inevitable strawman is provided. If government can stop homosexuals from marrying, government can stop high school sweethearts from marrying.
Now, before you celebrate, your argument is no better. The whole schtick that if we let homosexuals marry, then we must let 6 year olds marry their father is every bit the strawman.
The whole thing is just getting old. There is no real discussion going on in these threads anymore.
I'd pay good money for a reasoned discussion on WHERE the line should be drawn, and why.
Yes, Ghost! By opposing gay marriage, we are not espousing a new morality or banging deviants over the head with a bigoted new rule. We are simply defending traditionalism, a traditionalism that has worked for a very long time.
I'm curious. What would you build for a better model?
BTW, my posts on the subject reflect more my desire that our Government protect all equally, and stay the heck out of personal issues, than any support of gay marriage as an institution. Heck, I don't care about it, but I care about the government telling people what to do and who to do it to. And I care because we're becoming the minority and this big ol' controlling government will be aiming its sights on conservatives in my sons generation. I don't want the government being the arbiter of personal behavior. Don't read any more into it than that.
Licensing of Marriage became a civil institution because of Luther and the Reformation. Before the Reformation Marriage was a religious rite and divorce was condemned.
It's "normal" for a heathen society to accept homosexuality, and heathen societies are not blessed by God. Not being blessed by God effects all of us. This nation was founded on Christian principles and this nation was blessed to give the world medicine, electricity, communications, flight, the list goes on. Now we are watching it all be "outsourced" the farther we remove ourselves from God.
Hey! -- that's funny! You're bringing us correction for bringing correction to those practicing homosexual sin! You're saying it's wrong for people to say something's wrong.
You know that the truth is a stumbling block to some, foolishness to others. If it's not, then it's not the truth. Yes -- say the truth in love, but you need to say the truth. Don't try to be so "gentle" and "caring" that you withold the good news of salvation from those in bondage to homosexual sin....
Your argument strikes me as a "seeker-sensitive" one. You realize, of course, that non-Christians just don't "seek" God? No, they are running the other direction as fast as they can, and the Lord arrests them, calling them, drawing them to himself. Or if you don't like that "running away from God" metaphor, let's go right to Scripture, which tells us that we were "dead in our sins" prior to being saved. That says to me that we were "dead," and not "seeking."
It's important that the truth be spoken to those outside of Christ. The truth of the cross of Christ, spoken lovingly, is a sweet thing to those whom the Lord is calling....
(You say some pretty doctrinally-off things in your last paragraph: "homosexuals ... are covered by Christ's blood just the same as you or I or anyone else is." Whoa! If someone is not "in Christ," then I don't understand how you can say that they are "covered by Christ's blood." I'm not saying there aren't Christians who struggle with homosexuality. I know there are. I've known a few Christian guys who struggled with it. But to say essentially that everyone is "in Christ" is just sloppy doctrine, my friend.)
I would file the gun to the head as a "for cause"
I do sympathize.
There are too many ex-husbands and ex-wives who are "educated" in feminist views of divorce who see divorce as a badge of honor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.