Marriage, as an institution, is in trouble. We should double our efforts to save marriage.
The church should...
-Study marriage to see what works*
-Teach the sanctity of marriage
-Speak out more boldly against divorce**
-Provide helpful ministries to couples***
-Fight against liberalized marriage laws****
-Mandate extensive pre-marital counseling
Do you support Marriage Proposal #2?
Footnotes
*Statistically the chances of divorce go down 30% if the couple make over $50,000/year, 24% if the couple doesn't have children until a year after the wedding, 24% if the couple is older than 25, etc. There are tons of stats. How can the church utilize this info?
**Since the Catholic church tolerates divorce least AND has the lowest divorce rate in the Christian church, shouldn't we consider copying them?
***Many such ministries exist and seem to be having positive results. The divorce rate is slowly dropping nation-wide.
****Most legal results so far have favored the 'traditional marriage' side. Should the church take part, lead, endorse this fight?
10 comments:
Matt, your comment about it being the norm to live in common law now, got me thinking... I remember hearing a pastor and many others saying, that common law living becoming acceptable was going to open the door to things such as homosexuality as acceptable too. I wonder if they ever followed there line of logic to what we have today, a depraved society who may silently disagreed with homosexuality, but will not stand against it, out of fear of being pegged as closed minded.
Yes, I'd say the 'norm' for the contemporary church is to not speak out against fornication and sexual related sins. The opposition to such things is largely silent.
We seem to have few willing to confront sin in this church culture, and even less able to confront sin in love.
How's it go? All that is necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing?
That's the motivation for a bold usage of marriage proposal #2
BTW...there are 2 more coming
Hey Matthew, my last name is with an R now...
Thanks for the reminder Gwyn
Congrats again!
I think the attempt to call toady’s society depraved, against some idealistic vision of the past, is absurd. The typical formation of this idealization, imo, results from television shows from the 1950’s, where family life was depicted overly sterile and polite.
If we look at the reality, the reported statistics for such things as child and spousal abuse, as well as divorce have grown tremendously. Is this because we have become depraved, as one of the former posters has claimed? No, the reality is, there was little recourse for spouses and children who were abused (physically, emotionally and sexually.) Abuse wasn't considered a civil topic of conversation, and women and children were forced to suffer in silence.
The reality is that American society has opened up, against male oppression. No longer are rape victims put on trial. No longer are battered wives and children ignored by a society.
These little secrets about American family history really need to be taken into consideration when discussing the current condition of “moral depravity.” Women are no longer looked down upon by society at large for leaving abusive relationships, and that’s a good thing.
Further, I don’t even think I need to address the ridiculous notion concerning the inherent immorality, or depravity, within homosexuality. It’s enough to say that it is in people’s nature and it always has been. If you’re born gay, you’re gay, and it would be against one’s nature to reject their sexuality.
The direction of human depravity matters little against the fact of its existence. The motivation to work at improving the institution of marriage is a positive one in any age.
That being said, I tend to agree that today's 'state-of-marriage' is probably comparable to most other time periods.
Your last paragraph is simply a rejection of Biblical text. But I will add that, theologically, we are all born in need of salvation. So even IF people are born homosexual or with such tendancies, it doesn't wipe the moral slate clean.
Is my last statement really a rejection of Biblical text, or a rejection of conservative interpretations?
From: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm
"Liberal Christian theologians tend to follow a wider variety of translations, and to be more concerned with instances of copying errors in the original Hebrew or Greek, of forgery, and of biases among the translators. They consider some passages (e.g. those referring to slavery or the inferior treatment of women) as not being valid today, and against the will of God. They differentiate among various homosexual and heterosexual sex practices, treating some (rape, prostitution, temple sex rituals) as immoral and some (within committed relationships) as positive.
Homosexual orientation and behavior is a normal human sexual expression among a minority of adults. It is not changeable or chosen. Like all sexual behavior, it can be a sin if it is exploitive or manipulative or not carried out safely within a committed relationship.
Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describe their close friendship Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read out during opposite-sex and same-sex marriage and union ceremonies:
"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me." (NIV)
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
This book was probably included in the Hebrew Scriptures because King David was one of the descendents of Ruth. Although this same-sex friendship appears to have been very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship.”
Also, on that page, it discusses the possibility that David and Jonathon were lovers. I’m interested to hear you thoughts on this subject.
Obviously I've seen these arguments before...they have little merit. Correction...they have no merit.
First of all, liberal theologians do not 'critique' the Bible in a more serious manner than orthodox theologians. For example, I'm currently teaching through Daniel. All the evidence points to a particular date for its writing, but liberal theologians, since they reject the idea that Daniel could have predicted the next 490 years of history, late-date the book for no evidential reason except for their liberal bias.
There are countless examples of such things.
The second mistake liberal theologians make you mentioned by pointing out slavery and inferior treatment of women. This is a mistake of assuming the Bible approves of everything it records. This is also a failure to understand progressive revelation.
Your statement that homosexuality is not changeable is simply a falsehood.
There is a speaker in central new york who has been redeemed from homosexuality. He is now a powerful speaker for redeeming those struggling with this sin and he testifies of many who have overcome the lifestyle.
Few liars stop lying...that doesn't mean lying is not a changeable lifestyle.
RUTH & NAOMI
The accusation of lesbionism is quite ridiculous. It ignores the context of the book of Ruth in 2 major ways.
1. In the passage sited, it must be remembered that Ruth had just lost her husband. Naomi had just lost her son. The two were grieving, not having sexual intercourse!
2. The rest of the book affirms their heterosexuality.
A. Both Ruth and Naomi had been married to men already...Naomi had had children.
B. Naomi tries to get Ruth to hook up with Boaz (a male) throughout chapter 3.
C. Ruth did marry, had a child, and Naomi was pleased (chapter 4)
Seriously JKIG...I feel silly even responding to the worthless arguments of these liberal theologians. They are clearly agenda driven, not Scripture driven.
Homosexuality is clearly a sin. That is not a popular thing to say nowadays, but it is a Biblical thing to say, I assure you.
The church has errored by making it the 'worst' sin, the liberal 'theologians' have errored by ignoring that it IS a sin.
You can assure me that it is a sin as soon as you master ancient Greek.
It hasn't occured to you that the meanings of the original words used have been changed, not from a Scriptural stand point, but from an agenda driven one?
Why would I need to master ancient greek when the principle was already established in ancient hebrew?
Plus, I'm only referring to the negative case (against homosexuality), the positive case (for heterosexuality) is even stronger.
Anyone without a previous bias would see a steady stream of evidence throughout the Old & New Testaments...Church & Secular history...physical & spiritual anatomy, etc THAT heterosexuality is God's intention and homosexuality is a distortion of that intention.
This is an overwhelming reality.
The final word on what's right and wrong doesn't come down to the interpretation of the world's leading Hebrew/Greek scholar....God's Word was never meant to be so difficult to comprehend. And it isn't. It is clear & straight-forward and has been understood as such by the vast majority of its readers.
Post a Comment