If it's hard to think about family without thinking about marriage, in today's society it is, unfortunately, equally hard to think about marriage without thinking about divorce. Divorce has become something of a guiltless sin. We gloss over it, ignore it and excuse it for any reason, biblical or not. And by "we" I mean evangelical Christians, not the lost of the world.
The Bible takes a far different view. According to the Bible, there are only two reasons for divorce. First is adultery and the second is abandonment. In other words, if your spouse leaves and you can't find them, or if they divorce you and you can't keep them from it, you are, as Paul put it, not under bondage.
In any other circumstances, remarriage after a divorce is adultery.
That's not a very pleasant conclusion, but it is the Biblical one. Abuse is not an excuse for divorce. Neither is mental cruelty or incompatibility or any of the myriad other things that are used in the courts today.
I don't mean to say, of course, that a person should stay in the house with an abusive spouse until they or their children are killed. But what I do mean to say is that while separation may be necessary to save lives, divorce is not an option. And separation is an option only in exigent circumstances. That is why it is so important to marry carefully and within the Lord.
Of late there has even been a huge debate over whether ministers and deacons should be allowed to serve while divorced, asserting that Paul was referring to plural marriage in the qualifications for ordination, not divorce. That is a patently self-serving view.
The truth is, plural marriage is an Eastern, not a Western, custom. Although it did happen in the West, it was uncommon. The cultures of Greece, Rome and Israel were all monogamous. And every one of them had a huge problem with divorce – with rates rivaling those in America today. That is the problem Paul was addressing.
If you doubt that, then think on this. The Jews had periodically had issues with plural marriage in the Old Testament. Yet, in the gospels, Jesus never once addressed plural marriage, but repeatedly addressed divorce.
Here's the thing – as evangelicals we either live by the Bible or we don't. If we pick and choose, or change it to suit ourselves, we're doing no different from those we preach to. This is exactly the tactic of the homosexual and abortion lobbies. Jesus said if the salt of the earth has lost its taste, it is good only to be thrown out. He also said to get the beam out of our own eye before we went after the speck in someone else's.
In other words, we can't preach that others should hold fast to the word of God, as written, unless we do it.
As a final word, what about the person who is already divorced? If they have not remarried, they should seek to be reunited with their original spouse. If they have remarried, they should stay with the spouse they are now married to, and cannot ever remarry their original spouse. Beyond that, they should ask God's forgiveness, which He will grant if they are sincere, and accept the limitations God has placed on their activities gracefully and with the understanding that we all must accept God's limitations at some point, and from there seek to live God's will for the rest of their lives the very best they can. This, of course, is the recipe for forgiveness of any sin.
Deuteronomy 24: 1-4, Matthew 5:32, I Corinthians 7:15, I Timothy 3:12, Titus 1:5-6, I John, 1:9
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The Biblical View of Marriage
It's difficult to think about family issues and avoid the Biblical view of marriage. I may be wrong, but it seems to me there is hardly any area in Christian life so little heeded, with such dire results.
Let's start with the obvious. A Christian marriage can only take place between two Christians! When segregation was still active in this country, the Old Testament ban on Jews marrying non-Jews was often taught as racial. That's completely incorrect, as even a cursory New Testament reading on the subject will show.
What God actually says is not to marry anyone who doesn't believe in, and follow, Him. You can never completely know the state of another person's soul, but it is a sin to marry a person you don't believe is a Christian. That's right, a sin. Not unwise. Not a poor choice. God says Christians should only marry Christians.
That naturally impacts dating. Christians should only date Christians. Why? Because in its largest sense dating is about finding a mate. In America, almost every serious relationship starts as a casual one.
But what if you didn't heed God's command, or you weren't saved, yourself, until after you married an unsaved person? The Bible says you should live a Christian life before that person, hoping your example will persuade them to accept Christ.
That means you should stay married to them and not respond in kind if the unchristian person acts in an unchristian way. Tough? Absolutely. That's why God commanded that you marry a Christian to begin with. Much of God's discipline in our lives is reaping what we sow. Nowhere have I seen that to be more true than marriage.
The next thing that needs to be addressed is the idea of love in marriage. The Bible is clear that we should love our spouse. But we often mistake love for passion. The two are not the same. By marrying for "love," we think loving our spouse will be easy.
Wrong!
After the passion wears thin, we're still married. Passion is not enough to fuel a marriage for a lifetime. Though feelings usually accompany love, love is not a feeling. Love is a decision. "Forsaking all others" and "'til death do us part" – that's what love is. The "romps in the hay" are the easy part. Love is the decision to stick around and do your part, no matter what.
The truth is, while the Bible does not speak against marrying for "love," it doesn't promote the idea, either. In fact, the Bible doesn't even suggest there is a right reason to choose a particular mate. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong with marrying for money or power or looks or passion or any other reason you choose, as long as you marry a Christian.
The thing is, though, the Bible says that once you marry – for any reason – the required commitment is the same. Marry for money if you want. But you still have to love your spouse and forsake all others for the rest of the time you are both left on earth. Marry because you think he or she is good looking – same thing. Marry for "love" – same thing.
Knowing this, a wise person would look past the superficial and at least try to base their marriage of things of depth. But that's your call. Your commitment to the marriage, on the other hand, is God's commandment.
Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:6, I Corinthians 7:2-3, 12-16, II Corinthians 6:14, Ephesians 5:25-30, Colossians 3:19, I Timothy 5:14, Hebrews 13:4
Let's start with the obvious. A Christian marriage can only take place between two Christians! When segregation was still active in this country, the Old Testament ban on Jews marrying non-Jews was often taught as racial. That's completely incorrect, as even a cursory New Testament reading on the subject will show.
What God actually says is not to marry anyone who doesn't believe in, and follow, Him. You can never completely know the state of another person's soul, but it is a sin to marry a person you don't believe is a Christian. That's right, a sin. Not unwise. Not a poor choice. God says Christians should only marry Christians.
That naturally impacts dating. Christians should only date Christians. Why? Because in its largest sense dating is about finding a mate. In America, almost every serious relationship starts as a casual one.
But what if you didn't heed God's command, or you weren't saved, yourself, until after you married an unsaved person? The Bible says you should live a Christian life before that person, hoping your example will persuade them to accept Christ.
That means you should stay married to them and not respond in kind if the unchristian person acts in an unchristian way. Tough? Absolutely. That's why God commanded that you marry a Christian to begin with. Much of God's discipline in our lives is reaping what we sow. Nowhere have I seen that to be more true than marriage.
The next thing that needs to be addressed is the idea of love in marriage. The Bible is clear that we should love our spouse. But we often mistake love for passion. The two are not the same. By marrying for "love," we think loving our spouse will be easy.
Wrong!
After the passion wears thin, we're still married. Passion is not enough to fuel a marriage for a lifetime. Though feelings usually accompany love, love is not a feeling. Love is a decision. "Forsaking all others" and "'til death do us part" – that's what love is. The "romps in the hay" are the easy part. Love is the decision to stick around and do your part, no matter what.
The truth is, while the Bible does not speak against marrying for "love," it doesn't promote the idea, either. In fact, the Bible doesn't even suggest there is a right reason to choose a particular mate. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong with marrying for money or power or looks or passion or any other reason you choose, as long as you marry a Christian.
The thing is, though, the Bible says that once you marry – for any reason – the required commitment is the same. Marry for money if you want. But you still have to love your spouse and forsake all others for the rest of the time you are both left on earth. Marry because you think he or she is good looking – same thing. Marry for "love" – same thing.
Knowing this, a wise person would look past the superficial and at least try to base their marriage of things of depth. But that's your call. Your commitment to the marriage, on the other hand, is God's commandment.
Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:6, I Corinthians 7:2-3, 12-16, II Corinthians 6:14, Ephesians 5:25-30, Colossians 3:19, I Timothy 5:14, Hebrews 13:4
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Right to Life
Abortion has the support of a couple of the catchiest euphemisms I know. "A woman has the right to do as she pleases with here own body." That's one. The other – "A woman's right to choose."
Choose what?
All of us have some opportunities to choose, I suppose. But we're not talking chocolate or vanilla, here. We're talking about the life of a human being. There may be some question when life begins, but it's certainly before abortion.
Where else is there even the suggestion that a person has the right to kill another person for the sake of convenience? We have laws, and civic groups, to protect animals from that kind of behavior. But that's what the "right to choose" is.
Don't want to take the responsibility for not having illicit sex? Don't want to take even the responsibility of protecting yourself from getting pregnant when you have illicit sex? Don't want to take the responsibility of raising the child your irresponsibility created? Just kill it. After all, if you've never seen it, how can it possibly be wrong? And it's not convenient for your lifestyle.
Such reasoning would be bizarre in any other setting, and it's just as bizarre regarding abortion.
As for the right of a person, woman or not, to do as they please with their own body, also not true. That right is limited by political law (every state has laws against suicide, for instance). It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest such a thing might be within God's law.
But that assumes someone is actually meaning to do something to their own body. The fact is, any damage to their own body is incidental in abortion. What they want is to kill another body. That other body does not belong to them, it only rests within them temporarily.
The whole idea is the moral equivalent of singeing your hands while you burn someone at the stake. The fact that you are slightly injured does not absolve you of the murder of that other person.
The undeniable fact is that abortion is the killing of a person. Another fact, whose only deniability is a bunch of irresponsible people claiming it so, is that such killing is murder, at least morally. The Bible makes itself clear on both issues.
If you don't want children, the responsible thing to do is to avoid having sexual intercourse, not to kill the product of said intercourse.
Some would try to claim an exemption for incest or rape. Sorry, while such a situation elicits sympathy in any reasonable person, that's a no go, too. Even if there were no alternatives but abortion or raising the child, the Bible remains clear. You don't harm an innocent person because of your misfortune. But there are other alternatives, specifically adoption, which can give the child a loving home without making you a criminal as well as a victim.
The only exception – and it's a tenuous one – is when there is a clear choice between losing the child and losing the mother. Such a case is too horrible to contemplate, but occasionally must be contemplated anyway. This, however, is a choice of which life to save, not the irresponsible choice to kill a child for sexual pleasure. Further, it's a choice, which must be made. In that case only, each person must make their choice in accordance with their best understanding of God's will.
Exodus 20:13, 21:22-25, Mark 12:28-31, Luke 10:30-37, John 9:41, Romans 13:13, 15:1, I Corinthians 3:16-17, II Corinthians 5:15, Ephesians 2:3, I Thessalonians 4:3
Choose what?
All of us have some opportunities to choose, I suppose. But we're not talking chocolate or vanilla, here. We're talking about the life of a human being. There may be some question when life begins, but it's certainly before abortion.
Where else is there even the suggestion that a person has the right to kill another person for the sake of convenience? We have laws, and civic groups, to protect animals from that kind of behavior. But that's what the "right to choose" is.
Don't want to take the responsibility for not having illicit sex? Don't want to take even the responsibility of protecting yourself from getting pregnant when you have illicit sex? Don't want to take the responsibility of raising the child your irresponsibility created? Just kill it. After all, if you've never seen it, how can it possibly be wrong? And it's not convenient for your lifestyle.
Such reasoning would be bizarre in any other setting, and it's just as bizarre regarding abortion.
As for the right of a person, woman or not, to do as they please with their own body, also not true. That right is limited by political law (every state has laws against suicide, for instance). It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest such a thing might be within God's law.
But that assumes someone is actually meaning to do something to their own body. The fact is, any damage to their own body is incidental in abortion. What they want is to kill another body. That other body does not belong to them, it only rests within them temporarily.
The whole idea is the moral equivalent of singeing your hands while you burn someone at the stake. The fact that you are slightly injured does not absolve you of the murder of that other person.
The undeniable fact is that abortion is the killing of a person. Another fact, whose only deniability is a bunch of irresponsible people claiming it so, is that such killing is murder, at least morally. The Bible makes itself clear on both issues.
If you don't want children, the responsible thing to do is to avoid having sexual intercourse, not to kill the product of said intercourse.
Some would try to claim an exemption for incest or rape. Sorry, while such a situation elicits sympathy in any reasonable person, that's a no go, too. Even if there were no alternatives but abortion or raising the child, the Bible remains clear. You don't harm an innocent person because of your misfortune. But there are other alternatives, specifically adoption, which can give the child a loving home without making you a criminal as well as a victim.
The only exception – and it's a tenuous one – is when there is a clear choice between losing the child and losing the mother. Such a case is too horrible to contemplate, but occasionally must be contemplated anyway. This, however, is a choice of which life to save, not the irresponsible choice to kill a child for sexual pleasure. Further, it's a choice, which must be made. In that case only, each person must make their choice in accordance with their best understanding of God's will.
Exodus 20:13, 21:22-25, Mark 12:28-31, Luke 10:30-37, John 9:41, Romans 13:13, 15:1, I Corinthians 3:16-17, II Corinthians 5:15, Ephesians 2:3, I Thessalonians 4:3
Saturday, February 7, 2009
The Right to Family
This week's news has been all about Nadya Suleman, the mother of the Octuplets, who already had six children. I don't know enough about her to comment directly and this posting shouldn't be taken as such. But there are two issues her story brings to the fore. The one I will deal with today is the sanctity of the family. Next week I will address the sanctity of life.
First, there is nothing wrong with having fourteen children, by choice. In this era of birth control we sometimes forget that. Right and wrong is based on the Bible, and nothing else, and the Bible does not condemn large families in any way.
It does, however condemn irresponsibility.
So when is having children irresponsible? There are at least two circumstances that qualify: deliberately having a child you know you can't provide for or deliberately having a child without a complete family unit.
Let's consider the first. If you bought a corvette and couldn't afford gasoline, you couldn't drive it. You shouldn't be offended if others won't buy these things for you, they are your responsibility.
You can't equate a child with a car, of course. Children are much more important. But that's the very point. If it's irresponsible to buy a car you can't afford, how much more so to bring a child you can't support into the world. Those who did not join in making the decision to have the child with you should not normally be expected to support it. They are responsible for their own families.
That does not mean poor people should not have children! Poverty is not a sin, nor is it abuse. All of us want to do the best we can for our children. But as a society, and as Christians in this society, we've forgotten that the best we can do has little to do with money.
Many poor people have raised families without indifference or neglect. And though it usually takes different forms, many wealthy children are raised with those same two problems. Not being able to buy your children the latest high dollar sunshades, tennis shoes or jeans is not irresponsible. It's not even unfortunate. That's not the same thing as having children and then expecting others to pay their way.
Likewise, no child should be deliberately brought into the world without a family to care for it. By family I mean at the very least a mother and father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Not a person who wants a child but not a spouse. God ordained the family before any other institution. That alone shows its importance. He also defined it, and the definition is no less important than the ordination. Each parent has something important to give the child – something they can't adequately get elsewhere.
Having said all that, I add one caveat. I am talking about choice – sometimes you don't have one. Parent's die or bail. Jobs get lost. The unexpected happens.
Should a single man or woman not take in a child in need? Of course, that's an intensely personal situation, but that type of generosity can never be classed as irresponsible. Likewise, if a family loses its expected income, that doesn't mean they had, or have, no right to their children, or to temporary help in caring for them.
But Biblical responsibility dictates that you don't create subnormal family situations for personal convenience or gratification.
Genesis 1:28, 2:24, 9:1, Matthew 25:1-13, 14-30, Luke 14:25-32, I Corinthians 7:2, II Thessalonians 3:7-12
First, there is nothing wrong with having fourteen children, by choice. In this era of birth control we sometimes forget that. Right and wrong is based on the Bible, and nothing else, and the Bible does not condemn large families in any way.
It does, however condemn irresponsibility.
So when is having children irresponsible? There are at least two circumstances that qualify: deliberately having a child you know you can't provide for or deliberately having a child without a complete family unit.
Let's consider the first. If you bought a corvette and couldn't afford gasoline, you couldn't drive it. You shouldn't be offended if others won't buy these things for you, they are your responsibility.
You can't equate a child with a car, of course. Children are much more important. But that's the very point. If it's irresponsible to buy a car you can't afford, how much more so to bring a child you can't support into the world. Those who did not join in making the decision to have the child with you should not normally be expected to support it. They are responsible for their own families.
That does not mean poor people should not have children! Poverty is not a sin, nor is it abuse. All of us want to do the best we can for our children. But as a society, and as Christians in this society, we've forgotten that the best we can do has little to do with money.
Many poor people have raised families without indifference or neglect. And though it usually takes different forms, many wealthy children are raised with those same two problems. Not being able to buy your children the latest high dollar sunshades, tennis shoes or jeans is not irresponsible. It's not even unfortunate. That's not the same thing as having children and then expecting others to pay their way.
Likewise, no child should be deliberately brought into the world without a family to care for it. By family I mean at the very least a mother and father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Not a person who wants a child but not a spouse. God ordained the family before any other institution. That alone shows its importance. He also defined it, and the definition is no less important than the ordination. Each parent has something important to give the child – something they can't adequately get elsewhere.
Having said all that, I add one caveat. I am talking about choice – sometimes you don't have one. Parent's die or bail. Jobs get lost. The unexpected happens.
Should a single man or woman not take in a child in need? Of course, that's an intensely personal situation, but that type of generosity can never be classed as irresponsible. Likewise, if a family loses its expected income, that doesn't mean they had, or have, no right to their children, or to temporary help in caring for them.
But Biblical responsibility dictates that you don't create subnormal family situations for personal convenience or gratification.
Genesis 1:28, 2:24, 9:1, Matthew 25:1-13, 14-30, Luke 14:25-32, I Corinthians 7:2, II Thessalonians 3:7-12
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)