Posts tagged ‘Marriage’
Love That Lasts Past One Night
Over the past few weeks, the New York Times has published a couple of articles of special interest to Christians. The first is by Kate Taylor and chronicles the seedy underbelly of the college hook up culture. The picture she paints is dark and disturbing:
At 11 on a weeknight earlier this year, her work finished, a slim, pretty junior at the University of Pennsylvania did what she often does when she has a little free time. She texted her regular hookup — the guy she is sleeping with but not dating. What was he up to? He texted back: Come over. So she did. They watched a little TV, had sex and went to sleep.
Nationwide, nearly 3 in 10 seniors say they have never hooked up in college.[1]
Take a moment to ponder the significance of this statistic. It’s not that three in ten college seniors have hooked up, it’s that three in ten college senior have not hooked up. This means by the time a college graduate walks across the stage to receive a diploma, there’s a 70% chance he or she has engaged in casual, illicit sexual activity. This is nothing less than ghastly.
Now, contrast this with a New York Times article by Ross Douthat on college campuses as one of the last non-virtual bastions at which to meet a lifelong mate. He begins his column by citing a 2012 study:
From about 1960 to 1990 … neighborhood and church had a roughly steady influence over how heterosexual couples met, with about 10% of heterosexual couples meeting as neighbors and about 7% meeting in or through houses of worship. After 2000, neighborhood and church went in to steep decline along with most of the other traditional ways of meeting romantic partners.[2]
It seems the dating strongholds that have traditionally set people on the path to marriage are in steep decline. This trend does not hold true, however, for college campuses: “College has also dipped since 2000 as a place to meet, but only modestly,” Douthat notes. What, then, is the upshot of these statistics? Douthat concludes:
It seems fair to assume that there are still a lot of people who would prefer to meet their future spouse the old fashioned way — through initial flesh-and-blood encounters embedded in a larger pre-existing social network. If that’s your preference, the university campus is one of the few flesh-and-blood arenas that seems to be holding its own as a place to form lasting attachments. So for those Americans who do attend college, the case for taking advantage of its denser-than-average social landscape might actually get stronger as the non-virtual alternatives decline.
So there you have it. On the one hand, college campuses can be hotbeds of squalid sexual hookups – places where people make out at night and walk out the next morning. On the other hand, college campuses remain ideal environments for meeting, dating, and, eventually, marrying.
The apostle Paul issues a sobering warning about the effects of sexual immorality, saying that God gives over people “in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another” (Romans 3:24). When reading such a warning, I can’t help but think of an especially telling story from Kate Taylor’s article:
For many Penn students, their initiation into the sexual culture takes place at fraternity parties during New Student Orientation, a five-day period before classes start in the fall, which, along with Spring Fling in April, is known as the biggest partying time of the year.
“You go in, and they take you down to a dark basement,” Haley, a blond, pink-cheeked senior, recalled of her first frat parties in freshman year. “There’s girls dancing in the middle, and there’s guys lurking on the sides and then coming and basically pressing … up against you and trying to dance.”
Dancing like that felt good but dirty, and like a number of girls, Haley said she had to be drunk in order to enjoy it. Women said universally that hookups could not exist without alcohol, because they were for the most part too uncomfortable to pair off with men they did not know well without being drunk.
The first line of the last paragraph haunts me: “Dancing like that felt good but dirty.” Another word for “dirty,” of course, is “degrading,” the very thing which Paul says is the result of sexual immorality.
So often we read Paul’s words in Romans 1 as a condemnation of those whose sexual ethics differ from those of Christianity. But Paul’s words are much more than a condemnation. They are a sad statement of reality. And even the New York Times knows it. Sexual immorality is dirty. Sexual immorality is degrading. Perhaps C.S. Lewis puts it best when he writes specifically of females trapped in sexually promiscuous lifestyles: “I have no sympathy with moralists who frown at the increasing crudity of female provocativeness. These signs of desperate competition fill me with pity.”[3] Like Lewis, may we pity those who are so desperate, they willingly degrade themselves sexually. Such degradation is truly heartbreaking.
The choice is clear. At college, a student can either degrade him or herself in sexual recklessness, or take advantage of a university’s social landscape to form friendships and, by God’s grace, a lifelong marriage relationship.
My prayer is that more and more people would choose chastity – not only because it gives glory to God, but because it really is better for His creations. It really is better for you. You don’t need to degrade yourself. For you have One who was degraded for you on a cross.
[1] Kate Taylor, “Sex on Campus: She Can Play That Game, Too,” New York Times (7.12.2013).
[2] Ross Douthat, “The Dating World of Tomorrow,” New York Times (7.19.2013).
[3] C.S. Lewis, C.S. Lewis: Readings for Meditation and Reflection, Walter Hooper, ed. (New York: Harper Collins, 1992), 88
The Downfall of DOMA
The headline was welcomed with both cheers and tears: “Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act.”[1] For some, this ruling was a welcomed vindication – and indication that the argument for same-sex marriage had not only won the day in the Supreme Court, but in the court of public opinion. Others were saddened and even embittered. Former Arkansas Governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee tweeted: “My thoughts on the SCOTUS ruling that determined that same sex marriage is okay: ‘Jesus wept.’”[2]
So how is a Christian to respond to this ruling? There are two things I believe that are paramount to any Christian’s response.
The first is humility. Responding with bravado – either for or against this ruling – is not helpful. Whether it be the raucous celebrations of many of this ruling’s supporters or the vitriolic denouncements of many of this ruling’s detractors, anything less than a humble and gentle spirit leads to combat rather than conversation. And as I have written elsewhere, simply trying to win against each other rather than listening to each other means that no matter who supposedly “wins,” everybody loses.[3]
The second thing needed is honesty. Christians need not compromise moral conviction when it comes to human sexuality. We simply must hold to our convictions humbly rather than haughtily. The biblical moral vision for human sexuality is clear: sexual intimacy is to be reserved for a husband and wife in the lifelong covenant of marriage (cf. Genesis 2:24-25). Deviations from this – be they fornication, adultery, or homosexuality – are prohibited by Holy Writ. It’s okay to say this. It’s okay to stand up for this. It’s okay to make a moral pronouncement on marriage.
Indeed, as I have thought through the court’s ruling on DOMA, I find Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion to have far reaching moral implications:
The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.
The history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence. The House Report announced its conclusion that “it is both appropriate and necessary for Congress to do what it can to defend the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage. … H. R. 3396 is appropriately entitled the ‘Defense of Marriage Act.’ The effort to redefine ‘marriage’ to extend to homosexual couples is a truly radical proposal that would fundamentally alter the institution of marriage.”… The House concluded that DOMA expresses “both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality.” … The stated purpose of the law was to promote an “interest in protecting the traditional moral teachings reflected in heterosexual-only marriage laws.”[4]
In Justice Kennedy’s opinion, DOMA was drafted and passed into law with the express purpose of interfering “with the dignity of same-sex marriages.” How does he know this? Because DOMA demonstrates “both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality.” In other words, Justice Kennedy claims that the Judeo-Christian morality in which DOMA is grounded diminishes the dignity of same-sex marriages. Such a diminishment cannot be tolerated. It is, in a word, illegal. This is why DOMA must be overturned.
The duty of the Supreme Court justices is to render legal decisions. But every legal decision carries with it an indissoluble moral component. In this instance, this legal decision’s moral component is in the declaration that a law based on the Judeo-Christian sexual moral standard is discriminatory and illegal. Such a pronouncement replaces the Judeo-Christian sexual moral standard with a sexual moral standard of its own – one that is open to same-sex marriage while still, interestingly enough, discriminating against other forms of marriage (e.g., polygamy). Thus, what Justice Kennedy and the Supreme Court majority have done is issued not only a legal opinion, but a moral valuation.
Laws are irreducibly moral. Laws against murder or perjury or theft inevitably promote some vision of what morality is and means. Thus, even the justices of the Supreme Court cannot render a strictly amoral legal verdict on whether or not to federally recognize same-sex marriages. What they declare on this issue will always, in some way, involve judgments of and on morality. The question we must ask ourselves is, “Is the morality of the Supreme Court majority the right morality?”
Justice Kennedy has given his answer. What’s yours?
[1] Pete Williams & Erin McClam, “Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act, paves way for gay marriage to resume in California,” NBCNews.com (6.26.2013).
[2] Mike Huckabee, twitter.com/govmikehuckabee (6.26.2013).
[3] Zach McIntosh, “The State Of Our Public Debate: Same-Sex Marriage As A Test Case,” zachmcintosh.com (4.8.2013).
[4] United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 1 (2013).
Dodging Dating Disasters
Recently, I was talking to a friend who is in the throws of the dating scene. Over the course of our conversation, it began to strike me just how complicated, frustrating, and frightening dating really can be. Her past few dates had not gone so well. And she was beginning to lose hope. “All the good ones are taken,” she said with a definite edge of resignation. “I’m just going to have to take what I can get.”
The more I pondered her statement, the more concerned I became. Her willingness to just “take what she can get” seemed to be nothing but a setup for a let down. After all, if her past few dates had ended poorly because she just settled for what she could get, how much worse would things go if she married someone just because he was all she thought she could get at the time?
Over the years, I have shared with people a taxonomy that helps them consider who to date and who not to date. The interesting thing about this taxonomy is that it is one we all use or have used, but we often use it only subconsciously. Pulling this taxonomy from our subconscious to our conscious, however, can help us identify our patterns of thinking and, hopefully, save us from dating disaster. So it is with this in mind that, if you are dating or would like to date, I would encourage you take a moment and create a three-column list.
Column 1: What I want.
In this column, simply write honestly what you would like in a companion. And don’t sugarcoat it. If you’re a lady who wants the guy who looks like a cross between The Rock and Vin Diesel, write that down. If you’re a guy who wants the girl with the perfect hourglass shape, write that down. Hopefully, you also have some more modest and meaningful desires for a companion as well – someone who has a good sense of humor, a deep intuition, or a knack for solving big problems.
Column 2: What I need.
In this column go the non-negotiables. The non-negotiables include items such as faithfulness, forgiveness, commitment, and, of course, a hearty trust in the Lord. Think long and hard about this column and try not to confuse what you actually need with what you think you need. For instance, you may think you need someone who meets some predetermined standard of outward beauty so that you will be intensely physically attracted to them. But though physical attraction is important, outward beauty inevitably changes and fades. Thus, striking outward beauty is not really needed – even if you think it is – because it cannot be kept.
Column 3: What I’ll settle for.
In this column go the compromises you are willing to make. And as I did in the first column of what you want, I would encourage honesty. Sadly, many people are willing to make compromises morally to try to make a dating relationship work, engaging in intimate acts that are rightly reserved for marriage. But, of course, not every compromise is immoral or embarrassing. Some compromises are neutral. For instance, if you want a person with a good sense of humor, but wind up dating someone who couldn’t deliver the punch line to a joke to save their life, that’s a compromise, but can your significant other’s lack of humor can also become endearing in its own right.
Now, think about each of your three columns and consider these questions:
- How does column three affect column one? Are there any things you want in a mate that you could live without? If so, this is good! This means that you know your wants are just that – wants – and not necessities.
- How does column one affect column three? Are there any wants on which you should be willing to at least consider a compromise, but you’re not, thereby treating a want from column one like a need from column two? If so, you are in a danger zone. For when you refuse to even think about compromising on a want, you are putting your desires ahead of another person. And this is selfishness, which leads only to relationship breakdown.
- How does column three affect column two? Are there any things you know you need on which you are willing to compromise? If so, you are in a danger zone. Compromising on things like integrity, faithfulness, or faith is a recipe for a relationship disaster and great emotional and spiritual harm.
- How does column one affect column two? Are there any things that you want in a relationship that are opposed to what you need? For instance, if you want someone with good looks, does this tempt you to become shallowly infatuated over how a person looks on the outside rather than being committed to who they are on the inside? If so, you are again in a danger zone. The righteous needs in column two should always trump the desired wants in column one.
As you can see, what matters most is column two. Columns one and three are both negotiable. This is why when I counsel those who are dating, I encourage them to give on columns one and three, but not on column two. For column two holds the keys to long-lasting relationships.
So if you’re dating, or getting ready to enter the dating scene, think on these things. Taking just a few moments to fill out these columns now can save you a lot of pain and heartache in the future because these columns can help you keep your priorities straight. And keeping your priorities straight can help keep your heart in tact.
The Marriage Recession
I’m not surprised, but I am saddened. A recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center confirms what we already know: the estate of marriage has been in decline now for decades and it continues to decline. Richard Fry summarizes the study’s findings:
In 2011, 4.2 million adults were newly married, about the same number as in 2010 and sharply lower than the 4.5 million newlyweds estimated in 2008…The decline in nuptials from 2008 to 2011 is in keeping with a general trend away from marriage in the U.S. Barely half of adults (51%) were married in 2011, according to ACS data, compared with 72% in 1960. Marriage increasingly is being replaced by cohabitation, single-person households and other adult living arrangements.[1]
Two things are striking about Fry’s summary. First, the rapid decline of married households from 1960 to 2011 is astonishing. It represents nothing less than a seismic shift in premium our culture places on marriage. Clearly, the value that people place on marriage has taken a precipitous fall. Second, Fry’s observation that “marriage is increasingly being replaced by cohabitation” is also tremendously significant, for it marks a radical departure from God’s ideal of a covenanted relationship between one man and one woman who share and confront life together (cf. Genesis 2:24).
Of course, there are some who applaud this shift away from marriage toward cohabitation as the inevitable unleashing of a long-suppressed epicurean desire that has finally managed to shake itself free from the asphyxiating antiquated constraints of Victorian mores. What these jubilant celebrants who eagerly preside over marriage’s funeral fail to notice, however, is the disturbing darkness that the decline of marriage reveals in the hearts of humans, not only as it pertains to sexual passions, but as it pertains to a basic lack of concern for others.
One of the blessings of marriage is the commitment it demands. Rather than arbitrarily living with someone to whom there is no formal, long-term, and, indeed, life-long commitment, marriage demands the kind of fidelity that does not shift with better times or with worse times, with riches or with poverty, with sickness or with health. The promises a person makes in his or her marriage vows are to remain firm even when everything else in life is in continual flux. Thus, marriage vows are not primarily for the benefit of the one who makes them, though there are certainly blessings to be found in God-pleasing vows, but for the one who receives what they promise, for the vows focus especially on the interests of the partner to whom they are made. A refusal to make these vows and instead cohabitate can allow some couples to unscrupulously hop from one relationship to the next, discarding any lover who a person feels no longer “meets their needs.” In its worst form, then, cohabitation can amount to little more than rank selfishness on display.
Ultimately, at the same time marriage forges our character, it also reveals our character. Marriage forges our character because it calls us to remain committed to another person even when our natural inclination would tend toward severing a relationship. Marriage reveals our character because whether or not we are willing to enter into such a relationship in the first place says a lot about how willing we are to trade our own self-interest for service to another. Marriage matters – not just because it safeguards the romantic relationships we have, but because it exposes the kind of people we are. My prayer is that more and more people commit to be individuals of fidelity and service rather than sensuality and selfishness.
[1] Richard Fry, “No Reversal in Decline of Marriage,” Pew Research Center (11.20.12).
Facebook Follies
“Does Facebook Wreck Marriages?” So asked the provocative title of Quentin Fottrell’s blog for the Wall Street Journal.[1] Of course, we know that Facebook in and of itself is not responsible for the breakdown of wedded bliss; rather, it is the way people use Facebook that damages marriages. Still, the statistics cited in Fottrell’s article are staggering:
- More than a third of divorce filings last year contained the word “Facebook.”
- Over 80% of U.S. divorce attorneys say they’ve seen a rise in the number of cases using social networking.
- Of the fifteen cases Gary Traystman, a divorce attorney in New London, Connecticut, handles per year where computer history, texts, and emails are admitted as evidence, 60% involve Facebook exclusively.
Why does Facebook play such a key role in so many connubial collapses? Fottrell brings in an expert for keen insights:
“Affairs happen with a lightning speed on Facebook,” says K. Jason Krafsky, who authored the book Facebook and Your Marriage with his wife Kelli. In the real world, he says, office romances and out-of-town trysts can take months or even years to develop. “On Facebook,” he says, “they happen in just a few clicks.” The social network is different from most social networks or dating sites in that it both re-connects old flames and allows people to “friend” someone they may only met once in passing. “It puts temptation in the path of people who would never in a million years risk having an affair,” he says.
Krafsky’s last line is key: “It puts temptation in the path of people.”
Jesus knew how readily people can fall to temptation when it is placed even peripherally in their path. This is why He warns His disciples, “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak” (Mark 14:38). Jesus’ caution against temptation and His diagnosis of the flesh’s relative spiritual strength, or rather, its lack thereof, ought to be taken seriously.
When a marriage is in disarray, Facebook can provide an all too easily accessible foray into the arena of temptation. Its appeal lies at two opposing poles. On the one side, Facebook provides a public forum for a scorned spouse to spout off about how he or she has been wronged and receive eager and many times blind support from friends who are, at best, only partially informed about the situation. On the other side, though Facebook is public, it deceptively feels private. After all, it’s only “friends” who can see what you are posting – that is, until a divorce attorney subpoenas records from your Facebook account and presents them in court as incriminating evidence.
Both the public and private faculties of Facebook make its appeal to those in rocky relationships almost irresistible. But when Facebook is used to arbitrate an unsettled union, it inevitably leads to ruin. For it allows couples to steep themselves in the sometimes rotten advice from friends or the sometimes illicit advances of lovers while avoiding conversation with the person they need to be talking with the most – the other spouse.
So, how can a couple use Facebook to connect with friends – old and new alike – while steering clear of its more seedy enticements? A few practical, common sense safeguards can go a long way to protecting your integrity – and your marriage.
- First, make sure your spouse has access to your Facebook account. There is no reason why your spouse should not know what you’re posting online. If you’re trying to surprise him or her using a little help from your Facebook friends, find another way. Sustained trust trumps an occasional need for the secrecy of a surprise.
- Second, if your marriage is troubled, personal details are not Facebook appropriate. You don’t need uneven advice from partial pals, you need professional guidance from a licensed therapist. Facebook is a great place to post thought-provoking quotes, interesting articles, and even pictures of your Memorial Day backyard barbeque or your newborn bouncing baby boy. It is not an appropriate place, however, to air your, or someone else’s, dirty laundry. Falstaff, though he was a shameful coward in Shakespeare’s Henry the Fourth, proved to be wise beyond his actions when he said, “The better part of valor is discretion, in the which better part I have sav’d my life.”[2] Discretion on Facebook may just save your marriage.
- Third, be discerning. Believe it or not, regardless of a person’s Facebook classification as your “friend,” not everyone you communicate with on social networking sites has your best interest at heart. And not everyone who proffers advice via the internet knows what he or she talking about, or, as the case may be, “posting” about. This means that you should not set yourself up to get bad advice from your Facebook friends by posting sordid details of your life gone awry, nor should you insert yourself via public posts into someone else’s messy Facebook spectacle. If you’re truly concerned about someone, a face-to-face conversation, or, if that is impossible, a private conversation by some other means, works much better than a public posting.
Finally, a sober estimation of your own sinful desires and weaknesses may be the best safeguard against the wily relational entrapments that internet social networking can bring. No matter how strong you may think your marriage is, all it takes is one click or keystroke to lead it down the road to ruin. And so we pray, “Lead us not into temptation” (Matthew 6:13).
[1] Quentin Fottrell, “Does Facebook Wreck Marriages?” The Wall Street Journal (5.21.12).
[2] William Shakespeare, Henry the Fourth (Part 1, Act 5, Scene 4).
A Pastoral Statement on President Obama’s Endorsement of Same-Sex Marriage
Dear Friends in Christ,
The issues of same-sex marriage, or gay marriage, and the broader topic of homosexuality are not only “hot” topics in our society, they are also tender issues that reach to the heart of many families and individuals. These are issues laced with personal and familial experiences that strike at the basic need we all share to love and be loved. As a result, it is difficult to discuss these matters objectively. Our desire is to do that very thing – to present these issues from a loving and compassionate perspective that seeks to share Biblical truth without compromising our desire to love all people (as Christ has loved us) without regard for their sexual orientation.
The Christian Church is often painted as “the enemy” of homosexual people. Unfortunately, this picture has often been exacerbated by poor and confusing communication from the Church. We, however, see this characterization as a misunderstanding of the Church and its role. Christian people are called to commit themselves to God and His Word. In doing so, we are called to love all people unconditionally while also standing firm on the truths expressed in the holy Word of God.
In response to many questions and concerns expressed over President Obama’s recent statements regarding gay marriage, we have prepared this statement. On the surface, this may seem a clear-cut issue to people on all sides of the argument. However, it is our belief that this issue is complicated and worthy of careful consideration. As a result, this statement is lengthy. Please take the time to work your way through each of the topics and consider each point. Please also, as time allows, take the time to consider the additional resources listed at the end of this document.
Finally, as you read this statement, know that we, your pastors, love you and your families. Our passion to share God’s love and encouragement with you, your families, and all people is deep and compelling in our lives. If you have concerns or questions about this document, please contact us.
God bless you!
Bill Tucker, Senior Pastor
Concordia Lutheran Church, San Antonio, Texas
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
A Summary of the Statement
This past Wednesday, in an interview with ABC News, President Obama expressed his support of same-sex marriage. In response to the widespread questions over the president’s comments, we thought it would be helpful to address the biblical stance on same-sex marriage in a four-section statement, prepared by the pastors of Concordia Lutheran Church. Because we know that not everyone will have the time or the inclination to read the full statement, what follows is a brief summary of the major points of the paper.
Compassion and Conviction
As Christians, we are called to address every sin and every sinner with both compassion and conviction. This is also true when it comes to the sins of homosexual activity and same-sex marriage. We must speak compassionately to those in homosexual lifestyles, calling to their attention Jesus’ offer of salvation for those trapped in sexual sin (cf. Matthew 21:31). At the same time, we must also speak with conviction concerning the sinfulness of homosexual activity specifically and all sexual immorality generally (cf. Romans 1:25-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-12).
The Marriage Model
Our society is losing respect for the biblical model of marriage as a lifelong covenant relationship between one man and one woman until death parts them (cf. Matthew 19:4-6). The passage of no-fault divorce laws in many states, the prevalence of adultery, pre-marital sex, pornography, and marital abuse all demonstrate this. President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage is merely the latest example of an affront against the biblical model of marriage.
Civic Policy and the Divine Order
Christians can stand against same-sex marriage not only on the basis of the Scriptural witness, but also on the basis of natural, moral law. Because certain moral mandates are written on the heart of every human being (cf. Romans 2:14-15), our society adheres to a broad moral standard, derived from the natural order of things in our world. This is why murder, stealing, lying, and the like are punishable by our civic system. If we follow the natural order of things on these moral issues, why would we abandon this order when it comes to same-sex marriage?
Authority and Autonomy
Our society has a tendency to make moral judgments based not on absolute truth, but on shifting popular opinion. President Obama himself exemplifies this method of moralizing when, in his interview, he references practicing homosexuals he knows and has known as justification for his endorsement of same-sex marriage. As Christians, however, we cannot embrace the shifting sensibilities of our culture or our personal preferences to form our moral stances. Instead, we must turn to the one and final standard of morality and goodness: God Himself, revealed through His Word (cf. Luke 18:19).
We encourage you to read the full statement to learn more. As Christians committed to the witness of Scripture, this is most certainly an issue worthy of our time, attention, and thought.
A Pastoral Statement on President Obama’s Endorsement
of Same-Sex Marriage
This past Wednesday, in an interview with ABC News, President Obama expressed his support of what is commonly referred to as same-sex marriage, or gay marriage:
I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.[1]
President Obama’s comments mark a major milestone in presidential politics. Never has an incumbent president called for the transformation of one of society’s foundational institutions. Not surprisingly, a fury of political, sociological, and theological punditry has erupted around the president’s statements.
In response to the widespread questions over the president’s stance, because of the rampant confusion over homosexuality and its morality, and because this issue is not merely theoretical, but also relational and personal for many people, we thought it would be prudent to briefly address the biblical stance on this topic in four sections. These sections include: (1) The importance of speaking with both compassion and conviction about homosexuality and to homosexuals; (2) Reiterating the biblical model for marriage; (3) Understanding the interplay between the civic, political realm and the natural, moral realm; and (4) Submitting to Scripture’s authority while recognizing the dangers of our rampant cultural autonomy. Let’s address each of these areas briefly.
Compassion and Conviction
Holy Scripture is clear in its command: we are to show compassion to those caught in sexual sin, including homosexual sin, and we are to show and share the hope and forgiveness of the gospel with all sinners. Indeed, Jesus was known for His compassion toward those mired in sexual sin and even opened His kingdom to them. He says to the religious leaders of His day, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you” (Matthew 21:31). People caught in sexual sin are included in God’s kingdom through faith in Christ. Such is the compassion and grace of our God. When a woman is caught in the act of adultery and the religious leaders seek to stone her, Jesus sends her accusers away and says, “I [do not] condemn you…Go now and leave your life of sin” (John 8:11). In an act of extravagant compassion and grace, Jesus forgives this woman’s sin and saves her life. It is important to note, however, that while Jesus offers His deep compassion, at the same time, He refuses to compromise His core conviction concerning the immorality of sexual sin. He calls this woman to repent of her sin and not to return to it. Thus, Jesus holds His compassion and conviction in perfect tension. This is why the Bible says that Jesus comes to us “full of grace [i.e., compassion] and truth [i.e., conviction]” (John 1:14). Both conviction and compassion are needed in a Christian’s response to homosexuality. This means that our homosexual neighbors, friends, and family members deserve both our love and kindness as well as our candid thoughts and concerns.
With this in mind, just as we are compelled by Holy Scripture to show compassion toward those trapped in homosexual sin, we are also compelled by Holy Scripture to state our conviction that homosexual activity is sinful. The apostle Paul writes pointedly:
[People have] exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:25-27)
Please notice two things about Paul’s statements, inspired by the Holy Spirit, concerning homosexuality. First, at the root of the sin of homosexual practice is the sin of idolatry. The apostle argues that homosexual relationships exchange “the truth of God for a lie” and worship “created things [i.e., sexual desire] rather than the Creator.” Sexual sin, along with every other sin, tries to do no less than dethrone God and crown our own desires as supreme, regardless of and in contradiction to God’s will! It is an affront against the First Commandment: “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). Second, Paul clearly sees homosexual activity as morally unacceptable. Words such as “indecent” and “perversion” in verse 27 make this clear enough. Moreover, in verse 24, Paul calls homosexual activity a “sinful desire,” “sexual impurity,” and “degrading.” Scripture’s conviction on the practice of homosexuality is unequivocal: it is sinful.
The Marriage Model
President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage is merely the latest in a long line of attacks resulting in the slow erosion of respect for the biblical model of marriage. Skye Jethani of Christianity Today explains:
The church was silent when state after state passed no-fault divorce laws. These bills essentially removed the state from any interest in preserving or defining marriage. No fault divorce laws defined marriage as an agreement between two individuals that may be entered or dissolved as the individuals desire without state interference or prejudice.[2]
The final sentence is key. For if marriage is defined civically as merely “an agreement between two individuals that may be entered or dissolved as the individuals desire without state interference of prejudice,” the state is stripped of its ability to offer any definition of who those two individuals are and the kind of commitment those two individuals make. Is marriage between a man and a woman? A man and a man? A woman and a woman? Is it entered into under the assumption that it will be a lifelong union? None of this is defined à la our states’ no-fault divorce laws. Thus, so-called gay marriage is merely a consequential progression of the ambiguous marriage laws already on the books.
The Bible is not nearly so ambiguous. Its stance is clear: marriage is meant to be a life-long covenant relationship between one man and one woman until death parts them. This is part and parcel of God’s created order: “A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). This created order is reiterated and reinforced by Jesus Himself: “Haven’t you read…that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:4-6).
The desire of Christians, then, should not be only to stand against same-sex marriage while loving homosexual people, but to stand for biblical marriage, being defined as the union between one man and one woman. This means that we ought to raise the alarm not only over same-sex marriage, but over adultery, pornography, divorce, abuse, and anything else that impugns the biblical model of marriage where one woman and one man commit to each other, become one flesh through sexual intimacy, and serve, honor, and love each other. Indeed, every married Christian should strive to attain this model in his or her marriage. Marriage is God’s gift to us, bestowed in love, and is intended to be both an example of His love for us (cf. Ephesians 5:31-32) and an opportunity for us to experience the blessing and joy of loving each other.
Civic Policy and the Divine Order
When President Obama made his comments supporting same-sex marriage, more than one evangelical Christian rushed to his defense. Consider this from an evangelical blogger:
Supporting gay marriage is not supporting sin. I know it is hard to grasp, but this matter has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality is a sin. If it does, then you are probably being inconsistent since there are lots of things that Christians consider “sinful” that they do not legislate against. For instance, if God wants us as a nation to live by His laws, why are we okay supporting the freedom of religion? Shouldn’t we be out trying to ban other religions? If we are okay with freedom of religion, which is a law that basically mandates that our country allow for idolatry (according to the Christian), aren’t we being hypocritical?[3]
At first glance, some may find this argument compelling. If we support legislation against gay marriage because of our Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin, what other legislation are we required to support? Is insisting on a federally mandated Christianity an inextricable consequence of supporting a traditional definition of marriage in our civic law as this blogger suggests?
It is important to understand that legislation supporting traditional marriage is not theologically identical to federally mandated Christianity. The difference between the two can be found in the distinction between general revelation and special revelation. General revelation is that which can be known apart from Holy Scripture simply by observing God’s created order and the moral implications of this created order. Another name for this is “natural law.” Many of the Ten Commandments fall under this category of natural, moral law. For instance, our society still recognizes that murder runs contrary to natural, moral law. Likewise, lying, stealing, and (before the no-fault divorce laws cited above) even adultery has been considered by society-at-large to run contrary to this law. Thus, one does not have to be a Christian to accept and adhere to natural, moral law because this law is written on the hearts of all people apart from Scripture and faith in Christ (cf. Romans 2:14-15). In light of the universal character of this law, there are (and always have been) legal consequences in our civic system for actions which contradict natural law.
Homosexual practice and its immorality fall squarely within the realm of general revelation and natural, moral law. Consider again Paul’s argument against homosexuality in Romans 1:
Women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:26-27)
Once more, note Paul’s language. He speaks of “natural” and “unnatural” relations. “Natural” relations are those within heterosexual marriage while “unnatural” relations are those that are homosexual. In this passage, then, Paul does not argue against homosexuality using a divine command, but using creation’s natural order. Thus, same sex marriage is contrary to natural, moral law. And if we as a society honor natural, moral law in instances such as murder, stealing, lying, and the like, why abandon such a precedent when it comes to marriage?
Special revelation is a different matter. Special revelation refers to that which can be known only through the Bible and has to do with God’s specific and special plan to redeem humanity from its sinful condition. General revelation, then, encompasses all people while special revelation is found exclusively in the Old and New Testament Scriptures and declares a specific message of salvation through Christ. Thus, though Christians can support legislation that is broadly moral and applies to all according to the divine ordering of creation, we put ourselves in a precarious position when we demand civic laws that are specifically Christian in nature because faith in Christ cannot be coerced by legislation, it can only be shared by our witness. This is why, while standing against same-sex marriage, Christians do not demand legislation that forces people to worship the Triune God. Worship of the Triune God can be brought about only by faith in the gospel and not an edict of the government.
Authority and Autonomy
The way in which the news media has reported President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage has been quite telling concerning the way many of us often craft our moral views. Consider the following from CNN: “A Gallup Poll released Tuesday indicated 50% of Americans believe same-sex marriages should be recognized by law as valid, with 48% saying such marriages should not be legal.”[4] Many will cite polls like this one to make the case for the moral acceptability of gay marriage, making morality a mere function of democratic enterprise. Indeed, President Obama even cited a democratic acceptance of homosexuality, albeit in an anecdotal way, as part of his reasoning for endorsing same-sex marriage. Consider again his statement:
I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.[5]
President Obama’s reasoning for same-sex marriage is simply this: because he knows many people who are practicing homosexuals and are in committed relationships, same-sex marriage must be allowed!
As Christians, we must recognize this kind of reasoning for what it is: the expression of an individual moral autonomy that has influenced the thinking of President Obama as well as many in our society. This autonomy refuses to believe in any authority outside of itself. Blogger Rod Dreher summarizes:
This is the fundamental problem we face when we argue over gay marriage, abortion, contraception, and so forth. It’s not about rights, not really; it’s about what it means to be a person, and what is the ultimate source of morality.[6]
The fact of the matter is, for many people, “the ultimate source of morality,” as Dreher calls it, is nothing more than an individual’s own sensibilities and sensitivities. In other words, there is no standard of morality external to each individual. All morality is merely a personal construct, erasing absolute truth. This view of morality, of course, runs directly contrary to the Christian moral imperative which sees moral standards as external, rooted in the divine order and, finally, in God Himself! As Jesus says, “No one is good – except God alone” (Luke 18:19). God is the one and final standard of goodness and morality. And He reveals His standard to us through His Word.
Moreover, when our culture’s autonomous morality is coupled with a selfish hedonism, the results are predictable. Many people cannot imagine a God who would not want them to be happy. If homosexual activity brings them such happiness, the argument runs, such activity cannot be wrong. Statements such as, “If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for Me will find it” (Matthew 16:24-25) are either ignored or rejected as impediments to personal fulfillment and happiness. Denying personal and sinful desires in deference to Christ and His call is clearly out of step with our prevailing culture autonomy.
As Christians, we are called to witness to the vanity of such hedonistic pursuits. Even when denying oneself is difficult – especially in the arena of sexual desire, be that heterosexual or homosexual desire – we are called to declare the message that pursuing any desire in a way that is not consistent with God’s design will ultimately lead a person into choices that violate both divine law and basic moral constraints. True fulfillment and satisfaction, along with the strength to overcome our old, sinful nature, can be found only in Christ. As Paul writes, “My God will meet all your needs according to His glorious riches in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:19). And as Jesus promises, “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). Everything we need for fullness of life is found in Christ!
It is our prayer that this statement serves as a guide to clarify both the biblical record and its natural, moral law corollaries on same-sex marriage. We believe such a stance is foundational and necessary to the decent order and function of society-at-large. We hope, as well, that this statement can be of help to those seeking to share with others a charitable Christian perspective on this issue. We remain committed to both the biblical conviction against same-sex marriage and the biblical mandate to compassionately share Christ’s love with all people regardless of sexual orientation.
Additional Resources
If you would like additional resources which address President Obama’s statement endorsing same-sex marriage from a Christian perspective, you can consult the following:
- http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/05/09/how-to-win-the-public-on-homosexuality/
- http://www.edstetzer.com/2012/05/president-obama-and-same-sex-m.html
- http://www.outofur.com/archives/2012/05/obama_endorses.html#more
[1] Rick Klein, “Obama Declares Support for Gay Marriage” (5.9.12), http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html.
[2] Skye Jethani, “Obama Endorses Same Sex Marriage – Now What?” (5.10.12), http://www.outofur.com/archives/2012/05/obama_endorses.html.
[3] Jared Byas, “I Still Stand as an Evangelical for Gay Marriage” (5.9.12), http://jbyas.com/2012/05/09/i-still-stand-as-an-evangelical-for-gay-marriage/.
[4] Phil Gast, “Obama Announces He Supports Same-Sex Marriage” (5.9.12), http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/index.html.
[6] Rod Dreher, “Same-Sex Marriage & Post-Christianity” (5.8.12), http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2012/05/08/same-sex-marriage-post-christian/.
Making the Most of Marriage
At the end of each year, major news outlets publish their lists of the year’s top news stories. For 2011, Osama bin Laden’s death and Japan’s earthquake and subsequent tsunami were the top news stories according to the Associate Press. [1] Interestingly, it is not only mainstream news outlets that provide such lists. Religious news outlets, editorial writers, and bloggers are now following suit. I have seen lists of 2011’s top religious news stories in Christianity Today [2] and the The Huffington Post. [3] But it is a top ten news story in the Gospel Coalition blog that really caught my attention. It is titled “Marriages Need Help.” Collin Hansen, who penned this list, explains why this story made his top ten:
This story could have appeared in my 2010 list, and it might warrant an encore in 2012. Same-sex “marriage,” legalized by New York state in 2011, continues to grab the headlines. But here’s the bigger story: a growing number of Westerners have abandoned the institution altogether. The Pew Research Center recently revealed that a record low number of Americans – 51 percent – are married. The rate dropped 5 percent in just one year, between 2009 and 2010. [4]
If that statistic from the Pew Research Center does not make your jaw drop, it should. At an increasingly rapid rate, Americans are either (A) getting divorced, (B) never getting married in the first place, or (C) living in lifeless, loveless, romance-less marriages. It is worth noting that the statistics from Pew do not account for those in category C.
In his book, The Meaning of Marriage, [5] Pastor Tim Keller distinguishes between two kinds of relationships: consumer relationships and covenantal relationships. A consumer relationship lasts only as long as the needs of the partners in the relationship are being met satisfactorily. As soon as needs stop being met, the relationship falls apart. These kinds of relationships, then, are inherently self-centered, for they exist merely to gratify their participants. Covenantal relationships, on the other hand, are binding relationships in which the good of the relationship trumps the preferences and immediate needs of the individuals in the relationship. These relationships are based on a continual commitment rather than on a consumer-fueled contentment.
Part of the reason marriage is on such a sharp decline, Keller argues, is because we have taken what should be the covenantal relationship of marriage and have turned it into a consumer relationship. In other words, many marriages last only as long as the partners are having their needs met. As soon as a marriage hits a rough patch, or as soon as one spouse or both spouses feel as though their desires are going unaddressed, divorce all too quickly ensues. Indeed, this is why many people don’t get married in the first place. They don’t want to bother with the kind of covenantal commitment that marriage inevitably brings – at least from a legal standpoint, if nothing else. As a pastor, I have heard more times than I care to remember, “We don’t need a piece of paper [i.e., a marriage license] to tell us that we love each other. We don’t need to get married!” This kind of statement breaks my heart. For what a person who makes such a statement is really saying is, “I don’t love this person quite enough to make things as permanent as a marriage makes things! I don’t love this person quite enough to enter into a covenant with them!”
Jesus’ words about a Christian’s life apply equally as well to a spouse’s life: “Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for Me will find it” (Matthew 16:25). Self-sacrifice is the way of the gospel…and the way of marriage. Marriage is not about getting your needs met. It is about sacrificing selflessly for the sake of your spouse. And yet, through such willing sacrifice, Jesus promises that your needs will indeed be met, even if ever so mysteriously. You will “find your life,” Jesus says. But take heed of Jesus’ warning: If you enter a relationship with a consumer mentality, looking only to your own needs, wants, and desires – if you try to “save your life” – you will only wind up sorely and sadly empty. You will only wind up losing your life. Fulfillment in marriage – and in life – begins with emptying yourself in service.
So if you are married, but times are tough, in almost every instance, except those instances in which a family member is in danger, the road to recovery begins with serving your spouse. If you are not married, but you’d like to be, selfless service is the path to your future spouse’s heart. This is the help our marriages need.
[1] David Crary, “The top ten news stories of 2011,” The Associated Press (12.30.11).
[2] “Top 10 News Stories of 2011,” Christianity Today (12.28.11).
[3] Paul Brandies Raushenbush, “Religion Stories of 2011: The Top 11,” The Huffington Post (12.8.11).
[4] Collin Hansen, “My Top 10 Theology Stories of 2011,” The Gospel Coalition (12.28.11).
[5] See chapter 3, “The Essence of Marriage” in Tim Keller with Katy Keller, The Meaning of Marriage (New York: Dutton, 2011).
Genesis 6:1-4 and Christian Marriage
The other day, I received a question regarding the opening verses of Genesis 6:
When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:1-4)
This passage is a perennially puzzling one because it immediately raises a host of questions. Who are the sons of God? Who are the daughters of men? Who are the Nephilim? To add to the perplexing nature of this passage, commentaries offer a whole array of conflicting interpretations, perhaps the most famous of which is that the “sons of God” are fallen angels who are perverting the daughters of men by intermarrying with them and allying themselves with an evil race of giants called the Nephilim.
I’m not sure that the interpretation of this passage needs to be nearly so esoteric. Indeed, the interpretation proffered above flatly contradicts what Jesus says about the nature of angels: “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Mark 12:25). Jesus here makes it clear that angels are not the marrying kind. Thus, when Moses writes about the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2, he seems to be referring simply those who follow God and believe in His promise of a Messiah. Most likely, the sons of God are from the line of Seth who replaced his late brother Abel as an heir of righteousness (cf. Genesis 4:25). Conversely, the “daughters of men” seem to be those who do not follow God, most likely from the line of Cain, and are prone to wickedness and violence (cf. Genesis 4:17-24). Thus, essentially what is going on here is that righteousness is intermingling with wickedness.
The sons of God intermarrying with daughters of men is paired with a reference to the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4. Most often, the Nephilim are portrayed as giants, thanks in large part to the description of them in Numbers 13, when Moses sends out a team of spies to scout out the land of Canaan before the Israelites are supposed to enter and settle there. The spies return with this report: “We saw the Nephilim there…We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them” (Numbers 13:33). Interestingly, this is the only other reference to the Nephilim in the Old Testament. Because the spies compare themselves to “grasshoppers” in light the stature of the Nephilim, the Nephilim are often assumed to be giants. Indeed, in the Latin Vulgate, Jerome translates the word Nephilim as gigantes, or “giants.” But what Moses seems to be referring to in Genesis 6:4 is not so much the physical stature of the Nephilim, but their spiritual state. “Nephilim” is a Hebrew word meaning, “fallen ones.” That is, the Nephilim are wicked tyrants who care not for God and His Word. They have fallen into sin. In the scope of four short verses, then, we find the sons of God intermarrying with the daughters of men, an act which is portrayed as sinful, and we hear of the Nephilim, renowned as evil thugs. Sin is on the move in Genesis 6. And it is spreading like gangrene. This is why in the subsequent verses, Moses writes, “The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain” (Genesis 6:5-6). What follows is the story of Noah and God’s judgment on wickedness by means of a worldwide flood.
So why would I spend all this time trying to sort out the exegetical puzzle of Genesis 6:1-4? Is it out of mere theological curiosity? Though I am always theologically curious, the practical implications of a proper interpretation of this passage are enormous. For it gives us a down-to-earth look at what happens when righteousness intermingles with wickedness. For when righteousness intermingles with wickedness, wickedness all too often seems to prevail. This is why the apostle Paul later warns:
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be My people. Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you will be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
Paul is crystal clear here: Our God does not want His sons and daughters to yoke themselves to the sons and daughters of this world. This has an especially poignant application to Christian marriage. Christians should not marry non-Christians…period. To do so is to try to yoke righteousness to wickedness. So to the Christian singles I say, “Marry inside the faith.” Follow Paul’s admonition: The person you marry “must belong to the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39).
Now, certainly it is good to share your faith with others. Certainly it is even fine to have friends who do not share your same faith commitment. But to yoke yourself to these people is a different matter entirely. For to yoke yourself to someone is to declare your solidarity and agreement with them. And solidarity and agreement with unfaith is something you cannot and should not declare.
Thus, this little passage from Genesis 6 has weighty practical implications for how we relate to others, especially in the context of marriage, and puts us on notice that the results of righteousness intermingling with wickedness are never good. Righteousness should never merely intermingle with wickedness. Rather, it should overcome it! As Paul says, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21). May you overcome the evil you encounter with the goodness of Christ!
ABC Extra – Team Lifting
A few months back, I purchased a treadmill for my wife. The one we previously owned had worn out and it was time for a newer, more powerful, more advanced model. I was very happy with the deal I received on the treadmill. I got it for about 50 percent off the manufacturer’s suggested retail price! As I was paying for the treadmill, the customer service representative asked me, “Would you like to pay an additional $100 to have the treadmill delivered and set up?” I didn’t even have to think about it: “$100? No thank you, I’ll pass.”
A couple of days later, I returned to the store with my truck and a buddy to pick up the treadmill. It was going to be simple. We would load the treadmill in the bed of my truck, haul it home, set it up, and be done. The plan was perfect. That is, the plan was perfect until we tried to actually pick up the treadmill. It had to weigh 1,000 pounds! Thankfully, a couple of guys from the sporting goods store came out to help us. When we finally got it into the bed of my truck and drove it back to my house, we took it out of the box, piece by piece, to haul inside. After a whole lot of sweat and an aching back, I decided I should have paid the $100.
As I was trying, without success, to lug the huge and heavy box out of the sporting goods store to the bed of my truck, I noticed an icon the box’s side. It had two people picking up a hug box with these words: “TEAM LIFT for your safety.” When I saw the icon, I thought to myself, “Would anyone even think of trying to pick this box up by himself?”
In Luke 10:38-42, we meet two sisters: Martha and Mary. These sisters could not be any more different. Jesus and His twelve disciples are joining the sisters at their house for a supper, and Martha wants to make sure everything is just perfect for her guests. And so she goes about preparing a lavish feast. But with her recipe books strewn across the kitchen, pots and pans boiling over on the stove, and flour flung across the floor, Martha’s meal becomes more than she can bear. She need someone with whom she can “team lift” in preparing. But Mary, her sister, seems unable or, worse yet, unwilling to help. When Jesus and His disciples arrive, Mary simply sits at Jesus’ feet, listening intently to what He says. Finally, in exasperation, Martha complains to her Lord: “Lord, don’t You care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me” (Luke 10:40)! The Greek word for “help” is synantilambanomai. This one word is actually a compound word made up of the words: synanti, meaning “with,” or “corresponding to,” and lambanomai, meaning “to take up,” or “to lift.” Thus, when Martha asks for her sister’s help, she is asking her to do some “team lifting.”
Now surely, Jesus should empathize with Martha’s plight. After all, her hard work could break her back! But Jesus’ response to Martha is altogether surprising if not even offensive: “Martha, Martha, you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:41-42). Jesus will not send Mary to “team lift” with her sister. Because finally, Martha doesn’t need a team lifter, Martha needs Jesus. Martha needs to learn from Jesus, like Mary. Martha needs to follow Jesus, like Mary. And Martha needs to rest in Jesus, like Mary.
Be it in friendships between children or marriages between adults, I often hear people complain that a partner in a relationship is not “pulling their weight.” These people explain that they are left all by themselves to do the heavy lifting of a relationship. Though it is true that friends and spouses certainly ought to help each other, before you complain that another person is not pulling their weight, perhaps you should first go to Jesus. Perhaps you should ask Him to heal and reconcile your relationship. Perhaps you should ask Him to give you the strength needed to maneuver your way through what can sometimes be complex and weighty relationships. Because before you need someone to “team lift” with you, you need Jesus. Because Jesus doesn’t just help you with some of your burden takes your burden and nails it to His cross. So find your strength – and your rest – in Him.
Want to learn more? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
For Women Only (But Men Can – And Probably Should – Read Too)
I have recently taken note of a trend which troubles me. In many a conversation, I have met with a husband and a wife in crisis. Their marriage is usually on the rocks, barely hanging by a thread, and steadily heading – if not speeding – down the road to divorce. Although marriage trouble is almost always the product of both parties sinning against one another, I have noticed that, in these situations, the husband often lacks the fortitude to faithfully lead his marriage and his family according to the gospel of Jesus Christ. His interest in the things of God is weak if not non-existent. Indeed, it is often the woman who seeks biblical answers to important questions while the man is interested only in satisfying his own fleeting desires and infatuations.
To be fair, there are many men out there who are faithful, Godly leaders of their homes. I praise God for these men. But I want to speak for a moment to the women, for I know there are many, who are in relationships where the man does not dependably steward his mantle as the head of the household.
Through probably apocryphal, St. Francis of Assisi is quoted as saying, “Preach the gospel always, if necessary, use words.” Certainly this maxim cannot be used to excuse us from clearly and cogently proclaiming the gospel, for Holy Scripture mandates just such a proclamation, but sometimes, a quiet witness to the gospel is a faithful one. Indeed, this is precisely Peter’s argument to wives when he writes: “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives” (1 Peter 3:1-2). As the apostle pens these words, he is addressing a group of women whose beliefs do not match those of their husbands, probably because they have converted to Christianity while their husbands have not. Peter recommends holy living as a way to witness to these men who refuse to be the spiritual leaders of their households.
It is important to note that Peter’s direction radically contradicts the standard thinking of the first century. For a woman to defy her husband’s sensibilities was considered an affront to his masculinity. If the husband lived as a pagan, the wife was to live as a pagan too. The first century Roman historian Plutarch explains:
A wife ought not to make friends on her own, but to enjoy her husband’s friends in common with him. The gods are the first and most important friends. Therefore it is becoming for a wife to worship and know only the gods that her husband believes in, and to shut the front door tight upon all peculiar rituals and outlandish superstitions [such as Christianity]. (Moralia 140D)
According to Plutarch, a wife is to believe only what her husband believes. Thus, if a husband worships at the altar of football or lust or alcohol or crassness, the wife is to worship there as well. Put Peter directs ladies differently. A wife’s first and foremost responsibility is to the Lord, even when her husband refuses to honor and worship the true God.
Ladies, I know it is hard witnesses to men who do not know or care for the Lord. And yet, there is hope! For Peter’s guidance concerning a quiet witness to unfaithful husbands actually works! Perhaps most famously, it worked with the father of St. Augustine. Augustine writes of his mother:
When she had arrived at a marriageable age, she was given to a husband whom she served as her lord. And she busied herself to gain him to God, preaching God unto him by her behavior…For she waited for God’s mercy upon him, that by believing in Him, he might become chaste…Finally, her own husband, now towards the end of his earthly existence, did she gain over unto the Lord. (Augustine, Confessions, IX:19,22)
This woman’s dear faith proved persuasive to her husband…and to her son as well. Indeed, her faith proved so persuasive that she raised one of the greatest theologians ever to serve the Christian Church.
Ladies, even in difficult circumstances, continue to serve your Lord faithfully. Lead by your behavior if your husband will not lead according to his responsibility. Know that I am praying for you. Gentlemen, if you have fallen short in spiritually leading your household, repent and ask forgiveness from your family. Then teach and live the faith. Know that I am praying for you as well. For there is nothing more important, heavy, and joyous than to teach and live out than the gospel of Jesus Christ!
Pastor Zach's Blog 