Meaning of Husband

"“Consider the word ‘husband,’” University of North Carolina at Charlotte sociology professor Rosemary L. Hopcroft wrote for the Institute for Family Studies this week. “It derives from two words, ‘hús’ (from the Old Norse for house) and ‘bóndi’ (from the Old Norse for occupier and tiller of the soil), and its original meaning was a man who had a home and therefore could marry and support a family,” Hopcroft continued. “The word thus embodies a principle common in preindustrial England and Europe ‘that a man might not marry until his living was assured.’”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/how-marriage-has-and-hasnt-changed

Meaning of Separation

 May 9 AD 2020

What does Separation mean in Paul’s teaching?  I was helped initially by reading Jay Adams looking at  I Cor 7. I had not even thought about this until this year and I don't expect most Christians in the West  to have ever thought this through either. 

 Here’s what the Apostle Paul said in I Cor. 7:10 & 11 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

Jay Adams talking of the culture of the Jews and Corinthians says

“There was nothing of our modern view of separating (legal or otherwise) as we know it--[that is] a leaving one's marriage partner without divorce. All such separation is strictly forbidden in I Cor. 7:5 which reads, 

 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

This thought led me to look into other commentaries about what Paul may have meant by Separation. These following comments indicate that the Apostle saw the separation contemplated here as breaking the marriage and therefore the separated ones were to “remain unmarried”.

Gordon Fee on I Cor. 7:10

Paul addresses the wives first, “A wife must not separate from her husband.” Much has been made of the use of the verb “to separate oneself from,” in distinction from the verb used later (vv. 12–13), “to divorce.” But that probably reflects our own urgencies for greater precision. Divorce in Greco-Roman culture could be legalized by means of documents, but more often it simply happened. In this culture divorce was divorce, whether established by a document or not. Either the man sent his wife away (= “divorce” in the  sense of v. 12), or else either of them “left” the other (= “to separate”). But the evidence is ambiguous as far as the verbs are concerned. Ordinarily when the wife “divorces,” she simply leaves her husband (“is separated” from him); the same verb is used a bit later (v. 15) of an unbelieving partner of either sex who leaves, and it occurs regularly in the papyri for mutual divorce (agreeing to “separate from each other”). On the other hand, a man ordinarily “divorced” his wife (“sent her away”)...

... if she does separate, she must continue to follow the dictum “Stay as you are,” meaning now “Remain unmarried.”

.......

Matthew Henry on I Cor 7: 11

"...the apostle advises that if any woman had been separated, either by a voluntary act of her own or by an act of her husband, she should continue unmarried, and seek reconciliation with her husband, that they might cohabit again."

John Gill:

“The wife therefore should not depart from her husband upon every slight occasion; not on account of any quarrel, or disagreement that may arise between them; or for every instance of moroseness and inhumanity; or because of diseases and infirmities; nor even on the score of difference in religion which, by what follows, seems to be greatly the case in view. The apostle observes this, in opposition to some rules and customs which obtained among Jews and Gentiles, divorcing and separating from one another upon various accounts; not only husbands put away their wives, but wives also left their husbands….

“But and if she depart,.... This is said, not as allowing of such a departure, which only in case of fornication is lawful; but supposing it a fact, that a woman cannot be prevailed upon to stay with her husband, but actually forsakes him upon some difference arising between them, let her remain unmarried: she ought not to marry another man….”

John Calvin:

“But as to his commanding the wife, who is separated from her husband, to remain unmarried, he does not mean by this that separation is allowable, nor does he give permission to the wife to live apart from her husband…. He does not therefore give permission here to wives to withdraw, of their own accord, from their husbands, or to live away from their husband's establishment, as if they were in a state of widowhood; but declares, that even those who are not received by their husbands, continue to be bound, so that they cannot take other husbands.

“... For if a wife should fall into a protracted illness, the husband would, nevertheless, not be justified in going to seek another wife. In like manner, if a husband should, after marriage, begin to labor under some distemper, it would not be allowable for his wife to change her condition of life. The sum is this--God having prescribed lawful marriage as a remedy for our incontinency, let us make use of it, that we may not, by tempting him, pay the penalty of our rashness. Having discharged this duty, let us hope that he will give us aid should matters go contrary to our expectations.”

Thinking through this passage and the commentaries on it has been a real help to me in understanding Separation in New Testament times and now in our post-Christian culture looking at marriage. We are essentially at the same place that Paul’s hearers were at.  Marriages ended then and now with one spouse just walking away.

Wedding Ceremony, what should it look like-Bayly

Place and Time:

It is clearly stated at the beginning that this wedding is not secret or clandestine; the bride and groom will take their vows with both God and the assembled congregation as their witnesses, and future violations of those vows will carry the weight of condemnation those witnesses imply.  In fact, Malachi 2:14 reminds us that "the Lord was witness" in the marriage covenant "between you and the wife of your youth."

 Weddings were public affairs, involving not simply the union of one man and one woman, but two extended families and their respective communities; the bride and groom were to wed in such a way as to assure the health and continuity, not just of their own home and immediate family, but also the church and civic community.

Traditionally Banns were read, an announcement of intent to marry with a request for anyone knowing why this marriage would be improper, to come forward and declare it.

Words of Institution: 

This is marriage's Scriptural warrant. "Matrimony...is an honorable estate instituted of God in paradise, in the time of man's innocency."

 In this manner pastors declare God's teaching on marriage:

 Monogamous, life-long, heterosexual, husband-led marriage is binding on all people and nations, and Christian judges, legislators and citizens must work, not only to protect these truths from the encroachments of civil law, but also to proclaim them unashamedly in the public square as faithful witnesses to our Lord and His Truth.

 Warning:

By warning against the "carnal lust and appetites (of) brute beasts," the liturgy reminds those assembled that man bears God's image, and that this once-in-a-lifetime step of marriage is to be taken only with the greatest caution and in the "fear of God." There are times to remind Christians of the Father's authority and of the consequences of dealing lightly with His Law. Scripture warns us concerning the danger of taking vows lightly[Footnote 7] and marriage vows today need, again, to be taken in the context of Scripture's warning, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31).

 

Three Purposes of Marriage:

• Part of a wise and reverent approach to marriage leads, here in the ceremony, to a recitation of God's intent for this institution. Historically, the Church has recognized three purposes taught in Scripture, and these purposes have appeared in Protestant statements of faith down through the centuries. Here they are summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.

 

 Final Reading of the Banns:

• The pastor here gives one last opportunity for "impediments" to the marriage to be brought forward with the sober warning that, although such impediments may be hidden to the eye of man, God sees all and any hidden matter--such as a prior private promise of marriage given to someone other than their intended--will become clear on the "dreadful day of judgment, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed." 

 Declaration of Consent:

• It always seemed to me that vows are exchanged twice during the wedding liturgy; first, here where the bride and groom are asked whether they will have each other; then again, a few minutes later. Why the duplication of promises?
• Over the centuries, weddings were seen to consist of three non-negotiable elements: parental approval, the free consent of the groom and bride to the impending marriage, and the giving and receiving of promises which finalized the marriage. Other elements were added and subtracted, as need be, but these three remained constant. Generally speaking, parental permission and the free consent of groom and bride were a function of the betrothal, whereas the giving and receiving of promises were the marriage proper, immediately following which the marriage was consummated.

 Transfer of Authority:

 Exchange of Vows:
The vows are the heart of the wedding and here, if nowhere else, it's imperative that the bride and groom have a sense that they are not engaging in a romantic act in which creativity is of paramount significance, but rather submitting themselves to the ages and walking in lockstep with those who have gone before.  ...at such times the meaning of the words "for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health...till death us do part" become clear, and nothing else will do.

  That Word 'Obey':

The more I read, the more I became convinced that there simply is no Biblical justification for the removal of the word 'obey' from the bride's declaration of consent and vows. Any summary of Scripture's teaching concerning the duty of the wife and husband, one to the other, must begin with the duty of the husband to "love" his wife, and the duty of the wife to "obey" her husband. 

 ...

• The full article here:

http://baylyblog.com/blog/2005/01/marriage-ceremonies-defend-faith

Supreme Court on Polygamy

Here is part of a decision on marriage:

...on the 8th of December, 1788, after the passage of the act establishing religious freedom, and after the convention of Virginia had recommended as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States the declaration in a bill of rights that "all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience," the legislature of that State substantially enacted the statute of James I., death penalty included, because, as recited in the preamble, "it hath been doubted whether bigamy or polygamy be punishable by the laws of this Commonwealth." (12 Hening's Stat. 691). From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1104642225155375579&q=meaning:+separation+of+married+persons&hl=en&as_sdt=6,24

Defining Marriage for the State

Interesting article from a secular stance.

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/01/11880/

Whenever a child is born, a mother will always be close by. That’s a fact of biology. The question for culture and the question for law is whether a father will be close by. And if so, for how long? Marriage is the institution that different cultures and societies across time and place developed to maximize the likelihood that that man would commit to that woman and then the two of them would take responsibility to raise that child.

Married? You are a gardener -- good or bad.

Last summer I skipped having a garden .   The year before had been a disaster: the seeds had been planted, they had sprouted and grown, but weeds were not pulled and it was soon a jungle.  I had to fight my way through to find zucchini and peppers.
This all came back to me as I read Joel Beeke's tender, frank book on marriage called Friends and Lovers:

Likewise, cultivating friendship in marriage is hard work, yet most rewarding. Many people in our culture think that love is something you fall into and therefore can easily fall out of.  That might be true of passing emotions, but true friendship relies on cultivation: uprooting bad attitudes, planting daily seeds of love towards one another, pulling out weeds and eliminating pests that threaten to choke the relationship, watering the tender plants with daily prayer, and then taking time to reap a harvest of love and enjoyment in each other's company.

I neglected the tending of my zucchini and peppers, but the tending of my marriage is not optional.  I lean on him who helps. -- Jeannette

Civil Courts Review of Arbitration Decisions

Numerous courts have addressed whether contracts requiring mediation and/or arbitration pursuant to The Rules of Procedure for Christian Conciliation are enforceable. The courts have also addressed whether proceedings according to such Rules are valid and enforceable.

The following courts have found that contracts requiring the parties to resolve disputes according to the biblical principles, and specifically according to a process set forth in The Rules of Procedure for Christian Conciliation, published by Peacemaker Ministries are enforceable. Christian conciliation clauses, as recommended by Peacemaker Ministries, http://www.peacemaker.net/rules have been found to be valid and enforceable.

....

for actual cases read on

http://peacemaker.net/enforceability/

50% of marriages end in divorce? No evidence rather

here is Census Bureau statistics in a graph:

Description	English: In 2004 the United States Census Bureau conducted a Current Population Survey. Among other things, it surveyed whether US residents were married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married. Their aggregated and categorized data was then released to the public in 2005.
Date	29 June 2005
Source	United States Census Bureau. The data to make this graph can be directly retrieved from http://www.census.gov/cps/data/cpstablecreator.html***AND*** http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2004/tabA1-all.csv
Author	United States Census Bureau

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marital_status_of_residents_of_the_United_States_of_America_in_2004.png#mw-jump-to-license

Moral superiority and other marriage stressers.

David Powlison is one of a good number of godly Biblical counselors God is raising up.  God is good to give such gifts to his bride.  Find a quiet place to listen to these videos and see if they do not help you to watch and pray more sensitively and wisely for your own marriage or that of your brothers and sisters.

How can we make our marriage a better friendship

Blind to trouble coming...

In her punchy little book Your Future 'Other Half' It matters whom you marry, Rebecca VanDoodewaard expresses her concern for single people who often do not see trouble coming until it is too late:

This came home to me one day as my husband and I ate dinner with a youth group.  Three teens sat across from us at the table -- two guys and a girl.  One guy was a computer geek with glasses.  The other was a college student with slightly cooler hair and clothes.  The girl was obviously with him.  But while the computer geek was busy serving everyone at the meal, clearing plates and garbage, the college student got angry with the girl for a small accident and poured red juice over her leather jacket and white shirt in revenge.  She had picked the wrong guy, and the juice didn't seem to change her mind.  She is in for some grief if that relationship continues, especially if it leads to marriage; intimacy with a selfish, angry man will destroy much more than her clothes.  She is thinking in the short term without accounting for the long term.

This is painful to read.  It must have been painful to see.  
May God help us parents to keep the hearts of our children so that they heed our warning about trouble coming and run away.  If we are careless about their hearts, we too will not see trouble coming until it is too late.

Love Can Grow

One of Jeannette Oke's most popular books is called Love Comes Softly .  It is about a man and woman out west in the pioneer days who both lose their spouses.  Because the man has a daughter and needs help with her,  he enters into a marriage of convenience with the widow.  In spite of the immoral arrangement (they agree the marriage be temporary and not include the marriage bed), it is very sweet to see the lady slowly grow to love the man.   When the time for the agreed upon departure comes, she is most unhappy to go....

Rebecca Van Doodewaard in her pithy, practical, wise book Your Future 'Other Half" It matters whom you marry  argues that a rational decision to marry does not preclude love.  She gives two fine examples:

Martin Luther, famous for being madly in love with his 'lord Katie',wrote years after his wedding that he did not love his wife at the start of their marriage: 'That came later.'

Ann Judson, in her diary and letters, indicates that she agreed to marry her husband not because he was madly in love, but so that she could bring the gospel to women overseas.After the wedding, she grew deeply attached to her husband, who had loved her from the beginning.  

The very first marriage on earth was an arranged one. 

Love can grow --especially where Christian grace is present --and it would be well for us to be a more matter of fact and less hung up on the Hollywood requirement that being swept off one's feet is an essential ingredient for getting married.

"I Do" and cancer.

Evan Welcher, a pastor, (EvanWelcher.com) has a great blog.   Recently he wrote a tender post about the 

pain of his wife fighting cancer.   In the middle he reflects on what "I Do" really means.  It is essential for us to understand this if  we are to put feet to our marriage commitments:

I said “I do”, and I still do.  The “I do” of marriage is always in the present tense until The Lord Jesus says otherwise.  ”I do” is never “I did at the time”.  ”I do” is always present tense. “I do” travels through space and time to whatever condition the married couple finds themself in and says, “I still do, I always do, and when the enemy burns down these battlements, I shall remain”.

At one point, as he stays with Danielle at the hospital, a nurse says that it is good that he is there.  He replies that that is what marriage is.  She sighs, "Not always."

For the entire sweet story go to:

http://evanwelcher.com/how-to-keep-your-i-do-in-the-present-tense/

Methodist jury in 2013

 

A Methodist jury convicted Frank Schaefer, pastor of Zion United Methodist Church of Iona in Lebanon, Pa., of officiating a same-sex marriage and flouting church rules. Schaefer had presided over his son’s gay wedding ceremony in 2007. Although some UMC churches have accepted gay and lesbian members, the denomination officially condemns homosexual practice and bars ministers from performing same-sex ceremonies. The jury suspended Schaefer from church duties and gave him 30 days to decide whether to follow church rules or resign.

WORLD Magazine recently published the news item above.   We approve of the church having its own courts.  This is not new in church history, and allows Christians to honor God's law in the church.   Often we feel ourselves to be at the mercy of civil courts, but this is unnecessary.

"Coming out" in Staphorst, The Netherlands

 Dr Joel Beeke describes a tour through the little village of Staphorst, The Netherlands, where they had a unique way of letting the community know that a daughter was available:

We drove through Rouveen and Staphorst, beautiful, tidy, farm villages, in which some residents still wear the traditional costumes. The homes have the living quarters in the front, parents first, then married children, then an attached barn for the animals. The villages shut down on the Lord’s Day; the residents are only allowed to ride their bikes to church. Our driver told us to look for a heart plaque on the front door, indicating the parents are making it known they have a daughter eligible for marriage, and that a suitor could drop off a letter expressing his interest, and even have the freedom to come in and meet the girl. Our driver also pointed out that today the heart plaques are basically used as keyhole covers by some.

Dutch Uncle, Russell Moore, calls the church to repent on our approach to marriage

After the Supreme Court ruled that the states should rule on marriage, Russell Moore writes "How Should Same-Sex Marriage Change the Church's Culture?"   He challenges the church to rethink how we do marriage in the church.  One way we can take marriage more seriously is by using an arbitration agreement that we talk about in this blog.

As marriage is being redefined Moore calls the church to repentance:

That means that we must repent of our pathetic marriage cultures within the church. For too long, we’ve refused to discipline a divorce culture that has ravaged our churches. For too long, we’ve quieted our voices on the biblical witness of the distinctive missions of fathers and mothers in favor of generic messages on “parenting.”
For too long, we’ve acted as though the officers of Christ’s church were Justices of the Peace, marrying people who have no accountability to the church, and in many cases were forbidden by Scripture to marry. Just because we don’t have two brides or two grooms in front of us, that doesn’t mean we’ve been holding to biblical marriage.
... we have the opportunity, by God’s grace, to take marriage as seriously as the gospel does, in a way that prompts the culture around us to ask why.

Marriage struggles crowd to Christ

 In his excellent book Crowded to Christ L.E. Maxwell lays open how God brings difficulties into our lives in order to crowd us to himself.
Tami was in an agonizing place -- a difficult marriage.  But she didn't take her commitment lightly.  Though it felt like desert waste, she stayed.  And God crowded her to himself:

I used to depend so much on Tom for my happiness,” Tami said. “It took a death—the death of my marriage—so God could strip me of depending on anyone but Him. Then the gold came through, the gold of who Christ is, and of who I am in Him.

Read more here.

The solution to marriage problems is not easy divorce.  It is Christ. 

If not marriage, then not divorce.

Because of the resurrection, we always have reason to hope.   Really hope.  This hope keeps us from despair and prompts us to look for solutions to complex problems.  We love a recent post //www.desiringgod.org/articles/when-two-so-called-married-women-or-men-repent  by John Piper on the problems the church will need to deal with when thousands come to Christ out of same-sex relationships.

In the years to come, God will be merciful on thousands of those who have been damaged by the present moral madness of our culture. He will exalt Christ in the conversion of many who have lived in same-sex relationships. More complexities than we can imagine will be presented to us in the church.

John Piper then goes on to give guidance on how the church should respond.  The following is one among 13 points.

. Help them see, therefore, that what the state has called a “marriage” between them is not marriage. There is no such thing as “same-sex marriage” in God’s eyes. Therefore, they are not married in the sight of God, regardless of how the state defines their relationship. Do not embrace the state’s prostitution of language by calling the former state “marriage” or the ending of it “divorce.”

Order a Dish; Marry a bride.

The Witherspoon Institute has a perceptive post on marriage called "TheFeminist, Pro-Father, and Pro-Child Case against No-Fault Divorce."        What we do not view as sacred will not be treated as sacred.  

Women, ironically, fought hard for no-fault divorce.  But even the flaming feminist Betty Friedan later admitted that it had "unintended consequences" and was a bad idea.  

...these days it seems like it is easier to get out of a marriage than it is to get out of a cellphone contract.... no one would deny that the widespread legalization of no-fault divorce beginning in the early 1970s saw an explosion of divorce in this country.

Yet as social conservatives, and even many liberals, wring their hands about marital and familial breakdown, few seem to question whether our experiment with treating marriage like a restaurant experience—order what you like and send it back if you change your mind—is worth reconsidering.

....

 Read the rest of the article on how no-fault divorce hurts everyone.

Look before you Leap-- Help from the Puritans

 

  Last year Andrew Hess wrote a wonderful article on parental involvement in choosing a spouse.   Specifically he told about how the Puritans did it.  The Puritans were serious about the pursuit of happiness and therefore unwilling to have the choice of a marriage partner be whimsical and impulsive. We cannot resist pulling out a few paragraphs for you to enjoy:
 

 

First of all, parental consent and involvement was very important in the forming of a marriage, and Puritan fathers felt personal responsibility for ensuring their children made a good match. In the day of the Puritans, young women desiring marriage would often lean on their fathers to help find a husband. Young men would approach their own fathers first before talking to the father of a woman they wished to pursue. Puritan engagements were a family affair, and the fathers were very involved in their children's choice of a spouse.

... Puritan teachers provided clear instruction on what to seek in a potential spouse. Theologian J.I. Packer explains, “The wise way to form an opinion about possible partners is to find out their reputation, watch how they act in company, how they dress and talk, and note whom they select as friends.”
The Puritans taught their youth to look for character and lasting affection. They did leave room for romantic feelings, but discouraged young people from making decisions based solely on romance alone. Again, Packer explains, “In choosing a spouse one should look, not necessarily for one whom one does love, here and now, … but for one whom one can love with steady affection on a permanent basis.” Puritan young people were to primarily look for a lifelong friend.

....The Puritans were cautious and careful with marriage for the sake of their own happiness. Gataker [a Puritan] explains,  “There is no society more near, more entire, more needful, more kindly, more delightful, more comfortable, more constant, more continual, than the society of man and wife, the main root, source, and original or all other societies.” It’s no surprise then that Puritan marriages were seemingly unbreakable by today’s standards.

  ***

[Note: Several quotations are taken from A Quest For Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life by J.I. Packer. See Chapter 16 “Marriage and Family in Puritan Thought” for more on this topic.]

For the entire article go to Puritan Wisdom on Seeking Marriage

a second look at old marriage ceremonies

This week we came across a fascinating article called "Marriage ceremonies that defend the faith...."  in which Tim Bayly resolve to do their part as pastors to maintain the seriousness of Christian marriage.

... if the spiritual graces of modesty, submission, and fidelity are missing from our ceremonies, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Pastors must reckon with the fact that we are responsible for the abandonment of those timeless elements of wedding liturgies which led the bride and groom, their families, and all those assembled, to think sober thoughts about God's commands concerning marriage, and to plead for His grace to fulfill those commands. In such a climate, is it any wonder so many of our marriages end in dissolution?

The wisdom that God gave the church in past centuries can help us regarding marriage ceremonies today. For hundreds of years, pastors have presided over wedding ceremonies in such a way that the God Who instituted marriage was honored and His Word proclaimed. Great care was taken to "tie the knot" with precision and nothing was left to chance. By their habituation to the words of the liturgy, each successive generation was reminded of God's timeless truths governing this union of man and wife.

.... 

Tim Bayly then go on to highlight significant parts of the traditional wedding ceremony used for nearly five centuries and first published in 1549 in the Book of Common Prayer.  Besides being an intriguing post, it can lead us in repentance for our arrogant and hasty throwing off of a Biblically solid tradition.

Bridewealth: another incentive to stay married

I want to talk more about bridewealth but not without defining it.   I consider this a beginning definition.  It is from an Encyclopædia Britannica Article:

bridewealth

also called  bride-price  or  marriage payment 
payment made by a groom or his kin to the kin of the bride in order to ratify a marriage....
The payment .... consolidates friendly relations between them [the families], provides a material pledge that the woman and her children will be well treated, symbolizes her worth to the community, and provides a level of compensation to her natal family for the loss of her labour and company. Bridewealth is often one part of a reciprocal exchange, in which case it is accompanied by the provision of a dowry —a payment presented by the bride's family to that of the groom.
Bridewealth may consist of money or goods, and it may be paid in one sum or in installments over a period of time. 

" bridewealth ."  Encyclopædia Britannica Online. http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9016419>

Pretty Girls and Marriage

 I recently heard a delightful story of a young woman, Christine, who fell deeply in love with a piano player, Martin, at Bible School.  The only problem was that he was unaware and going out with another girl.  After one year she transferred to another school, but when she heard that Martin and his girlfriend had broken up, Christine wrote and suggested that they correspond.....

Click for the complete  review of Nancy Wilson's wise and funny Why isn't a Pretty Girl like you MARRIED?

Building Incentives for Staying Married

Forty years ago no-fault divorce became legal in some states of the USA.   Then, like creeping charlie, it spread over the land.  Seriously redefining marriage, it knocked out incentives for staying married. 

To define marriage, are we at the mercy of the states we live in? Can they change our marriages at will? Is there nothing that we can do to correct this except passing new laws?

No.  No. No.

There is at least one thing we can do, and it addresses all these problems.  We can make very clear what is expected on going into marriage (for example with an arbitration agreement). When we give our daughters in marriage we can make a contract with the bridegroom. Rather than an expensive "Princess Di" wedding or if we are wealthy, as part of our paying for the wedding, we can set the young couple up with a good DOWRY. Dowries have traditionally been a form of marriage "insurance".

Dowry: This is funds that are given to the young man to hold in trust for his bride. He can use it for anything he needs to in the marriage -- a house, business, but if he breaks the marriage covenant, he owes it back to the bride and her family.

The government should provide...

Heritage Foundation Research Associate Rachel Sheffield told CtizenLink that young people benefit greatly by learning more about marriage.

“The government should provide information to youth about the value of marriage, and help connect them with community resources that will help them relearn the skills needed to sustain those healthy marriages,” she said.

http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/09/10/heritage-foundation-marriage-prevents-child-poverty/

While the main point is well taken I for one was put off by the tag of "the government should provide..."  How can we trust government (that is just us with a 51% majority vote)?    For the last 30 years, beginning with Governor Ronald Reagan and no fault divorce, we  have been busy redefining marriage.

When the Election was Lost for the Republicans.

 Marvin Olasky says that the loss of this election has been on its way for 50 years.   One significant step concerns marriage:

Forty years ago, as state after state created no-fault divorce and marriage became a contract breakable by one party for any reason, rather than a lifelong commitment. Married women still vote Republican, but the increasing number of the never-married and divorced vote overwhelming Democratic, seeing government as a provider.

Written Covenant at the Wedding

I said, “I will never break My covenant with you.” Judges 2:1

Dennis Rainey

In the summer of 1997, I was sitting at my computer writing an article, praying and asking myself, How can we rebuild the family in America? I wasn’t just pondering this because it was my job to do so or because I had spent my entire adult life focused on this calling and endeavor. More importantly and specifically, I was thinking about my oldest daughter’s wedding, which at the time was just a few days away. Was there something I could say or do that would help Ashley and Michael begin a marriage that would go the distance?

That’s when God brought to mind the concept of covenant, which means literally “to cut.” Many scholars believe that in Old Testament days, a covenant between two people was often made by splitting an animal in half, laying the two sides apart from each other on the ground, walking between these bloody pieces and pledging, “May God do the same thing to me if I break my covenant with you” (see Genesis 15). Well, I thought that would make a real mess on the church carpet, but I still wanted to incorporate “covenant” into their wedding ceremony in some visible way.

So I took their wedding vows to a calligrapher, who inscribed them on a sheet of pure cotton paper. And immediately after Ashley and Michael exchanged their vows verbally during the ceremony, they signed this marriage covenant. The pastor then asked if anyone in the audience wanted to come forward and sign it as well, as witnesses to the covenant this couple had entered into. A line formed quickly of friends and family members, promising to help hold them accountable to their wedding vows.

Today, their marriage covenant hangs above the fireplace in their home as a constant reminder of the pledge they once made at a wedding altar, just as you once did. May you always be true to your covenant.

Discuss

Think of something special you could do—even now—to remind yourselves of the seriousness of your marriage covenant.

Pray

Come before God today and rekindle your wedding promises.

From: Family Life Today

Child brides, Harems and Polygamists

As Christians argue for traditional marriage, is "traditional values" adequate?

Doug Wilson says"NO":  

" The sexual traditions of humanity, considered apart from God's Word, have contained way too many child brides, harems, serial polygamists, and concubines to provide us with the appropriate guidance here."

If we haven't sold the farm by labeling the first chapters of Genesis mere poetry or myth, we have lots of arguments:

"Reasoning by analogy from this, we can see other expressions of sexuality are excluded. A man should not be allowed to marry himself. It is not good that man should be alone (Gen. 2:18). A man should not be allowed to marry multiple wives. God said that He would make a helper suitable to him (Gen. 1:18). Bestiality is excluded. Adam did not find a helper suitable to him among the animals (Gen. 2:20). Homosexuality is excluded because God brought Adam a woman, and not another man (Gen. 2:22). And divorce is excluded because God is the one who brought the man and woman together (Matt. 19:6)."

The entire post can be found here.