Written Agreements override Oral Vows

Both the Husband and Wife had strong Roman Catholic beliefs. The Husband was awarded legal custody, in large part because of the Wife’s insistence that the children be home schooled and not sent to school, not even a Catholic school. There was no evidence of religious discrimination against the wife, nor did the trial court show an unconstitutional antagonism toward Catholicism by characterizing the Wife’s unrelenting pursuit to home school her children as a “crusade.” The Wife contended that the trial court should have ceded its jurisdiction to a canonical court for resolution of all issues, including property issues, regarding the parties’ divorce, because she and her husband were married in the Catholic Church and both had agreed to be bound by Catholic canon law regarding their marriage and any issues regarding their children. However, the trial court properly refused the Wife’s request that the parties’ dispute be resolved by a Roman Catholic Diocesan Tribunal, because: (1) child custody disputes are not subject to arbitration; (2) there was no written agreement between Husband and Wife to arbitrate issues arising out of their marriage and any claimed oral agreement resulting from the Catholic marriage ceremony was barred by the Statute of Frauds requiring that agreements “made upon consideration of marriage” be in writing; and (3) even assuming that the parties did enter into an agreement to arbitrate their marital discord and property and debt issues, the Wife waived her right to pursue arbitration by her invocation of the court’s jurisdiction and by participation, for over a year, in proceedings before the court (Ohio Ct. App.)


from a large page of the Religion Case Reporter

Lawsuits as Eschatological Failure

Practical Christian Living - Grace and Peace

Written by Douglas Wilson

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:29 am

"At thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore" (Ps. 16: 11) The Basket Case Chronicles #52 “I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? No, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers” (1 Cor. 6:5-6). The dispute between brothers is one level of failure, but it is the willingness to have that dispute adjudicated by unbelievers that really astonishing Paul. What? Why would a church want to publicly admit that they don’t contain within their ranks a man wise enough to serve as a judge in cases like this? The fact that former colleagues or business partners are now on opposite sides of an awful breech is one kind of failure, but it is part of living in a fallen world. But Paul has his eye on the new world that is forming in and through the church. And when the church lets this kind of thing go, they are saying (in effect) that the new world is failing also. But if the new world is to fail, then what is the whole point? Why are we doing this at all?

Great Post on Marriage Ceremonies that Defend the Faith

L:et's act like words have meaning
From Bayly Blog

Civil enforcement of Religious prenuptuals

Civil decisions on Jewish divorce laws 

Actual version of an Arbitration Agreement  is on page 395.

Native American Chief spoke of Abortion in 1736

Interesting link 

" And our men do what they know is not good: they kill their own children.  And our women do what they know is not good: they kill the child before it is born.  Therefore, He that is above, does not send us the good book.”

Christian Consent

Christianity carries with it some inbuilt privileges. As I alluded to in my last post, consent in marriage is ignored by some groups. Hindu and Islamic fathers can pick husbands for their daughters and the girls do not have the ultimate right to refuse. When the anglo-saxons were being evangelized, the pastors reeducated them on this. The young women have to have a final veto.  Among other scriptures they must have considered, Genesis has Rebekah being asked "Will you go with this man?"

Christians Clashed with Anglo-Saxon Customs over Consent

"Another aspect of Germanic [read Anglo-Saxon] marriage practices which stemmed from the familial control over marriage, and which was problematic in the eyes of the church, regarded consent. Whilst the church insisted upon the personal consent of the prospective bride and bridegroom and promoted affective marriages, the consent of the parties and their mutual affection may not have been required in Germanic and early Anglo-Saxon society:  ‘until the eleventh century, fathers could bestow their daughters in marriage without regard for their consent’. Betrothal was arranged by the bride’s kin on her behalf, and her consent was not required, although presumably it might have been sought in particular cases."

From a thesis

Clashes with our surrounding culture is not new.  We need to settle what is necessary in Christian marriage and live out our lives in obedience to our King and his law-instruction.

Can we call the contract the state gives us marriage?

 In light of the ease with which people can leave marriage in the USA through no-fault divorce, can we in the christian church just accept the state's marriage contract as ours?

Is this question clear?

What do you think?

No fault divorce sweeps the nation into...Insanity?

"In 1969, Governor Ronald Reagan of California ....  signed the nation’s first no fault divorce bill. The new law eliminated the need for couples to fabricate spousal wrongdoing in pursuit of a divorce; indeed, one likely reason for Reagan’s decision to sign the bill was that his first wife, Jane Wyman, had unfairly accused him of “mental cruelty” to obtain a divorce in 1948. But no-fault divorce also gutted marriage of its legal power to bind husband and wife, allowing one spouse to dissolve a marriage for any reason — or
for no reason at all.
"In the decade and a half that followed, virtually every state* in the Union
followed California’s lead and enacted a no-fault divorce law of its own."

*Now includes New York as of August A.D. 2010

quote from  The Evolution of Divorce

Two Daughters have Questions for their Father.

Following is an interchange between two daughters and their father.   Obviously the father loves and protects his daughters and the daughters trust that he has their best interest at heart.  The girls, Anna Sophia and Elizabeth, wrote a substantial book in their teens called So Much More.   Their father is Geoffrey Botkin.   Let's listen in and learn:

Daughters: How strict will you be with our suitors on the bride price issue?

Father: That will depend on the suitor.

Daughters: Can you tell our readers a little bit about the biblical bride price?

Father: Well, it takes a history lesson. I'll keep it simple and brief.
Families have always cared for themselves and their communities better than governments can. Before today's inferior days of forced wealth redistribution and impersonal retirement homes, sons and their wives would care for the sons' elderly parents. Sons also carried on the family's legacy. All this was part of duty, passed down through generations. Daughters would marry outside the family and advance their husbands estates. Because daughters didn't have the same responsibilities as sons, they did not formally inherit, but they did receive dowries from loving fathers because daughters were not inferior to sons. Sons received the inheritance, which was the foundation for furthering the family estate and providing for the elderly.

The bride price was usually the amount of a dowry, probably about three years' wages. Noble suitors would give the bride price to the girl's father and the father would give it to the girl as her dowry.

The bride price is tradition benefited every culture that practiced it. Without the tradition, daughters were a financial liability to families and came to be viewed as inferior to sons. Sometimes daughters were murdered at birth. Those who weren't would have been unpopular with brothers because their dowries diminished the inheritances available to sons. Girls with dowries attracted plenty of worthless suitors who wanted the dowry more than the daughter, and the institutions of the family and marriage were weakened.

With the bride price tradition, both institution are strengthened over many generations. Good daughters attract worthy suitors who have proven themselves good, productive servants. By giving the bride price to the girl's father, suitors also prove they understand the father's authority over the daughter and their subordination to God's order and the father's authority. By giving the gift to the daughter,the father signifies his obligations to succeeding generations.

Daughters: Can the bride price be something other than money?

Father: I hope no father reading this turns the bride price tradition into an impossibly legalistic formula with dollars and cents attached to it. There is wisdom in all things endorsed or commanded by God, and we benefit if we discover the principles embedded here. A wealth of virtue may not be reflected in a young man's bank account. David was a poor shepherd boy. But he was rich in faith and courage and brought King Saul the head of Goliath as a bride price. Spiritual capital is a lot more important to me than a young man's bank account, and I'm thankful it is to you, too.

I agree I do "Marriage Agreements" by Ruthiey Paulson

 An Overview of Marriage Agreements

On a sunny July day, just before lunch, my dad, Harlan Paulson, was sitting next to me outside of our  house as I interviewed him about marriage agreements, or agreements to arbitrate. I had two pieces of paper in front of me, legal stuff, with places to sign at the bottom. I turned on the recorder and we began.
"These agreements are technically called pre-nuptials. Most pre-nuptials are about who's going to wash the dishes and all kinds of things like that so most christians really diss pre-nuptial agreements. They [the couple] are often trying to contemplate how they're going to divide things up again when they get divorced. This is different. This is an attempt to keep marriages together."
Having signed one himself with my mum before marriage, I asked him where and how he had decided on the importance of this. A big part of it, he explained, was the ease of divorce nowadays. Partly thanks to Ronald Reagan's support of no-fault divorce

Huckabee and Covenant Marriage in Arkansas

  In 2001, Huckabee signed into law an option for couples to enter into covenant marriages, which can be ended only after counseling and only on certain grounds such as adultery, criminal activity, physical or sexual abuse or a two-year separation.

To mark the occasion, Huckabee and wife Janet converted their 30-year union to a covenant marriage in front of a crowd of 6,400 people at Alltel Arena in 2005.

For more on this click here

Debt is not Dowery

Let us think through how we do higher education.  Is it necessary to get into debt?  Especially if it is a liberal arts education?  Would debt not add stress to a new marriage?  There are numbers of ways to avoid debt while getting an education.

Bridewealth commented on by a Ugandan Brother

Bridewealth is a good practice if not abused

Publication date: Sunday, 14th June, 2009

William Onyango

THE feature in The New Vision of June 2 entitled: “Bride Price Fuels Women Abuse” along with testimonies from women who were victims of abuse from their husbands indicate that the payment of bride price is today a one-man affair.

The “wealth” has become “price” and so the women are bound to suffer quietly. Traditional societies instituted bridewealth to protect the woman rather than to dehumanize her. The practice was a rite of passage in a woman’s life journey.

Abraham, a man approved by God, paid bridewealth for Rebecca, the wife of his son Isaac (see Genesis 24). In traditional Acholi, the girl child belonged to the clan and when she was being married, the clan discharged her. Hence, the clan levied the payment.

Her father said nothing at all. There were categories of payments that were made. The least could be valued at the cost of a hen. The categories had specific meanings; for example, the maternal uncle of the bride went with a goat. Didn’t they produce her mother in the first place so that she was made available for marriage that day?

All the rest of the levies were linked to efforts by several stakeholders to raise a bride worthy of the man. In fact, to the Acholi, every bride was nya-parwot (daughter of the chief). Acholi women cherished their marital relationships and so strove to preserve them because the wrongs they committed at their marital homes would backfire on them.

The groom and his clansmen, who took the wealth, entered the house crawling on their knees, a symbol of absolute humility and a sign of respect to the clan. This was an expression that the bride was valued and would be looked after well. Refund of bridewealth was not a straightforward thing.

The marriage was between two clans and not between two lovers. Any move that caused disharmony between the two clans was resisted. Instead measures would be taken to reconcile couples to live happily. Bridewealth is a good practice that requires research and backing by the law.

The writer is a senior principal lecturer at National Teachers’ College Muni 

Jewish Brides Wore Their Dowries until the 20th Century

Jewish Brides Wore Their Dowries

Historically, Sephardic Jewish brides in the Middle East received gifts of jewelry both from their own and their husband's families. The sole property of the bride, this jewelry was an insurance policy in the event of a divorce or hard times. Well-off women were sometimes literally bedecked from head to toe with hair ornaments, bracelets, rings, toe rings, and pendants of gold and precious stones.

....

Women generally wore their wealth constantly, since it was safer than storing it at home. In public, the jewelry was hidden behind voluminous scarves. In fact, some anthropologists believe the custom of the veil originated because women wanted to hide their finery from preying eyes. These customs generally died out in the 20th century.

a novel that will make you cry and think about faithfulness.

Review of a Vow to Cherish by my wife

 We live in a day where we believe we have a fundamental right to happiness -- even if achieving it involves the most outrageous sins. And of course we often believe we must sin to be happy. Deborah Raney has written a sweet book called A Vow to Cherishwhich tells of the struggle of John whose wife Ellen gets Alzheimers when she is still very young. Sorely missing Ellen's companionship, John meet Julie, whose husband died in a car accident. He is drawn to her and begins making excuses to spend time with her. At his son's wedding, he is deeply convicted that he is being unfaithful to his own marriage vows. What follows is a testimony of the all-sufficient grace of God for the most difficult days, and evidence of the real rewards of obedience. (a surprise, guilt-free reunion with Julie after Ellen dies).

The book, though fiction, is an inspiration to reject the lies of Satan that we must sin in order to be happy, and embrace the truth that obedience brings great reward -- both now and for eternity. Raney is swimming upstream in a culture where some feel-good happiness is routinely sought regardless of the cost. The Puritans' call for us to suffer rather than sin is for a deeper, eternal happiness.

And yes I really enjoyed this book too.  It moved me to tears if I may say so.

Do guns kill people?-- Are All Prenuptials Bad?

Dennis Rainey: People are coming up with some pretty interesting and creative agreements.

Guest: BL: We recently asked an attorney about some of the strangest contracts he'd seen people sign.
Pre - marital, or what we call ante nuptial contracts. Where people will negotiate how you're going to apportion the work for the dry cleaning and cooking and they kind of micro - manage the relationship.

Dennis Rainey: Well, whether you call it a pre - marital or a prenuptial agreement, I think it is a bad idea. Marriage is a man and a woman committed to one another for a lifetime.
I know of a couple that signed a prenuptial agreement. Initially it seemed like a good idea. Then they realized that if their love was going to grow, it needed the security and trust that comes only with an unconditional commitment. So they tore up their prenuptial agreement.
One final thought. Marriage is a sacred covenant between a man, a woman and God for a lifetime. Let me encourage you to fulfill your vows. Do what you promised. And if you signed a prenuptial agreement, maybe you ought to tear it up.

--I'm Dennis Rainey, and that's Real FamilyLife.

http://www.familylife.com/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=dnJHKLNnFoG&b=3781067&ct=4922875

I really love listening to Dennis Rainey. And I agree with him in most areas. Even here, except that not all prenuptial agreements are bad. In the right hands they can be used to protect a marriage. (Read on earlier posts.) So I say, do guns kill? No in the hands of the law abiding they can protect life. It depends on the heart.

Santa Claus supports marriage...

Or at least the original Saint Nicholas did.  Read on in the following material from George Grant.
grantian.blogspot.com/2005/12/st-nick.html


The fourth century pastor who inspired the tradition of Santa Claus, may not have lived at the North Pole or traveled by reindeer and sleigh but he certainly was a paradigm of graciousness, generosity, and Christian charity. Nicholas of Myra’s great love and concern for children drew him into a crusade that ultimately resulted in protective Imperial statutes banning child-abuse and abortion--statutes that remained in place in Byzantium for nearly a thousand years.

Though little is known of his childhood, he was probably born to wealthy parents at Patara in Lycia, a Roman province of Asia Minor. As a young man noted for his piety, judiciousness, and charity, he was chosen bishop of the then rundown diocese of Myra. There he became gained renown for his personal holiness, evangelistic zeal, and pastoral compassion.

Early Byzantine histories reported that he suffered imprisonment and made a famous profession of faith during the persecution of Diocletian. He was also reputedly present at the Council of Nicaea, where he forthrightly condemned there heresy of Arianism--one story holds that he actually punched the heretic Arius in the nose. Ho, ho, ho!

But it was his love for and care of children that gained him his greatest renown. Though much of what we know about his charitable work on behalf of the poor, the despised, and the rejected has been distorted by legend and lore over the centuries, it is evident that he was a particular champion of the downtrodden, bestowing upon them gifts as tokens of the grace and mercy of the Gospel.

One legend tells of how citizen of Patara lost his fortune, and because he could not raise dowries for his three young daughters, he was going to give them over to prostitution. After hearing this, Nicholas took a small bag of gold and threw it through the window of the man’s house on the eve of the feast of Christ’s Nativity. The eldest girl was married with it as her dowry. He performed the same gracious service for each of the other girls on each of the succeeding nights.

Is Dowry a bad word?

I don't think so, if dealt with in a Christ honoring manner.

When we give our daughters in marriage rather than paying for a big wedding, we can instead set the young couple up with a good DOWRY. Like maybe a serious down payment on a house.

A dowry is money 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, a business to support the wife, but if he breaks the marriage covenant, he owes it back to the bride and her family. Dowries have the double benefit of bringing the young couple less financial stress and seeing that outside of marriage money may be scarce.

Here's an interesting comment on Tiger Woods...

http://www.thealaskastandard.com/content/prenups-are-sign-times

 by toyotruck6969 on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 4:23pm.

"Every marriage includes a prenuptial agreement.  For most people, it's the one that the state imposes.  By state law, couples who divorce have their assets and liabilities distributed according to that law.

"When a couple marries, they implicitly agree to be bound by that law.  Some couples, however, disagree with that law and choose to customize how their assets and liabilities will be distributed, should they divorce.  And so the law allows them to do so, with a custom prenuptial agreement.

"Prenuptial agreements are simply another manifestation of personal liberty.  In this nation, we like to think we allow individuals the freedom to set many of the terms of their own marriage should they choose, rather than have the government define them all."

But for us who are Christ's, we will define our marriages by his higher law.  Prenuptial Agreements can be used to prevent divorce.

One Year on with our Relational Commitments at Bethlehem

from John Piper's Joyful, Serious Church Life On December 14, 2008, the congregation of Bethlehem voted to make the Relational Commitments www.hopeingod.org/document/relational-commitments  part of our membership expectations by including them in the constitution and church covenant by reference. This means that these commitments will from now on be included by reference in theChurch Covenant that all new members sign when they join the church.

John Piper and Bethlehem's commitment to Peacemaking

Visit Hope in God web site for some articles and mp3s on the subject of Peacemaking in a church context.

 http://hopeingod.org/document/relational-commitments

Clare's Father to St. Francis

In the 1970's there was a great movie of the young Francis of  Assisi. Some of it was questionable history, but who knows all that happened. The movie portrays a romantic interest between him and Clare. So here let us imagine a conversation between Clare's Father and Francis of Assisi.

Francis "Father, I love Clare and I will not marry her, I am going to be a monk."

Father: "No, she shall not be a nun. You are not betrothed to my daughter."

If the father said that for the man and the virgin (nun) that should have been the end of the matter according to the Scriptures including I Cor. 7:36.

Here's a Marriage Covenant that includes a Peacemaking Agreement

I'm pumped that this is being looked into by others....like--


Dr. Ernie Baker
Professor of Biblical Counseling
The Master’s College
NANC certified Counselor

Christian Marriage Covenant

the wrong type of Divorce insurance

Dennis Rainey: How seriously do you take your marriage vows?

Guest: Well, I've been married a couple of times before. Marriage was never a first priority of mine. So, now I just recently got married again and I'm trying to make it my first priority.

Dennis Rainey: Have you noticed that the world does not take marriage seriously? Did you hear about the company that created a unique wedding gift that you can give? Divorce insurance. This is a "gift" that contains a policy given to newlyweds so that if their marriage doesn't work out, they can collect the proceeds to pay for the legal expenses of their divorce! 

Peacemaker's Sixth Point

I believe this is great--we entered into such an agreement. This is what the site suggests:


Sign a marriage covenant. To add further weight to your commitment to guard your marriage and to resolve conflicts in a biblically faithful manner, you may sign a "Christian Marriage and Peacemaking Covenant" that commits you to turning to the church instead of civil courts to resolve problems that might conceivably give rise to legal issues.