Category: Cultural Commentaries

Are Interfaith Marriages Wise?

~ Evan Lenow ~ 4 Comments

wedding ringsA recent editorial in The New York Times made the case that interfaith marriages are a mixed blessing. On one hand, such marriages often lead to less satisfaction in marriage, higher divorce rates, and diminished commitment to faith traditions. On the other hand, the author claims that these marriages promote religious tolerance.

Before addressing the biblical evidence regarding interfaith marriage, let’s look at some of the facts. According to a 2010 survey, interfaith marriages have increased from 20% of married couples prior to 1960 to 45% of married couples in 2010. These marriages include what many historically consider interfaith (Jew and Gentile, Christian and Non-Christian, Muslim and Non-Muslim, etc.) and more contemporary versions of interfaith partnerships, including Catholic and Protestant, Mainline Protestant and Evangelical, and religious and non-religious.

The likelihood of interfaith marriage also increases with age. Among those who married before the age of 25, 48% were interfaith. The occurrence of interfaith marriage increases to 58% for those between 26 and 35, and it further increases to 67% for those 36–45.

The survey, commissioned by Naomi Schaefer Riley for her book ‘Til Faith Do Us Part: How Interfaith Marriage Is Transforming America, made a quite disturbing find. She discovered that “less than half of the interfaith couples in my survey said they’d discussed, before marrying, what faith they planned to raise their kids in. Almost four in five respondents (in both same-faith and interfaith marriages) thought having ‘the same values’ was more important than having the same religion in making a marriage work.”

Even Riley, who supports interfaith marriage, believes this idea to be unrealistic. She states, “I found that interfaith couples were less satisfied than same-faith couples by a statistically significant margin—and that the more religiously active spouse (as measured by attendance at religious services) tended to be the unhappier one.”

After all the negative consequences of interfaith marriage, Riley concludes her article by stating:

So while I recognize that the diminishment of religious institutions and a rise in marital instability could be among the long-term effects of interfaith marriages, I cannot wish for the tide to ebb. Nor do I think it will.

What should we make of this biblically? Despite Riley’s conclusion that interfaith marriage promotes religious tolerance, Scripture gives clear instructions regarding this practice. The Old Testament addresses “mixed marriages” on a number of occasions for the nation of Israel (Exodus 34; Deuteronomy 7; Joshua 23). In each of these cases, God warns the Israelites against intermarrying with the other nations because they will turn their hearts away from worshiping God. In the New Testament, Paul twice instructs his readers to marry “in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7: 39) and to avoid being “bound together with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 6:14–15). The same thought process holds in Paul’s instructions as well—marrying a non-Christian will likely lead to diminished devotion for God.

The prevalence of interfaith marriages, however, is growing. Even among evangelicals, the trend of interfaith partnerships is increasing. Interestingly, Riley notes that evangelicals and black Protestants reported the highest levels of dissatisfaction in these types of marriages. In fact, divorce rates sky-rocketed for evangelicals. Riley notes, “While roughly a third of all evangelicals’ marriages end in divorce, that figure climbs to nearly half for marriages between evangelicals and non-evangelicals. It is especially high (61 percent) for evangelicals married to someone with no religion.”

Why do evangelicals rarely say anything about interfaith marriages? Why do pastors perform such marriages? I believe the answer lies in what Riley says about herself. She is shaped by her own experience. Despite the fact that she describes all the problems associated with interfaith marriages, she declares:

I am no impartial observer. I’m a Conservative Jew married to a former Jehovah’s Witness, who is African-American. (We are raising our children Jewish.) Our country’s history of assimilation and tolerance is one reason I, a grandchild of Eastern European immigrants, can live as I do. It is why I could marry the man I wanted to, without fear of ostracism.

So while I recognize that the diminishment of religious institutions and a rise in marital instability could be among the long-term effects of interfaith marriages, I cannot wish for the tide to ebb. Nor do I think it will.

Her own experience is driving her conclusion. She cannot wish for the tide of interfaith marriage to ebb because it would say that her own marriage is fraught with potential problems. I fear we say the same thing in our churches. To declare interfaith marriages unwise or unbiblical might disturb those sitting in the pew or even some in our families.

On this issue, Scripture contradicts her experience. When given the choice, she (and many evangelicals) chose experience. I pray, however, we stick with Scripture and not experience.

_________________________

Naomi Schaefer Riley, “Interfaith Unions: A Mixed Blessing,” The New York Times, April 5, 2013.

“I Was Born This Way”: Soul Mates, Gay Genes, and Plato

~ Evan Lenow ~ 8 Comments
Plato from The School of Athens by Raphael (1509)

It has been said that all of philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato. Could we same the same about the homosexuality and same-sex marriage debate? You may ask, “What in the world does Plato have to do with homosexuality?” The answer may surprise you.

In his work Symposium, Plato explores an alternative explanation for the origin of mankind and gender. Rather than the normal assessment that mankind was created with two genders—male and female—Plato suggests a three-gender origin (male-male, female-female, and male-female) that explains both heterosexual and homosexual orientations. He writes:

In the first place, let me treat of the nature of man and what has happened to it; for the original human nature was not like the present, but different. The sexes were not two as they are now, but originally three in number; there was man, woman, and the union of the two, having a name corresponding to this double nature, which had once a real existence, but is now lost, and the word “Androgynous” is only preserved as a term of reproach.

Plato describes these humans as “terrible” in might and strength. These humans were two-sided (two faces, two sets of legs and arms, etc). After they waged a war against the gods, Zeus decided to humble mankind by cutting them in half. This effectively reduced mankind to the two genders we know today, but according to Plato, mankind longed for his original state. He states:

Each of us when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the indenture of a man, and he is always looking for his other half. Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called Androgynous are lovers of women; adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men: the women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments; the female companions are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male. . . . And when one of them meets with his other half, the actual half of himself, whether he be a lover of youth or a lover of another sort, the pair are lost in an amazement of love and friendship and intimacy, and would not be out of the other’s sight, as I may say, even for a moment: these are the people who pass their whole lives together; yet they could not explain what they desire of one another.

Here in Plato’s Symposium, we see the origin of the idea of “soul-mates” which forms the basis for much of the argument promoting homosexuality. For example, proponents of same-sex marriage argue that it is unjust to deny marriage to individuals who love each other. They claim these homosexual relationships are as intimate as heterosexual relationships and should be legalized. However, such an argument is based not on science or tradition, but instead it is based on Plato’s concept of soul-mates. According to Plato, when two halves meet and recognize the unexplainable love they have for one another, they have no choice but to spend their whole lives together. Based on this logic, proponents of same-sex marriage claim it is against nature to deny marriage to such soul-mates.

No one today would agree with Plato’s “science” claiming that Zeus cut mankind in half and that we search the earth trying to find our soul-mate. However, this is basically the substance of the “I was born this way” argument. Proponents of homosexuality make a claim based on self-identified sexual preference and argue for rights of matrimony for individuals incapable of biologically reproducing themselves. They are merely two soul-mates professing undying love for one another.

When this argument moves into the scientific realm, many supporters of homosexuality propose that genetics are at work—they were born this way. However, this is illogical because it makes an emotional claim as the basis for a scientific declaration. Jumping from “I love this person” to “I was born this way” or “God made me this way” is a leap from emotions to science. However, science is never based on emotions.

Ultimately, this argument demonstrates the dichotomy between the Christian argument and the pagan argument regarding sexuality. In fact, those proponents of homosexuality who attempt to reinterpret Paul’s statements in Romans 1:26–27 regarding the “natural function” of men and women must also deny Plato’s influence on Roman culture regarding this issue. Paul was almost certainly aware of the discussion of sexual orientation from the ancient world’s most influential philosopher.

It is important to interact with the arguments of the homosexual agenda on many different levels. Not all will be swayed by a biblical argument. For some, philosophical discussions similar to the one above may prove more convincing. In either case, we need to be faithful to proclaim the truth and address this pressing issue in our culture.

_________________________

Plato, Symposium, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Internet Classics Archive, http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/symposium.html.

*I would like to thank a wonderful friend and mentor for his guidance on this particular argument. Although he remains unnamed, his influence and words are present in this article. Thanks.

Federal Judge Requires Non-Prescription Access to Morning-After Pill in a Month

~ Evan Lenow ~ 2 Comments

UltrasoundU.S. District Judge Edward Korman (Eastern District of New York) has ruled that the FDA must make the multiple versions of the morning-after pill available over-the-counter without a prescription and without age restrictions within one month. The FDA had previously decided to make the morning-after pill available to girls younger that 17, but Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebellius overruled the FDA in 2011, setting the age restriction of 17 or older.

The court decision comes as a result of a lawsuit filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights. According to CNN, Nancy Northrup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, responded to the decision by saying, “Today science has finally prevailed over politics. This landmark court decision has struck a huge blow to the deep-seated discrimination that has for too long denied women access to a full range of safe and effective birth control methods.”

I actually believe Northrup has it wrong. Politics has prevailed in this instance to the detriment of girls and young women across the country. Since the sexual revolution, there has been a movement to separate sexual activity from marriage. The goal has been to make sexual expression the epitome of freedom. Instead, girls and young women are going to find themselves shackled with more emotional baggage and more sexually transmitted diseases. In addition, girls may experience “coerced” or even “forced” use of the morning-after pill by boyfriends, casual partners, or even parents wishing to “limit the damage” from their sexual expression. This is not freedom–it is bondage to culture.

Judge Korman even makes an interesting remark toward Sebellius and the FDA in his judgment. He states:

The FDA has engaged in intolerable delays in processing the petition. Indeed, it could accurately be described as an administrative agency filibuster. Moreover, one of the devices the FDA has employed to stall proceedings was to seek public comment on whether or not it needed to engage in rulemaking in order to adopt an age-restricted marketing regime. After eating up eleven months, 47,000 public comments, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars, it decided that it did not need rulemaking after all. The plaintiffs should not be forced to endure, nor should the agency’s misconduct be rewarded by, an exercise that permits the FDA to engage in further delay and obstruction.

Does Judge Korman not believe that the FDA may have actually been seeking the well-being of young girls? His commentary in the court order is chilling. The fact that the FDA was seeking public comment and input on whether or not this was good for 10-16 year old girls is a good thing. However, Korman views it as agency misconduct.

From the outset of creation, God has declared that the sexual relationship is properly expressed only within marriage. This is one way in which marriage is ordered to procreation. The vast majority of individuals seeking the use of these abortion-inducing drugs will not be married adults. They will instead be young people pursuing unhindered sexual freedom who suddenly find themselves shackled by the consequences of their behavior. When you add the category of girls who will be coerced into taking these drugs by those who “love” them, the damage becomes overwhelming.

This decision further undermines the institution of marriage and elevates abortion to the status of relieving a headache with Tylenol. This is a sad commentary on the culture of the “New America.”

_________________________

Edward Korman, Tumino vs. Hamburg, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, April 4, 2013.

“Judges orders morning-after pill available without prescription,” CNN, April 5, 2013.

“Federal judge rules morning-after pill must be available for women of all ages,” Fox News, April 5, 2013.

For more information about the impact of the sexual culture on young women, pick up a copy of Girls Uncovered: New Research on What America’s Sexual Culture Does to Young Women by Joe S. McIlhaney, Jr., and Freda McKissic Bush.

Breaking News: Judge Orders Morning-After Pill to Be Available to All without Prescription

~ Evan Lenow ~ 6 Comments

*Read my update on this issue here.

Both CNN and Fox News are reporting this morning that a federal judge will order the FDA to make the morning-after pill available to people of any age without a prescription. This now means that a 14-year-old girl could get Plan B or Ella from the school nurse just like Tylenol. In fact, she could go to the local Walgreens or CVS and get it as well. This demonstrates how pervasive the pro-choice/pro-abortion lobby is. This is sad news indeed.

Walking in Memphis: 45th Anniversary of King Assassination

~ Evan Lenow ~ 1 Comment

Today is the 45th anniversary of the assassination of Civil Rights leader, Martin Luther King, Jr. He was shot to death on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in my hometown of Memphis, TN on April 4, 1968.

Growing up in Memphis, racial tension was (and in many respects, still is) very tangible. The church has come quite far on the issue of racism since the 1960’s, but there is still work to be done.