Tag: Culture

One Woman, Two Husbands

~ Evan Lenow ~ 2 Comments

ABC’s “Good Morning America” aired a story this week on a different kind of “modern family.” This family is composed of one woman, two men, and a young boy. The story is about a woman named Gia who, in her words, gave up searching for “the one” so that she could have “the one and the one and the one and the one.” They are a polyamorous “throuple” (as George Stephanopoulos called them).

The difference between polyamory and polygamy revolves around marriage. While polygamy refers to multiple marriages and most typically has in mind one man with multiple wives, polyamory does not require marriage and can include any combination of men and women in a “committed relationship.”

The story of Gia, Ian, and John is quite interesting. The son in the family is the biological child of Gia and Ian. Gia describes her relationship with Ian as one of passionate romance. She describes her relationship with John through an analogy of an old pair of favorite shoes.

As the “family” is interviewed together, everyone puts on his/her best face. However, in a separate interview by himself, John admits to bouts of jealousy because he is the one who plays the role of domestic servant more than husband or lover. John quit his job, takes care of the son who is not his, and does most of the chores around the house. Even his body language screams, “I am the third wheel.”

If this relationship were not unusual enough already, the “throuple” admits that they are allowed to date outside of their relationship and could even bring another person into the “family.” They claim this would bring a “jolt of relationship energy” into their lives. The story reveals that Ian is currently dating someone else, and there is always the possibility of one of the other members of this relationship to bring another person into the mix.

So what should we make of this? First, we need to recognize that polyamory is most likely not going away. Research shows that polyamorous relationships are growing.

Second, the next step along the way for polyamory will be legal recognition as a “marriage-like” relationship. As the government and courts continue the quest for a redefinition of marriage, polyamory will ultimately be included. If the battle for legal recognition of homosexual marriage clears the courts, polygamy and polyamory are just another step down the road.

Third, we need to recognize that polyamory is a distortion of God’s design for marriage and relationships in general. In Genesis 2:24, we read, “For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” From the beginning, God designed marriage to be monogamous. God designed for the sexual relationship to be contained within the bounds of a lifetime, monogamous marriage (Hebrews 13:4).

Fourth, we need to continue the fight for defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. Our society is embarking on a slippery slope with a possible redefinition of marriage to include homosexual couples and polygamous relationships. Opening the door on one of these distortions of marriage will open the floodgates for the others, including polyamory and incestuous marriage. We cannot simply turn a blind eye to this lifestyle and say that our society will never buy into it. The fact that it was presented on “Good Morning America” in such a positive light demonstrates the attempted normalization of this lifestyle.

_________________________

Good Morning America, “Modern Families: 2 Dads, 1 Mom and a Baby,” January 4, 2012.

Interview on 90.9 KCBI

~ Evan Lenow

Last week I was interviewed by 90.9 KCBI (DFW area radio station) for their Christian News Weekly program that airs every Saturday at both 6:30 am and 6:30 pm. The interview came about because of an article in the Southern Baptist Texan a couple weeks earlier. The article and interview focus on issues related to homosexuality and how the church can address them. The audio from the interview is available here on KCBI’s website (The audio should be available through Friday, Nov 18. My interview begins about one-third of the way into the audio.), and the article in the Texan is available here. I hope you find these resources helpful.

Church to Vote on Continuing Heterosexual Marriage Ceremonies

~ Evan Lenow ~ 19 Comments

A church in Raleigh, NC, is gearing up for a vote on November 20 to decide if it will stop holding “state-sanctioned marriages” on their property. According to an article in Raleigh’s News & Observer, the deacon council at Pullen Memorial Baptist Church drafted a marriage equality statement in response to pastor Nancy Petty’s conscientious objection to endorsing marriages involving a state license for heterosexual couples while the state forbids same-sex marriage. Brooks Wicker, the co-chair of the deacon council stated,

For us, it’s very much a civil rights issue. It’s in keeping with our tradition of trying to live into the gospel, treating everyone justly and fairly.

On Nov 20, the congregation will hold a vote to determine the future of marriage ceremonies at the church. While this may seem unusual, Pullen Memorial is no stranger to the unusual in Baptist life. The church began embracing the “social gospel” and ecumenism in the 1930’s. In 1950, Harry Emerson Fosdick delivered the dedication sermon for their new sanctuary. In 1992, the church endorsed “unqualified acceptance” of gay and lesbian members. This move ultimately led to their ouster from the Raleigh Baptist Association, Baptist State Convention of NC, and Southern Baptist Convention.

Now the church stands on the cusp of eliminating marriage ceremonies for the foreseeable future from their practice. Petty, a self-professed lesbian, told the congregation that endorsing state-sanctioned marriages for heterosexuals was a burden on her conscience, and the church responded by bringing it up for a vote.

The real question here is whether or not God gets a vote in this matter. Wicker noted that he believed it was in keeping with the church’s tradition of living “into the gospel,” but I believe he has the direction wrong. It appears that “living into the gospel” is a way of adding cultural biases to the gospel. He sees gay-marriage as a civil right that needs to be affirmed by the gospel and that our lives change the gospel. However, Scripture suggests that we need the gospel to live in us and allow it to change us. Rather than living into the gospel, I want the gospel to live in me.

So what should we make of this vote? I think it is fairly clear from their history and current trajectory that Pullen Memorial will vote to cease all marriages until same-sex marriage is legalized by the state of NC. The unfortunate part of the vote is that a church will most likely vote contrary to Scripture. From the institution of the first marriage in Genesis 2, God has made it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Genesis 2:22–24, we read:

The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Throughout the rest of Scripture, every reference to marriage is always between a man and a woman. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, homosexual activity is clearly condemned (called an abomination), and that condemnation is repeated in Romans 1:24–32 and 1 Corinthians 6:9–11. Scripture makes it very clear that homosexual activity is against nature and against God’s intended design. Attempting to dignify it by placing the label of “marriage” on it simply flies in the face of what God intended for marriage as well.

So will God get a vote at Pullen Memorial? Let’s think about this—theology is not governed by democracy. Majority vote does not decide what truth is. God gets the only vote that matters, and he has already cast the deciding vote on this issue. Marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman. It is designed to last a lifetime. No church vote can change that. If Pullen Memorial wants to be on the side of God, they will change their stand on homosexual marriage. If they don’t, then they aren’t really attempting to be a church in submission to Christ and his Word. They might as well change their name to Pullen Memorial Social Club.

_________________________

Josh Shaffer, “Church puts civil marriage rites to vote,” News & Observer, November 11, 2011.

I would like to thank my friend, Randy Mann, for bringing this article to my attention. Check out his website at www.randymann.net.

Expiration Dates on Marriage Licenses

~ Evan Lenow ~ 1 Comment

ABC News reported that Mexico City lawmakers are proposing legislation that would allow couples to set an “expiration date” for their marriage licenses. Rather than making a commitment for life, the new marriage licenses would allow newlyweds to determine if they want to commit to simply two years and evaluate any extensions after that.

Leonoel Luna, the official who authored the proposed legislation stated:

The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends. You wouldn’t have to go through the torturous process of divorce.

In Luna’ defense, he recognizes that the process of divorce is long, difficult, and painful. There is plenty of collateral damage that comes from divorce, and I believe he is probably being sincere in his desire to prevent such pain. However, he has a completely wrong understanding of marriage. Rather than viewing marriage as a covenant, he sees marriage as a contract.

This current proposal sounds much like a sports contract. Right now we are in the throes of the World Series, and last night’s game had plenty of commentary about where different players had played. In fact, one player started the season for the Rangers but is now on the roster of the Cardinals. When a player signs a contract, he has terms for pay and length of contract. If things don’t work out, the team can simply refuse to re-sign the player. The contract ends, and both parties move on.

Marriage is not supposed to be that way. Throughout Scripture we see that marriage is described as a covenant through explicit statements (Prov 2:16–17; Mal 2:14) and comparisons to the covenant between God and his people and Christ and the church (Isa 54:4–8; Jer 3:14; Hosea 1:1–3:5; Eph 5:22–33; Rev 21:9). The covenantal model of marriage depicts marriage as a creation ordinance given to all people that creates a permanent bond between a man, woman, and God. Covenants cannot be broken arbitrarily at the whim of the parties involved.

The contractual model of marriage espoused by this legislator makes marriage nothing more than a legal transaction between two individuals for mutual benefit. In a contract, once one person no longer receives the agreed upon benefit, the contract can be broken. The reason this model does not work in marriage is because it bases the security of marriage on the ability of sinners not to sin. Theoretically, a “partner” in the contract would have an escape clause once he/she is wronged. In marriage, that probably happens weekly—if not daily.

Some people may respond with the thought. “This is just the world acting like the world.” Unfortunately, many people in our churches have the same understanding of marriage. They consider marriage to be a contract ruled by the civil laws of the day. Once they feel wronged, they begin looking for a way out. This is evidenced by Barna’s research that the rate of divorce among self-identified born-again individuals is the same as that of American society at large.

The solution to the divorce problem in our culture is not temporary marriage licenses. Instead, the solution is seeing marriage the way God sees it—permanent, covenantal, and sanctifying. Unfortunately, many both in the church and outside are not convinced. Therefore, we need to start by proclaiming God’s design from marriage in our churches. Once we start to look different from the world, then we may earn a hearing in our culture.

_________________________

Christina Ng, “Mexico City Considers Temporary Marriage Licenses,” ABC News, September 30, 2011.

The Barna Group, “New Marriage and Divorce Statistics Released,” March 31, 2008.

Suspension Rescinded for Fort Worth Student for Comments Opposing Homosexuality

~ Evan Lenow

When you hear some stories, you immediately think, “I know where that happened.” So when such things happen in places outside the norm, we tend to get a little shocked. This week a high school freshman was suspended for making a comment that he was a Christian and he believed being homosexual was wrong. I immediately assumed that the situation occurred in California or New York, but much to my surprise it happened right here in Cowtown—Fort Worth, Texas.

According to news reports, the student at Western Hills High School on the west side of Fort Worth was in German class when the discussion of religion and homosexuality in Germany arose. He turned to a friend in the class and said, “I’m a Christian and I believe being gay is wrong.” The teacher heard his comment, wrote an infraction, and sent him to the assistant principal’s office where he received a three-day suspension.

The next day, his mother arrived with an attorney to discuss the matter with the principal. Thankfully, the principal rescinded the suspension and removed it from the student’s record, allowing him back into class with no further repercussions.

Even in a world of political correctness where teachers are all but required to be non-religious, this situation still seems a little strange. Reports suggest that the teacher has regularly introduced the topics of religion and homosexuality in the classroom:

[Attorney Matt] Krause called the incident “mind blowing” and said the teacher had frequently brought homosexuality into ninth grade classroom discussions. “There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topics,” Krause said. “The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.” Krause said the picture was posted on the teacher’s “world wall.” “He told the students this is happening all over the world and you need to accept the fact that homosexuality is just part of our culture now,” Krause said.

These actions raise a very interesting question for public schools. Should a student’s cultural views—influenced by his religious beliefs—be stifled while a teacher is allowed to promote his beliefs about a controversial subject? The school system will face a very difficult decision about whether or not to become completely non-religious, non-controversial, non-cultural or to allow for some expression of differing viewpoints without the threat of punishment.

The implications of the latter—which seem to be in line with the spirit of the First Amendment—could be a two-edged sword. On one hand, we would applaud the ability of the student to express his belief in a sincere and respectful way. On the other hand, it would also seem to allow for the teacher at least to express his support of homosexuality. Now I certainly do not believe that the teacher should be allowed to push a homosexual agenda in class (especially a German class), but I do believe that students should be allowed to articulate alternatives to his view without fear of punishment or retaliation.

I can see some limited application of this discussion in a German class. Having studied four languages other than English, I recognize that there are some cultural aspects of learning a language. Most language teachers want their students to have an understanding of the culture behind the language, so I can see where discussion of religion could find its way into a German classroom. Let’s face it, one of the most central figures of Protestantism was German—Martin Luther. His translation of the Bible to German is still influential today. A balanced discussion of historical and contemporary religious issues in Germany could be fruitful for students learning the language. The problem with this teacher’s presentation is that it was not balanced. He pushed an agenda and punished a student who disagreed.

Of course there are limits to such discussions in the classroom, and an understanding of the maturity level of the students is necessary for having such discussions. It would never be appropriate for a public school teacher to have such a discussion with a third grade class; however, high school may be a different story. You may protest and say, “I don’t want my ninth grader exposed to such conversations in class!” I would counter with the realization that such conversations are already taking place in the hallways and locker rooms, so the controlled environment of the classroom may be better. In addition, as parents we need to prepare our children to articulate their positions effectively even when it is in opposition to a teacher’s position. At least while they are in high school, we have the opportunity to help them formulate their positions and support them in such discussions in class. When they move away to go to college and these same conversations arise, it may be too late.

So what do we take away from this? Let’s answer a couple of questions. Was the teacher wrong in punishing the student? Yes. He punished a student for disagreeing with his personal position. The student’s belief does not prevent him from learning German. The teacher was simply wrong. Outrage over the suspension is indeed appropriate, and the teacher should probably face disciplinary action for the way he handled the situation.

Should these discussions take place in school? To a certain degree, I say yes. Within a controlled environment where the students and teachers are mature enough to handle the discussion, it could be useful. To prevent such conversations would also prevent discussion of creation and intelligent design that many believers are fighting to get back into the classroom. Since those positions are often labeled “religious,” I am not willing to block all “religious” discussions in the classroom.

Should these conversations be taking place somewhere else? This is the most important question. Yes, they should happen in the home and church. We should not shy away from such topics at the dinner table. We need to tell our children what the Bible says about these things and prepare them to express their beliefs in a hostile environment. Don’t wait for the topic to come up in school—prepare for them in advance.

In 1 Peter 3:15, Peter instructs his readers, “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” Let’s be prepared to give a defense for what we believe and direct them back to the hope we have in Christ.

_________________________

Lari Barager, “Student Suspended for Saying Gay Is Wrong,” Fox 4 News, September 21, 2011.

Todd Starnes, “Texas School Punishes Boy for Opposing Homosexuality,” FoxNews.com, September 22, 2011.

Eva-Marie Ayala, “Western Hills student suspended for denouncing homosexuality has punishment reversed,” Star-Telegram, September 22, 2011.

For audio from a recent conference where I addressed some of the issues related to homosexuality, see Southwestern’s Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Conference audio.