Tag: Marriage

The Prince and the Golfer

~ Evan Lenow ~ 2 Comments
*Co-authored with Waylan Owens.

Hunter Mahan and Prince William. Not two names you would put together naturally. But the two have caused a stir in the name of fatherhood by their respective decisions that place family ahead of their other responsibilities.

We applaud the commitment to family exhibited by Mahan and the prince, and we think it will be helpful to look a little more closely at what the two men did and what all this means.

First, Prince William announced that he was taking two weeks of paternity leave, an option provided in Britain by the government that comes with a $210 per week stipend. We doubt William was after the money, so it is obvious that he wanted to be with his wife and child.

Then, Hunter Mahan learned that his wife was about to give birth to their new daughter, Zoe, and went to her side. That is not so unusual, except that Mahan was firmly in the lead, halfway to a $1,000,000 payday in the RBC Canadian Open golf tournament. “Would you give up $1,000,000 to see your baby born?” has been the question of the day for sportscasters and news anchors alike.

A poll by NJ.com asked the question, “Do you applaud Hunter Mahan for leaving golf tournament for baby’s birth?” At the time of this writing, an astounding 92% had responded yes.

So how do we view all of this as Christians? Is it “great news” of a world returning to its moral, family underpinnings? Or is there something more to these stories?

Embracing Fatherhood

The first observation we can make is that both men seem to have embraced the idea of fatherhood fully. In a day where more than 40% of all children in the United States are born out-of-wedlock, most of whom do not have fathers in their lives, we can rejoice that Prince William and Mahan have accepted their responsibilities as husbands and fathers for rearing their children in the context of marriage.

Scripture is replete with references to a father instructing his children. Six of the first seven chapters of Proverbs begin with Solomon telling his son to listen to his words (Prov 1:8; 2:1; 3:1; 4:1; 5:1; 7:1). He then proceeds to give specific instructions to his son about pursuing wisdom and avoiding folly. The contrast between these two paths is then highlighted in 10:1 where Solomon says, “A wise son makes a father glad, but a foolish son is a grief to his mother.”

While simply being present at the birth of a child does not insure that one will instruct his child faithfully to pursue wisdom, it does offer an initial indication that a father is taking an interest in the development of his child at the earliest stages.

Family Over Profession

Our second observation is that they appear to have placed family over professional success. While William’s actions do not bring any detriment to his future as king of England, Mahan certainly suffered the loss of potential earnings and ranking in his career.

Many men find their identity primarily in what they do. When asked to describe ourselves, many of us start with our profession and may even include some of our accomplishments. However, the role of husband and father is even more important than a career. For Mahan specifically, he sacrificed the advancement of his career to care for his family.

In Psalm 128, the blessings of the Lord are defined in terms of family. The psalmist writes, “How blessed is everyone who fears the Lord, who walks in His ways. … Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine within your house, your children like olive plants around your table. Behold, for thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord” (Ps 128:1, 3–4).

Sacrificial Love

A third observation must be made. While a prince took a brief maternity leave, he did not leave his wealth and luxury behind. We have a King who did. Jesus left it all behind in Heaven to live with us, not for a few weeks, but unto his own death. He did not turn away from his family. Rather he died for his family. And even now, he is working to prepare a place to “receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also,” for all eternity. (John 14:1-3)

Two unusual allies, a prince and a golfer, have turned the world’s focus toward a man’s responsibility to support his family by his presence and engagement without suggesting that a man should shirk his obligation to support his family by his hard work and ingenuity. We join in calling all fathers to note and to honor their examples. And we call all people to note that Jesus beat them to it, that he is with his children always, that he works on his family’s behalf, and that soon his children will be with him forever.

_________________________

Follow Waylan Owens on Twitter @WaylanOwens and check out his blog at http://waylanandbetsyowens.com/.

God’s Plan for Marriage: How to Respond to Cohabitation in the Church

~ Evan Lenow ~ 9 Comments

Many of us would like to think that the church is immune to the growing trend of cohabitation prior to, or instead of, marriage. Unfortunately, this cultural trend has crept into the pews as fewer church members recognize cohabitation as a violation of biblical sexual ethics.

Scripture is clear in its condemnation of fornication (a KJV-style word for a pre-marital sexual relationship). Fornication and fornicators (as well as adulterers) are described as evil, subject to judgment, and not heirs of the kingdom of God (Matt 15:19; Acts 15:20, 29; 1 Cor 6:9; Heb 13:4).

Beyond the clear scriptural statements regarding fornication, cohabitation also presents another breach of biblical ethics. God established the sexual relationship between a man and a woman in Genesis 2 as a sign of the covenant of marriage. Just like the rainbow serves as a tangible reminder of God’s covenant with Noah that He will not destroy the earth by flood again, the sexual relationship between a husband and wife demonstrates the exclusive, permanent union of marriage. It is so intimate that Gen 2:24 says the man and woman “shall become one flesh.” Those who cohabit participate in the “pleasures” of the relationship without the covenantal commitment. This stands in direct violation of God’s plan for marriage that he established in Genesis 2 prior to the Fall.

So how do we address the issue of cohabitation in the church? First, remember that cohabitation is not the unpardonable sin. After Paul gives a vice list in 1 Cor 6:9–10 that says certain people, including fornicators and adulterers, will not inherit the kingdom of God, he states, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11).

We need to work with cohabiting Christian couples to help them confess and repent of this sin. Ideally, this confession and repentance should have a public element to it within the church. This does not necessarily mean that they air their dirty laundry before the church on Sunday morning, but it should at least include their families and those in their circle of influence who are aware of the situation. Depending on the church, it may also include the entire church body.

Second, we need to help these couples separate from their sinful lifestyle. Many couples use cohabitation as a “test drive” for marriage, but it is actually a recipe for disaster. If a cohabiting couple is heading toward marriage, then we need to encourage them to change their living arrangements. If it means a woman moves back home with her parents, or a man moves in with some friends for a period of a few months, then so be it. If the couple is not willing to do this for the remainder of the time leading up to the marriage, then they are not interested in honoring God with their marriage.

We simply cannot turn a blind eye to the issue of cohabitation. The biblical covenant of marriage is too important to God’s design for mankind to adopt the world’s preferences for pleasure without commitment.

_________________________

This article was originally published in The Alabama Baptist, August 8, 2013, as part of their Faith & Family series. You can find the original article here.

The Supreme Court and the Future of Marriage

~ Evan Lenow ~ 9 Comments

June 26, 2013. Mark this day down in history.

I haven’t lived long enough to remember too many historic moments. I remember where I was when the Challenger space shuttle exploded. I have an image burned in my mind of watching the Berlin Wall collapse. I can even recall the visceral pain of watching the World Trade Center crumble in ruins.

I will also remember June 26, 2013, as the day that marriage changed forever in American society.

What exactly happened today? Let me offer a quick summary.

Hollingsworth v. Perry (California’s Proposition 8)

The Supreme Court essentially held that those defending California’s Proposition 8 do not have standing to file their appeal. The State of California has refused to defend Prop 8 in court; therefore, other citizens of the state took it up. As part of the ruling, the majority opinion reads, “Neither the California Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit ever described the proponents as agents of the State, and they plainly do not qualify as such.” In conclusion, the majority declared:

We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.

Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Since the State of California refuses to defend Prop 8 in court, the law will be held as unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. Therefore, same-sex “marriage” will become legal in California once again.

On the positive side, SCOTUS did not rule broadly and make applications to other states. However, there will likely be further legal challenges in California and other states in the near future.

United States v. Windsor (Defense of Marriage Act)

In the decision regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the law. This means that same-sex couples who are legally married in their respective states qualify for federal marriage benefits. These benefits include filing federal tax returns jointly, transferring property at death as a spouse to avoid inheritance taxes, etc. This would also seem to imply that federal employees with same-sex spouses would be eligible for various employment benefits (e.g., insurance) made available to spouses in heterosexual marriages.

As part of the majority opinion, the justices determined that DOMA treated same-sex couples with marriage licenses from states that approved same-sex marriages as a separate, unequal class. They wrote, “The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law [DOMA] here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.”

The decision essentially allows for states to define marriage on their own for the purpose of administering marriage licenses, but it does not allow the federal government to recognize the marriage licenses of some states while not recognizing those of other states (or a particular subset from those states). In their concluding remarks, the majority of justices stated:

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

What Next?

What is next for our society? We can be thankful that the Supreme Court did not offer a new definition of marriage today. However, I still believe it is safe to say that we are heading toward the demise of marriage as the foundational institution of society. The term “marriage” is quickly losing its meaning. President Obama used his Twitter account to claim all love is equal when it comes to marriage. The logical conclusion of such a claim is societal acceptance of not only same-sex “marriage” but also acceptance of polygamy, polyamory, incest, and ultimately pedophilia. We may even live to see the day when the term “marriage” has no significance whatsoever. If marriage collapses as a social institution, we will see more crime and poverty, and we will see less education and children.

Where do we go from here as Christians? The truth of the matter is that God’s design for marriage in Genesis 2 has not changed—one man and one woman for a lifetime. However, we have a long and difficult road ahead of us. We will likely be marginalized in the cultural discussion of marriage. We will be called bigots and homophobes. We may even experience discrimination for our views. In the face of all that, we can find solace in Jesus’ words to his disciples in John 15:18–19 where he says, “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.”

And one last reminder to those who call upon the Lord as Savior—it is not our ultimate responsibility to change the hearts of men and women. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. Our task is to proclaim the gospel faithfully knowing that true change in society only comes when hearts are changed by the gospel of Jesus Christ. As the motto of my seminary proclaims: Preach the Word. Reach the world!

_________________________

Hollingsworth v. Perry, Supreme Court of the United States, June 26, 2013.

United States v. Windsor, Supreme Court of the United States, June 26, 2013.

President Obama: “Love Is Love” Really?

~ Evan Lenow ~ 10 Comments

Via his Twitter account, President Obama declared the DOMA ruling from the Supreme Court to be a historic step forward for marriage equality. Then he closed his tweet with the hashtag #LoveIsLove.

Really? Is all love equal? Is love for a pet the same as love for a husband? Is love for pizza the same as love for a wife?

In this tweet, President Obama has subtly declared that marriage is nothing more than love. By his logic, not only should same-sex couples be allowed to get married, but other groups as well. As long as they love each other, this logic would allow for polygamous, polyamorous, and incestuous marriage.

Is all love really love, Mr. President?

Who Is Getting Married Today?

~ Evan Lenow

wedding ringsMarriage rates are rising according to an article published in USA Today this week. They report about an expected rise in marriage rates over the next few years after a progressive decline since the recession. The report from Demographic Intelligence of Charlottesville, VA, predicts a 4% rise in the number of weddings over the low point in 2009. From 2007 to 2009, the number of marriages in the United States dropped from 2.197 million to 2.080 million. Demographic Intelligence projects that the number of marriages will rise to 2.208 million by 2015.

While the article analyzes the total number of marriages per year, I think the more interesting details involve the types of people who are getting married. The study notes that the boost in marriages will come mostly among “the better-educated and affluent and women ages 25-34.”

It is no secret that marriage is quickly becoming the domain of those with higher levels of education. Education also generally brings with it a certain level of affluence. Therefore, it is no surprise that these two demographics factor into the rising marriage rate.

Unfortunately, those with lower levels of education–and typically less likely to marry–do not realize that marriage is one of the most effective routes to increasing affluence and higher education levels among subsequent generations. Thus, the ones who can benefit the most from marriage are still retreating.

It is also interesting to note that the age demographic of 25-34 year old women is part of the increase. The average age of first marriage for American women has increased to nearly 27 years old (29 for men). The fact that the younger generation is driving the increase is also good news.

One of the most direct impacts of delayed marriage is fertility, and it seems this has caught the attention of younger women. Andrew Cherlin, director of the Hopkins Population Center at Johns Hopkins University, states, “If you’re going to get married in time to have kids, you can’t wait forever, so they may be saying that the postponement of marriages is running its course, and a backlog of young adults is about to schedule their weddings.”

So why should we care about this? How does it affect the church? The delay in marriage has not left the church unscathed. Many of our young people have adopted the same philosophy of the culture and have delayed marriage. As a result there are fewer children in our congregations.

In addition, a rising rate of cohabitation has accompanied the decline in marriage. Many Christian young people have also adopted this “trial run” for marriage approach. It has begun to create a crisis of morality in our churches as fewer young men and women view pre-marital sex as a violation of biblical sexual ethics. For this reason, we should be grateful for an increase in marriage rates.

However, this good news should not make us complacent. Marriage is a fundamental building block of society. We should encourage and promote it. Each generation faces its own challenge to marriage, and we need to prepare this and subsequent generations of Christians to view marriage as the gift that God has given us to build society, bear children, and rear the future generations.

_________________________

Sharon Jayson, “Marriage rate may be low, but more weddings predicted,” USA Today, June 17, 2013.