Archives for : Marriage

The deadly hypocrisy of Black Lives Matter

Posted by :webmaster On : June 19, 2020
1

Category: Culture Wars, Humanism, Marriage, Socialism, Truth

“To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots.”[1]

The above quote is from one of the twentieth century’s greatest truth tellers—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008). Born in Russia, Solzhenitsyn studied mathematics, philosophy, literature, and history at the university level. He was thrice decorated for personal heroism as a Russian Army Officer during the fight against the Nazis in World War II. In 1945 he was arrested for criticizing Stalin in private correspondence and sentenced to an eight-year term in a labor camp. From that experience he wrote One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich which was published in 1962, the first of many books. In 1970 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. In 1974, he was stripped of his citizenship and expelled from the Soviet Union whereupon he moved to Vermont with his wife and four sons.[2]

I have taken time to briefly describe Solzhenitsyn’s background because his experiences and quiet words in defense of truth from such a man speaks far louder than the din of lies shouted by Black Lives Matter and their toadies including spineless politicians, the corrupt media, universities in name only, complicit mega-corporation billionaires, ranting Hollywood leftists, self-proclaimed “intellectuals,” and many corrupt voices/false teachers in the Church. Such lies cannot long stand against the timeless truth of which God is the author and finisher.

Regardless of their self-professed good intentions, the devil-doing of those leading and promoting Black Lives Matter is exposed by its own words on BLM’s official website[3] with regard to its beliefs and true objectives.

Black Lives Matter Beliefs and Goals

A thoughtful examination of just three of BLM’s goals gives a clear and frightening understanding of the damage that is being done in the war against the soul of American life and liberty including the culture at large and the average American family, black or white.

1. “We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.”

BLM wishes to dismantle cisgender privilege. The term “cisgender” means “of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth.”[4] Although the word may be unfamiliar to many, the concept that the two sexes equate to two genders is obvious to the vast majority of Americans and needs no label to explain it unless one is of the “woke” crowd.

Carla A. Pfeffer expands on Merriam Webster’s definition: “I grew up in a family with a cisgender and heterosexually identified mother and father of the same race (White) who had 2 children when they were well into their late 20s and early 30s and after they legally married with the full support of both their families.”[5]

For BLM, cisgender privilege has been transformed to be equivalent to white privilege. Such privilege cannot be eliminated without suppressing the carriers of this disease (privilege) by denigrating their belief systems. Therefore, the supposed evil that adherents to BLM ideology desire to dismantle are the dominant Judeo-Christian beliefs in the nuclear family, heterosexuality, marriage, and monogamy from which “white privilege” supposedly arises. However, the fatal flaw of BLM’s ideology regarding cisgender families is that the very nature of these beliefs is color-blind. To the contrary, the strength of cisgender families (of whatever color) rests on the universal truth of the values, beliefs, and structure of Judeo-Christian families.

2. “We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).”

Now we come to “trans” by which is meant transgender and defined as “of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity differs from the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth.”[6] And trans does not mean just male and female but a whole alphabet of identities such as LGBTQ+. However, deny it as they might, it is one’s biological sex that determines gender, and there are just two. BLM calls this belief being in the “tight grip of heteronormative thinking.”

3. “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

BLM wishes to disrupt (disorder, upset) the nuclear family structure by supporting (replacing) it with extended families and “villages” (also infamously promoted by Hillary Clinton). This group care for children promises to limit such care “to the degree that mothers, parents, and children (what about fathers?) are comfortable.” Tell that to parents who have unsuccessfully objected to the things taught in their child’s classroom that made them uncomfortable (e.g., transgenderism).

History reveals the fatal flaw of BLM ideology with regard to the nuclear family, marriage, monogamy, and heterosexuality.

1. Nuclear family, marriage, and monogamy

Daniel Patrick Moynihan retired from the United States Senate (Democratic Senator from New York) in 2000. Near the beginning of his career he was an assistant Secretary of Labor in Lyndon Johnson’s presidency. At the time of his retirement, the senator was asked to describe the biggest change he had seen in his forty years of government service. Articulate and intellectual, the distinguished public servant, having served both Democratic and Republican presidents, replied, “The biggest change, in my judgment, is that the family structure has come apart all over the North Atlantic world” and had occurred in “an historical instant. Something that was not imaginable forty years ago had happened.” Author of the 1965 Moynihan Report officially known as “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action”, Moynihan knew that of which he spoke.[7]

Enormously controversial at the time of its release, the report continues to be a topic of debate in the twenty-first century. The report characterized the instability of the black families in America and the importance of the family unit in providing that stability.

At the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro Family. It is the fundamental source of the weakness of the Negro community at the present time…The role of the family in shaping character and ability is so pervasive as to be easily overlooked. The family is the basic social unit of American life; it is the basic socializing unit. By and large, adult conduct in society is learned as a child…the child learns a way of looking at life in his early years through which all later experience is viewed and which profoundly shapes his adult conduct.[8]

Writing shortly after Moynihan’s perceptive summation of the condition of the family structure, William Bennett noted the deep concern of Americans with regard to the family. Bennett pointed to the general instability of the American family and the contributing factors such as the decline in the status and centrality of marriage in society, substantially greater percentage of out-of-wedlock births, and the significant increase in co-habitation. With the decline of social perception and necessity of matrimony, children are less valued, more neglected, more vulnerable to non-family influences, and have less resources devoted for their care and benefit. Bennett wrote that, “Public attitudes toward marriage, sexual ethics, and child-rearing have radically altered for the worse. In Sum, the family has suffered a blow that has no historical precedent—and one that has enormous ramifications for American society.”[9]

Two decades have elapsed since Moynihan’s diagnosis of the disintegration of the family unit as the major modern affliction of the Western world and Bennett’s reporting of Americans’ purported concern for the survival of the family. It is no longer the problem of the black population. The deterioration of the family unit is pervasive and crosses all ethnic, socio-economic, and religious lines although the poor and disadvantaged bear a greater portion of the misery. Yet, there has been no public hue and cry to reverse the decline, no urgency or sense of crisis in dealing with the problem, no new series of government studies explaining the situation, and no investigative reporting or meaningful media attention regarding the most profound change in society that has had no historical precedent. Why is this so? The answer is that the solutions to reverse the decline and devastation of marriage and the family unit stand as polar opposites of the prevailing and pervasive humanistic worldview of which Black Lives Matter is the current purveyor of this cultural carnage. Its own website condemns it.

2. Heterosexuality

Heterosexual marriage is the central organizing concept in society. By contrast, homosexuality is a disorganizing concept with regard to human relationships and ultimately disorganizing in building stable, enduring societies. Heterosexual marriage orders the soul whereas sexual intimacy outside of marriage, co-habitation, divorce (apart from infidelity and willful desertion), and homosexuality (with or without benefit of a civil union) are inherently disorderly and destructive. History and human nature attest to these assertions for according to researchers, heterosexual married life as opposed to all other similar social arrangements provides greater financial security, better health and sex, and a longer and better life.[10]

Bennett called marital love that rests upon a foundation of unconditional commitment as “…safer, more enduring, and more empowering that any sentiment yet discovered or any human arrangement yet invented.” He credits these attributes to the basic heterosexual complementarity of man and woman joined together as one in marital love. The complementariness of the relationship is based on the differences, not just the physical but also the emotional and psychological. As the physical differences make sexual union possible, so too do the emotional and psychological differences of the marriage partners complement and complete each other.[11] The union becomes stronger than its parts.

In the longer term, homosexuality and same-sex marriage undermine society. The central cultural vision upon on which the nation was founded was based on biblical Christianity and its understanding of the nature of man and his origins. The truth of the Christian worldview of marriage as being between a man and woman is supported by the fact that it is a cultural universal imprinted on human nature and common to all people groups, all cultures, and all ages in history. Heterosexual marriage is the well-spring of civilization, and its centrality in the human experience is indisputable. Humans have fashioned numerous methods by which to organize their societies, but the common link to all is the family unit—a father, a mother, and children living together in bonds of committed caring.

God created heterosexual marriage as a cultural universal, and the strength and unity provided by this universal is the foundation of a strong and enduring society. Where traditional marriage is in broad disarray, as it is in most Western societies, it does not disprove the truth of the heterosexual marriage universal but rather speaks of the ravages caused by the ascending humanist worldview. Where traditional marriage declines, so do those societies decline that allow it to occur.
______

During the turmoil in America of the late 1960s and early 1970s, Russell Kirk wrote The Roots of the American Order, a book of exceptional scope and insight into the origins of America. Summarizing the words of Simone Weil, Kirk states that “…order is the path we follow, or the pattern by which we live with purpose and meaning. Above food and shelter, she continues, we must have order. The human condition is insufferable unless we perceive a harmony, an order in existence.” Kirk identified two roots of this order: the order of the soul (moral order) and the order of the republic (social order), and they are intricately linked and dependent on each other. Disorder of one leads to disorder of the other.[12]

The American order that was established by the founders was not an “ideology” nor a “thing” created for the moment. Rather, the American order is a living culture whose roots have grown over millennia and were watered by the sound principles of moral and civil social order arising from eternal truths and the revelation of God to the Hebrews and the first century Christians. America was established on these eternal truths and the revelation in which the Founders believed, and upon these pillars they built the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Kirk’s roots of order are the same roots of which Solzhenitsyn spoke in the quote given at the beginning of this article. BLM is attempting to sever those roots along with America’s cultural norms, traditions, beliefs, and even our history and that of Western civilization. Those severed roots are to be replaced with a humanistic cultural Marxist society whose citizens will be subject to machinations of an autonomous socialistic state and its evil overseers. Such a society will be devoid of the three essential elements of the good society: divine order, justice, and freedom.

Do not fool yourselves by blithely dismissing the challenge of BLM. Our present struggle is an existential war of the highest magnitude between good and evil, and the conflict is spreading around the world. What must Americans to do who love this nation and its history? For the answer we look once again to the wisdom of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in which he gives us both the diagnosis of our plight and a prescription for preserving America’s Judeo-Christian cultural heritage and its attendant freedom.

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it (evil) will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers . . . we are ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”[13]

“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world.”[14]

Larry G. Johnson
June 19, 2020

[1] “Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,” AZQuotes, https://www.azquotes.com/author/13869-Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn (accessed June 18, 2020).
[2] “Biography,” The Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Center, https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/his-life-overview/biography (accessed June 18, 2020).
[3] “What We Believe,” Black Lives Matter, https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/ (accessed June 18, 2020).
[4] “Cisgender,” Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cisgender (accessed June 18, 2020).
[5] Ibid.
[6] “Transgender,” Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transgender (accessed June 18, 2020).
[7] William J. Bennett, The Broken Hearth, (New York: Doubleday, 2001), pp. 2, 85.
[8] Lee Rainwater and William L. Yancey, The Moynihan Report and the Politics of Controversy, (Cambridge Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1967), p. 3.
[9] Bennett, pp. 1-2.
[10] Ibid., pp. 14-188.
[11] Ibid., pp. 186-187
[12] Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, (Washington D. C.: Regnery-Gateway, 1991), pp. 3-5.
[13] Solzhenitsyn, AZ Quotes.
[14] Ibid.

The difference a day makes – Another interpretation

Posted by :webmaster On : November 28, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Equality, Government, Homosexuality, Marriage

The voters of Oklahoma amended its state constitution in November 2004 to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Following a suit filed in Tulsa County, U.S. District Judge Terrance Kern ruled the ban on same-sex marriage was a violation of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional. Because the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the state’s appeal, gay marriage became legal in spite of the wishes of approximately 75% of Oklahoma’s electorate. [1]

Toby Jenkins, head of Oklahomans for Equality, hails the decision as a sunrise on a new day that ended “marriage discrimination” in Oklahoma. He cites four examples of such alleged discrimination: failure to process loan applications by same-sex couples, prohibition of same-sex couples from sharing an apartment in an assisted living center, prohibition from having a vehicle title issued in both names of a same-sex married couple legally married in another state, and prohibition of the right to request cremation of a deceased partner by the other partner in a same-sex relationship. [2]

However, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear challenges to rulings allowing same-sex marriage in some states may be more of a go-slow approach than an endorsement of same-sex marriage. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ November 6th ruling favored those that define marriage as being between one man and one woman and almost guarantees the highest court will take up the issue at some point. The language within the Sixth Circuit’s ruling is significant, “…marriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world.” [3]

In upholding the traditional view of marriage, the court’s verdict ended with these words. “When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.” [4]

For most people in Oklahoma and America, Mr. Jenkins’ sunrise for equality is in reality a sunset for liberty. Ultimately, same-sex marriage is not just about equality, honor, and dignity for the proponents of same-sex marriage but a means to force the majority of Americans to forfeit their religious beliefs, bow to the god of equality, and embrace the consequent moral relativism which provides no means for finding truth or judging something based on the concept of right and wrong. For those that deny this reality of the LGBT agenda, just ask the president of Gordon, a Christian college that is being threatened with loss of accreditation because of the school’s longstanding policies prohibiting gay activities among students, faculty, and staff and its public opposition to hiring protections for gays and lesbians. [5] Or ask the Lexington, Kentucky, tee-shirt maker who was found to have violated the city’s Human Rights Commission’s “fairness” ordinance and was ordered to attend “diversity training” for re-education. His crime? He refused to make tee-shirts for participants in a local gay-pride parade. [6] Or ask Jennifer Keeton, a former graduate student in counseling at Augusta State University, who was threatened with expulsion unless she changed her religious beliefs that failed “to conform to professional standards” with regard to LGBT issues. [7]

For millions of others in America who oppose the LGBT same-sex agenda because they adhere to the tenets of their Christian faith, the sun is setting on religious freedom as the nation descends into a dark night of coercion and oppression.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Writ of Certiorari, The Supreme Court of the United States, Sally Howe Smith v. Mary Bishop, et.al., August 6, 2014. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Oklahoma-Smith-petition-8-6-14.pdf (accessed November 11, 2014).
[2] Toby Jenkins, “The difference a day makes,” Tulsa World, November 9, 2014, G-6.
[3] United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 14-1341, Opinion, November 6, 2014. p.7. http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0275p-06.pdf (accessed November 11, 2014).
[4] Ibid., p. 42.
[5] Matt Rocheleau, “Accrediting agency to review Gordon College,” The Boston Globe, July 11, 2014. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/11/agency-review-whether-gordon-college-antigay-stance-policies-violate-accrediting- standards/Cti63s3A4cEHLGMPRQ5NyJ/story.html (accessed October 8, 2014).
[6] Tony Perkins, “Intolerance fits liberals to a T (Shirt),” Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, October 9, 2014. http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/intolerance-fits-liberals-to-a-t-shirt (accessed October 13, 2014).
[7] Sarah Netter, “Georgia Grad Student Sues University Over Gay Sensitivity Training,” abcNews/US, July 27, 2010, http://abcnews.go. com/US/georgia-student-sues-university-lgbt-sensitivity-training/story?id=11261490 (accessed August 7, 2010).

Same-sex marriage will be a bust for civilization

Posted by :webmaster On : October 10, 2014
1

Category: Archives, Homosexuality, Humanism, Marriage

Lisa Bracken believes that legalization of same-sex marriage would be good for Oklahoma’s economy (“Same-sex marriage can be boon for economy”[1]). She is wrong on two counts.

In the short-term, the supposed economic gains will be enormously offset by costs associated with societal dysfunction caused by same-sex marriage. Even though the legitimization of same-sex marriage is relatively new, its devastating effects are already being felt in those countries that have allowed it. Documenting 10 years of same-sex marriage and civil unions in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, Hoover Institution researcher Stanley Kurtz found that it has led to far fewer marriages and soaring illegitimacy in which “80 percent of firstborn children are born out of wedlock, and 60 percent of children born thereafter are born to unwed parents. This has a devastating impact on children since unmarried parents are much more likely to separate.” Kurtz wrote, “Marriage in Scandinavia is in deep decline, with children shouldering the burden of rising rates of family dissolution. And the mainspring of the decline—an increasingly sharp separation between marriage and parenthood—can be linked to gay marriage.”[2]

In the longer term, homosexuality and same-sex marriage undermines society. The central cultural vision upon on which the nation was founded was based on biblical Christianity and its understanding of the nature of man and his origins. The truth of the Christian worldview of marriage as being between a man and woman is supported by the fact that it is a cultural universal imprinted on human nature and common to all people groups, all cultures, and all ages in history. Heterosexual marriage is the well-spring of civilization, and its centrality in the human experience is indisputable. Humans have fashioned numerous methods by which to organize their societies, but the common link to all is the family unit—a father, a mother, and children living together in bonds of committed caring.

Supporters of homosexuality believe that they have the right to marry just as heterosexuals, and those rights are based on equality. However, homosexuality is a choice, and choice does not automatically equate with a “right to” nor mandate equal consideration. Many people may have a predilection to alcohol, criminality, or some other activity including homosexuality. But all are choices and with God’s help those tendencies can be conquered.

In his book Visions of Order-The Cultural Crisis of Our Time published 50 year ago, Richard Weaver states that when a culture “… by ignorant popular attitudes or by social derangements” imposes a political concept that creates a different principle of ordering society contrary to universal truths, dissatisfactions arise because society has tampered with the “nature of things.”[3] Homosexuality is a disorganizing concept with regard to human relationships and ultimately disorganizing in building stable, enduring societies. Where traditional marriage declines, so do those societies decline that allow it to occur.

Homosexuality and same-sex marriage are issues that must ultimately be dealt with in the arena of morality and cultural health. The economic considerations of Chamber of Commerce cheerleaders such as Ms. Bracken are both inappropriate and crass with regard to the debate about homosexuality and demands for its legitimization through same-sex marriage. But such dollars and cents concerns are to be expected from those with a humanistic view of life based on the material and denial of universal and timeless concepts of right and wrong.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Lisa Bracken, “Same-sex marriage can be boon for economy,” Tulsa World, September 27, 2014, A-19.
[2] D. James Kennedy, Ph.D., “Five Good Reasons to Reject Same-Sex Marriage,” Coral Ridge Ministries – Crosswalk.com, July 7, 2004. http://www.crosswalk.com/1272492/ (accessed September 30, 2014).
[3] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995, 2006), p. 22.

Did father really know best?

Posted by :webmaster On : July 25, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism, Marriage

Father Knows Best was a late 1950s television program that depicted an idealized typical middle class family composed of a wise and loving father Jim Anderson, housewife and mother Margaret who was a voice of reason and patience, and three good kids (two teenagers and one pre-teen) whose comedic trials and troubles while growing up provided the basis for most of the weekly plotlines. In the end, Jim with Margaret’s help, would provide the needed sage advice and words of encouragement to whichever of his three children needed it.

Over a half century later, the iconic Anderson family portrayed a different time in America and is considered quaint if not laughable by a modern culture overwhelmed by a humanistic interpretation of the world as it should be. Now, the entertainment media consistently portrays the father figure as an inept buffoon of marginal importance if not irrelevant to the family. In spite of the modern belief in the fiction of the typical 1950s Anderson-type family, it is the humanistic view that is an anomaly, abnormality, or even a perversion that is a stain on the pages of the history of marriage and family.

Stephanie Coontz wrote in her book Marriage, a History, that the male breadwinner/full-time housewife marriages that were the standard in America and Western Europe of the 1950s and 1960s were not a brief historical oddity. Coontz argues that such male-female role characterization was the culmination of a trend that had been growing since the late eighteenth century. For over 150 years there had been continuous movement toward and development of the once radical concept that love should be the basis for marriage and that the marital decision process should be controlled by the couple considering marriage.[1] These dramatic changes began in the eighteenth century and were embraced by both the humanistic and Christian worldviews. However, the meaning and implementation of these changes would become a battleground in the war between the humanistic and Christian worldviews.[2]

The roles of men and women throughout history remainded relatively unchanged. Generally, men in all cultures and times have been the defenders of and providers for the family whereas women have been the nurturers and care givers for husband and children. Whether civilizations are modern or ancient, advanced or primitive, the complementary roles of husbands and wives along the lines just described will be present. Although those roles may or may not have finite and sharp distinctions (depending on the culture and time in history), the basic defender-provider/nurturer-care giver dichotomy remains a constant.[3]

The disappearance of the roles of men and women

The roles of men and women were defined and enhanced by the marriage relationship and made possible the enduring nuclear family unit. During the age of the Enlightenment and in particular the eighteenth century, advances toward the modern nuclear family would also bring dangers that would threaten its survival. These dangers included a more secular view of marriage and sexual relationships propagated by the tide of humanist thought and influence that swept through the nineteenth century.[4] By the 1960s and for the first time in history, the ideal of marriage came under direct attack by social engineers who “…believe a lifelong vow of fidelity is unrealistic or oppressive, especially to women…[and] marriage and family ties were…potential threats to individual fulfillment as a man or woman. The highest forms of human needs, contended proponents of the new psychologies, were autonomy, independence, growth, and creativity,” and marriage was considered a hindrance to fulfilling these human needs.[5]

In 1963 Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique whose theme centered on the supposed alienation and meaninglessness experienced by the typical housewife.[6] Friedan’s shot across the bow of traditional marriage and family eventually led to the establishment of the National Organization of Women three years later. NOW’s 1966 Statement of Purpose was clear in its efforts to redesign the role of women in American society (and by implication the roles of men and children).

NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women…must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential…it is no longer either necessary or possible for women to devote the greater part of their lives to child-rearing…True equality of opportunity and freedom of choice for women requires such practical, and possible innovations as a nationwide network of child care centers, which will make it unnecessary for women to retire completely from society until their children are grown…We reject the assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman’s world and responsibility—hers, to dominate—his to support…We will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce…We are similarly opposed to all policies and practices—in church, state, college, factory, or office—which, in the guise of protectiveness, not only deny opportunities but also foster in women self-denigration, dependence, and evasion of responsibility, undermine their confidence in their own abilities and foster contempt for women.[7] (emphasis added)

At its core, the feminist view of the roles of men and women in marriage and family is essentially humanistic which differs markedly from the Christian worldview.

Humanistic worldview

The humanistic worldview and its values focus on the individual person and his/her independence, freedom, self- actualization, autonomy, growth, and creativity. Hence, marriage becomes secondary to the individual and is at best a contractual arrangement devoid of the requirements of covenantal “self-giving” as it interferes with humanistic values…Further, marriage is only one of several relational choices open to the individual. Marriage is not central or necessary for nurturing and the transmission of moral and cultural values to children. The pair-bonding elements of monogamy and permanency are individual decisions and not cultural universals.

Christian worldview

The supreme reflection of God’s image in humankind is in the marriage relationship followed by family. The roles of husband and wife and father and mother (monogamous married couple living with their children) are not societal constructs. The surface patterns and functioning of family may vary markedly in various cultures and societies down through the ages. However, the divinely ordered family structure is intrinsically a part of the fundamental identity of the family in every society and for all time. It is one of those universals or permanent things that are imbedded in the foundation of creation.[8] (emphasis in original)

Essentially, feminists view marriage as a zero-sum game in which gain by one person or side results in a loss by another person or side. In life there are only winners and losers—takers or givers. This is the humanistic worldview in which self is exalted at the expense of relationship. But life is not a zero-sum game. The ordered marital and family structure as reflected in the Christian worldview is a universal which focuses on giving, other-directedness, and relationship.

Not only is life not a humanist zero-sum game, playing the game leads to loss for the whole of society. When humanists and their feminist followers attempt to change the roles of men and women through a change of rules and mores regarding marriage, they discover the inflexibility of the marriage universal. Such changes have led to illegitimacy, cohabitation, divorce, fatherlessness, single-family households, and poverty in which the children face a rootless quest for meaning in life.

Did Jim Anderson always know best? No. But together Jim and Margaret Anderson usually got it right when it came to marriage, family, and life in general. In the Christian worldview, the complementariness of the roles of men and women in the marriage relationship is based on differences. Just as the differences make sexual union possible, the emotional and psychological differences of the marriage partners complement and complete each other, and the union becomes stronger than its parts. It is when the humanists attempt to erase the complementary and unique roles of men and women that marriage, family, and society suffer.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Coontz, Stephanie, Marriage, a History, (New York: Penguin Group, 2005), pp. 4-5.
[2] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods-Humanism and Christianity-The Battle for the Central Cultural Vision in America, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 323.
[3] Ibid., p. 323.
[4] Ibid., p. 325.
[5] Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage, (New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 1.
[6] “The Founding of NOW,” National Organization of Women website,
http://www.now.org/history/the_founding.html (accessed July 16, 2014).
[7] “The National Organization for Women’s 1966 Statement of Purpose,” National Organization of Women, http://now.org/about/history/statement-of-purpose/ (accessed July 16, 2014).
[8] Johnson, p. 391.

Who are you going to believe: Nancy Pelosi or the Apostle Paul?

Posted by :webmaster On : June 27, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Equality, Homosexuality, Marriage

There is an old adage which says that a person is known by the friends he or she keeps, but a better gauge of how one is known may be to identify his or her foes. Assuming the truth of these axioms, Catholic Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of the Archdiocese of San Francisco can easily identify his foes. The identities were revealed as signors of an open letter to the Archbishop in the June 10th edition of the San Francisco Chronicle and included California’s Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom and over eighty other state and local officials and community and religious leaders. The letter scolded the Archbishop for associating himself with the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and urged him to change his plans to participate in NOM’s June 19th Washington D.C. march in support of traditional marriage.[1] In a separate letter to the Chronicle, U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also urged the Archbishop to skip the March for Marriage.[2]

The standard operating procedure of supporters of same-sex marriage is to attack the character of those it opposes with distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods which are applied liberally to people, organizations, and the veracity of the Bible. The open letter is a typical example of the liberal smear of all things not consistent with or supportive of their humanistic worldview regarding same-sex marriage. The Archbishop’s response[3] was well stated, but he has left room for additional answers to the charges and accusations raised by Pelosi and the advocates of same-sex marriage.

Do NOM’s rhetoric and actions contradict Christian beliefs?

While claiming to respect freedom of religion, the letter charged that “…the actions and rhetoric NOM, and those of the event’s speakers and sponsors, fundamentally contradict Christian belief in the fundamental dignity of all people.”[4] One must ask how the essence of the words and actions of NOM and other supporters of traditional marriage differ from the biblical admonitions of the Apostle Paul.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth…Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own person the due penalty for their error. (emphasis added) [Romans 1: 18, 24-27. RSV]

The Apostle Paul’s words skip the smaller issue of the legitimacy of civil marriage for same-sex couples and cut to the heart of the matter by unequivocally denying the legitimacy of homosexuality altogether. If Paul was alive today and made those same statements, one wonders if Pelosi and the signers of the letter would brand the words and actions of the writer of almost half of the New Testament as fundamentally contradicting “… Christian belief in the fundamental dignity of all people”?

Is the Family Research Council a hate group?

The letter labels one of NOM’s sponsors (Family Research Council) as a hate group because of its designation as such by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[5] A review of just a few of the other organizations that the SPLC considers to be hate groups include several Catholic, Baptist, and Pentecostal organizations, the American Family Association, and the Jewish Defense League among others. The SPLC attempts to advance its credibility by also listing legitimate hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations.[6] The toxicity of SPLC’s vitriol is such that one its ardent followers was prompted to invade the Family Research Council’s headquarters and wound an unarmed security guard. For Pelosi and her group to cite the SPLC as a credible source to gauge the hatefulness of the Family research Council or similar organizations is absurd. The facts suggest that many (but not all) of the persons and organizations that have received the SPLC’s seal of disapproval should wear it as a badge of honor.

Does NOM attempt to punish anyone who disagrees with their position?

The letter to the Chronicle claimed that NOM’s promotional material “…uses incendiary language about those who support the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.” The letter quotes an excerpt from a NOM promotional piece.

[Their] goal is silence and punishing anyone who disagrees…This is not tolerance, it’s tyranny. You have a choice. You can remain silent in the face of oppression or you can stand up and fight for the truth…These same-sex advocates wish to silence anyone who disagrees with them.[7]

One wonders how Pelosi and the other letter signers classify the forced resignation of Mozilla CEO Brenden Eich under pressure from gay rights activists for merely contributing $1000 to Proposition 8, the California initiative that amended the state’s constitution to limit the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.[8] Another example is the strident opposition of the mayors of Boston and Chicago to the proposed expansion of Chic-Fil-A to their cities due to the Christian owner’s support of traditional marriage.[9] These are just two high-profile cases which suggest that there are perhaps thousands of other ordinary people who support traditional marriage across the nation who are less able to combat efforts of same-sex activists to silence and/or punish them. Contrary to the assertions of Pelosi and the signers of the letter to Archbishop Cordileone, NOM has accurately assessed the truth about the intolerance and tyranny of the supporters of same-sex marriage and their wish to silence and punish anyone who disagrees with them.

Does God’s love excuse the practicing homosexual?

Incredibly, Pelosi and the letter’s signers appear to question the Archbishop’s understanding of the Bible and pastoral teachings of the Catholic Church. They contend there is a conflict between the Archbishop’s apparent endorsement of those organizations and individuals associated with NOM and the pastoral teaching of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops which states, “God does not love someone any less simply because he or she is homosexual. God’s love is always and everywhere offered to those who are open to receiving it.”[10] Thus, for Pelosi and the signers, God’s love is all that is necessary, and the admonitions of Paul to the Romans regarding homosexuality are no longer applicable in the twenty-first century.

However, to follow the prescription that love is all that is necessary is to dismiss the centrality of the cross in the great meta-narrative of the Bible with regard to creation, the fall, and man’s need for redemption. Christ died for the sins of the world, and every man has a choice as to whether or not he will accept that forgiveness and follow Christ. To follow Christ is to follow his commandments. If love is all that is necessary, then the cross becomes irrelevant, sin is a misnomer, Satan is a myth, and God does care about how we live our lives.

The Catholic bishops are correct in their pastoral teaching. God’s love never waivers for the homosexual. But homosexuals cannot stay in their sin. God is willing to accept and save people as they are, but God was not willing to leave them that way. God does not approve of homosexuality, and He will not contradict or overlook His own commandments regarding the sin of homosexuality. For a person to continue homosexual practices is to separate himself or herself from a relationship with God on this earth and for eternity.

Homosexuality is a choice. Many people may have a predilection to alcohol, criminality, or some other activity including homosexuality. But all are choices and with God’s help those tendencies can be conquered. Neither Nancy Pelosi nor any other assemblage of government, civic, and religious leaders can change those choices into a “civil right” and call it acceptable to God.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Gavin Newsom, et.al., Letter to Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, June 10, 2014.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.sfgate.com/file/829/829-ArchbishopLetter.pdf (accessed June 23, 2014).
[2] Mark A. Kellner, “Pelosi to San Francisco archbishop: Don’t march for marriage,” Deseret News National, June 18, 2014. http://national.deseretnews.com/article/1714/Pelosi-to-San-Francisco-archbishop-Dont-march-for-marriage.html (accessed, June 23, 2014).
[3] Salvatore Cordileone, “Archbishop Cordileone March for Marriage Letter,” Archdiocese of San Francisco, June 6, 2014. http://www.sfarchdiocese.org/about-us/archbishop-cordileone/homilies-writings-and-statements/2014/Archbishop-Cordileone-March-for-Marriage-Letter-4035/ (accessed June 25, 2014).
[4] Gavin Newsom.
[5] Ibid.
[6] “Southern Poverty Law Center,” Conservapedia, http://www.conservapedia.com/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center (accessed June 23, 2014).
[7] Gavin Newsom.
[8] Joel Gehrke, “Mozilla CEO Brenden Eich forced to resign for supporting traditional marriage laws,” Washington Examiner, April 3, 2014. http://washingtonexaminer.com/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-forced-to-resign-for-supporting-traditional-marriage-laws/article/2546770 (accessed June 23, 2014).
[9] Michael Scherer, “Chic-Fil-A meets a First Amendment buzz saw in Chicago,” Time, July 26, 2012. http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/26/chick-fil-a-meets-a-first-amendment-buzzsaw-in-chicago/ (accessed May 21, 2014).
[10] Gavin Newsom.

Does God lie?

Posted by :webmaster On : May 16, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Homosexuality, Marriage

[Portions of this article were printed in the Tulsa World on May 11, 2014: Marriage equality is not a matter of faith.]

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage. However, in a guest editorial in the Tulsa World, the Reverends Justin Alan Lindstrom and Robin R. Meyers said that regardless of the outcome of the deliberations of the 10th Circuit, the case has already been settled by a different judge—meaning the God of the Bible.[1] The Reverends said that, “…marriage equality is a fundamental right for all Oklahomans…The freedom to marry for all couples fits squarely into the tenets of our faith, the teachings of our church and reflects values of love and compassion that sustains our communities and congregations.” In other words, same-sex couples have the right to marry and that right does not conflict with the tenets of the Christian faith as revealed in the Bible. However, the Apostle Paul’s words are indisputable with regard to God’s condemnation of homosexuality.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth…Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own person the due penalty for their error.” [Romans 1:18, 24-27. RSV]

Therefore, we see that the Reverends’ view of same-sex marriage does not fit squarely into the tenets of Christian faith. It is one thing to disagree with the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality or to reject biblical authority altogether in defending homosexual practices. However, it is blatantly disingenuous to ignore, revise, or twist biblical teachings in order to excuse homosexual practices when the biblical record is unequivocally clear in its universal condemnation of homosexuality. However, the Reverends assume their beliefs supersede biblical commandments regarding homosexuality (and by inference same-sex marriage) on the grounds that those beliefs are “…grounded in love and acceptance of everyone.”

Love

The Reverends beliefs ultimately must place love above basic and clear biblical doctrines which are brushed aside in favor of non-judgmental love and acceptance of people as they are. God is willing to accept and save people as they are, but God was not willing to leave them that way. That is the reason He sent His son Jesus and allowed man to nail Him to a cross. God could not have fellowship with sinful man, and the crucifixion of sinless Christ for man’s sin made a way for man to be restored to a right relationship with Him.

I am a sinner and my sin is no less sinful than that of a homosexual. We stand as equals before God and are given a choice. I am a sinner saved by Christ. I have repented of my sin and have been forgiven. Not only have I repented of past sins, I have turned from my sins. Homosexuals can repent, be saved, and fellowship with God for eternity. However, to do so, they cannot stay in their sin. God does not approve of homosexuality, and He will not contradict or overlook His own commandments regarding homosexuality by coating them with a liberal layer of “love and compassion.” Man has a choice to accept or reject God’s love. The creation of man with a free will meant the possibility of rejection of God and His love. In other words, free will and the potential for rejection of God was the penalty for the possibility of love.

Acceptance

Must Christians also unreservedly accept the homosexual as implied by the ministers? Christians must love the sinner, but it is not a blind love that overlooks sin. Although Christians should reach out in love to the homosexual, we cannot accept homosexuals into fellowship as fellow believers if they continue in their sin nor can we condone the sin of homosexuality by passing laws that allow same-sex marriage. We find our example in the Apostle Paul’s chastisement of the Corinthians for allowing immorality to reside in the midst of their fellowship.

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. [1 Corinthians 5:1-2. RSV]

Homosexuals must be welcomed into our churches if they are seeking truth and escape from their bondage to sin. But in his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul again warned against communion with unbelievers.

Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? [2 Corinthians 6:14. RSV]

Does God lie?

If the Reverends believe that God accepts everyone including partners in a same-sex marriage and persons engaged in homosexual conduct because of His boundless love, the ministers have effectively labeled God as a liar. But God cannot condemn homosexuality as He has throughout His word and at the same time embrace the homosexual that persists in rebelling against His commandments. If He does so as the Reverends imply, then God would be guilty of a lie. But Paul said that God never lies. [Titus 1:2. RSV]

God created heterosexual marriage as a cultural universal, and the strength and unity provided by it is the foundation of a strong and enduring society. Where traditional marriage is in broad disarray, as it is in most Western societies, it does not disprove the truth of the heterosexual marriage universal but rather speaks of the ravages caused by the ascending humanist worldview. Where traditional marriage declines, so do those societies decline that allow it to occur.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Rev. Justin Alan Lindstrom and Rev. Robin R. Meyers, “Marriage equality is a matter of faith,” Tulsa World, May 4, 2014, G-2.

Love and Commitment

Posted by :webmaster On : February 7, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Marriage

It seems that in our modern world that the image of “commitment” has taken on a dubious persona. Evidence of the disdain for commitment is found in every facet of our society. “No commitment” is a hot seller in advertising these days. One need only do a quick Internet search of “no commitment” to discover pages of web sites offering everything from no commitment phone services to no commitment dating services. In the spirit of no-fault divorce, wedding vows that once included the supposed straightjacket of “until death do us part” have conveniently substituted the noncommittal “until love is no more.” But in this non-committal world that we live, perhaps it is in an understanding of the real meaning of love that we find the value of commitment. In love and much of life, commitment is not only important but indispensable.

I was reminded of this indispensable connection between love and commitment by a story that I recently heard. The story was told by a Christian minister who had officiated at a large wedding in India at which 2,000 people were in attendance. The marriage was arranged by the Indian families of the groom, a brilliant young man with a Ph.D. in chemistry, and the bride, a beautiful, articulate, and well-educated young lady. The families had met, discussed the couple, and agreed the bride and groom would make a great marital union. Being an arranged marriage, the bride and groom did not know each other and had never met. Even as the bride came down the aisle and stood beside her husband-to-be, the groom did not look at her. As was the custom, the groom made a speech at the reception following the ceremony. He began by thanking his parents. He thanked the bride’s parents and others. He ended by thanking his bride for loving him. The minister and others were surprised and intrigued by his statement. What did he mean? How could she love him for they had not met nor talked to one another? What the groom meant was his bride loved him because she was willing to commit herself to him even before they met. Although marriage is an experiential relationship, commitment is an indispensable component. Bring a commitment to your love and you’ll reap the rewards of love. If you are not committed in love, you will not reap the rewards of love. [Zacharias]

As we examine the importance of commitment in love, we see a reflection of God’s nature that is stamped on mankind. This nature is evident in the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, “…even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. He destined us in love to be his sons though Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.” [Ephesians 1:4-5. RSV.] God did not create man out of need. Rather, it was a will (commitment) to love, an expression of the very character of God, to share the inner life of the Trinity. Man’s chief end is to glorify God by communing with God forever. [Johnson, p. 158.]

Here we also see that commitment in love or the lack thereof is compatible with God’s grant of freewill to man. By creating man with a free will meant the possibility of man’s rejection of God and His love. In other words free will and the potential for rejection of God was the penalty for the possibility of love. So it is on the earthly plane, to risk love is to risk rejection. Rejection was not a surprise to an omniscient God. Before creation, God knew the cost of His will to love man would be the death of His Son and is revealed in Revelation 13:8, “…Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” God committed to love man before He created him, but God knew man would reject Him. But the value of that infinite love exceeded the cost of that love at Calvary. [Johnson, p. 158.]

Throughout much of history marriage has been a ritualistic and solemn occasion between a man and woman—a highly public profession of commitment to the most private of relationships. The solemnity of the occasion arises from the enormous magnitude and significance of the commitments—to take the marriage partner as wife or husband, to have and to hold, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part. This ceremonial language resonates with powerful sentiments that link us with prior generations since time immemorial and to an enduring and exclusive commitment to union while facing the uncertainties of life to come. The ritualism symbolically binds the families of the man and woman and attests to the importance of the unbreakable commitments of which God is both witness and participant. [Bennett, pp. 184-188; Johnson, p. 312.]

William Bennett called marital love that rests upon a foundation of unconditional commitment as “…safer, more enduring, and more empowering that any sentiment yet discovered or any human arrangement yet invented.” The reasons for such commitments arise from human nature which is rooted in creation. The humanist will argue that these things can be attained without requirements of marriage, monogamy, commitment to the permanency of relationship, and God. But such humanistic counterfeits are a weak, unsatisfying, and an imperfect imitation of a man and woman bound by unconditional commitments in marriage, “… the honorable estate, instituted by God.” [Bennett, pp. 184-188; Johnson, pp. 312-313.]

The story of the young Indian couple reminded me of commitments my wife and I made almost forty-two years ago. I had watched the young woman for several months. She was as advertised—attractive, vivacious, and had a winning personality. I was almost twenty-six, and she had just turned nineteen when I summoned the courage to ask her for a date. Three months later we were engaged. But what did I know about this young woman that would cause me to commit a lifetime to her? More importantly, what did she know of me to make such a similar commitment? [Johnson, pp. 99-100.] At our wedding a few months after our engagement, we confirmed our unconditional commitment to love each other until death do us part.

Love infused with commitment will survive the inevitable trials of life, faded youth, and cooled passions. And such love will yield bountiful rewards.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Ravi Zacharias, “Volume 4 – Establishing a Worldview,” Foundations of Apologetics, DVD Video, (Norcross, Georgia: Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, 2007).

Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods –Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 99-100, 158, 312-313.

William J. Bennett, The Broken Hearth, (New York: Doubleday, 2001), pp. 184-188.

Marriage – Part V – The Consequences of the Humanist Worldview of Marriage

Posted by :webmaster On : November 1, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Marriage

Part V examines the consequences of the decline of traditional marriage in American society as a result of the ascending humanist worldview.

Much of the material for this series has been excerpted from Ye shall be as gods which succinctly frames the opposing Christian and humanist worldviews with regard to human relationships in general and marriage specifically. [Johnson, Chapter 20, American Family – Marriage and Family.]

The family and societal carnage that occurred in America during the twentieth century and thereafter as a result of the domination of the humanist worldview is monumental and recounted in numerous studies and reports. The statistics reflecting the precipitous decline of marriage and the American family are incontrovertible and coincide almost exactly with the emergence of the Boomer generation in the mid-1960s and the rapid and accelerating ascendancy of the humanist worldview. Perhaps the signal statistic highlighting the collapse of marriage and the traditional family is the high level of births to unmarried mothers as reported in 2006: 68 percent of all black children, 45 percent of all Hispanic children, and 25 percent of all white children. [Rector, “The Collapse of Marriage and the Rise of Welfare Dependence.”]

The collapse of the traditional family is even more evident when one examines the population of women with and without spouse present. Of particular note is the dramatic twelve-fold percentage increase between 1960 and 1990 of women with children under the age of eighteen who have never married. This accounts for almost a third of all women with children under age 18 with no spouse present. For eighty years between 1880 and 1960, this figure declined from slightly over 12 percent to 2.6 percent in 1960 before the dramatic escalation to 31.6% in 1990. By the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, four out of every ten births in America were to unwed mothers. [Rector, “Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty.”]

What is also remarkable and further highlights the impact of the humanistic view of marriage is the decline in the percentage of women with children under eighteen who have a spouse present. For eighty years between 1880 and 1960, this figure was very stable at or near 90 percent before dropping to 76 percent in 1990.

In their flight from marriage, humanists promised women emancipation and fulfillment; however, the big lie produced only bondage, drudgery, and exhaustion—poverty, long hours of daily separation from their children, and the drudgery of low-paying jobs in the workforce. The seeds planted by the those promoting the humanist worldview over the decades prior to the 1960s and thereafter have born bitter fruit—illegitimacy, cohabitation, fatherlessness, divorce, and a large number of single parent families with children who are locked in a continuing cycle of neglect and poverty. When compared to homes where children were raised by married parents, children raised in homes by single parents are more likely to encounter emotional and behavioral problems, drink, smoke, use drugs, be physically abused, exhibit poor school performance and drop out, and exhibit aggressive, violent, and criminal behavior. [Rector, “The Collapse of Marriage and the Rise of Welfare Dependence.”] And in such an environment the memory of what once was or might have been is lost, and the transmission of the central vision of American culture to another generation is in peril.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan retired from the United States Senate (Democratic Senator from New York) in 2000. Near the beginning of his career he was an assistant Secretary of Labor in Lyndon Johnson’s presidency. At the time of his retirement, the senator was asked to describe the biggest change he had seen in his forty years of government service. Articulate and intellectual, the distinguished public servant, having served both Democratic and Republican presidents, replied, “The biggest change, in my judgment, is that the family structure has come apart all over the North Atlantic world” and had occurred in “an historical instant. Something that was not imaginable forty years ago had happened.” Author of the 1965 Moynihan Report officially known as “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action”, Moynihan knew that of which he spoke. [Bennett, pp. 2, 85.] Enormously controversial at the time of its release, the report continues to be a topic of debate in the twenty-first century. The report characterized the instability of the black families in America and the importance of the family unit in providing that stability.

At the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro Family. It is the fundamental source of the weakness of the Negro community at the present time…The role of the family in shaping character and ability is so pervasive as to be easily overlooked. The family is the basic social unit of American life; it is the basic socializing unit. By and large, adult conduct in society is learned as a child…the child learns a way of looking at life in his early years through which all later experience is viewed and which profoundly shapes his adult conduct. [Rainwater and Yancy, p. 3.]

Writing shortly after Moynihan’s perceptive summation of the condition of the family structure, William Bennett noted the deep concern of Americans with regard to the family. Bennett pointed to the general instability of the American family and the contributing factors such as the decline in the status and centrality of marriage in society, substantially greater percentage of out-of-wedlock births, and the significant increase in co-habitation. With the decline of social perception and necessity of matrimony, children are less valued, more neglected, more vulnerable to non-family influences, and have less resources devoted for their care and benefit. Bennett wrote that, “Public attitudes toward marriage, sexual ethics, and child-rearing have radically altered for the worse. In sum, the family has suffered a blow that has no historical precedent—and one that has enormous ramifications for American society.” [Bennett, pp. 1-2.]

Another decade has elapsed since Moynihan’s diagnosis of the disintegration of the family unit as the major modern affliction of the Western world and Bennett’s reporting of Americans’ purported concern for the survival of the family. It is no longer the problem of the black population. The deterioration of the family unit is pervasive and crosses all ethnic, socio-economic, and religious lines although the poor and disadvantaged bear a greater portion of the misery. Yet, there has been no public outcry to reverse the decline, no urgency or sense of crisis in dealing with the problem, no new series of government studies explaining the situation, and no investigative reporting or meaningful media attention regarding the most profound change in society that has had no historical precedent. Why is this so? The answer is that the solutions to reverse the decline and devastation of marriage and the family unit stand as polar opposites of the prevailing and pervasive humanistic worldview.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 316-3-17, 319-321.

Robert Rector, “The Collapse of Marriage and the Rise of Welfare Dependence,” Panel Discussion, Lecture #959, The Heritage Foundation (May 22, 2006). www.heritage.org/research/welfare/hl959.cfm (accessed September 17, 2010).

Robert Rector, “Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty,” The Heritage Foundation, September 16, 2010, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/marriage-america-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty (accessed September 21, 2010).

William J. Bennett, The Broken Hearth, (New York: Doubleday, 2001), pp. 1-2. 85.

Lee Rainwater and William L. Yancey, The Moynihan Report and the Politics of Controversy, (Cambridge Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1967), p. 3.

Marriage – Part IV – The Pathologies of the Humanist Worldview of Marriage

Posted by :webmaster On : October 25, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Marriage

Traditional marriage is in serious jeopardy in twenty-first century America. In Part IV we will examine the assault on the divine concept of marriage and the resulting pathologies of the humanist worldview of marriage and relationships.

Much of the material for this series has been excerpted from Ye shall be as gods which succinctly frames the opposing Christian and humanist worldviews with regard to human relationships in general and marriage specifically. [Johnson, Chapter 20, American Family – Marriage and Family.]

As a result of the ascending humanistic worldview, the concept of marriage as known and practiced in Western civilization since its inception has been done great damage. In the liberal view, the importance of marriage has been diminished in at least two ways. First, the humanistic worldview is based on exaltation of the individual person. The individual should be encouraged to realize his or her own creative talents and desires and exercise maximum individual autonomy. In such a worldview, marriage is far less important, a mere choice that may or may not be evidenced by a contractual relationship. And humanistic man’s laws are crafted to reflect the reduced status of marriage, e.g., no-fault divorce.

The ideal of romantic love inextricably linked with individual happiness devoid of the covenantal commitment is of recent origin and rests on the tenets of the humanist philosophy and worldview. When one examines the humanist view of marriage, it may surprise many that humanist writings have little to say with regard to marriage for the emphasis is not on a matrimonial bonding of a man and woman but the liberation of the individual. Two of the common principles of Humanist Manifesto II clearly elevate the individual as opposed to the two who shall become one flesh. These principles are:

Fifth: The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value. Individuals should be encouraged to realize their own creative talents and desires. We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality. We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility… (emphasis in original)

Sixth: In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered “evil.”…individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their life styles as they desire… [Kurtz, p. 18.]

The second way humanism deconstructs Western civilization’s concept of marriage is to redefine and marginalize traditional marriage. Marriage is no longer a union between a man and woman but now includes marriage between homosexuals in some states. Further deconstruction is on the horizon. Both houses of the 2012 California state legislature passed a bill that would allow a child to have three legal parents. The governor vetoed the bill so more time would be allowed “…to consider all implications of the change.” Other advocates are calling for the legal recognition of multiple partner relationships (polygamy). [Anderson, p. 16.]

To the average twenty-first century American, covenant marriage (See Part III) may appear impractical if not impossible amidst the swirl of a humanistic popular culture that idealizes romantic love inextricably linked with individual happiness. Most moderns hope to sail the seas of marital bliss in the flimsy craft built of fleeting emotion and temporal happiness. Marriages based on this false ideal will soon crash on the rocky shores of reality. Rather, covenant relationships are centered on steadfast or spiritual love which is far stronger and deeper than fleeting, emotion-driven romantic love. When the storms of life rage, the deep keel of a covenant marriage will keep the marital ship afloat. Certainly steadfast love contains emotional and romantic elements, but steadfast love is a choice, a way of thinking, a mindset and is best expressed in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, “Love is patient; love is kind. Love does not envy; is not boastful; is not conceited; does not act improperly; is not selfish; is not provoked; does not keep a record of wrongs; finds no joy in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.”

This last phrase brings us to our next point. The covenant marriage is intended to be a permanent relationship. We can enter into a contract with anyone. The contract may involve sex, security, status, or a hundred other clauses and may or may not include love. However, we enter into covenant relationships only with those we love. [Chapman, pp. 17-21.] Therefore, to achieve the fullness of its promise, love must be an ingredient in the covenant marriage. In Paul’s description of love in his letter to the Corinthians the careful reader will note an absence of the words important to proponents of the humanistic worldview—autonomy, independence, growth, and creativity. Faithful adherence to the words of 1 Corinthians 13 bring forth the fruit of a covenant marriage relationship. Such fruit is harvested only after the hard work of planting, weeding, and watering which is all wrapped up in one word—nurturing. Covenant marriages will involve its share of difficulties, trouble, and pain, but the harvest is worth the effort.

For humanists and their feminist fellow travelers, extolling the virtues and provisions of a covenant marriage relationship may elicit howls of contempt. As has been noted, the focus of the humanists is on the “I” and not the “we”, a message constantly conveyed and reinforced by media, government policies, the educational establishment, and popular culture. And this prevailing humanist worldview is carried into the great majority of male-female relationships regardless of type—marriage, cohabitation, or sexual promiscuity. We need not belabor these conclusions with additional explanation of the differences that are readily evident between the Judeo-Christian and humanist worldviews regarding marriage and family.

In Part V, we will examine the consequences to society of the humanistic worldview of marriage.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 314-316.

Paul Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I and II, (Amherst, Massachusetts: Prometheus Books, 1973), p. 18.

Ryan T. Anderson, “Twelve Theses on Redefining Marriage – What comes Next,” The City, Summer 2013, 16.

Gary Chapman, Covenant Marriage, (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), pp. 17- 21.

Marriage – Part III – Contract or Covenant?

Posted by :webmaster On : October 18, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Marriage

In Part III we turn our attention to the nature of marriage under the Christian and humanistic worldviews.

Much of the material for this series has been excerpted from Ye shall be as gods which succinctly frames the opposing Christian and humanist worldviews with regard to human relationships in general and marriage specifically. [Johnson, Chapter 20, American Family – Marriage and Family.]

Throughout history the marriage ceremony has been a ritualistic and solemn occasion between a man and woman—a highly public profession of commitment to the most private of relationships. The solemnity of the occasion arises from the enormous magnitude and significance of the commitments—to take the marriage partner as wife or husband, to have and to hold, for better or for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do them part. This ceremonial language resonates with powerful sentiments that link us with prior generations since time immemorial and to an enduring and exclusive commitment to union while facing the uncertainties of life to come. The ritualism symbolically binds the families of the man and woman and attests to the importance of the unbreakable commitments of which God is both witness and participant.

The reasons for such commitments arise from human nature which is rooted in creation—the need to give love and receive love, a deep longing for sexual intimacy and emotional attachment, and a desire for a home and children. The humanist will argue that these things can be attained without requirements of marriage, monogamy, commitment to the permanency of relationship, and God. But such humanistic counterfeits are a weak, unsatisfying, and an imperfect imitation of the biblical view of marriage, “… the honorable estate, instituted by God.” [Bennett, p. 188.]

Marriage orders the soul whereas sexual intimacy outside of marriage, co-habitation, divorce (apart from infidelity and willful desertion), and homosexuality (with or without benefit of a civil union) are illegitimate and therefore not heirs to that honorable estate. History and human nature attest to these assertions for according to researchers, heterosexual married life as opposed to all other similar social arrangements provides greater financial security, better health and sex, and a longer and better life. [Bennett, pp. 184-188.] Bennett called marital love that rests upon a foundation of unconditional commitment as “…safer, more enduring, and more empowering that any sentiment yet discovered or any human arrangement yet invented.” He credits these attributes to the basic complementarity of man and woman joined together as one in marital love. The complementariness of the relationship is based on the differences, not just the physical but also the emotional and psychological. As the physical differences make sexual union possible, so too do the emotional and psychological differences of the marriage partners complement and complete each other. [Bennett, pp. 186-187.] The union becomes stronger than its parts.

Do non-marital heterosexual relationships have the potential to be as strong? No, for such commitments are in conflict with human nature and cultural universals which God formed at man’s creation. Such conflicts result in disorder of the soul. However, couples that do not hold the Judeo-Christian worldview but whose marital relationships are based on the cultural universal of monogamy and commitment to the permanency of the marriage relationship between a man and woman will achieve an order of the soul and a better life insofar as it relates to their marital relationship.

Let us examine the mindset of modern marriage partners which typically falls within one of two camps. First, the vast majority view marriage as a contract which is reflective of the humanistic (horizontal or egalitarian) worldview regarding marriage. The contract mindset focuses on marriage as a mutually beneficial relationship and getting as opposed to giving. When the benefits stop flowing or hard times arise, the relationship is easily broken through divorce. The contract mentality in marriage emphasizes the details, e.g., “If you do that for me, I’ll do this for you.” In other words, the marital ledgers must always be balanced, but marriage partners often have differing views of the value of what is given and received. These differing perceptions in a marriage often result in growing resentment, hurt, anger, and ultimately divorce. [Chapman, pp. 6-10.]

The second view is that marriage is a covenant relationship. Like a contract, a covenant is an agreement between two or more parties, but that is where the similarity ends. The nature of a covenant agreement is very different from that of a contractual agreement, and the key difference is motive. The covenant relationship is the essence of the cultural universal of marriage and is uniquely expressed in Christianity. God is a covenant maker and the importance of covenant relationships is illustrated by His covenants with Moses, Abraham, David, and others throughout the Bible. Jesus Christ fulfilled the old covenant and initiated the new covenant. Rather than to receive something in return, covenants are initiated for the benefit of others, that is, to minister to another person as opposed to manipulating someone to get something. In a covenant marriage, the motive is a commitment to the well-being of the spouse.

However, it would be naïve to believe that most young couples would possess that motive and level of maturity at the time of the marriage ceremony. Rather, covenant marriages are grown and strengthened through the years. If couples commit to covenant marriages and recognize the covenant relationship requires nurturing during the difficult times, those marriages will far more likely endure than contract marriages based on a cash register/accounts receivable ledger mentality. In a covenant relationship, the promises made are not conditional but open-ended, that is, the promise or commitment is not conditioned on reciprocal behavior. There are no “If…then” clauses in covenant marriage vows. [Chapman, pp. 11-16.]

In Part IV we will examine the assault on the divine concept of marriage and the pathologies of marriage and relationships under the dominant humanistic worldview. In Part V, we will examine the consequences of the humanistic worldview of marriage on society.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 312-314.

William J. Bennett, The Broken Hearth, (New York: Doubleday, 2001), pp.184-188.

Gary Chapman, Covenant Marriage, (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), pp. 6-16.