The Character of Your Marriage is Built in 10,000 Little Moments

Paul Tripp- What he has learned through marriage from Crossway on Vimeo.

HT: Vitamin Z

Cravings, Conflict, and Marriage

Conflicts are to be expected in marriage. But why do they happen in even the most mature marriages?

At a recent monthly gathering with the Pastors College students and their wives, C.J. abbreviated his sermon on James 4:1–3 and shared a recent example of how the passage protected his marriage from conflict during a date night.

Listen to C.J.’s 7-minute message here:

Cravings, Conflict, and Marriage

C.J. Mahaney

Dec. 4, 2009

7 minutes

Download here (7.9 MB)

HT: C.J. Mahaney

Proverbs: Marriage

Mark Driscoll preaches on the topic of marriage from the book of Proverbs.

HT: Mars Hill Church

New Study on the Effects of Pornography

A new study done by Patrick F. Fagan examines the effects of pornography on individuals, marriage, family and community. Fagan is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Research on Marriage and Religion at the Family Research Council. He specializes in examining the relationships among family, marriage, religion, community, and America's social problems. This study is important for everyone to read as it demonstrates that it has damaging effects on individuals and families.

In the summary Fagan explains:

Pornography is a visual representation of sexuality which distorts an individual's concept of the nature of conjugal relations. This, in turn, alters both sexual attitudes and behavior. It is a major threat to marriage, to family, to children and to individual happiness. In undermining marriage it is one of the factors in undermining social stability.

Social scientists, clinical psychologists, and biologists have begun to clarify some of the social and psychological effects, and neurologists are beginning to delineate the biological mechanisms through which pornography produces its powerful negative effects.

The Valiant Wife of Proverbs 31

Recently Joshua Harris preached from Proverbs 31, highlighting four characteristics of the valiant woman, in order of importance:

She fears the Lord.
She gives her life away.
She is capable.
She is influential.

Options:
• Listen online or download an mp3 of the message.
• Download a summary outline in PDF format.
• Use the following questions prepared by Don Devries to reflect on how to apply the message to your life.

1. A godly woman knows and fears the Lord. Is there anything you are living for--personal success, a husband, your children, etc.--more than you are living for God and His Kingdom?

2. Josh taught us that the Proverbs 31 woman is capable. How can this chapter stir godly ambitions for the Lord?

3. As Josh taught, the Proverbs 31 woman gives her life away. Is there need around you that the Lord is calling you to help meet?

4. Concerning godly womanhood, are you following what the world values or are you valuing what God says is praiseworthy?

5. In what one Proverbs 31 quality would you like to grow?

6. Men, how can you encourage, cherish and honor the values of womanhood described in Proverbs 31?

HT: Joshua Harris

What if He Won't Lead?

This past Sunday we explored the issue of submission in marriage from Ephesians 5. The text is clear that a man should lead in his home and is responsible for the spiritual growth of his wife and children, but how should a wife should respond if her husband won't lead?

To begin with, her concept of leadership might be different from what the Bible teaches. Leadership doesn’t have one specific form. So her husband might be leading, and she just doesn’t like the way he leads. She wants him to lead another way. In that case it’s not a leadership problem, it’s a submission problem.

But assuming he’s really not leading, she needs to examine herself and be sure she’s not just automatically stepping into the leadership role. This might lead him to not feel the need to lead. He might step up if she weren’t already filling that space. Instead, her first step should be to lovingly, respectfully, and submissively share her concerns with him and give him the chance to lead. If he still won’t lead, she can lead her children. And she can do all she can to grow in godliness herself. Women don’t need leaders (this thought implies an inequality between men and women, with women being inferior). Instead, God’s direction is that in marriage, men ought to lead. There’s a world of difference here. His failure to lead isn’t holding her back spiritually. She can grow and develop and be complete in Jesus without his leadership. But she should not try to lead her husband. Her role is to submit, even if he won’t lead.

Joshua Harris: Learning to Love Correction

Learning To Love Correction from Covenant Life Church on Vimeo.

50 Crucial Questions About Manhood and Womanhood

John Piper and Wayne Grudem address central concerns about manhood and womanhood from a Biblical perspective. read or download this book for free here.

John Piper says, This is the booklet I return to most often in dealing with the knotty issues of manhood and womanhood in ministry."

HT:Desiring God

Do You Agree with the Ruling Supporting Gay “Marriage” in Iowa?

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register Poll on this issue has been hacked. At approx 2:15 this afternoon the counts were Y=9824 27% N=26169 73% It appears the poll has been hacked and the Y vote is now growing by several hundred per second. The N vote was as high as 76% at one pint prior to 2:15.

As of this morning, 1,200+ marriage licenses have been issued to gay and lesbian couples from across my home state of Iowa (actually at least 26 of those licenses were issued to couples from outside of Iowa ... I guess now Iowa does have a tourism industry). What do you think of the Iowa Supreme Court's decision to "legalize" gay "marriage" (I say "legalize," because the ruling does not make gay marriage legal in Iowa because the people of Iowa have not been allowed to vote on the issue ... and before citing examples like slavery and the right of woman to vote, I suggest to read your history on those issues ... the American people did in fact vote on those issues ... and I say "marriage" because no man-made law can or will ever change the definition of marriage anymore than a man-made law can or will change the definition of what an apple is. Marriage, like an apple, is a specific entity, intended for a specific purpose, and no law can change these facts)? Let your voice on this issue be heard here.

Gay "Marriage" Has Arrived in the Heartland

By Voddie Bauchman

In a shocking unanimous decision, Iowa’s Supreme Court joined the ranks of states like California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut in declaring that homosexuals have a Constitutional “right” to marry. While the cases on the coast are alarming enough, the idea of a state in America’s heartland falling prey to the sodomy lobby is almost unthinkable. That is, until you understand the philosophical underpinnings of such decisions and the cultural trajectory we are currently witnessing. Remember, Iowa was the first state to signal to the rest of America that Barack Obama (among the most radically pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, neo-Marxist candidates ever to run for the office of President) really had a shot to win it all.

The judges who made this decision are products of the same culture that produced President Obama. A closer look at their decision reveals the kind of reasoning they employed. Their decision is rife with emotion, question-begging logic, and legal precedents that will leave the polygamists, polyamorists, and pedophiles jumping for joy. I know there are those who consider such arguments “red herrings” that have nothing to do with the case at hand, but Elizabeth F. Emens of the University of Chicago School of Law would beg to differ. Read her paper, “MONOGAMY’S LAW: COMPULSORY MONOGAMY AND POLYAMOROUS EXISTENCE” and try to convince yourself that we are not on a slippery slope (one Emens embraces gladly). You may also want to read Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.

Though I am not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), I do read the law. I read briefs, decisions, dissenting opinions, and I have been known to refer to my copy of “Blackstone” now and again. Nevertheless, the law was never meant to be mysterious. It doesn’t take a lawyer to read and understand the decision these seven men and women made in Iowa. Moreover, it does not take a law degree to know that their philosophical presuppositions are not only erroneous, but dangerous.

*Note: There is far too much in the decision to cover in a blog. Please read the decision here.

ERROR #1: HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE

Right off the bat the Iowa decision jumps on the “Gay is the New Black” bandwagon. They followed the logic of leading homosexual advocates who argue that homosexuality is not only a “Civil Rights” issue; it is morally equivalent to blackness. As a black man, I am insulted by this line of reasoning. As a thinking man, I am amused. However, as an Constitution-loving American, I am frightened when I see it in legal decisions. The Iowa Supreme Court argued:

In the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa, In re Ralph, 1 Morris 1 (Iowa 1839), we refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions. 1 Morris at 9. This decision was seventeen years before the United States Supreme Court infamously decided Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1856), which upheld the rights of a slave owner to treat a person as property. Similarly, in Clark v. Board of Directors, 24 Iowa 266 (1868), and Coger v. North West. Union Packet Co., 37 Iowa 145 (1873), we struck blows to the concept of segregation long before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). Iowa was also the first state in the nation to admit a woman to the practice of law, doing so in 1869. Admission of Women to the Bar, 1 Chicago Law Times 76, 76 (1887). Her admission occurred three years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois’ decision to deny women admission to the practice of law.

Notice all the references to “Civil Rights” cases. Notice also that their argument begs the question! They do not ‘prove’ that homosexuality is a Civil Rights issue; they assume it. There is no Constitutional Right to sodomy. Moreover, homosexuals are not deprived of their Civil Rights in marriage, because they have the same rights in that regard as every American. That’s right... HOMOSEXUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY! What they don’t have the right to is same-sex marriage. This, however, is not a right, but a definition. Hence, the court addressed the wrong issue. Listen to the emotion and philosophical presupposition in the argument:

It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual.

Incredible! The Supreme Court of Iowa is basing its opinion on what is “unappealing to a gay or lesbian person.” This is not jurisprudence; this is social engineering. Unfortunately, the court knows that most people will never read their decision, and those who do are so awash in the relativism of the culture that they will not recognize the overreach. What’s worse, most people will view the court’s action as heroic and liberating. But wait... there’s more:

Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation.

In other words, a right that you cannot enjoy is no right at all. Imagine this phrase applied to other sexual deviants. “Thus, the right of a [pedophile] under the marriage statute to enter a civil marriage only with a person [of legal age] is no right at all.” This is utterly absurd. However, we have been so inundated with the “Gay=Black” mantra that most people don’t even blink. What happens when the polyamorists wear us down?

This is a hallmark of the homosexual lobby. Just say it enough and people will begin to believe it. We have judges in Iowa who have said that a persons behavior (homosexual sodomy) is equivalent to a person’s ethnicity. By the way, Michael Steele, the new head of the RNC, made the same argument in his interview with GQ Magazine. This is an echo of the statement of Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, who said:

African Americans... were the only Americans who were enslaved for two centuries, but we were far from the only Americans suffering discrimination then and now,” Bond said. “Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn’t change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable.  (Ertha Melzer, “NAACP chair says ‘gay rights are civil rights’, ”Washington Blade, Apr. 08, 2005)

The justices have clearly been influenced by this type of thinking. They even refer to “sexual orientation” as an “immutable characteristic” later in the decision. I am sure there are thousands of “Ex-Gays” who would be glad to testify on this point. However, I would venture to say the ‘verdict’ was in on this issue long before there was any testimony. The Justices are making law based on the assumption that homosexual sodomy is a Civil Right.

My blackness is an immutable characteristic; homosexual sodomy is not. There is no established, irrefutable evidence that people are born homosexual. Even if such evidence existed, it would no more make homosexual sodomy acceptable than a domestic violence gene would make brutality against women acceptable. Additionally, comparing homosexual marriage to so-called inter-racial marriage (a term I reject since though there are many ethnicities, there is but one race finding its origin in Adam) is an absolute farce. Loving v. Virginia, for example, was not about a re-definition of marriage. Instead, it was a recognition of the fact that black men and white men (like black women and white women) are essentially the same. Therefore, denying a black man and a white woman (or vise versa) the right to marry is truly denying a god-given, unalienable. This was a recognition of the manhood of black men and the womanhood of black women as image-bearers of the Most High God. Marriage itself did not have to change as a result of the Loving decision.

ERROR #2: HOMOSEXUALS ARE AN OPPRESSED CLASS OF PEOPLE

One of the most sinister arguments in the homosexual activists arsenal is the idea that homosexuals are an oppressed “class” of people. In essence, the homosexual lobby has convinced seemingly intelligent people that the revulsion some people feel when confronted with unnatural, demeaning, health-destroying sexual acts (God calls it an abomination) makes the performers of those acts an oppressed minority. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen planted the seeds for this strategy in their 1989 book, After the Ball. They wrote:

AIDS, though a loose cannon, is a cannon indeed. As cynical as it may seem, AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America’s special protection and care. (Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ‘90s, New York: Doubleday, 1989. p. xxv)

It appears the After the Ball strategy has worked like a charm. The homosexual activists campaign for “victimized minority” status appears to be the blueprint for the Iowa decision. The decision reads:

So, today, this court again faces an important issue that hinges on our definition of equal protection. This issue comes to us with the same importance as our landmark cases of the past. The same-sex-marriage debate waged in this case is part of a strong national dialogue centered on a fundamental, deep-seated, traditional institution that has excluded, by state action, a particular class of Iowans. This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?

Note again the question-begging logic. How did homosexual sodomy get “class” status? I wonder if the Justices consider the members of NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association... Motto: Eight is Too Late) a “class of people” whose grievances need to be addressed under the equal protection clause. How is homosexual sodomy different from other forms of aberrant sexual behavior? Where does the logic of this argument end? The decision reads the Iowa Constitution in a manner that strains credulity:

The foundational principle of equal protection is expressed in article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution, which provides: “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

Somehow I don’t think the framers of the Iowa Constitution who wrote, “WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the State of Iowa”, ever envisioned those with a predilection for deviant sexual acts when they penned the equal protection clause. Moreover, Iowa had anti sodomy laws at its founding, and a statute in 1892 that read, “Any person who shall commit sodomy, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not more than ten years nor less than one year.” (Laws of Iowa 1892, page 66, ch. 39, enacted Mar. 26, 1892) How then do the current Justices find room to redefine marriage in this statute? They don’t! They simply made it up.

ERROR #3: HOMOSEXUALS ARE ALREADY ‘BEING’ MARRIED... WE’RE JUST MAKING IT LEGAL

The third major error in the Iowa decision is their unfortunate assumption that the existence of quasi-marital relationships among homosexuals serves to support the idea of legitimizing such relationships.

Therefore, with respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons. Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships, many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for heterosexual couples. Society benefits, for example, from providing same- sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples.

This statement raises a number of important questions. How do the Justices know that the plaintiffs’ relationships were committed and loving? How does a same-sex couple raise children “just like heterosexual couples” if they do not have the same male/female makeup? Can a mother function ‘exactly’ like a father? Can a father fulfill all the roles of a mother? Is the law in the business of defining love? What legal standard did the Justices use to define commitment? If one of these couples experienced adultery, separation, or divorce, would that have change the decision? If so, then the law is purely situational and there is no longer an objective standard. If not, then the statement is superfluous and has no place in a legal decision.

I’m amazed at how far the Justices have moved away from the practice of law. These men and women are engaging in social engineering from the bench. And, as with the aforementioned errors, this point would have catastrophic implications if applied to other sexual deviants. For example, wouldn’t legalizing polyamory go a long way toward “provid[ing] an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for [monogamous] couples”?

Unfortunately, most Christians have no idea how to think about, let along reason through and respond to these things. Moreover, the legal profession has been duped most people into believing that the law is so beyond the average person that we need not try to understand it. However, these statements are crystal clear. They are also not law. This is a clear overreach. The Homosexual lobby has co-opted the print and television media, universities, law schools, legislatures, and the courts. This was the plan Kirk and Madsen laid out in After the Ball:

The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising. (Kirk & Madsen)

It appears their campaign has been successful not only on the coasts, but throughout the country. Who would have thought the midwest would fall like this? Even if Kirk and Madsen envisioned this happening, it was only in their wildest dreams.

HT: Voddie Bauchman

The Purpose of Clothing

In the second of a series of message on the topic of marriage, John Piper turned his attention, briefly, to the issue of clothing, for men and women.

Take a minute or two to read and digest what Piper says in the following excerpt from his sermon manuscript. You can read, watch or listen to the sermon here.

What does it mean that God clothed Adam and Eve? Was he confirming their hypocrisy? Was he aiding and abetting their pretense? If they were naked and shame-free before the Fall, and if they put on clothes to minimize their shame after the Fall, then what is God doing by clothing them even better than they can clothe themselves? I think the answer is that he is doing something with a negative message and something with a positive message.

Then God Clothed Them

Negatively, he is saying: You are not what you were and you are not what you ought to be. The chasm between what you are and what you ought to be is huge. Covering yourself with clothing is a right response to this—not to conceal it, but to confess it. Henceforth, you shall wear clothing, not to conceal that you are not what you should be, but to confess that you are not what you should be. One practical implication of this is that public nudity today is not a return to innocence but rebellion against moral reality. God ordains clothes to witness to the glory we have lost, and it is added rebellion to throw them off.

And for those who rebel in the other direction and make clothes themselves a means of power and prestige and attention getting, God’s answer is not a return to nudity but a return to simplicity (1 Timothy 2:9-10). Clothes are not meant to make people think about what is under them. Clothes are meant to direct attention to what is not under them: Arms and hands that serve others in the name of Christ, “beautiful” feet that carry the gospel to where it is needed, and the brightness of a face that has beheld the glory of Jesus.

HT: The Rebelution