The Covenant of Marriage

In this day and time the biblical view of marriage along with traditional family values is increasingly under attack both from outside and within Christianity. Many Evangelicals no longer view marriage as convenantal but merely as a legal transaction between two parties. Admittedly, the Protestant view no longer views marriage as a sacrament where God mysteriously works his grace in binding together a man and a woman. However, the covenantal view is no less serious than the sacramental view.

God is also a part of a Christian marriage when marriage is viewed as a covenant. In fact, there are three parties involved in a Christian marriage--God, the man and the woman. When marriage is seen as merely a transactional agreement between two parties the door is opened for serial marriage as the norm for the marriage relationship. Some Evangelicals have accommodated themselves to an easy divorce social norm in modern culture, ignoring the biblical mandate that marriage is supposed to last for a lifetime. Jesus even said that remarriage without scriptural grounds constitutes adultery.

The fact of the matter is that modern Evangelicals are as guilty as liberals of reading their own views back into Scripture to justify their own views. Unfortunately, it seems that society is dictating mores and norms for Evangelicalism at least as much as Scripture itself. No longer is remarriage seen as potentially an adulterous situation. Some so-called Evangelicals are even advocating gay marriage.

If marriage is merely a social contract and not a covenant with God, then we might as well go the whole nine yards and accept common law marriage and gay marriage. Marriage is supposed to be sacred and holy not common and profane. Some even have the idea that having sex is a form of marriage apart from making vows and legal contracts. The devaluation of men as fathers and leaders in the home is leading to an extreme form of feminism and egalitarianism that is not found in the Bible. The idea that women should be ordained is nowhere to be found in the Bible, yet Evangelicals seem to think that an argument from silence is a strong one on this point. The truth is that Evangelicals want to ordain women merely because that is the prevailing cultural view at this point.

But my question is whether or not we should follow the world merely because the Bible does not explicitly forbid ordination of women? This artificial egalitarianism has led to the devaluation of Christian marriage as a sacred covenant and to easy divorce. I think it also has ties to the overemphasis on domestic violence as a means of women rebelling against their husbands and destroying the traditional family unit. Of course, if there is real abuse, there should be intervention. But this does not mean the woman has the biblical grounds for a divorce. Neither does it mean that she has the right to remarry. In the majority of cases it is the wife who wants the divorce and many times it is because she wishes to marry another suitor or wants to look for another husband later.

Divorce implies this very thing. Freedom from the bonds of marriage means the freedom to remarry according to societal standards. But our question ought to be, "What does the Bible teach on this subject?"

If we're going to throw out marriage as a lifelong convenant, then we might as well throw out the baby, too. Marriage has become merely a disposable relationship like any other commodity to be traded and exchanged at will. If marriage can be dissolved for any and every reason, what is the point in the first place? Men and women might as well just have temporary relationships and move on when they are tired of one another. Nevermind that there is no security in old age or no security for any children who are born of the union.

Christians are no longer under the law as a means of salvation. But the law does tell us what God expects of us as Christians and how we are to live. We often fail and fall short. However, God is merciful and forgiving. But this does not mean we ought to throw out the covenant of marriage simply because we often fail. The goal remains the same--we ought to be faithful to God and to our spouse.

The Bush Legacy

It is becoming increasingly apparent to most of us that President Bush has become not only a lame duck president, as the far left predicted, but also a president without a plan. The war in Iraq was supposed to be a short one with a quick victory, a new government quickly established, and a hasty American withdrawal. That has not materialized. I was personally hoping the President could pull it off. But now we are hearing from Condoleeza Rice that we could have troops in Iraq for another ten years or more. I think the best thing we as Americans can do is to begin plans for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. We should provide diplomatic support for the new government but an American military presence is not wanted by most Iraqis.

Additionally, the economy is on the decline, albeit that is not completely the President's fault since we had several major hurricanes, including Katrina. But the budget deficit is higher than it has been in years. Even Clinton managed to balance the budget. What happened to all that Republican fire to balance the budget? Even though I like the idea of tax cuts, it has become obvious to me that the biggest cuts went to the wealthy. Bush's plan to jumpstart the economy appeared to work for awhile but now it seems to be dead in the water. Interest rates are climbing and economic growth is stagnating.

Finally, what will be President George W. Bush's legacy? The major push by socially conservative Christians to elect a president who would appoint Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U.S. Constitution rather than legislate liberal law from the bench may have questionable results. Like Bush, Sr., Bush, Jr. might have appointed two justices who may turn out to be liberals in the closet. Let's not forget Reagan's ill chosen appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor who turned out to be a justice favoring the murder of the unborn. Likewise, David Souter, Bush, Sr.'s appointment, turned out to be liberal and a justice of death.

For those of us who voted for President Bush the only redemption for his presidency at this point would be the overturning Roe v. Wade or else a severe restriction on abortion. I had great hopes for the Bush presidency. I can only hope and pray that things change for the better before the end of his term.

Is Evangelicalism On the Decline?

From all appearances, Evangelicalism as a renewal movement among Protestants may be on the decline. Several factors contributing to this situation include the church growth emphasis on downplaying doctrine and focusing on pragmatic needs of people, the decline of Evangelical seminaries toward more liberal views on theological and moral issues, and a lessened commitment to Holy Scripture as the apex of authority.

I could point out some particular cases in point that are indicators of this decline in Evangelical commitment to divine revelation and propositional truth. Billy Graham and George Barna seem to think the Protestant Reformation never happened since both include Roman Catholics among Evangelicals. John Stott, the famous Anglican Evangelical, has sided with liberal Anglicanism in declaring that eternal punishment in hell does not exist.

It remains to be seen if the new Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, has truly been converted to Christ or if she is merely one of those having a form of godliness but who lacks the power and the truth thereof. When we find out her position on the murder of unborn children and of the elderly and the infirm, then we will know how effectively independent Evangelical churches are doing their job in discipling and catechizing new converts. I might point out that President George W. Bush may need further discipling and catechizing in the Christian faith himself. We can only hope and pray that he knows what's he is doing by nominating Miss Harriet Miers.

Neo-Evangelicals on the far left present another problem. Fuller Theological Seminary, for example, no longer holds to the verbal plenary view of the inspiration of Holy Scripture. Certain professors at Fuller, including Marguerite Shuster and the deceased Paul K. Jewett, are or were advocating homosexuality as a valid lifestyle for Christians and are or were in favor of the ordination of homosexuals. Some professors at Asbury Theological Seminary, such as Old Testament professor Lawson Stone, deny that Genesis 1-11 constitutes biblical history.

Within the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement there is no longer a solid commitment to propositional truth or Holy Scripture as the final authority in matters of faith and practice, thus experience takes over as the authority. Such heterodox ideas have sometimes led to outright heresies such as the denial of the trinity by Oneness Pentecostals. Amazingly, Oneness Pentecostals are now considered "Christian" and a legitimate church by the majority of Pentecostal/Charismatic scholars who are members of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, including Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. However, Evangelicals, like the Reformers who preceded them, have always held that Holy Scripture teaches the doctrine of the trinity and that such doctrine is non-negotiable and essential to the Christian faith. The Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed all summarize the doctrine of the trinity because the church believed and should still believe that Holy Scripture itself teaches the doctrine of the trinity.

Evangelicalism has also weakened on the issue of justification by faith alone. While Billy Graham teaches and preaches this doctrine, he has included Roman Catholics as believers despite the fact that the Roman Catholic Church still officially condemns the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Anyone who can read the canons of the Council of Trent can see this for themselves.

It has been said that the church which will stand for nothing will fall for anything. It is true that sound and orthodox doctrine alone does not make an individual a Christian. The demons know sound doctrine well, for example. However, the opposite is also true. Not knowing sound doctrine is a sign of ignorance of the most basic tenets of the Christian faith. A church which does not understand the essentials of the Christian faith is a synagogue of Satan and no church at all.

The trouble with Evangelicalism as a whole is that it has become too pragmatic. Simply living a good moral life will not make someone a Christian. A church which has reduced doctrine to moral living and getting along with one another has forgotten its reason for being. Essential to the Christian message, the Gospel, is both right living and right doctrine. The two are inseparably connected. The Evangelical church can no longer afford to pretend that doctrine is not that important.

It is also true that Christianity is a relationship with the living God. But in stating this we ought to acknowledge that this implies a mystical experience with God. Such experiences are useless without the propositional truth related to us in objective form in God's written Word. Jesus said, "Ye must be born again" (John 3:7). Evangelicalism finds itself in a quandary here. While reason and tradition are part of the way the church understands its place in history and in the contemporary culture, Holy Scripture must be the final authority. The paradox, however, is that Holy Scripture must be interpreted. Despite the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, there are still major and minor doctrinal disputes within Evangelicalism.

If conservative Christianity is to survive, Evangelicals are going to have to find a way to stop the erosion of Biblical truth and Biblical morality within its own ranks. Capitulating to liberalism in hopes of gaining intellectual and academic credibility has been a major failure. Instead Evangelicals need to be better than the liberals at everything they do.

Harriet Miers?

Those of us on the conservative side of things pray that Harriet Miers has the convictions that the majority of conservative Christians have about abortion. While it is true that abortion and euthanasia are not the only issues that Christians are concerned about, they are the issues on the forefront for most of us.

We can only hope and pray that Harriet Miers shares the views of the church she attends and the views of the President for whom she has served as an attorney. These days only persons of great courage and fortitude are willing to risk all to stand against the politically correct position that it is somehow permissible to abort or kill an unborn child. This is a particularly heinous crime against humanity when the child is in the second or even third trimester of development. Fully 1% of children aborted are in the third trimester of their development.

Even more horrible, most of them are viable outside the womb. How many children in one year are third trimester casualties? If we go by 1996 or 1997 figures, there were about 1, 397,000 abortions and if we go by the 1% figure that would mean that 1,397 infants were aborted in the third trimester. That means that a huge portion of these infants were viable outside the womb, making the liberal left schizophrenic at best.

How long can this country continue to ignore the holocaust which goes on year after year here? I can only begin to imagine the wrath of God agains such atrocities. May God grant us the grace to repent before it is too late.

Religious Pluralism Makes Religion Merely Symbolic According to CBS News

"When states do not officially support religions, the only recognition they can offer is symbolic, which is easily extended to all religions."

The reasoning behind articles such at the one mentioned above is so full of logical fallacies that the mind is boggled that its authors would think a rational person would buy it as factual or even objective. Opinion pieces often function or pretend to be objective fact reporting in the mainstream media but this one is beyond a doubt the most absurd thing I have ever read.

First of all, when it suits the purposes of the media they brag about how "liberated" the Europeans are compared to the United States where Christian fundamentalism rules the private sector. Reading the statistics, church attendance and genuine religious devotion is down in most European countries, despite the lack of separation of church and state. Yet, we are told, Europeans somehow are more discriminating against immigrants with other religious commitments besides Christianity. What the authors of the article neglect to mention is that most of the state sponsored churches are not fundamentalist or "Evangelical" in the conservative Christian vein of most privately run American churches. So you would think these state run churches would be more "tolerant" than those stupid fundamentalists the authors imply are behind the attempt to make the United States a "Christian nation."

In fact, the article makes the point for us all the more clear. The principle of separation of church and state has worked in the favor of Christian fundamentalism AND Islamic fundamentalism, too. Have the authors never heard of the Nation of Islam and other black nationalist groups that claim to be Islamic? It seems to me that the article in question is just one huge red herring having little to do with the causes or effects of Islamic fundamentalism in particular and religious fundamentalism in general.

What most conservative Christians here in the United States are advocating is not a state funded religion or church denomination at all. Rather, conservative Christians are calling for a return to the pre-1950's religious toleration which allowed for religious expression in the public arena without interference from the government. That would include generalized Christian prayers like the Lord's prayer and prayers before a football or baseball game. I hardly think that constituted state sponsored religion then any more than it would now. A state sponsored religion, on the other hand, would make it illegal for other religions to operate without a permit. A state sponsored religion would have churches and ministers on the government payroll.

The fact of the matter is we have as much discrimination against immigrants here as any other modern country in the world. But it is not because of religion but because of economic disparities and cultural barriers that are present in European countries as well.

The real issue for the liberal authors of the article is to do everything in their power to marginalize the Christian voting block and to proclaim a propaganda which undermines traditional family values and Christian morality. They wish to make religion merely a matter of private practice and "merely symbolic" because the authors infer that all religions are in fact man made and not one of them is true or originating from divine revelation.

However, this view cannot be true unless all religions really are false. Christians and other conservatives of various religions all make contradictory truth claims and the most of them believe that their own religion is the one true religion. The writers of this op-ed piece are offering another view--all religions are false and "merely symbolic." This is in fact why they can push for the normative practice of homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, open marriage, and abortion without so much as batting an eye. They do not believe there is an Almighty God to whom we must all answer some day.

The one thing that the religious tolerance and pluralism of the extreme left cannot tolerate is a religion that actually believes it is the only one that is correct, right, and true. So much for religious tolerance.

The fact that the Christian voting bloc is exercising its muscle for the first time in substantial numbers has the left worried that they will not automatically have the upper hand in the public arena anymore. This would mean that Christianity and other religions with a metaphysical view would actually get to have intelligent design, apart from any particular denominational or religious endorsements, taught as a viable option in the public school arena.

It might mean that conservative religions (even those which are not specifically Christian) which oppose abortion and euthanasia might be able to get Roe v. Wade overturned. As far as I know, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, conservative Muslims, and other "non-Christian" religions all oppose abortion. This is a fact that those blurring the issues behind an alleged "state" sponsored religion cannot bring themselves to acknowledge. For example, in the United Kingdom the established religion is Anglicanism. That is a particular brand of Protestant Christianity. Evangelicals here in the United States do not want a particular denomination of Christianity to have the advantage of state taxes to support its financial needs.

What it really comes down to in practical terms is that the authors of the article want to establish "non-religion" or "secular humanism" as the state sponsored religion of the United States. Ironically, the heavy handed left wants to make the U.S. essentially like the materialistic communist countries of the cold war era where religion is highly regulated by the state and relegated merely to the private arena where it has no voice in the democratic operations of the country. If the left could have their way, religion would become emasculated, forgotten, historic and not genuine--pretty much the situation in Europe right now. And that, by the way, is the vacuum which leaves room for Islamic fundamentalism to gain a foothold, offering a poor substitute for genuine and true religion.

There is only one true religion and that is Christianity. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father but by Him. (John 14:6). That, however, does not mean that no other religion should have the freedom to exist or to exercise its beliefs here. The principle of religious pluralism means that all persons have a right to freely assemble to practice their religion. But this does not mean that all religions are equally true. Neither does it mean that Christianity in general should not receive a privileged place in American society since it has been so since the beginning of this nation both in colonial days and after the revolution.

Christianity is the very fabric and foundation of western democracy and of western scientific and technological advances. Why atheists and religious liberals think they should have an automatic upper hand and state establishment of anti-religious philosophies and ideologies is beyond me. Christians everywhere should continue to unite and to battle the secular humanists until we gain the victory over them. This is not the time to become complacent. Now is the time to press forward for domination in the public and political arena. Let freedom ring everywhere and may God have all the glory when the godless are defeated in the political realm.

• For Our Country.
  ALMIGHTY God, who hast given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of thy favour and glad to do thy will. Bless our land with honourable industry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion; from pride and arrogancy, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitudes brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues. Endue with the spirit of wisdom those to whom in thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that, through obedience to thy law, we may show forth thy praise among the nations of the earth. In the time of prosperity, fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in thee to fail; all which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
• 1928 Book of Common Prayer

Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Those of us who voted for President George W. Bush for both terms were a bit disappointed that he gave the liberal left ammunition to use against his administration when he did not obtain adequate intelligence about weapons of mass destruction before going to war in Iraq for a regime change. According to the principles of just war a nation must have overwhelming evidence that national and world peace are at stake before entering into a war. It seems to me that President Bush, while sincere in his war against terrorism, did not go the extra mile in making sure there was adequate support for the existence of weapons of mass destruction by the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.

Granted, Bush should be granted the benefit of the doubt because just prior to that we had the worst terrorist attack this nation has ever experienced when two Saudi Arabian nationals, who were members of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization, flew two fully fueled 747 commercial airliners into each of the twin towers of the World Trade Center, destroying both. But this would be to let the President off too lightly. War is a serious endeavor and has worldwide ramifications for both national security and for foreign relations and policy. Essentially, because the war had a false justification to begin with and because the promised exit time keeps getting pushed back due to the difficulties of establishing a self-sufficient democratic government, Bush has been mostly a lame duck president in his second term.

But the angry liberal left had promised to undercut any bipartisanship that the President attempted because they were bitter about losing the both elections after running their two golden boys, Gore and Kerry. The combination of Bush's unfulfilled promises of bipartisan cooperation, the mismanaged war effort, and the lack of justification for the war initially has made for a Bush legacy that will be mixed at best.

Mostly, the greatest advantage for social conservatives is Bush's appointment of two Supreme Court justices, including the new Chief Justice John Roberts. It remains to be seen whether John Roberts, and whoever the other Bush nomination is, will indeed be willing to overturn or at least restrict abortion rights under Roe v. Wade. All we know at present is that Roberts has promised not to legislate from the bench. It is indeed humorous that Democrats do not want conservatives to be proactive from the bench, while at the same time advocating major innovations in social structure and the traditional family from the judicial branch and the legislative branch of government.

My only hope and prayer for the Bush administration is that the President will regain a strong focus and purpose for what he has promised to accomplish and that he can overcome the blatant partisanship of the extreme left and the far right. May God grant this nation the grace to steer a steady course between a rock and a hard place.

• A Prayer for The President of the United States, and all in Civil Authority.
• 
  O Lord, our heavenly Father, the high and mighty Ruler of the universe, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwe llers upon earth; Most heartily we beseech thee, with thy favour to behold and bless thy servant, George W. Bush, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and all others in authority; and so replenish them with the grace of thy Holy Spirit, that they may always incline to thy will, and walk in thy way. Endue them plenteously with heavenly gifts; grant them in health and prosperity long to live; and finally, after t his life, to attain everlasting joy and felicity; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
• 
  A Prayer for all Conditions of Men.
• O God, the Creator and Preserver of all mankind, we humbly beseech thee for all sorts and conditions of men; that t hou wouldest be pleased to make thy ways known unto them, thy saving health unto all nations. More especially we pray for thy holy C hurch universal; that it may be so guided and governed by thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may b e led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life. Finally, we commend to thy fatherly goodness all those who are any ways afflicted, or distressed, in mind, body, or estate; that it may please t hee to comfort and relieve them, according to their several necessities; giving them patience under their sufferings, and a happy is sue out of all their afflictions. And this we beg for Jesus Christ's sake. Amen.
• From the 1928 Book of Common Prayer