Learn something from Canada

Hundreds of Canadians have faced legal proceedings over same-sex marriage:

Michael Coren, writing for the National Review Online, said:

“Once gay marriage becomes law, critics are often silenced by the force of the law. The Canadian litany of pain, firings, and social and political polarization and extremism is extraordinary and lamentable, and we haven’t even begun to experience the mid and long-term results of this mammoth social experiment. I seldom say it, but for goodness’ sake, learn something from Canada.”

Canadian Crackdown

A considered and empathetic opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with phobia or hatred, but that doesn’t stop Christians, conservatives, and anybody else who doesn’t take the fashionable line from being condemned as Neanderthals and bigots. This is a lesson that Canadians have learned from painful experience.

The Gay Divorcees

Announcing the results of his long-term “evolution” on the subject last week, President Obama revived the debate over gay marriage. In the widespread discussion, however, there is one question that’s rarely asked: How interested are gay couples in getting married?

Heretofore at least, the answer seems to be “not really.” Since 1997, when Hawaii became the first state in the union to allow reciprocal-beneficiary registration for same-sex couples, 19 states and the District of Columbia have granted some form of legal recognition to the relationships of same-sex couples. These variants include marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and reciprocal-beneficiary relationships; and the most recent U.S. Census data reveal that, in the last 15 years, only 150,000 same-sex couples have elected to take advantage of them.

In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved. In Sweden, the divorce risk for male-male partnerships is 50 percent higher than for heterosexual marriages, and the divorce risk for female partnerships is nearly double that for men. 

Is Gay Parenting Bad for the Kids?

This contention — that homosexual parenting is either neutral or better than traditional family structures — has found its way into our academic, legal, and cultural conversation and is rarely questioned. Hence the Ninth Circuit’s declaration: “Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful, and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”

Ultimately, Mark Regnerus set out to answer the question of whether children who have parents in a same-sex relationship experience disadvantages when compared with children raised by their biological, married parents. The answer, contra the zeitgeist, appears to be a resounding yes. 

 

Does Ephesians 5:21 teach mutual submission in marriage?

 

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the command for wives to submit to their husbands is among the most difficult biblical teachings for people to accept. Perhaps it has always been a hard saying but with the rise of feminism, it has been especially difficult.

Many (even in the Church) resent the way scripture portrays the ideal woman as a keeper of her home who submits to her husband. When the nation’s largest Protestant denomination amended its documents to include a requirement for a wife to “submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband,” a media backlash followed. People were outraged by what they considered an archaic depiction of women and marriage.

But those who believe that the Bible is more than a culturally restricted text feel obligated to take it seriously. Responsible interpreters of the Bible understand that not everything is meant as a binding obligation on all people in all places. But when it comes to marriage, the teaching of Scripture explicitly transcends cultural limitations by connecting it to the way God created humans and ordained marriage (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:21-25; Matthew 19:3-9; I Timothy 2:11-15).

Unfortunately, there will always be those who try to make the Bible say things it doesn’t and some who use the Bible to suppress or even oppress others. And, it should be acknowledged that applications of Biblical teachings about marriage will sometimes vary based on circumstantial differences.

Along these lines, a question the Church has faced repeatedly is what the New Testament requires when it says,

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything” (Ephesians 5:22-40)?

To avoid undesirable (and perhaps unpopular) implications, some have tried to tone down the weight of this text by suggesting that Ephesians 5:21 teaches mutual submission. I believe that this is a mistake. In the original text, the word for “submit” in verse 21 prepares the way for verse 22 (where there is no greek word for submit*).

The word also prepares the way for the flow of the next chapters. After verse 21, we observe what could be called the order of submission. It would be like saying, “Submit to one another in a way that looks like this: wives to your husbands…” The text then continues with references of submission of church to Christ, children to parents and servants to masters. To imply some kind of mutual submission to any of these would be obviously misguided.

(* V. 21: Ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ “submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ.” v. 22: αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῳ κυρίῳ, “wives to your husbands as to the Lord.”)

While we might suggest ways in which a husband could submit to his wife, Ephesians 5 is not the place to go to advocate the idea. Further, I believe it would be best to call such acts displays of “servant-love.” The term submit is better left to matters related to structures of authority and submission. 

What is the difference then between servant-love and submission?

The word submit is a term of response we are called to give to those who bear responsible leadership in human relationships. When Scripture says, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority” (I Peter 2:13), it reminds us that God endorses orders of authority and submission. Since we can even find this structure exemplified functionally in the Trinity, we know that submission has nothing to do with inequality. God ordained the functional structure of authority and submission for His creation. He instituted it in the angelic world as well as the human.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important it is for husbands and wives to have the same vision of the nature of marriage. A primary reason for many marital problems is a failure on the parts of husbands and/or wives to understand, respect and live by the God-intended plan for marriage.

According to Scripture, marriage is a one-flesh relationship based on mutual self-giving love. It’s a covenant of companionship between two people who are equally made in the image of God. Yet this equality does not mean that marriage is a relationship is without roles. Nor do roles in marriage diminish equality and the call for mutual love and respect. 

The husband bears primary responsibility to lead the marriage relationship in a God-glorifying manner. His leadership clearly involves authority and should be honored by his wife and family. This authority, however, should be based on love (see: I Corinthians 13:4-8a) and thoughtful consideration of the needs of those he leads (see: Philippians 2:3-5). As with all human authority, it should not be followed if it requires one to disobey God. 

What submission does not mean:

Misguided notions of submission in marriage abound. Some consider it a return to the Ozzie and Harriet homes of the ‘50s and ‘60s. Others picture a wife who allows her husband to order her around and force her to do whatever he demands. These ideas do not reflect the biblical understanding of wives submitting to their husbands.

Perhaps to guard against abuses of authority and wrong notions of submission, it’s important to note what submission does not mean. I appreciate the seven things that Piper and Grudem note concerning what submission does not mean (“Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism” ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem). Their list is based on a New Testament text that curiously holds up Sarah as a paradigm of submission (see: I Peter 3:1-6).

1. Submission does not mean putting a husband in the place of Christ.
2. Submission does not mean giving up independent thought.
3. Submission does not mean a wife should give up efforts to influence and guide her husband.
4. Submission does not mean a wife should give in to every demand of her husband.
5. Submission is not based on lesser intelligence or competence.
6. Submission does not mean being fearful or timid.
7. Submission is not inconsistent with equality in Christ

For more on what submission should not mean, and on the beauty of diversity within marriage, see my recent article: Does unity sand offer a better picture of marriage?

(see also my Position Statement On Marriage).

Steve Cornell

 

Losses in the battle for equality

 In every reaction, there is always danger of overreaction. It’s the old risk of throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath water — or, at least, some of the baby. I have witnessed these tendencies more than a few times. And, to my embarrassment, I have been guilty of them myself. 

I was recently reflecting on this when I met with two young people asking for my advice about whether they should pursue marriage. I asked each of them to share what it was about the other that they appreciate and value. There were some very nice exchanges between them, but when the young man tried to express appreciation for his girlfriend’s domestic strengths, he stammered and struggled for fear of sounding chauvinistic or sexist. 

Although I appreciated his sensitivity, I encouraged him not to feel that such a commendation is inappropriate. We then noted how sad it is that the good battle for equality between men and women left us feeling inarticulate about distinctions between men and women. Please don’t misunderstand. I am not suggesting that domestic work is exclusively a woman’s role. It’s not. But I have little doubt that women are much better domestic managers than most men. I simply view this area (as all others) to be a shared part of life together. Frankly, however, it’s more troubling and very revealing that a young man would feel hesitant to even commend his potential mate out of fear of sounding chauvinistic. It was a red flag telling me that while we got many things right on equality, we’ve suffered losses in the process.

Perhaps it’s time to consider that in the good struggle for equality, there were gains and losses.

 

A primary loss is the ability to articulate and celebrate the distinctions between men and women. Perhaps there is a fear that focusing on distinctions could reverse the gains in equal treatment. Yet we must not allow this fear to obscure the amazing diversity that strengthens us.

 

It’s not without significance that the same era emphasizing equality of the sexes also witnessed soaring divorce rates. Perhaps our failure to respect gender differences has contributed to an inability to relate peacefully with each another. I can assure you that if a man and woman walk into marriage without understanding and discussing the differences between men and women, they will have a much more difficult adjustment.

 

The loss of a clear vision for distinctive womanhood has led to confusion for many young women and men. I find that many women have become inarticulate concerning what they intuitively know about themselves. And men are less likely to understand and honor women appropriately without a clear appreciation for their unique distinctiveness.

 

Perhaps our determination to celebrate diversity should be applied to male and female distinctiveness. We really should be able to do this without losing respect for either male or female.

We can build the right vision for this by recalling the fact that God created humans in his image and likeness— both male and female. And God gave them co-regency over the created order: “God blessed “them” and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it” (Genesis 1:27-28).

 Marriage (in the Christian view) is a relationship between two spiritually equal human beings (see: Galatians 3:28). But it’s not a relationship without roles. And roles in marriage are not meant to diminish equality and mutual respect. Roles are intended to provide order and security for a beautiful relationship of diversity and unity. 

Furthermore, when two people understand and receive the love of God in Jesus Christ, they will choose to serve each other in love (see: Romans 5:8; II Corinthians 5:14-15; Galatians 5:13; Ephesians 5:25).

Steve Cornell
Senior pastor
Millersville Bible Church
58 West Frederick Street
Millersville, PA. 17551

 

Celebrate distinctions between men and women

In the past few decades, we’ve witnessed great strides in equality for women. But progress hasn’t come without cost. There have been significant losses in the gender battle and far too little attention has been given to them.

The biggest loss appears to be a widespread confusion about the distinctions between men and women—especially in marriage and family. Cultural emphasis on equality has hurt us if it has diminished proper understandings of the reality and purpose of distinctive manhood and womanhood. Renewed understanding of the beauty of male and female distinction might be one of our greatest cultural needs. But among some, there seems to be a fear that emphasis on distinction could threaten to reverse the gains. This fear is both unnecessary and possibly even harmful.

Culture and society suffer when distinctions between men and women are not understood and respected. Many of the challenges in marriage, for example, are a direct result of these differences. We cannot pretend that such distinctions do not exist or do not matter. Men and women are different and these differences can either serve good purposes or become sources of alienation and disunity.

I believe that the loss of a clear vision for the dignity and beauty of distinctive womanhood has produced confusion in the hearts of many women. They have become inarticulate concerning what they intuitively know about themselves. Worse yet, men do not sufficiently exalt them for their distinctive glory as women. 

In the last several decades, sitcom television has been no friend of male and female distinctions. Manhood has been fodder for degrading comedy for too long. Men are generally depicted as beer-drinking idiots with snappy wives who put them in their places. How could this be good for society? Is it really just a joke? Male passivity is a huge problem in marriages and families. Have we become culturally fearful of emphasizing true manhood? What kinds of messages are we sending to men about who they are and how they should function in the home?

It’s not without significance that the era emphasizing equality of sexes also witnessed soaring divorce rates and a multitude of other family related social problems. I am not suggesting that the primary cause behind these issues is gender battles. But I do believe that a failure to respect male and female differences has hindered family function and unity.

When God created humans in his image and likeness— he made them male and female. And God gave them co-regency over the created order: “God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it (Genesis 1:27-28).

From a Christian view, marriage itself is a relationship between two spiritually equal humans. But it’s not a relationship without roles. The roles in marriage emphasized in the Bible are not designed to diminish equality and mutual respect. Instead, they actually facilitate creativity, beauty, order and security for a relationship built on diversity and unity. The distinctiveness between men and women provides the framing for the beauty of a marriage relationship.

I am grateful for most of the accomplishments of gender equality, but it’s time to take a closer look at the losses that came with the wins. It’s time to apply cultural celebration of diversity to distinctions between the sexes. This can be done without losing respect for either male or female.

Steve Cornell
Senior pastor
Millersville Bible Church

 

Mugged by Ultrasound

Why have so many abortion workers turned pro-life?

“…one of the first doctors to change his allegiance was Paul Jarrett, who quit after only 23 abortions. His turning point came in 1974, when he performed an abortion on a fetus at 14 weeks’ gestation: “As I brought out the rib cage, I looked and saw a tiny, beating heart,” he would recall. “And when I found the head of the baby, I looked squarely in the face of another human being—a human being that I just killed.”

“In 1990 Judith Fetrow, an aide at a Planned Parenthood clinic, found that disposing of fetal bodies as medical waste was more than she could bear. Soon after she left her position, Fetrow described her experiences: “No one at Planned Parenthood wanted this job. .  .  . I had to look at the tiny hands and feet. There were times when I wanted to cry.”

“Kathy Sparks is another convert formerly responsible for disposing of fetal remains, this time at an Illinois abortion clinic. Her account of the experience that led her to exit the abortion industry…reads in part: The baby’s bones were far too developed to rip them up with [the doctor’s] curette, so he had to pull the baby out with forceps. He brought out three or four major pieces. .  .  . I took the baby to the clean up room, I set him down and I began weeping uncontrollably. .  .  . I cried and cried. This little face was perfectly formed.”

Jon A. Shields is assistant professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. David Daleiden is a student there.

For the full article, Mugged by Ultrasound

Steve Cornell