Tag: marriage
True Love is NOT About Feelings or Emotions – Anna Duggar Understands That
Posted on December 23, 2015 in Marriage, Theology by Nathan Cherry
What strikes me about her comment is her realization that her emotions were not trustworthy. Anna seems to recognize that true love is not about feelings but choices. In our current culture love is an emotion. It’s something people feel, and, therefore, can un-feel. So it’s no surprise that people fall into and out of love. But this show a misunderstanding of what true love is. The reality is that love is a verb. Love is the decisions we make each and every day.
Anna is right that what she is going through is a betrayal, and it’s hard. But she is also correct in that if she were to react according to her emotions she would surely make a “mess” into a “disaster.” So often people turn a mess, a fixable mess that could be overcome, into a disaster. Often that disaster is permanent and cannot be overcome. They do this by reacting emotionally rather than making choices consistent with a proper understanding of love.
Let’s use this example to illustrate what I’m talking about.
Let’s Not Forget About the Asexual Among Us? They Want us to Know They Don’t Care About Sex…or Something Like That.
Posted on December 14, 2015 in Marriage, Sexuality by Nathan Cherry
It seems everyone these days is interested in sex in some way. Whether we’re talking about heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual or transsexual; everyone is interested in sex in one way or another. Everyone except for…the asexual person.
Asexuality is defined as follows:
“the lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or absent interest in sexual activity. It may be considered the lack of a sexual orientation, or one of the variations thereof, alongside heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. It may also be an umbrella term used to categorize a broader spectrum of various asexual sub-identities.”
Most of us will have a hard time comprehending a life where sex is of absolutely no interest. We can’t begin to understand what it would be like to live with no attraction to anyone. And in our highly sexualized culture the idea that someone is entirely unconcerned with sex is even harder to understand. But there may be value in understanding this sexual orientation sub-culture and what part, if any, they play in the ongoing discussions of gender, sexuality, and marriage.
As Tradition is Replaced by Modernism – Everything from Church to Marriage Changes With It
Posted on November 24, 2015 in Marriage, Theology by Nathan Cherry
But, little did anyone know that with this new movement in church culture came a new movement in social culture. The tradition of courting/dating was replaced with the hookup culture; and extended into a generation that now uses technology to be “friends” and find dates for casual sex. Traditional engagement was replaced with cohabitation as a form of experiment to see if two people are compatible. Marriage for life was replaced with no-fault divorce and an easy out mentality. Even the definition of marriage slowly but surely has been replaced to mean, quite literally, anything a person wants.
It’s a cycle that is becoming easier to see. As church teaching became fluffier, more focus-on-yourself-because-you’re-a-good-person-centric; the church turned out less disciples and more attenders. The attenders are now abandoning their “Christian” label in favor of something more inclusive; and adopting theological positions that reflect this desire. As a result the church is shrinking as true believers are left wondering where so many people went. So yes, I agree that Christianity is not dying, we aren’t about to see the end of the church; we are only seeing a reflection of decades of shallow teaching in a sin-soaked culture.
I’ll Tell You Exactly What I Think of Starbucks and Their Red Cups
Posted on November 16, 2015 in Marriage, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
Last week the country flipped out over the decision by Starbucks to use red cups for Christmas this year. Accusations of religious persecution and limiting free speech abounded as self-proclaimed Christians blasted Starbucks for the red cup design. Social media lit up and arguments got heated as “offended” people made their feelings known.
Despite employees saying that Starbucks has never prohibited them from saying “Merry Christmas,” some urged patrons to tell their barista their name was “Merry Christmas” so they would have to write it on the cup and say it. Hilarity and absurdity ensued from there.
Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed as Christians reminded us all that they were there to get a cup of coffee, not be evangelized or reminded of the true meaning of Christmas. Some even cautioned us from expecting a secular organization to act religious or in any way celebrate Christmas in a biblical way. Good advice.
Church Silence on Critical Moral Issues is Aiding Sin and Perverting the Gospel
Posted on November 4, 2015 in Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
I have long been an interested party in how the Gospel propels us into social involvement. The idea that as Christians we can stick our head in the sand and pretend everything is okay in our society seems both unbiblical and counter-intuitive to what Scripture teaches. That we should be active in helping “the least of these” and doing everything in our power to champion them seems obvious given the Bible’s teaching (see the book of James).
What I have come to realize is that many churches, pastors, and Christians are the least active, least involved (seemingly the least concerned) about matters that have come to be known as “social justice” issues. Whether this is due to such issues becoming highly politicized, or whether it is a result of poor theology is unclear. What is clear is that far too many Christians have little concern for anything that faintly smells political.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not suggesting we all quit our jobs and run for political office. That calling must be clear as the person called to run for office will need every ounce of grace and strength God will grant. But as Christians we cannot sit on the sidelines and bemoan the state of our culture and society (politically or morally) while we do absolutely nothing. No one like a backseat driver or am armchair quarterback.
So while a few churches have taken any interest in the world outside their Bible-insulated walls, most have stayed content to meet each week to condemn society, gossip about sinful neighbors, and remain idle. This is lamentable at best. And I wish more churches would connect the Gospel to local and global action that reaches beyond week long mission trips. In fact, I firmly believe that if most churches became involved in “campaigning” for change in their communities we would see our society changed into something more in line with our theology.
But, to be honest, I am not optimistic or hopeful that this will happen.
Here’s What I Think About Kim Davis and Christians Ignoring the “Law of the Land”
Posted on September 23, 2015 in Marriage, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
The more I read the less I’m sure of. Is Kim Davis an example that Christians should take note of for her refusal to compromise her religious convictions? Is she a criminal interfering with “the law of the land” that needs to either “get with the program” or get out of the way?
One thing I am sure of is that most people, by now, have at least heard of Kim Davis. And I am fairly certain that most people have made up their mind about whether they view Davis as a hero or a villain. But all the noise and static in the media and on blogs takes time to wade through.
At the risk of personifying irony by becoming part of the noise and static, I wanted to share some thoughts on what could, potentially, be one of the most crucial incidents in our nation’s history.
There seems to be a grave misunderstanding taking place that could alter the course of events if not adequately cleared up. Some are inclined to think that the Supreme Court of the United States makes laws in our country when, in fact, they do not. The Supreme Court has no authority to make laws but, in reality, is to uphold existing laws. It is Congress that has the task of making laws. For this reason Kim Davis is well within the bounds of law to refuse to sign a marriage certificate for a same-sex couple. Why?
How Would You Respond If Your Pastor Was On the Ashley Madison List?
Posted on September 16, 2015 in Family, Marriage, Theology by Nathan Cherry
After posting an article related to the Ashley Madison hack last week, I had the opportunity to engage in conversation with a family member, a long-time friend, and a pastor-friend regarding, essentially, whether or not pastors caught in the scandal should be restored to pastoral ministry. It was an occasion for learning as it helped to clarify thoughts on forgiveness and consequences.
There is two sides that have voiced thoughts on how a pastor caught using Ashley Madison should be handled.
The first voice says that the pastor should resign or be fired. This side believes in forgiveness and encourages the church to forgive the pastor if he is repentant and seeks forgiveness. This side also emphasizes the critical need for the pastor to seek counseling to restore his marriage and family. But ultimately, this side does not believe the pastor should stay in his role at the church and should move on. Indeed, this voice isn’t sure the pastor is even qualified to be a pastor anymore.
The other side says the church should consider not just forgiving the pastor but becoming his biggest support in seeking reconciliation with his wife and healing for his family. This side says that since Christians have a bad reputation for shooting their wounded that perhaps allowing the pastor to continue at the church would be a powerful witness. This side does not believe the church should allow the pastor to be in leadership or even preach for a season; but that he can stay on staff through the healing process and, in due time, when the leaders believe it is appropriate, be restored to his position.
Maybe The Kentucky Clerk Should Be Jailed For Refusing to Issue Marriage Licenses. Maybe?
Posted on September 9, 2015 in Marriage, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
So Daniel refused to compromise his convictions, even while working for the king (a secular entity). That decision led to his punishment; a punishment Daniel was fully prepared to accept, even to the point of death. At no time did Daniel plead his case or demand his “religious convictions” be honored. The end result was that Daniel’s accusers were thrown into the den of lions where they all perished, and the king decreed that only the “God of Daniel” was the true God.
Does this biblical account relate to the Kentucky clerk that now sits in prison for refusing to compromise her convictions?
I think there is a relationship between the account of Daniel and this Kentucky clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The relationship is that Ms. Davis – the clerk – is living according to her religious convictions despite the laws of the land. The current law makes it illegal to deny a marriage license to any couple seeking to be married, refusing to comply with that law is an act of disobedience to the law.
Why Do Christians Accept Ideas That Are Unbiblical?
Posted on September 8, 2015 in Marriage, Sexuality by Nathan Cherry
At one time our Founders sought refuge from government persecution for their religious convictions. They left their homes to establish a place where people could freely live out their faith in every aspect of their life. What is happening today is a return to that same government persecution that our Founders desperately wanted to leave behind.
One area this seems most apparent is in the effort to force Christians to accept homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” Sure, there may have been a goal of simply seeing this lifestyle legitimized and legalized; but that appears now to have been a precursor for the larger goal of forcing every person to accept and celebrate it. But there can now be no doubt that seeking simple “equality” is a long forgotten idea. And the rhetoric we were fed that “no one would be affected” was nothing more than a well-rehearsed talking point in a carefully crafted campaign.
A statement in an article from a couple months ago echoes what, I believe, many Americans are thinking:
I Can’t Think of One Reason Not to Legalize Polygamy and Polyamory. Can You?
Posted on August 4, 2015 in Marriage by Nathan Cherry
I’ve been saying this for years. And not just me, many voices concerned about the fallout of the legalization of same-sex “marriage” have said it.
If the government legalizes same-sex “marriage,” what legal or moral basis would there be to refuse to legalize polygamy or polyamory?
Let’s think logically for a moment. The U.S Supreme Court has found a “right” to same-sex “marriage” in the constitution. Often citing autonomy of adults and their ability to consent, SCOTUS decided that a civil right exists to allow homosexual adults to marry. If that is the case, then what possible moral of legal reasoning could there be to refuse to legalize polygamy and polyamory?
Go ahead, I’ll wait while you think about it.
Oh, you say it’s bad for the kids. I see. So not having a mother or a father – as in the case of same-sex “marriage” is acceptable, but having two or three moms or dads is not? Is that what you’re arguing? Come on, you need to do better than that.
The Supreme Court just ignored every argument for what is best for children and found a civil right for relationships in which kids will be denied one or the other – do you really think they will deny legalization of polygamy on the basis of kids having three moms of two dads? If the court doesn’t think it’s a big deal for a child to have no mom or no dad, they will surely not care if a child has multiple of one parent or another. Try again.