Teen Pregnancy

We had great news from one of our friends the other day: one of their teenagers was pregnant!

(Yeah, read that again. I actually said it. No, I wasn’t kidding. Good news: teen… pregnant.)

It used to be that a pregnant teen was a cause for congratulations. The whole church would gather around her and congratulate her. Oh, wait, I left something out. They would gather around her… and her husband.

We used to get all upset about… unwed mothers. And really, it wasn’t the fact that she was an unwed mother that would cause the real grief, it was how she became an unwed mother. You know, not a virgin birth, but an irresponsible young man who failed to do what we used to call ‘the honorable thing’ and marry the young woman he had impregnated.

But nowadays you can hardly even hear anyone talk about ‘unwed mothers’. The concept of ‘unwed mother’ is so politically unpopular nowadays that the Wikipedia page ‘unwed mother’ redirects to ‘single parent’. The difference, of course, is that ‘unwed mother’ historically means a girl who got pregnant before she married, more or less accidentally; while ‘single parent’ refers to, “a parent not living with a spouse or partner that has most of the day to day responsibilities in raising the child or children” and includes widows, divorced, men or women, and women who have made this a deliberate choice rather than an 'accident'.

This change in wording signals a change in morality. Before a pregnancy was a wonderful thing at any time, as long as the couple were successfully married (and, quite frankly, could be made wonderful as long as they married quickly after). Nowadays a pregnancy in the ‘teen’ years, however sanctified, is considered bad, or at least ‘unfortunate’.

The world is OK with her and her boyfriend, ummm, ‘doing it’… that is, as long as they both consider themselves ‘ready’. The church, at least the conservative church, is appalled by the whole thing. ‘Young people’ are not ready for such things! Truly Christian young people ‘wait’ (View the recent slogan ‘True Love Waits’: combining the Greco-Roman romance myth and the idea of delayed marriage.)

The modern church, that is. Our grandparents would have scoffed at the idea of mourning 'teen pregnancies', and the reformers would have been appalled. And the Scriptures present the opposite. The fruitful wife of one’s ‘youth’ is a frequent theme: the very concept of the blessed young man.

So, as for me and my house, and my church, we are rejoicing with the pregnant, married, teen. Rejoicing that she is married, pregnant, and a teenager.

Addendum: Last we heard, mother and baby were doing well, thank you.

As posted by Von on Persevero News!

Be not Unequally Yoked

Members of a historic church in Glasgow, Scotland, met for the last time in their centuries-old sanctuary on Sunday...The church’s troubles began in June when it left the Church of Scotland because “the General Assembly failed to reverse the stance taken in 2009 approving the appointment of ordained ministers in same-sex relationships. Instead, it clearly and deliberately chose to set an opposite trajectory towards normalizing such relationships...
-Worldmag.org  Dec. 11, 2012

It has become almost a daily occurrence for an individual church to leave the denomination it has been a part of. Sometimes this is accomplished with little fuss, at other times, particularly when the denomination is a highly hierarchical one, the break is made with dramatic rancor and court battles.

Even more often you have individuals leaving churches they have been long associated with. Disagreements, ranging from minor to salvific, lead a family to disassociate.

What guidelines should serve us in making this break? In dealing with those who have left? The subject is far too complex to deal with in one article, and the various possibilities far too wide. But I thought I would at least make a start.

There is a passage that is much abused.  The verse is frequently brought up in another context, where it does not belong, indeed, cannot belong.

Where it does belong is in this discussion. Here is the passage:

2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2Co 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 2Co 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

I believe that this passage sets as a rule that no Christian should enter into, or remain in, ministry with an unbeliever. The passage is frequently abused to mean other things, but I believe that ministry is the core principle here.

First of all, it cannot mean separation from the world entirely. The various separatist movements have used it this way, from the Monks to the Amish. The Apostle Paul specifically forbids this meaning in I Cor 5:

1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

Nor can it apply to marriage, at least a marriage that is already in process, and imply either physical separation (verses 2-5) or divorce (verses 12-15), as Paul also specifically forbids this meaning in I Cor 7:

1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 1Co 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 1Co 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
1Co 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 1Co 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 1Co 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

The 'be not unequally yoked' passage fits in clearly with the other passages that speak to ministry: either participating with individuals who claim to be Christian, perhaps who even wish to be part of your local fellowship; and to ‘ministries’ that yoke together Christians and heathens, or Christians and cultists.

The passage uses the word ‘yoked’ which Christ Himself uses as a metaphor for working together in ministry, in service to Christ. The passage fits in well with the various other passages that speak of separation: the separation of church discipline that Christ spoke of in Matthew 18, or the separation from fornicators ‘in the church’ that Paul speaks of in I Cor 5.

Here we have a different separation, and a harder one. Here we have a separation from ministry.

The temptation is great here. A group, a non-Christian group, begins a valid ministry. They are feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick. They are rescuing the perishing, defending the fatherless or widow. These are all things we are supposed to do. And yet, they are not Christians. To engage with them would be to be unequally yoked. It would be to tie ourselves in harness, to work side by side; not in a worldly profession, which might be included in I Cor 5:10, but in something that goes under the name of ‘ministry’.

Or, even harder, we may be obligated to pull ourselves from a denomination or church that had been following Christ (although, truth be told, by the time we pull ourselves out it is often in response to trends that have been a long time in coming; from a church or denomination that has long ceased to follow our common Lord) and find some alternative place to worship or group to associate ourselves with. Our former friends, even our neighbors, might well criticize us as being ‘fundamentalist’ or (that paragon of modern insults) ‘intolerant’.

But that is what we are obligated to do. Whenever (to poorly paraphrase the Declaration of Independence) any church or denomination becomes destructive of the very ends it is supposed to serve it is not only our ‘right’ but our duty to separate ourselves.

There may be lesser motives that suffice to leave a church, or even a denomination. When they preach doctrine we cannot agree with, when our presence is a burden rather than a blessing, then, perhaps. But this reason is clearly taught in Scripture: we must separate ourselves when they become clearly non-Christian. As with the Church of Scotland, the ELCA,  the Episcopal Church: these churches have renounced the faith and no true Christian should even darken their door. Make no excuses about ‘being a missionary’. As long as they are engaging in ‘ministry’, and as long as they, directly or indirectly, renounce the Lord you serve, you must… come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

As posted by Von on Perservero News!

What is Love?

I was reading a 'romance novel' the other day and the author made a startling linguistic error saying (in paraphrase, see footnote): 'Love is a verb. It is an action. It is a state of being.' Wow, I thought.  What a combination of truth and error; profundity and modern shallowness.

Modern novels, including this one from Bethany House, make a dramatically unScriptural category mistake concerning love. No, wait. It isn't just modern novels that make this mistake, it is practically everything written about pre-marriage, including some of the otherwise most dramatically counter cultural and Scriptural authors and scriptwriters. And their mistake is all contained in the original quote:

'Love is a verb. It is an action. It is a state of being.'

Let us analyze this: 'Love is a verb'. True enough. It is also a noun ('God is love', 'Love covers a multitude of sins'), an adjective (Prov 5:19 'Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love'.), and an adverb (Rom 14:15  But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not [lovingly]. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. ).

But love is a verb. That  part's good.

'[Love] is an action.'

This is very true. Love, the verb, is an 'action' verb. Love the noun is a noun describing a type of action, a quality of action:

1Co 13:4-13  [Love] suffereth long, and is kind; [love] envieth not; [love] vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Love is an action which behaves in certain ways. It is not only an action, it is a commanded action:

Eph 5:25-28 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Tit 2:4-5 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

'Love is a state of being.'

No, it isn't. Here is the contradiction. Linguistically an 'action' verb and a 'state of being' verb are contradictory.  A verb can, semantically, be either a state of being or an action, not both. A state of being is passive. It can be an intrinsic quality: 'I am the son of James Ohlman': this is something I was born with. 'He is blind': this is either something that he was born with or a result of something that happened to him (or even something he did to himself).

Or a state of being can also be a current circumstance: 'You are unemployed' : the unemployed person is not unemployed because he runs around doing 'unemployed' things, but he is unemployed because he can't, or won't, do 'employed' things: he has no job, no profession, no occupation. 'She is unmarried': she has no covenantal and physical ties with a young man... right now.

But a state of being is not an action. To say 'God is Love' is to attribute a character quality to God of being a 'loving being', a being who acts in ways entitled 'love'. It is not to say that He has been forced, involuntarily, into the state of 'love'. That would be to put the verb in the passive; where it can go. We 'are loved' by  God. We are acted on by His love. We are the passive recipients of His gracious actions in love. God is even 'loved', by those who keep His commandments (although in God's case this is not a passive but a circular love, He it is who enables and motivates us to love Him.).

But the sense of 'God is Love' is neither passive nor a state of being: it is a description of the kinds of actions that God engages in: He acts in loving ways. The essence of His character is to do loving things. Indeed the very definition of a 'loving thing' comes from His actions.

So we are left with two contradictions in the quote: Love is an action, and Love is a state of being. Let us resolve this conflict. Our love is an action: our being loved is a state of being. Our loving someone else is the result of a decision on our part: our 'being loved 'is the result of a decision, and actions, on their part.

But neither of these loves is the 'falling in love' of the romance novel, even the 'Christian' romance novel. Even a Christian writer who understands and teaches that the husband is to love his wife, and the wife her husband; a love that  is to continue despite difficult circumstances; a love that despises adultery and unfaithfulness; even that same writer may have their main characters, as here, act in profoundly unloving ways to their 'beau' or 'suitor' or even 'fiance', and the author will ask the audience (and all of the other characters)  to forgive all because that character is 'in love'. Indeed, not even 'forgive'. Being 'in love' covers a multitude of sins; not in the Biblical sense but in the 'I just couldn't help myself' sense.

Let us be very clear. Being 'in love' covers nothing. As the murderous man is not excused his murder because of his 'anger'; no more is the unfaithful 'fiancee' excused her infidelities because of her lust.

What is love? Love is an action. An action that we can perform only when filled with the Spirit of God, covered by the Grace of God, and empowered by the Power of God. It is not a chemically and emotionally driven series of immoral and lustful actions. It is not a blatant disregard to all of one's commitments,  all of one's other relationships, all of one's authorities in pursuit of the one lustful attachment that one 'cannot live without'.

Pro 2:16-19 To deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words;
Which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God.
For her house inclineth unto death, and her paths unto the dead.
None that go unto her return again, neither take they hold of the paths of life.

Note: The preceding review contains reactions from two books: An Unlikely Suitor and Masquerade both by Nancy Moser.  The literal quote from the book 'An Unlikely Suitor' reads in full: Lucy did not agree. Love was not a noun, was not a thing: it was a verb, an action. A mode of being. It could not be forced, but rather forced itself into people's hearts, sometimes unawares. Note that the original quote both denies that love is a noun and states that 'it could not be forced', which seems an odd things to say considering the number of times that Scripture literally commands love. But I wished here to focus on the contradiction between the two kinds of verbs. Perhaps another day, another post.

Disclaimer: Vaughn Ohlman writes reviews on Amazon.com and writes blog posts and books on the theology of getting married, among other subjects.

As posted by Von on Persevero News!

Why the next Pope should be a married man: What the Scriptures say about marriage and church leadership.

…the cardinals who will file into the Sistine Chapel next month to elect a new leader of the Roman Catholic Church have been quietly sizing up potential candidates for years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/world/ europe/cardinals-start-subtle-process-of-pope-choice.html

The next Pope should be a married man. Like one with kids, under control.

Ok, seriously, its not like I expect him to be. Indeed, I don’t even think that there should be a Pope. But Scripture is clear: church leaders (elders and deacons) must be married.

I’m sure that most of my readers have never heard that idea before. And most of them probably don’t agree. But Scripture, at least, seems clear on the issue: An elder of a church, must be married.

1) The first reason that I believe that an elder must be married is the language of the passage concerning their qualifications found in the apostle Paul’s letter to Timothy: 1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. [Emphasis added]

2) The second reason is the meaning of the word ‘one’ used in this passage and the parallel passages, including the qualifications for deacons. My study on the issue showed that the word is used, in the rest of the Scripture, to mean either ‘one and one only’ or ‘at least one’. It is never used as people would have it mean here, to mean ‘no more than one’. In other words, the word ‘one’ is always and everywhere contradicted by ‘none’. Thus a husband of one wife is never, by the NT use of the word one, the husband of no wives.

3) The third reason is the meaning of ‘knowing’. As I pointed out Paul asks ‘if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”. While this lack of knowledge could, of course, include someone who has tried the feat and failed, it can apply no less to someone who hasn’t ever been tempted in that area. Even more importantly is that marriage and family life itself is where you learn those skills: while leading a wife and disciplining children.

4) The fourth reason we haven’t touched on yet in our posts, at least not directly. Marriage is said, in Eph 5 and elsewhere, to be a reflection of the relationship that Christ has with His church; now in our betrothal period and one day in its fullness with the marriage supper of the Lamb. The elder, with his one wife, is to be a reflection of that marriage.    In this he stands against so much of the modern anti-marriage teaching. Whether it is the Catholics, with their teaching that marriage is ‘vomit’, or the modern church, with their denigration of married life, easy divorce, rampant fornication.

How much chaos and blasphemy has been caused by the Catholic Churches insistence on unqualified elders, resulting in accusations of and convictions for pedophile Sodomy. Paul insists, “to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” Solomon says, “Pro 5:15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. 16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets. 17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers' with thee. 18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”  Even from a practical standpoint an unmarried elder is extremely problematical: being required to hear, discuss, and even help counsel men and women with marriage problems: including sexual problems.

5) The fifth reason parallels the fourth. Even as the Scriptures insist that the elder be a husband, they speak of his being a father. Scripture is full of metaphors of God that include the ‘father/son’ relationship. Consider Sa 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:. These metaphors put in context Paul’s almost sarcastic question of, “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” It speaks of the elder being ‘apt to teach’, and we know that God has given that role to fathers, teaching their children, day in and day out. Thus in this daily activity his aptness will be proven; just as it is proven in the lives of his children.    And an elder must rule, another activity that takes place in his household. Consider God’s blessing in Jeremiah: Jer 35:18 And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you: 19 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever. and consider Joshua’s speech to Israel: Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.    Today’s society is radically anti-children, with children murdered in their thousands every day. God’s qualifications for elders are the opposite.

6) When the Scriptures speak clearly on an issue, it is foolish and sinful of us to try to judge Scripture against our own wisdom. It is written: 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Scripture clearly says that an elder must be the husband of one wife. Not no wives. Thus an elder must be married.

7) For my final reason I would list the other Scripture that speaks to the qualifications of elders. It is written: Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

I doubt that the Catholic Church will take my advice and elect, for their next pope, an older married man, one who has raised Godly children in a Godly household and thus proved, in the furnace of the family, that he has the qualifications to take care of the church of God. But for the rest of us, I would ask, “if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”


As posted by Von on Persevero News

Civil Jurisdiction and the Marriage Licence

I was discussing the issue of marriage the other day (I know, right?) and the issue of a marriage license came up. When I suggested that such a ‘license’ should not be sought for the Christian couple, the issue of Romans 13 was raised. To which I propose at least two issues:

1) The first question that needs to be answered is if the state actually has jurisdiction over marriage. To my mind the answer to that is clear: marriage is a family jurisdiction matter and neither the church nor the state has any jurisdiction over it. Even a violation of the covenant (adultery) can only be punished by the state if it is brought forward by the family authority, and only punished as a sin if a witness or person violated comes forward.

2) The more pragmatic question for modern readers is this: has the state actually forbidden marriage without a license? Or is that just an assumption that we have based on sloppy word use and equivocation?

First of all, what is marriage, Biblically? I would propose that a definition from Scripture might be, “a covenant that binds a man and a woman which authorizes and requires sexual content between them”.

This definition does not include the terms ‘husband and wife’ because, Biblically speaking, neither Hebrew nor Greek have or use that word in the majority of places where these are spoken of. The words used are ‘man’ and ‘woman’… which gets translated ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ in appropriate context. It also does not include ‘calling themselves married’ because, obviously, that is just a word, which differs from language to language. They must call themselves something, obviously, but if they were to say ‘I have a woman’ would that be less Biblical than if I were to say, “I am married’? It is a direct translation of the Greek.

And the modern world uses the word ‘marriage’ (and the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’) to mean things that no Christian should ever be willing to say: calling two people in a Sodomite relationship ‘married’, for example, or using the terms to cover a light and transient covenant easily broken by ‘no-fault divorce’. What price associating ourselves with concepts like that? Because of the use of this word by the state some Christians are even tricked into agreeing with the state that they have been divorced; or the church that their marriage has been ‘annulled’ (making themselves fornicators and their children bastards).

Given the definition above, then, what has the state not allowed? Certainly the modern state will not prevent the two from having sex. The more the merrier seems to be its attitude. Nor will they, indeed can they, prevent the making of a covenant, even if made publicly.

No, if they have forbidden anything it would be ‘holding themselves out to be married.’ And an examination of the law of Illinois, at least, does not seem to hold that. (My answer to this question rose out of a discussion with a father in Illinois.) Indeed while a common-law marriage is said to be ‘not valid’ in Illinois, at the same time the children of a “common law marriage are the lawful children of the parties.” Under the law. Thus the state still calls them ‘common law’ marriages and recognizes the children as legitimate and lawful.

What the state of Illinois will not do is give legal protection in a divorce to the divorcing party. IE if the state did not license the marriage, the state will not use its force to enforce its laws concerning marriage.

In other words what the Illinois law seems to say is that Illinois law does not recognize any marriage other than those they recognize… but it does recognize that there are other marriages. Indeed it even recognizes a bigamous marriage is a marriage once one party has been divorced! (That statement took me a bit by surprise. You get married illegally, live together as man and wife, and the marriage automatically becomes legal once the divorce is finalized.)

Conclusion: From what I see even in Illinois law it is not illegal to make a personally binding covenant to live together, call each other husband and wife, call yourselves married, and all of the rest without obtaining a marriage license. All that that will mean is that the state will never enforce a divorce between you.

And even if I have missed some of the law, it cannot seem to be even remotely illegal to a)Make a binding covenant and b)live together as long as you don’t use any particularly forbidden words. The state may make it inconvenient perhaps, but even that is changing.

As posted by Von on Persevero News

A short conversation with Sakal

Sakal is sitting alone at a table in the church fellowship hall when an older couple comes up to him, plates in hand.

Madeliene Peterson: Sakal Davidson? Do you mind if we sit with you?

Sakal: Not at all.

Madeliene: We have a question. We read your book and we were wondering. Well, it was after we read the chapter ‘Giving your daughter to imperfect young men’.

Sakal: Ah, yes, a hard chapter indeed.

Madeliene: Yes, well, we had a question. What if the son or daughter should be ready for marriage according to their chronological age, but the father believes it is wise to delay marriage for a season of further growth and maturity before taking on the additional responsibilities of marriage and parenthood?

Sakal: Why?

Madeliene: What?

Sakal: Why is it wise?

Madeliene: Well, the father believes the son needs further growth and maturity before taking on additional responsibilities.

Sakal: Surely by ‘growth’ you do not mean ‘height’?

Madeline: No, no, spiritual growth; learning a work ethic, that kind of thing. If someone were to ask me for an answer to this question, it would be easy for me to say, yes, delay.  The only difficulty is in the practical answer to each situation:  How long?

Sakal: Ah. Well, that would not be my question. My question would be ‘why’?

Madeliene: But does it matter?

Sakal: It seems to. You see, I cannot see any such reasons in Scripture. Unless the young man is not physically ready… literally not capable for the activities of the marriage bed, then I cannot see Scripture saying anything is served by further delay. Does not God say, “It is not good for man to be alone?”

Madeline: Well, yes, but this is just for a season.

Sakal: Did God say, “Except for a season?”

Madeline: Well, no.

Sakal: Did God not say, “Because of fornication, let every man have his own wife?”

Madeline: Well, yes, but what if he is not ready?

Sakal: To commit fornication?

Madeline: No! I mean for the responsibilities of a wife and children.

Sakal: My question would be, is he ready for the incredibly difficult task of remaining unmarried during these years? Calvin, or was it Gill, calls them the ‘slippery’ years. In our church we have young men falling right and left into various sins of fornication, most of them hidden, of course, and the parents seem to be all saying, “but they’re not ready” or “the other person isn’t ready” or “They’re not right for each other…”

Madeline: But what if he is not mature enough for marriage?

Sakal: Not to be crude, but how ready does one need to be? The marriage act… in our town we have fourteen year olds who routinely engage in it…

Madeline: I wasn’t talking about that! I was talking about leading his wife in the Lord, being disciplined… he doesn’t even keep his room picked up!

Sakal: If my wife is any example, his wife will help with that.

Madeline: I’m sure she will, but is it right of me to ask a wife…

Sakal: Ah, so you would be embarrassed? I’m sure her mother will be too. Probably not because she leaves her underwear on the floor, but other things. She may be learning to be a bit of a gossip… But you forget that, in Scripture, marriage is not a ‘mature’ relationship, but a ‘maturing’ one. A sanctifying one. The very problems you are attempting to combat may be designed to be solved in marriage, by marriage… not before marriage.

Madeline: But Sakal, what about Spiritual maturity? A young man is supposed to be the leader in his home, the spiritual leader. Surely he has to be mature in that area before he takes a wife?

Sakal: Why? How is this area different from any other? Do we not learn to do by doing? Do we not learn to lead by leading? How can a young man have matured in this area if he is not practiced? When I learned nursing I had to ‘practice’ my skills on a dummy. Perhaps the same way that your young man practiced ‘leading’ by being given assignments for his father. But these were pale comparisons to the real thing. I did my first ‘real’ practice on a real patient, with a teacher standing by watching. And now, hundreds of ‘practices’ later, I can say I am proficient at some of these skills.

Madeline: So if the father of a young man were to come to you, and confess that his son was not good at these things?

Sakal: then I would determine what ‘these things’ are, and would help disciple him as he led my daughter in them. Or perhaps I would assign something as part of the bride price. If a young man were living with or near his father I would speak with his father, and see how often they would be doing ‘joint’ worship. Perhaps we could even exchange emails daily, the young man and I.

Madeline: Not everyone would do that!

Sakal: No. Most are lost in the depths of courtship…

An Apology

Say, if any of you have been annoyed at how long comment moderation has been taking, it is because of a small glitch in the system, which is now fixed... I hope. Feel free to FB message me if you post a comment so we can see if it is fixed.